From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 13:45:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:45:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Aruch HaShulchan was not happy with the minhag that the baal haseder has his wine poured by someone else. He writes that it's a bit haughty to order his wife to pour for him and that in his city it was not the minhag. Aside from the interestingly contemporary sound of his concern, it seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for everyone to pour for everyone else, which would avoid the concern of the ArHaSh. 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? 2. If so is it a) based on the poskim, b) an old practice without formal endorsement, or c) a new-fangled sop to modernity? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 17:49:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzav: "As Long As The Soul Is Within Me, I Will Give Thanks Unto Thee, O Lord, My God And God Of My Fathers" Berakhot, 60b Message-ID: <476D9522-69B8-43D1-9E77-D0491911541D@cox.net> Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the korban todah, Thanksgiving Offering. The Medrash (Lev. R., 9.7) tells us that in the future all the sacrifices will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering. Rashi (Leviticus 7:12) states (paraphrased): A man offers a thanksgiving offering (in the Temple) when he is saved from potential danger. There are four types: sea travelers, desert travelers, those released from prison and a seriously ill patient who has recovered. As the verse says in Psalms (107:21), "They should give thanks to God for His kindness, and for His wonders to mankind.? Interestingly and providentially, the mnemonic for this group of four is Chayyim, which stands for [Chavush (jail), Yisurim (illness), Yam (sea), Midbar (desert)], (Shulchan Aruch 219:1). In our times, we fulfill this concept with the recitation of the blessing, HaGomel ("He who grants favors..."). There is a beautiful insight in the Avudraham on laws and commentary on prayers. The author was student of Ba'al HaTurim (R. Yaakov ben Asher) and was a rabbi in Seville. When the hazzan says Modim, the congregation recites the "Modim d'Rabbanan" (The Rabbis' Modim). Why is that? The Avudraham says that for all blessings in the Sh?moneh Esrei we can have an agent. For 'Heal Us', for 'Bless Us with a Good Year' and so forth we can have the sheliach tzibbur say the blessing for us. However, there is one thing that no one else can say for us. We must say it for ourselves. That one thing is "Thank You". Hoda'ah has to come from the individual. No one can be our agent to say 'Thank You.' (This is similar to asking for forgiveness. You must obtain it from the individual wronged. Not even the Almighty can forgive you for wronging a fellow human being). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 20:28:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:28:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: <5101c.42bfc52f.460fb895@aol.com> References: <5101c.42bfc52f.460fb895@aol.com> Message-ID: > "The Halachic Adventures of the Potato" ? by R' Yitzchak Spitz > https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5184 > [...] > In fact, and this is not widely known, the Chayei Adam does actually > rule this way, Sigh. This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location, but do *not* cheat by copying a citation from some secondary source; I will not accept it, because I know very well that there are many secondary sources who claim this, but none of them give a *valid* reference to where he wrote it. What I *have* seen in the Nishmas Adam is an aside, in the course of writing something different, that by the way in Germany they treat potatoes as kitniyos. In fact I'll go further: I don't believe that there has ever been a posek of any stature who forbade potatoes as kitniyos, nor any community that ever accepted such a practice. I have seen many sources claiming that someone else, somewhere else forbade it, or that some other community far away treats it as kitinyos, but never any first hand acccount. When the Rosh writes that in Provence they said Tal Umatar from Marcheshvan 7th I believe it, because he was there and saw it with his own eyes. But I have never seen anyone report having seen with his own eyes a community that forbids potatoes, or a psak din to that effect. It's always someone else somewhere else. Until I see a first hand account I don't believe it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 20:30:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:30:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked about guests in a shul where the guest's practices differ from the shul's. I am bothered by the question, and even more so by the responses. What has happened Porush Min Hatzibur? What has happened to Derech Eretz and simple good manners? (Previous discussions here on Avodah have claimed that some poskim actually hold that a visitor who davens Nusach Sfard should use that text even if he is in the tzibur of a Nusach Ashkenaz shul. Ditto for responding to Kedusha, so I will not discuss those particular examples.) But: > Would your shul allow a guest to say 13 middot aloud > by Tachanun (if local practice is not to)? We're not talking about a few words here, but approximately a whole page worth, that the tzibur would be forced to say. It's not clear from the question whether this guest is the shliach tzibur or not, but I think it is safe to say that in my shul, a shliach tzibur who tries this would be quickly informed of his error, and if it came from someone in the seats he'd simply be ignored. > Would your shul allow a guest to read his own Aliya? >From your use of the word "guest", I am presuming that this was not arranged in advance. If the guest had approached the gabbai a few days in advance to make this request, I don't know what the answer would be. But it sounds like the guest was called up, and at that point he asked the koreh, "May I read it myself?", as in the story that R' Josh Meisner told. I am horrified by the lack of consideration that this guest has toward the time and effort that the baal koreh put into preparing the laining. In RJM's story this happened on Rosh Chodesh, and I do concede that RC is by far the most frequently read parsha of all. But the question as posed was more general, applicable to any laining whether weekday or Shabbos. I am particularly surprised by the reaction of RJM's rav, who <<< insisted ... that the next two olim also read their own aliyos so as not to directly draw a distinction between those who read their own aliyah and those who do not. >>> While I appreciate the sensitivity involved, I am really surprised that this shul has such a large pool of people who can be called upon to lain properly, even for Rosh Chodesh - literally at a moment's notice. How common is this? Are there shuls where any randomly chosen person is able to lain? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 03:40:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:40:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chazkah that changed Message-ID: <> I would venture that according to everyone chazakot in financial matters can change. The famous case is a borrower who denies everything (kofer ba-kol) according to the Torah he doesn't pay anything and is not required to swear since no borrower would be brazen to completely deny a lie. The gemara says that "today" people are brazen and so we require a "shevua". I would guess that other financial chazakot for example that someone doesnt repay a loan ahead of time would depend on the current situation. If today there would be some reason for people to pay back a loan early that I would guess that the halacha indeed would change. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 04:01:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:01:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Visiting a Shul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJRich asked: > Visiting a shul questions-actual practices and sources appreciated: > * Would your shul allow a guest to read his own Aliya? > * Would your shul allow a guest to say his own nussach of kaddish (not as shatz)? > * Would your shul (in galut) allow the shatz not to say baruch hashem l'olam in maariv? > * Would your shul allow a guest to say 13 middot aloud by Tachanun(if local practice is not to)? > * Would the answers be different if requested before prayer (vs. gabbai intervention at time of event)? Me: In all those cases, in our shul, local minhag trumps the wishes of the guest, though we won't jump at anyone for adding vekooraiv mesheechay or werewa'h weassalah. Sometimes the reading of one's own aliya may be tolerated. When I was an avel, I mostly davvened in shuls that did not adhere to my minhag (though I layer "converted" to one of those other minhaggim), and as shaliach tzibbur, always followed their respective minhaggim. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 06:15:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:15:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked about guests in a shul where the guest's practices differ from the shul's. I am bothered by the question, and even more so by the responses. What has happened Porush Min Hatzibur? What has happened to Derech Eretz and simple good manners? ----------------------------- I have seen them all occur. What triggered the question was a shiur on yutorah where a pulpit rabbi mentioned that a visiting guest sfardi scholar asked in advance and was granted the right to read his own aliya. I was surprised and then thought of other situations that I had a similar reaction to. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 19:16:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 22:16:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Poisoning in Halacha Message-ID: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> Tonight my chevrusa and I learned the sugya in Bava Kamma 47b of one who puts poison in front of his friend's animal. A brief synopsis and application of the sugya is at http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/infected: ?A person put some poisoned food in front of his neighbor?s animal,? Rabbi Dayan said. ?The animal ate the food and died. The owner sued the neighbor for killing his animal. What do you say about this case?? ?I would say he?s liable,? said Mr. Wolf. ?He poisoned the animal.? ?I?m not so sure,? objected Mr. Mann. ?The neighbor didn?t actually kill the animal. Although he put out the poison, the animal chose to eat the food.? ?Animals don?t exactly have choice,? reasoned Mr. Wolf. ?If they see food, they eat! Anyway, even if the neighbor didn?t directly kill the animal, he certainly brought about the animal?s death.? ?But is that enough to hold him liable?? argued Mr. Mann. He turned to Rabbi Dayan.?The Gemara (B.K. 47b; 56a) teaches that placing poison before an animal is considered grama,? answered Rabbi Dayan. ?The animal did not have to eat the poisoned food. Therefore, the neighbor is not legally liable in beis din, but he is responsible b?dinei Shamayim. This means that he has a strong moral liability to pay, albeit not enforceable in beis din (Shach 386:23; 32:2).? It struck us that it follows that if one poisons another human being by, say, placing cyanide in his tea, which the victim then drinks and dies, the poisoner is exempt from capitol punishment. It would seem that such a manner of murder falls into the category of the Rambam's ruling in Hilchos Rotze'ach u'Shemiras Nefesh 3:10: Different rules apply, however, in the following instances: A person binds a colleague and leaves him to starve to death; he binds him and leaves him in a place that will ultimately cause him to be subjected to cold or heat, and these influences indeed come and kill the victim; he covers him with a barrel; he uncovers the roof of the building where he was staying; or he causes a snake to bite him. Needless to say, a distinction is made if a colleague dispatches a dog or a snake at a colleague. In all the above instances, the person is not executed. He is, nevertheless, considered to be a murderer, and "the One who seeks vengeance for bloodshed" will seek vengeance for the blood he shed. (translation from http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1088919/jewish/Rotzeach-uShmirat-Nefesh-Chapter-Three.htm) Perhaps this was a davar pashut to everyone else, but for me, tonight, it was a mind-boggling revelation! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 06:05:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:05:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hilchos Chol HaMoed Message-ID: <1491224727245.62311@stevens.edu> >From the article at http://tinyurl.com/l8ll4lf The following is meant as a convenient review of Halachos pertaining to Chol-Hamoed. The Piskei Din for the most part are based purely on the Sugyos, Shulchan Aruch and Rama, and the Mishna Berurah, unless stated otherwise. They are based on my understanding of the aforementioned texts through the teachings of my Rebbeim. As individual circumstances are often important in determining the psak in specific cases, and as there may be different approaches to some of the issues, one should always check with one's Rov first. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 12:50:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:50:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> > RZS: > In fact I'll go further: I don't believe that there has ever been a > posek of any stature who forbade potatoes as kitniyos, nor any community > that ever accepted such a practice. I have seen many sources claiming > that someone else, somewhere else forbade it, or that some other > community far away treats it as kitinyos, but never any first hand > acccount. When the Rosh writes that in Provence they said Tal Umatar > from Marcheshvan 7th I believe it, because he was there and saw it with > his own eyes. But I have never seen anyone report having seen with his > own eyes a community that forbids potatoes, or a psak din to that > effect. It's always someone else somewhere else. Until I see a first > hand account I don't believe it. > This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade potatoes. David Riceman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 09:15:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 12:15:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: <7f1aa7e091a1468c8cc6c5df61f610ac@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <7f1aa7e091a1468c8cc6c5df61f610ac@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <29.EA.10233.B3572E85@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 11:57 AM 4/3/2017, Ben Bradley wrote: >The Aruch HaShulchan was not happy with the minhag that the baal >haseder has his wine poured by someone else. He writes that it's a >bit haughty to order his wife to pour for him and that in his city >it was not the minhag. > >Aside from the interestingly contemporary sound of his concern, it >seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for everyone to >pour for everyone else, which would avoid the concern of the ArHaSh. > > >1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? In my home the children poured my wine once they were big enough and now my older grandchildren do this. And they pour for my wife also. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 10:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:10:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bourbon no Longer an Automatic, Faces Kashrus Issues Message-ID: <1491239439011.48127@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/kh92xxv "Companies that once distilled just a few barrels of bourbon every year are now churning out dozens of other drinks-Sherries, brandies, flavored vodkas-which might not be kosher. They can contaminate the bourbon, Rabbi Litvin said, if the liquors are run through the same pipes or tanks." The Litvins, a family that lives in Louisville, "have taken it upon themselves to keep bourbon kosher." Despite the fact that Jews are proportionately poor Bourbon consumers (it is an $8.5 billion industry), there has been a dramatic increase in demand in recent years, particularly by younger kosher consumers. "Alcohol consumption has definitely increased manifold," said one kosher wine and spirits expert. Heaven Hill, one of the largest liquor companies in the world, is owned by a Jewish family, but only a few of the bourbons-Evan Williams, the company's largest brand, and the high-end single-barrel whiskeys-are still guaranteed to be kosher. The others are run through the same pipes and storage tanks as other products, including untold flavors of vodka, spiced rum and mint whiskey. ______________________________________________________________ I guess that I have been ahead of the trends, because I have been drinking bourbon for decades and never liked Scotch. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 12:21:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:21:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Good manners will open doors that the best education cannot. Clarence Thomas Message-ID: <708AB73F-9427-468E-AAEE-C0DD97D63B94@cox.net> One of my doors recently broke and I?m having a new one installed Wednesday. It brought to mind a MIdrash I once learned telling of the basic distinctiveness of the Jewish door and the secret of its architectural design, which served as a protection against annihilation. ?And strike the upper doorpost through the merit of Abraham, and the two side-posts, in the merit of Isaac and Jacob. It was for their merit that HE saw the blood and would not suffer the destroyer? (Midrash Rabbah XVII - 3 Exodus). It set me to thinking. Aren?t the doors to a home indicative of the nature and character of those who live beyond them? I began to think of doors with various emblems displayed upon them. Some say: ?We have given.? ?No Beggars or Peddlers Allowed.? ?Nobody lives here,? etc. But next Monday evening, the Jewish emblem on the entrance door will say: "Let all who are hungry, come and eat." On this Festival of Pesach, let not Judaism pass over our doors. When we open our doors to welcome Eliyahu Hanavi, let us keep it open wide, to welcome all that is positive, invigorating and creative in Jewish life. Let our doors be indicative of proud Jewish occupants. Let us display our Mezuzot not as mere adornments but as emblems which proudly proclaim for all to see: ?We are proud to be the sons and daughters of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and we are determined to carry on in their tradition. Grief is a room without doors but Passover?s power not only changes that situation but it sends Eliyahu Hanavi right through. Truncated clich?, rw From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:11:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> References: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> Message-ID: On 03/04/17 15:50, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: >> > This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a > friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly > gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one > ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. > Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras > kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade > potatoes. That comes close, but not close enough. If the name of the town were given, so that one could track down other families from that town and verify it, then I'd accept it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:17:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:17:00 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach Message-ID: *<<*This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location >> *Nishmas* *Adam*, *Hilchos* *Pesach*, Question 20 (from the article on Potatos) mentions retzke that are called tatarka which are used to make flour are kitniyot My yiddish is very limited I saw one place that translated this as corn while another used buckwheat later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called erdeffel which I saw a translation as potatos. If this translation is accurate then the Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that allowed potatos on Pesach in case of a major famine. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:43:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:43:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170403204335.GC6792@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:17:00PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not : true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or : whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location >> : : Nishmas Adam, Hilchos Pesach, Question 20 (from the article on : Potatos) mentions : retzke that are called tatarka which are used to make flour are kitniyot It's Kelal 119, Q 20. : later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called erdeffel which : I saw a translation as potatos. If this translation is accurate then the : Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that allowed potatos on Pesach : in case of a major famine. And so, as Zev pointed out, it is untrue that the CA advocated this position. Which is what is commonly retold. (At least, in my experience.) The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:47:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:47:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 01:15:37PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What triggered the question was a shiur on yutorah where a pulpit : rabbi mentioned that a visiting guest sfardi scholar asked in advance : and was granted the right to read his own aliya. I was surprised and : then thought of other situations that I had a similar reaction to. Isn't there a problem that the second you let those who are able to lein for themselves, you destroyed the minhag of leveling the playing field with a baal qeri'ah? Along thse lines, my father -- who certainly doesn't have to -- reads the berachos from the card on the bimah. The whole procedure is built around avoiding embarassing those less educated Jewishly. And today, where so many who get aliyos may be newer baalei teshuvah who don't know the berakhos by heart, shouldn't everyone read the berakhos, just the way everyone has a shaliach do the reading? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 14:34:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:34:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> References: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 03/04/17 16:47, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Along thse lines, my father -- who certainly doesn't have to -- reads > the berachos from the card on the bimah. The whole procedure is built > around avoiding embarassing those less educated Jewishly. As I understand it, the purpose of reading the brachos from a card is to make it clear that one is not reading them from the Torah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 14:30:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:30:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> On 03/04/17 16:17, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not >> true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or >> Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the >> location > Nishmas/ /Adam/, /Hilchos/ /Pesach/, Question 20 (from the article > on Potatos) Yes, I'm obviously aware of this reference, which *does not say* what so many people cite it as saying, because they saw it cited to that effect somewhere else, and have not bothered looking it up. This is frankly getting up my nose, which is why I specified that I am not interested in citations that the poster has not looked up himself and verified that they actually say what they are represented as saying. > mentions retzke that are called tatarka which are used to > make flour are kitniyot My yiddish is very limited I saw one place > that translated this as corn while another used buckwheat Retchke, or Gretchke, means normal buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum). Tatarke means Tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum). > later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called > erdeffel which I saw a translation as potatos. Yes, bulbes are potatoes. as in the famous song "Zuntik bulbes, Montik bulbes". > If this translation is > accurate then the Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that > allowed potatos on Pesach in case of a major famine. He reports having heard that in 1771-72 there was a famine and the community of Frth convened a beis din which permitted potatoes and kitniyos, but not buckwheat. His purpose in citing this is simply to demonstrate that buckwheat is worse than kitniyos, since even in this extreme case they refused to permit it. Of course this immediately causes the reader to wonder why they'd need a heter for potatoes, so he throws in the explanation that in Germany they don't eat them on Pesach. Of course anyone who sees this can see immediately that (a) he reports this practise neutrally, without expressing any support for it, and (b) he doesn't claim first hand knowledge that it even exists, but merely repeat a rumour he'd heard about some other place. Somehow, in the hands of irresponsible people, this seems to have transformed into the received wisdom that he forbade potatoes, or wanted to forbid them, or thought they ought to be forbidden, etc, none of which has the slightest tinge of truth, and it's perpetuated by lazy and dishonest people who repeat it as fact, complete with a fake citation which they have not bothered to verify. This, in turn, by exaggerating the extent of gezeras kitniyos, is used to make it seem ridiculous, onerous, impractical, and ripe for reform. On 03/04/17 16:43, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. and did so merely as a rumour. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 20:11:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:11:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder Message-ID: R' Ben Bradley wrote: > it seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for > everyone to pour for everyone else, which would avoid the > concern of the ArHaSh. > > 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? The ArtScroll Haggadah says (in the instructions for Kiddush), "The participants fill each others' cups", without mentioning any minhagim to the contrary. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat, in Halachos of Pesach, on pg 468, cites Haggada Kol Dodi (Rav Dovid Feinstein) 7:2, writing: > The Ramoh (473;1) specifies that the leader of the Seder > should not fill his own cup, but should allow others to pour > for him, as this displays cheirus (freedom). > > Although the wording of the Ramoh seems to imply that this > requirement only applies to the host and leader of the Seder, > the general custom is to do this for all the participants. > Most people therefore pour the wine for each other at each > juncture of the Four Cups. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 03:40:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 06:40:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> References: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170404104004.GA3715@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 05:30:34PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. : and did so merely as a rumour. What he repeated was a story about someone making an exception to their minhag. The explanation as to why the minhag was needed isn't given as part of the story. And if the CA puts the story into writing and uses in halachic argument, he obviously thought it was more than mere rumor. Still, not his own position, not even something he advised in theory, even before ein hatzibur yakhol laamod bah considerations. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 05:52:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 12:52:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman Message-ID: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> There is a shiur about this at http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 19:29:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 22:29:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Isn't there a problem that the second you let those who > are able to lein for themselves, you destroyed the minhag > of leveling the playing field with a baal qeri'ah? Yes, that's what MB 141:8 says. Actually, that MB goes a bit farther, and points out that "harbeh" such people *don't* know the laining so well, and the result is that the tzibur isn't yotzay. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 06:42:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:42:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato Message-ID: "This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade potatoes." This has nothing to do with potatoes but I was talking to the wife of a Moroccan this morning and she said that he told her (third-hand again) that many Moroccan towns had their own minhagim. For example, in one town they didn't use sugar because it was stored in bags near grain. So it's certainly possibly true about potatoes as well. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 06:23:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:23:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: from an OU bulletin My grandparents, may they rest in peace, would be startled to discover that I can purchase OUP kosher for Passover items such as breakfast cereals, pizza, bread sticks, rolls, blintzes, waffles, pierogis and farfel. OTOH the OU has many chumrot on what is kitniyot I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily be mixed up with chametz. It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 08:58:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:58:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> On 04/04/17 09:23, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer > makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as > kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. > > To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and > bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our predecessors made. Thus the machlokes acharonim about newly discovered legumes and pseudo-grains: was the original gezera only on certain species, or was it on the entire class? Most acharonim seem to say it was on the entire class, but then argue about how to define that class, and thus how to decide what it includes. But very few if any say zil basar ta`ma to include new things that definitely don't fall in the original definition of the banned class. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 09:45:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 19:45:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> References: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> Message-ID: <6bd3ddad-9fb6-b9ae-d7e5-edded0b2f267@starways.net> On 4/4/2017 6:58 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 04/04/17 09:23, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> >> It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer >> makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as >> kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. >> >> To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and >> bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. > > It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no > authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our > predecessors made. I was under the impression that gezeirot weren't something that could be instituted after the Sanhedrin. Even Rabbenu Gershom only instituted his rules as chramim, rather than gezeirot. And the minhag (not gezeira by any stretch of the imagination) was made by local rabbis for local conditions and local situations. Conditions and situations change. I realize that the reason we differentiate between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan law is because there's a meforash commandment of bal tosif. But we can learn out from that on some level that we shouldn't be jumbling up gezeirot and takkanot and cheramim and minhagim and siyagim and treating them like they're all the same. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:43:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 20:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58ee56f4-ffb7-2f3d-6cf8-93f18c2d7746@zahav.net.il> See my post a week ago in which I cited Rav Yoel Ben Nun and Rav Yosef Rimon as both taking the position that we need to ban flour substitutes and relax on kitniyot. Ben On 4/4/2017 3:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals > and bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:13:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:23:37PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer : makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as : kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. : : To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and : bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. In this era of packaged foods and heksheirim, the whole minhag makes no sense. People aren't deciding on their own whether quinoa is qitniyos. Or whether some sack contains pure peas with no wheat from the bottom of the silo. Or would eat a porridge based on a guess about whether it was pea or oatmeal. (The fact that I get my *unflavored* gourmet whole-leaf teas without a KLP symbol -- something little different than buying any [other] vegetable -- makes my wife nervous.) The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:58:06AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no : authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our : predecessors made... Well, they lacked that authority too. This is minhag, not gezeira. And the notion that we should be bery mimetic and work with what our ancestors actually did rather than what their rationale would imply in our context works even better with minhagim than with gezeiros. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:01:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman In-Reply-To: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> References: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170404180132.GB8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : There is a shiur about this at : http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz So, I am listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on YUTorah at this link. He opens by saying that the afiqoman (epikomion) must be before chatzos, and very likely the 4th cup too. So, kol hamarbeh means adding to the END of the seder, not having a longer Maggid that will push past chatzos. (Eg tzeis is 8:12pm in NY, as MyZmanim computes it -- 36 min as degrees, and chatzos is 12:56. So, we're talking Qadeish to the end of Hallel in 4 hr 44 min. Unhitting pause...) The Avnei Neizer (R Avrohom Bornsztain, the first Sochatchover Rebbe, descendant of both the Ramah and the Shach) argues that if you are finishing by chatzos to fulfil R Gamliel's shitah, then you could eat other foods after chatzos. And if you are not eating the rest of the night, that's because you're worried that if the mitzvah is indeed alkl night (unlike RG), ein maftirin achar hapesach would also be all night. So, the AN suggests that a moment before chatzos, eat a piece of matzah al tenai that if the halakhah is like Rabban Gamliel, it will be your afiqoman. Then, don't eat the minute or two until chatzos -- for R' Gamliel's en maftirin. Then, go back to eating (as long as you finish before alos), concluding with another afiqoman, also al tenai -- thus fulfilling the other ein maftirin. (BTW, note that the seder in the hagadah that went until zeman qeri'as Shema didn't include Rabban Gamliel.) R Meir Arik in Kol Torah uses this to answer a problematic Rashbam (Pesachim 121). The Rashbam says you're allowed to bring qorbanos todah or nedavah on erev Pesach. But you're not allowed to bring a qorban where you are mema'et the zeman akhilah, and the zeman akhilah for these qorbanos is until the morning. So how could you bring them on a day where ein maftirin achar hapesach will limit the time in which they could be eaten? But according to the Avnei Neizer, you can fulfill ein maftirin for both shitos and only limit eating for a moment before chatzos, by eating that 2nd afiqoman at the last possible time. However, there is a lot of opposition to the AN's chiddush. RALebowitz says there are 6 questions, but he's running out of time. 1- The Baal haMaor and the Ran's explanation for why ein maftirin would work with the AN. But the Ramban says the problem was that having so many people needing to eat their kezayis qorban pesach bein hachomos before chatzos, there was a worry that people would eat early, when still famished. (Which is assur derabbanan, gezeirah maybe they'll break bones. The question of why ein maftirin wouldn't then be a gezeira al hagezeira was not raised in the shiur.) Which means that even if the zeman for the qorban is until chatzos, if people could still plan a late dinner, they could rely on that and still eat their pesach while very hungry. 2- RMF (IM OC vol 5, pg 123) brings several objections. One basic one: even the AN says he never saw anyone do this before. RMF found it tamuha to rely on a sevara be'alma to change so many generations of mimeticism. (An argument that touches on some hot topics today.) 3- RMF adds that one needs to prove that the zman akhilah and the zeman ta'am are the same. Maybe the chiyuv of having the taste in your mouth happens to run longer? 4- The Chasam Sofer writes against doing a mitzvah mitoras safeiq. Similar to Rabbeinu Yonah's (on Berakhos) explanation for why an asham talui is more expensive than a chatas. Because we need to correct the "I probably didn't do anything wrong" attitude. If you never know when you're fulfilling the mitzvah, kavah will be lacking. RALebowitz then gives eidus from R Wolf that R Willig finishes his 4th kos right before chatzos. And timing then becomes a central theme during the seder. R' Avraham Pam said on many occations that we have to be aware of those who spent all that time making the seder. (Typically the wives and mothers.) Sometimes we spend so much time on Magid, that we then rush through the beautiful se'udah they made to get to the last kos on time. RAP thought that this bein adam lachaveiro issue is sufficient to justify relying on the Avnei Neizer. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 12:21:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 21:21:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <496ab467-1c33-a721-97d2-48512539e648@zahav.net.il> Rav Rimon's Hagaddah specifies that the minhag is to pour the wine/grape juice of the ba'al habayit alone. He also notes that there are those who don't follow the custom. In the footnotes, he cites that when people put water in their wine, it wasn't derech cheirut for the home owner to do it himself. Today, that isn't the case and it is common for everyone to pour his own wine/grape juice. He also cites the AHS' opposition. Ben On 4/4/2017 5:11 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? > > The ArtScroll Haggadah says (in the instructions for Kiddush), "The > participants fill each others' cups", without mentioning any minhagim > to the contrary. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:21:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:21:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Fungibility of Mitzvos Message-ID: <20170404182125.GD8762@aishdas.org> As y'all know, I'm obsessed with this topic. The notion of metaphysical causality that interferes with "you get what you deserve / need" bothers me. So I appreciated RNSlifkin finding these sources. http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2017/04/can-you-do-mitzvos-to-benefit-others.html Tir'u baTov! -Micha Can You Do Mitzvos To Benefit Others? April 03, 2017 Can you do mitzvos in such a way that the merit for them will benefit other people? Can you designate them to receive the reward for your mitzvah in their mitzvah bank account, such that they receive more Divine favor? A friend of mine recently forwarded to me a request on behalf of someone who is tragically unwell. The community was requested to pray for his recovery, which is certainly a time-honored Jewish response. But there was also a request to do mitzvos on his behalf, as a merit for God to heal him. My friend wanted to know if there was any classical Jewish basis for this. In my essay "What Can One Do For Someone Who Has Passed Away?" I noted that classically, one's mitzvos are only a credit to those people who had a formative influence on you. One's mitzvos cannot help the souls of other people. Rashba cites a responsum from Rav Sherira Gaon on this: "A person cannot merit someone else with reward; his elevation and greatness and pleasure from the radiance of the Divine Presence is only in accordance with his deeds." (Rashba, Responsa, Vol. 7 #539) Maharam Alashkar cites Rav Hai Gaon who firmly rejects the notion that one can transfer the reward of a mitzvah to another person and explains why this is impossible: "These concepts are nonsense and one should not rely upon them. How can one entertain the notion that the reward of good deeds performed by one person should go to another person? Surely the verse states, 'The righteousness of a righteous person is on him,' (Ezek. 18:20) and likewise it states, 'And the wickedness of a wicked person is upon him.' Just as nobody can be punished on account of somebody else's sin, so too nobody can merit the reward of someone else. How could one think that the reward for mitzvos is something that a person can carry around with him, such that he can transfer it to another person?" (Maharam Alashkar, Responsa #101) The same view is found explicitly and implicitly in other sources, as I noted in my essay. There is simply no mechanism to transfer the reward for one's own mitzvos to other people. It seems that only very recent mystical-based sources claim otherwise. Now, I don't see any reason why there should be any difference if the person that one is trying to help is deceased or alive. Nor do I know of any source in classical rabbinic literature that one can do a mitzvah as a merit to help someone that is sick. Prayer, yes. And Tehillim are also a form of prayer (though it may depend upon which Tehillim are being recited). But I know of no classical source that one can honor one's parents or learn Torah or send away a mother bird as a merit for somebody else. (The most common example of people attempting to do this may be the custom of women to separate challah on behalf of a sick person. Here too, though, it appears that the classical basis of this is not that the mitzvah of separating challah is crediting the sick person, but rather that the person separating the challah thereby has a special time of power/inspiration, which makes their prayer more powerful.) If I'm wrong in any of the above, I'll be glad to see sources showing otherwise. But so far, I have found that while people are shocked when one challenges the notion that you can learn Torah on behalf of someone who is sick, nobody has yet actually come up with any classical sources demonstrating otherwise. Furthermore, if this indeed was a part of classical Judaism, we would certainly expect it to have prominent mention in the writings of Chazal and the Rishonim. We appear to have another situation of something widespread that is believed to be an integral and classical part of Judaism, and yet is actually a modern innovation that has no basis in classical Judaism whatsoever. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:33:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:33:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> References: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we > start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system > will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. > > Mehila, but aren't you being rather Chicken Little (or is your tongue somewhere in the direction of your cheek?) We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other minhagim that people are so set against any change? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 12:22:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 19:22:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot Message-ID: > The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we > start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system will > collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and many modern oils RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and cottonseed oil and this is being expanded by many I don't see this as destroying a Mimetic tradition the reason to include canola oil is that it is similar to Kitniyot even though it or even corn oil did not exist at the time of the generation So the question is why extend the minhagim to canola oil when the problem of the confusion doesn't exist but we don't extend it to non chametz cereal or breadstick where the possibility of mistakes is greater As previously mentioned rsza was against these chametz look a like products as are several contemporary rabbis OTOH the outside is nachman in lecithin in candies where there are many reasons to be making and they are making in chametz looking and tasting products where many are machmir From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 13:15:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170404201511.GI8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:33:22PM +0300, Simon Montagu wrote: : We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha : hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other : minhagim that people are so set against any change? Sorry if this will sound like circular reasoning, but it isn't because of the time lag: Minhagim that are *currently* treated very seriously can't be broken *going forward* as readliy simply because of the psychological / experiential impact of bending or breaking something that is so vehemently held. Since my argument is about mimetics, halakhah-as-culture, you can't necessarily get a textual / theory-based answer. On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 07:22:32PM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote: : We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them : My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and : many modern oils RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and : cottonseed oil and this is being expanded by many .. Well, RMF didn't actively permit peanut oil as much as report that back in Litta, peanuts were commonly consumed on Pesach. According to R/Dr Bannet, within my lifetime peanut oil was THE go-to oil for Pesach. But that's Litta. Minhag Litta didn't expand qitniyos to legumes found in the New World, after the original minhag formed. (Although they did take on avoiding New World grain -- maize / corn.) Minhag Litta was also lenient on mei qitniyos, and a far broader range of the northern half of Eastern Europe (I don't know what Yekkes hold) were lenient on shemes qitniyos in particular. Yes, by my minhagim, there are two reasons not to need a special formula for KLP Coke. If we could get anyone to give a hekhsher to certify there is nothing "worse" than mei New World qitniyos in it. But other parts of Europe went by reasoning, and did have stringencies including liquids and oils. That's their minhag, and it always was their minhag. Which gets me to my point: It's not really that any rav is expanding minhagim. It's that the heksher industry is going to be cost efficient. Heksheirim that say something is okay for 2/3 of their audience don't survive. Causing a lest-common-denominator approach to the spread of minhagim. Like trying to find reliable non-glatt meat in the US; the larger hekhsheirim don't even try. And so, as more move into the area whose minhagim exclude using peanut oil on Pesach, it becomes harder to find KLP certified peanut oil, and all too quickly people forget what was once the norm. I think that framing it as pesaqim and machloqes is imprecise. It's more like watching the evolution of new minhagim as our new communities from mixtures of the old ones. Not necessarily in directions we would like, but at least that's the framework in question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:11:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:11:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/17 15:22, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them We have no more authority to limit them than to eliminate them altogether. > My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and > many modern oils What people do has no relation to what they have the right to do. > RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and cottonseed oil RMF (almost alone) holds that the original gezera was on particular species, and peanuts were never included. The machlokes about cottonseed oil is precisely about whether it is a kind of kitnis or not. > the reason to include canola oil is that it is similar to Kitniyot > even though it or even corn oil did not exist at the time of the > generation Whether the oil existed then is lechol hade'os irrelevant. If the species is included in the ban then all forms are included. RMF however would presumably say that since rapeseed was not an edible species at the time, it was not included. Most acharonim, who hold that the ban was on the whole category, would presumably include it. > So the question is why extend the minhagim to canola oil when the problem > of the confusion doesn't exist but we don't extend it to non chametz cereal > or breadstick where the possibility of mistakes is greater Once again, because no individual rav or group of rabbanim have the authority to permit what is already forbidden, or to forbid for the entire people what is currently permitted. > As previously mentioned rsza was against these chametz look a like products That he was against something doesn't make it assur. > as are several contemporary rabbis OTOH the outside is nachman in lecithin > in candies where there are many reasons to be making and they are making in > chametz looking and tasting products where many are machmir But what authority do they have for this? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:33:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 17:33:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman In-Reply-To: References: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <0A.54.10233.A4114E85@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:01 PM 4/4/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via >Avodah wrote: >: There is a shiur about this at >: http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz > >So, I am listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on YUTorah at this link. >R' Avraham Pam said on many occations that we have to be aware of >those who spent all that time making the seder. (Typically the wives >and mothers.) Sometimes we spend so much time on Magid, that we then >rush through the beautiful se'udah they made to get to the last kos on >time. RAP thought that this bein adam lachaveiro issue is sufficient to >justify relying on the Avnei Neizer. Rav Schwab in his shiur on the seder (to be found in Rav Schwab on Prayer) suggests eating very little during the Seder besides the required amounts of Matzah and Moror, so that one will have room and appetite for the Afikoman and not have to "force" oneself to eat it. I do not know what Rebbetzen Schwab prepared for the Seder meal, but I assume it was not an elaborate meal based on what she knew Rav Schwab would eat. I know that R. Miller would not allow his children or grandchildren to read from the sheets that they came home with from Yeshiva. He told them to save it for later, probably the next day. And since I mentioned all of the material that the kids come home with from school, let me say that IMO the schools "spoil" the seder. To me it is clear from the Gemara in Pesachim that the children are not supposed to be "primed" with all sorts of knowledge about the Seder. The things we do are supposed to be new to them so that they will ask questions. My children when they were young and my younger grandchildren now know enough to conduct the Seder themselves! There is nothing new for them. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:59:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:59:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah Message-ID: I understand that one cannot use Egg Matza for the mitzva of Achilas Matza, but I'm not sure exactly why. I'm aware of two different reasons, and they seem mutually exclusive. 1) The Torah requires that this mitzva be done with "lechem oni" - poor bread, plain and lacking the richness that it would have if it were made with eggs, juice, oil, or the like. 2) Matza must be something that could have become chometz, but was baked before chimutz could occur. According to those who hold that flour and pure mei peiros will not ever become chometz, "matza ashira" isn't really halachic matza at all. I suspect that I am conflating various shitos, and that according to any individual shita, one reason or the other will apply, but not both. Can someone help me out? Thanks! Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:27:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:27:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I understand it, the purpose of reading the brachos from a card is to make it clear that one is not reading them from the Torah. I believe that's the reason for turning one's head to the side, haven't seen that as the reason for using a card. And that's only according to the opinion that the oleh leaves the Sefer Torah open while making the brachos. The opinion that the Sefer Torah should be closed is for the same reason if memory serves, and then of course no card would be needed at all. So I presume the reason for the card is simply for people who need it. Given that the whole reason for having a designated baal koreh in the first place was to save the embarassment of those who can't read their own aliya, I'm bemused by the permission for someone to decide they'd like to read their own aliya. Unless you say that a well known talmid chacham, or a guest of honour, would not embarrass the other olim by reading his aliya since he's known as a scholar. It does seem that avoiding the chashash of embarrassment was more important to chazal than to many contemporary kehillos. Maybe it needs some chizuk. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 23:41:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 06:41:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot Message-ID: And so, as more move into the area whose minhagim exclude using peanut oil on Pesach, it becomes harder to find KLP certified peanut oil, and all too quickly people forget what was once the norm. Which is a difference between Israel and USA Israel with a large sefardi community has top level hasgacha on kiniyot products also many candies now list that they contain lecithin so that the consumer can decide rather than the hasgacha deciding -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 20:45:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 23:45:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/17 17:27, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > Given that the whole reason for having a designated baal koreh in the > first place was to save the embarassment of those who can't read their > own aliya, I'm bemused by the permission for someone to decide they'd > like to read their own aliya. Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone wants to do his own, why not? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 21:53:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:53:50 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Are Mitzvos Fungible Message-ID: Obviously, and in spite of all the stories of people selling their Olam Haba it is a nonsense - good and evil deeds cannot be redeemed or transferred by a financial transaction or any agreement HOWEVER if anyone is inspired to do a good [or evil] deed or desist doing an evil [or good] deed because of another persons influence clearly that influencing person is rewarded accordingly and so when we learn Torah or do any other other Mitzvah and we are inspired to do it because of an institution or a person be they in Olam HaEmes or in this world a Zechis accrues for that person Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 21:18:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:18:03 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru - We have no authority to decree new gezeros Message-ID: Although it has been said on these hallowed pages Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru - We have no authority to decree new gezeros yet many felt that the new stainless steel Shechitah knives were forbidden machicne Matza was forbidden Ben PeKuAh is forbidden they're even arguing that soft Matza is forbidden for Ashkenazim etc. But it is Kula Chada Gezeira Thus newly discovered foods are Kitniyos And whatever the truth is we are V lucky that potato was not included and not reversed remember when peanuts were KLP? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 03:01:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:01:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pate de Foie Gras Message-ID: <20170405100107.GA16249@aishdas.org> Daf Yomi learners just learned BB 73b. It looks to me like the gemara is condemning, although on an aggadic level, the preparation of pate de foi gras. Since I can't quote the gemara, here's R' Steinzaltz's commentary (from : And Rabba bar bar Hana said: Once we were traveling in the desert and we saw these geese whose wings were sloping because they were so fat, and streams of oil flowed beneath them. I said to them: Shall we have a portion of you in the World-to-Come? One raised a wing, and one raised a leg, [signaling an affirmative response]. When I came before Rabbi Elazar, he said to me: The Jewish people will [eventually] be held accountable for [the suffering] of [the geese. Since the Jews do not repent, the geese are forced to continue to grow fat as they wait to be given to the Jewish people as a reward.] Rashbam ("litein aleihem es hadin"): For in their sins, they delay mashiach. They, those geese, have tza'ar ba'alei chaim because of their fat. Apparently even the messianic se'udah is insufficient grounds to justify torturing geese for their fat. Also implied is that the sin of making the geese suffer in their obesity is not a sin so great at to itself holding up the mashiach's arrival. Otherwise, R' Elazar would be describing a vicious cycle. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 03:51:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:51:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on > kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU > gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be > prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily > be mixed up with chametz. > > It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if > no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the > same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. I am both surprised and confused, by this post and almost all the ones that followed. It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and gebroks. Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right? So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate gebroks. I am not surprised that amei haaretz like myself have trouble understanding the definitions of kitniyos. But one thing is for sure: That our rabanim ought to understand that kitniyos and gebroks are two different things. Some might respond that today's "farfel, bread sticks etc" are being made not of matza meal but of potato and tapioca. I don't see that as relevant. *ANY* definition of kitniyos has to be one that doesn't include matza meal. And if matza meal is excluded, then you can't include potatoes merely because they are so useful. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 05:20:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:20:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <50BEA150-B533-4159-AFEB-ADE8B18EB7E1@sibson.com> > Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone wants to do his own, why not? > > -- Synagogue practices in particular are a very sensitive area, at least according to rabbi Soloveutchik. THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 08:56:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:56:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170405155630.GA29273@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:45:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any : given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, : it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone : wants to do his own, why not? Since when does logic have to do with emotions? Your line of reasoning would work for robots, not people. If everyone else is leining their own aliyah that day, someone who can't may still be embarassed and decline taking an aliyah with the ba'al qeri'ah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 05:57:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 08:57:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Tefillin on Chol Moed Message-ID: R Samuel Svarc wrote on Areivim >This, as it turns out, is a minority view. Not all Ashkenazim hold >that way, nor do Sefardim, nor a nice junk of the Litvishe wing. From http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/tefillinONmoed.htm The Aruch Hashulchan notes that "recently" a practice among some Ashkenazic Jews has developed to refrain from wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. He is referring to the practice of Chassidim, which was also the practice at the famed Volozhiner Yeshiva (as recorded by the Rav, Shiurim L'zeicher Aba Mori Zal p.119) And from http://dinonline.org/2014/04/07/tefillin-on-chol-hamoed-pesach/ The Rema adds that the Ashkenaz custom is to wear Tefillin and recite a berachah, but because of the sensitivity of the topic the berachah should be recited quietly. Later authorities espouse the compromise noted by the Tur, meaning that Tefillin are worn but the berachah is not recited (see Taz 31:2; Mishnah Berurah 31:8). YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 09:29:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:29:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170405162920.GB19562@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 06:51:14AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and : gebroks. I think the conversation works better as is. Gebrochts is a minhag to avoid the possible manufacture of real chameitz from any flour that happened to stay dry when the matzah was made. Qitniyos is a minhag or multiple minhagim to avoid things that either: 1- are stored in the same silos as with chameitz, in which case it's much like gebrochts in function. Or 2- are used in a manner similar to chameitz, and people might eat chameitz thinking it's pea porridge or mustard seed or whatnot. And these could indeed be divergant minhagim, where different explanations became primary drivers in different areas, leading to difference in how practice evolved. But explanation #2 does open the door for the original question. Pretzels made from oatmeal make it possible for someone to accidentally eat real chameitz pretzels. And if your ancestral version of qitniyos includes growing it to include new items that make the same mistake possible, eg corn, then why not all these gebrochts or potato / potato starch products -- not because they're gebrochts (if they are), but because reason #2 applies. : So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever : arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they : were rejected by communities that ate gebroks. No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) This really is a recent development. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 07:48:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:48:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Fungibility of Mitzvos In-Reply-To: References: <002801d2ae0d$a752e040$f5f8a0c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: R? Micha Berger quoted R? Natan Slifkin: <<< I have found that while people are shocked when one challenges the notion that you can learn Torah on behalf of someone who is sick, nobody has yet actually come up with any classical sources demonstrating otherwise. >>> I?d like to suggest a very slight difference between two scenarios: Suppose I say, ?Hashem, I am going to learn some Torah now, and I?d like the s?char for this mitzvah to go to Ploni, instead of to me.? That seems to be the situation that RNS is talking about. But suppose I say, ?Hashem, I am going to learn some Torah now, and I?d like *MY* s?char for this mitzvah to be that You heal Ploni, who is currently ill?, or ?? that You elevate Ploni to a higher level in Gan Eden?, or something similar. My point is that if there is no mechanism to transfer s?char from one person to another, perhaps we can still request that the s?char should take a particular form, and it would result in the same effect. I?m pretty sure that there *are* sources for requesting that the s?char should take a certain form. More accurately, I recall cases where one requests that his *onesh* should take a particular form, such as if it has been decreed that one should lose a certain amount of money, it should occur in tiny amounts over a long time, or some other similar request. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 08:52:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:52:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos HaGadol Message-ID: It is not easy to explain the origin of the Hagadol which is applied to this coming Shabbos. In the Haftorah, the prophet Malachi speaks of a Yom Hashem Hagadol which according to various customs is to be read when the Sabbath before Pesach happens to be Erev Pesach. And yet the term Hagadol as applied to the Sabbath before Passover has been accepted by all whether or not it falls on Erev Pesach. The Midrash offers additional insight as to why this Shabbos is termed Hagadol and tells us something most of us have learned that on the Shabbos preceding the 14th of Nissan (when the Pascal lamb was to be brought as an offering), the Egyptian masters entered into the homes of the Jews and noticed that each family had a sheep tied to its bedposts. The Egyptians asked: ?What are you doing with our sheep?!? The Jews replied: ?We are going to slaughter it as an offering to our God.? The Egyptian masters gritted their teeth in exasperation and walked out. This is another basis for the Shabbos preceding Pesach to be called the ?Great Shabbos.? It is the Shabbos that the Jewish people experienced a miracle ? they were not killed by their masters because of their subordination to the Will of the Almighty and they were not deterred by concern for their personal safety. THAT was ?greatness? and they were, indeed, truly ?great.? It is also interesting that every Shabbos symbolizes complete freedom ? freedom from technology and the mundane. Pesach typifies freedom and redemption. The parallel to Shabbos is profound. May this Shabbos be the ?GREATEST!? "The price of greatness is responsibility.? Winston Churchill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 14:25:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:25:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a5b4365-260b-ab41-7882-0043d896073e@zahav.net.il> On 4/5/2017 12:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone > who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from > gebroks, right? Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can get today which is no different than cake flour? [Email #2. -micha] On 4/4/2017 8:33 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and > halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all > other minhagim that people are so set against any change? If this one is different it is because people have set out to take down this minhag. Whereas something like changing from an Ashkenazi white with black stripes tallit to a more Sefardi all white one wouldn't be such a big deal because no one is making an issue out of it. In my community there is a back lash against the kitni-chumrot so I see it changing, somewhat. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 01:32:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:32:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Food in the desert questions Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: "In the mishkan, a mincha offering was brought. other offerings too. Some : required flour and oil. Where did they come from? " I just saw a Tosafos in Menachos 45b that discusses the question of flour in the midbar. Tosafos quotes Rashi as saying that they did not make the shtei halechem in the midbar because all they had was man (so they had no flour). Tosafos disagrees and says that they bought flour from merchants (based on the Gemara Yoma 75b). I would assume that Tosafos would say the same thing about oil. The Rambam in the Peirush Hamishnayos (Menachos 4:4) agrees with Rashi that they had no flour in the midbar. So to answer your question according to Rashi and the Rambam they had no flour and therefore did not bring anything flour based. According to Tpsafos they bought flour from merchants in the midbar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 22:03:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Meisner via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 01:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > I understand that one cannot use Egg Matza for the mitzva of Achilas > Matza, but I'm not sure exactly why. I'm aware of two different reasons, > and they seem mutually exclusive. > > 1) The Torah requires that this mitzva be done with "lechem oni"... > 2) Matza must be something that could have become chometz, but was baked > before chimutz could occur. According to those who hold that flour and pure > mei peiros will not ever become chometz, "matza ashira" isn't really > halachic matza at all. If matzah is baked with mei peiros and a kol she-hu of water, it would not be lechem oni but would be halachically matzah. Josh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 04:16:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:16:49 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller asked: "It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and gebroks. Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right? So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate gebroks." There is no question that this is a new problem, even 50 years ago no one made things out of matzo meal or potato starch that looked almost exactly like the equivalent chometz item. There has been an explosion of "imitation" chometz products over the last 20 years that look and even taste like chometz. This is more a spirit of the law issue. One of the reasons given for not eating kitniyos is that since kitniyos look like and/or can make things that look like chometz we are afraid that people will confuse them with chometz and come to eat chometz. This concern certainly applies much more to these modern products. If I can get kosher l'pesach cereal that looks exactly like chometz cereal there is certainly a risk of confusion. No one is saying that these things are kitniyos, what they are saying that in the spirit of kitniyos these should be prohibited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 05:06:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those measures should be. I wrote: : So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? : Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 : years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate : gebroks. and R' Micha Berger responded: > No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks > that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) > This really is a recent development. Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my mother made at home? I'm sorry, but I can't buy that. It is true that today's factory kitchens allow an amazing variety of technologies and abilities, including products that are almost indistinguishable from regular bread. But I maintain that this does NOT translate to an increased chance that someone will mix flour and water in their home kitchen, precisely because the factory and home are so far apart - both geographically and sociologically. If someone is enticed by the quality of a store-bought breadstick or pizza slice, I cannot imagine that they would attempt to duplicate it at home nowadays without a recipe. Seeing a breaded chicken cutlet at one's neighbor's home *IS* something that you might duplicate in your own home, and there is great danger there. But I just don't see that happening with factory-made goods. Anyone who is awed by the quality will read the box to figure out how they managed such a feat, and they will immediately see the potato and tapioca listed. (But I am willing to listen to other arguments.) My suspicion is that the anti-potato sentiments may have originated in the non-gebroks sectors. Pesach pizza and pancakes are very new to them, and I suppose I can understand their concern. But among those who have been eating gebroks for generations, I just don't understand why these new products bother them. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 03:35:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:35:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah Message-ID: R' Joshua Meisner wrote: > If matzah is baked with mei peiros and a kol she-hu of water, > it would not be lechem oni but would be halachically matzah. That's true. Theoretically, if one would bake it fast enough, before it becomes chometz, it would be real matza. But because of the mei peiros, it isn't plain matza, but it is "rich" matza - matza ashira, and thus disqualified from Mitzvas Achilas Matza. But as far as I know, no one makes such matza, because (there is a fear that) the combination of both water and mei peiros will allow the dough to become chometz much faster than usual. That's not the case with the stuff on the shelves that's labeled "Egg Matza" or "Matza Ashira" - This has no water at all, and its dough can never become chometz. If so, then it seems to me that the term "Matza Ashira" is a misnomer. It isn't matza at all, because it was incapable of becoming chometz. A better term for it might be "Matza-style squares" (which is the term that the industry has chosen for the potato and tapioca stuff). I suspect that at some point in history, some educator felt that the logic of "the fruit juice makes it rich bread" was more easily accepted by the masses, and the logic of "it can't be chometz and therefore it isn't matza" was too difficult for them. And from that point onwards, it was the go-to explanation, despite the technical shortcomings. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 05:28:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat Message-ID: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I've been thinking (pun intended) about staam daat" . (I have in mind "whatever HKB"H wants me to have in mind without actually knowing what that is [e.g., to be yotzeih the chazan's bracha]). Firstly what is the source of the concept. Secondly, Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal says works, that's what I want to think/occur). [relatrd to daat makneh and koneh issues] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:07:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:07:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru Message-ID: We all assume we can't have new gezerot. Is this really true? At least according to some opinions bicycles and umbrellas are allowed on shabbat. According to RSZA electricity (without a heat or fire) is really allowed on shabbat and certainly yomtov. Years ago many held that electricity was allowed on yomtov. Today we have things like fitbit watches which many feel are allowed on shabbat. Yet in practice the poskim prohibit all these things. Other things are prohbited in davening because it is a slippery slope etc. In essence these are all new gezerot perhaps without the nomenclature -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:21:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:21:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:06:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos : understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect : people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is : acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those : measures should be. Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change a minhag. And if we were talking about gezeiros, then we'd need a Sanhedrin or universal consensus to create one. ("Universal consensus", eg RSZA on electricity.) But we would also need that level authority to modify or repeal one. So there too there is a high barrier to change. So in either case, while I could appreciate R' Aviner's reasoning, I don't know if I would be comfortable applying it lemaaseh. :> No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks :> that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) :> This really is a recent development. : Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in : the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my : mother made at home? While, really I'm suggesting that an environment where -- even a bagel or a loaf of bread -- could be a gebrochts or potato starch replacement poses bigger problems than we faced 50 years ago. Because a person can pick up anything and mistake it for a KLP alternative. Much like one of the reasons given for qitniyos. The same was not true when the only KLP pancakes were rare and homemade. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:41:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:41:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Working on Chol Moed Message-ID: <1491493270335.3143@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If I don't work on Chol Hamoed my paycheck will be much smaller. Is this a davar behaved (irreparable loss)? Am I permitted to go to work on Chol Hamoed? A. A loss of profit is generally not considered a davar ha'avud. As such one cannot automatically assume that it is permissible to work on Chol Hamoed. Nonetheless there are situations where davar ha'avud would apply. For example, if a person will use up vacation days by not working during Chol Hamoed, and there is a preference to take vacation at a more convenient time, this may be considered a davar ha'avud. (See Shmiras Shabbos Kihilchoso, vol. 2, chapter 67, footnote 47.) Furthermore, if a person is struggling financially, and not earning a salary on Chol Hamoed would be stressful, this may be treated as a davar ha'avud. Nonetheless these leniencies are not ideal, and Rav Belsky, zt"l stressed that it is preferable to not work on Chol Hamoed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 09:44:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:44:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat In-Reply-To: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <958e2160-18d0-985e-70d4-9c571dea3a3f@sero.name> On 06/04/17 08:28, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Secondly, Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., > I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal says > works, that?s what I want to think/occur). Isn't that *exactly* what we do when we write in a shtar that we stipulate to having made whichever kind of kinyan is most effective ("be'ofan hayoser mo`il")? We don't know which of the various kinyanim we should be doing so we stipulate that whichever one it is, we did it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 10:01:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 20:01:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/6/2017 6:07 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We all assume we can't have new gezerot. Is this really true? ... > In essence these are all new gezerot perhaps without the nomenclature The nomenclature is vital. As I said in my previous email, we don't blur the distinctions between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan, and we don't blur the distinctions between gezeirot, takkanot, chramim, siyagim, minhagim, etc. Yes, it's forbidden to eat chicken parmesan. And it's forbidden to eat a pork chop. There's no wiggle room. Both are forbidden. So to someone on the outside, those prohibitions might look like the same thing, "perhaps without the nomenclature". But the nomenclature matters, because there are different rules for the two. Just as there are different rules for the various "add-ons". Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:49:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:49:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7c4f2947-d6c6-62b2-40fd-a9b977d026f4@starways.net> > Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy > in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes > that my mother made at home? Matza meal pancakes, which I grew up with as well, are nothing at all like regular pancakes. The difference is clear and obvious. Ditto for cakes. We used to have sponge cake at Pesach. And we thought of it as a Pesach cake. It wasn't something we had all year. I don't have a problem with fake treyf. So I don't really have a huge problem with fake chametz. But to pretend that there's no difference between what we used to have in the 60s, 70s, etc, and today is just silly. The difference is enormous. And while I don't have a huge problem with fake chametz, I see another distinction between fake chametz and fake treyf. You can't ever eat bacon. So making fake bacon is reasonable. But fake chametz? Really? We can't make it a week without waffles and pizza and pretzels? [Email #2. -micha] On 4/6/2017 6:21 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be > mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very > overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change > a minhag. WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be determinative. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 10:54:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:54:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:03:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept : of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be : determinative. Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei For that matter, the topic here is qitniyos -- which is itself a minhag avos, not halakhah. It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the accepted ruling in practice. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 13:59:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:59:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> I am confused by the term mimetic. I understand it in the sense of tradition, We are discussing various situations that didn't exist years ago, My parents didnt use Canola oil because it was not available but they did use cottonseed oil. What is my mimetic custom for lechitin? When I grew up we had mainly macaroon cookies. Any cakes even with matza meal tasted and looked different than chametz items. No one I knew used CI shiurim. In EY on the radio I still hear about the necessity of using CI shiurim at least lechatchila. I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. I recently heard a shiur from R. Aviner attacking much of these chumrot and R. Lior also has many kulot and these are considered right wing DL rabbis. As I stated before one difference between EY and the US is the existence of a large charedi sefardi community, This gives rise to kitniyot products with top level hasgachot. The easy availability of soft matzaot etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 12:10:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:10:26 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder Message-ID: is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a korban pesach? i think we all agree that the matzot to make a korech were soft matzot [and presumably mashiach will rule that's the way we should all be making them ]. if the zaytim were like larger then , would the sandwich have been the size of a big mac? or half a pizza? kiddush would have started the meal . then some form of maggid [ 3 hrs long? would the korban be edible that many hours later?] . so people washed and then what? hamotzi on 3 matzos? but the mitzva matza was to eat the korech no? so the rest of the meal was not matza followed by marror, but rather that of korech. so then the chiyuv-matza was the afikoman matza? or people would have chazon ish'ed it up twice---at the matza they washed on and again on korech? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 07:46:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:46:29 +0000 (WET DST) Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Apr 6, 2017 11:03:15 am Message-ID: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> > > ... This is another basis for the Shabbos preceding Pesach to be > called the "Great Shabbos." > No, it is not. Haggadol is not an adjective modifying Shabbath, because Shabbath is feminine. No one who speaks Hebrew uses masculine adjectives to modify Shabbath, ever (pedantic footnote: except in the fixed expression "Shabbath shalom umvorakh", which is said by people who do speak Hebrew, but which for other reasons is clearly an idiomatic expression that does not follow the rules of grammar, unless you want to call it a mistake, which is also fine with me). It is the same reason why we know that Lshon Hara` and `Eyn Hara` are not nouns modified by adjectives, because lashon and `ayin are feminine nouns. No one who speaks Hebrew would ever use the masculine adjective ra` to modify the feminine nouns lashon or `ayin. They are nouns modified by other nouns, and so is Shabbath Haggadol. (Whether lshon hara` and `eyn hara` are the correct pronunciation turns on whether the smikhuth forms in Rabbinic Hebrew are the same as the smikhuth forms in Biblical and modern Hebrew, a question that is irrelevant to the current discussion. They are unquestionably smikhuth forms, however they should be pronounced.) This alone is not sufficient reason to reject your translation "The Great Shabbos", because languages do not have to be translated literally and word-for-word. I do not reject the translation "the holy tongue" for "lshon haqqodesh", even though "lshon haqqodesh" literally means "the tongue of holiness", because languages do not have to be translated literally. If you want to translate "lshon haqqodesh" as "the holy tongue", fine. But you cannot do that with "Shabbath Haggadol", because we do not say Shabbath Haggodel, or Shabbath Haggdula, we say "Shabbath Haggadol", and gadol is an adjective, albeit a masculine one. As for what it does mean, well, if you want to say that Hagadol is a kinuy for God ("the Great One"), I think that is far-fetched, but I won't post an article publicly saying that you are wrong. It is clear to me that we say Shabbath Hagadol for the same reason that we say Shabbath Xazon or Shabbath Naxamu or Shabbath Shuva. You may disagree. But what you cannot plausibly say is that it means "the great Shabbath". Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:24:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:24:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matzah Meat (was Kitnios In-Reply-To: <728a7944561447f0984b79952cedf5a5@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <728a7944561447f0984b79952cedf5a5@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <86.ED.07959.212B6E85@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:03 PM 4/6/2017, Ben Waxman wrote: >On 4/5/2017 12:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone > > who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from > > gebroks, right? > >Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for >matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can >get today which is no different than cake flour? I must admit that I have no idea what you are referring to when you write about "roughly ground matza meal." Is this what is called cake meal? If so, it is good for making many things. See for example http://tinyurl.com/n6yo95b Also, do a google search for cake meal recipes, and you will see how many recipes come up I use "regular" matza meal to make matzah balls and they come out fine. See http://tinyurl.com/kl5tljs for a recipe for matza balls that calls for matza meal. I have never seen shmura cake meal. Has anyone? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 13:30:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:30:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 4/6/2017 8:54 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:03:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: >: WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept >: of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be >: determinative. > Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel > Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei > > It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering > cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the > accepted ruling in practice. I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:48:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:48:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170406214806.GH26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:30:40PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : >It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering : >cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the : >accepted ruling in practice. : : I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi : is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that : we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea : that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible. You are only discussing the absolutes, the case where the halakhah isn't known, and that where it is, but common practice differs. But in the part I left above, I described the gray area. There are cases where the logic for one position is more compelling than the other, but not muchrach. In fact, this is more common than a case where two rishonim or noted acharonim disagree and one opinion is found to be outright wrong. Between the brilliance of the people involved and the "peer review" as to which ideas reach us, it is very rare for us to find a true incontrovertable mistake, and even harder to know if we really did, or if it is our own assessment that's in error. In that situation, where we have to choose between multiple viable shitos, there are a number of things a poseiq would weigh. Different schools of pesaq may give each different weights. This kind of comparison of apples and oranges requires real shiqul hadaas, and is why pesaq is an art, not an algorithm. This is my usual list of categories of factors that go into pesaq. 1- Textualiam 1a- Logicalness of the rationale 1b- Authority of those who back each postion: majority, expertise (eg the Rambam and Rosh carry more weight than some other rishonim) 2- Mimeticism 3- Aggadic concerns -- whether it's chassidim not wearing tefillin on ch"m or some of RSRH's innovations. My point in #2 is that there are many times that we continue following what we do because it has a sound textual basis -- even though some other shitah may have a stronger such basis. And again, this is minhag, not halakhah. The whole topic of qitniyos rests on mimeticism, not formal halachic reasoning. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] P.O.P. Paradox Of Pesach Message-ID: <5204F12E-00B5-47B0-92DD-2D93AB3E7C87@cox.net> A great ambivalence is to be found in the symbolism of the Seder. On one hand, the white kitel is a manifestation of joy and purity, and on the other hand, it is also the shroud of death. An egg is a token of mourning, but at the Seder it recalls the korban chagigah, the additional sacrifice brought to assure joy on Pesach. The matzah is the bread of affliction as well as the food of freedom baked in haste as our forefathers rushed out of Egypt. The very word individual which refers to a single person ends with DUAL. Pesach brings out the duality of man but through the unity of the family, we are able to live with cognitive dissonance, paradox and conflict. ?We may have different points of arguments from perspectives of belief, faith and religion. But we must not hate each other. We are one human family.? ? Lailah Gifty Akita, (Think Great: Be Great!) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:04:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:04:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406220429.GK26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:59:51PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be :> mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very :> overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change :> a minhag. : I am confused by the term mimetic. I understand it in the sense of : tradition, Mimetic is from the shoresh mime, to copy. (Like a mimeograph.) Mimeticism is Judaism as culture. Things like absorbing that "Shabbos is coming" feeling of the erev Shabbos Jew. The pious Jew of today may be able to work himself up emotionally on Yom Kippur, the mimetic Jew of 100 years ago was simply terrified, without such work. (Both kinds of religiosity have their pros and cons.) Mimeticism evolves because culture evolves. Textualism is also tradition. But it's the formal tradition passed off from rebbe to talmid. RYBS's dialog down the ages that he watched gather around his father's table, or later, in his own shiur room. So the mimetic-textualist axis is not quite the same as the tradition-ideology one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:07:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:07:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> References: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> Message-ID: <20170406220711.GL26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 02:46:29PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote: : Haggadol is not an adjective modifying Shabbath, because Shabbath is : feminine. No one who speaks Hebrew uses masculine adjectives to : modify Shabbath, ever (pedantic footnote: except in the fixed : expression "Shabbath shalom umvorakh", which is said by people who : do speak Hebrew, but which for other reasons is clearly an idiomatic : expression that does not follow the rules of grammar, unless you want : to call it a mistake, which is also fine with me). What about Shabbos morning, and "veyanuchu vo"? The previous night it was "vahh". I agree with your thesis, I am more trying to get from you what the masculine noun "vo" refers to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:27:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav Message-ID: Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik heh under my understanding and also be milera. Is my understanding of the word incorrect? Kol tuv and Chag Kasher v'Sameach to all, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 00:29:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:29:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot Message-ID: from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) BTW the sefer contains 3 sections ; main, dvar halacha and orchot halacha. I am assuming that all 3 are from RSZA or notes of students. I will do my best in the translation but have added some of the notes in Hebrew RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who determines this minhag?) He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat. He adda that PERHAPS there is a reason to prohibit potato flour (serach kitniyot - based on chiddishin of RSZA to Pesachim). Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be prohibited (ie even according to those that eat gebrochs) (yesh ladun behem - Pesachim 40b - Rashi that when people are "mezalzel one should be machmir) In the notes that this was what RSZA said in shiurim and when asked a question responded that one should follow the family minhag. Nevetheless he remarked several times that cakes with matzah flour that look like chametz cakes that he didn't understand the heter when we go to lengths to avoid things that might be confused with chametz -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 23:27:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 06:27:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Afikoman_-_=93Stealing=93_and_Other_Rel?= =?windows-1252?q?ated_Minhagim?= Message-ID: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> Please the article at http://seforim.blogspot.com/2017/04/afikoman-stealing-and-other-related.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 20:28:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:28:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: > ... Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., > I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal > says works, that?s what I want to think/occur). [related to daat > makneh and koneh issues] I think Mishne Berura 649:15 might be exactly what you're looking for. I am paraphrasing him, and he was paraphrasing the Magen Avraham and Pri Megadim. But basically, the point is: >>> Suppose it is the first day of Sukkos, and you want to use someone else's lulav, but you can't, because on the first day you need to own it yourself. So l'chatchila, the best option is make it explicit that you want to acquire his lulav in a "matana al m'nas l'hachzir" (gift on condition of returning) manner. >>> But b'dieved, if you borrowed it in a "stam" manner so that you could be yotzay with it, then we presume that he gave it to you intending to do it in whatever manner would allow you to be yotzay, namely, "matana al m'nas l'hachzir". >>> However, if you explicitly used the word "borrow" rather than "gift", then you would not be yotzay. Also, if the lulav's owner is unaware that a borrowed lulav is pasul, it would not work then either. (End of Mishne Brura.) Here's my commentary: There are two requirements for "stam daas" to help us here. The first is that the conversation must be vague, because if it were explicit we would not be able to assign a meaning to the words. But the second requirement is very relevant to RJR's question: The lulav's owner has to be aware that a borrowed lulav is pasul. If the owner does have that awareness, then we say that his stam daas was to grant ownership to you. But if the lulav's owner is not aware of this halacha, then his stam daas is to *lend* the lulav, which would not be valid. We see from this that "stam daas" is not a magic wand that can be applied conveniently to any vague comment. Rather, it is applied with a lot of care and understand of what the person's likely intention really was. Please read the MB yourself and see what he means. Even better, check out the MA and PM that the MB was summarizing (because I did not go into that much depth. Maybe over Shabbos.) [Press Pause button... Okay, continue...] I have now reread RJR's post, and I noticed that while the MB ruled how the halacha views these two people and the lulav, RJR's post is much more "me"-oriented. He asks about the case where > I have in mind ?whatever HKB?H wants me to have in mind > without actually knowing what that is ..." It seems to me that this is an explicit vagueness. If "stam daas" works where outsiders are trying to figure out what Ploni probably meant, it should certainly work where Ploni himself is being deliberately vague. I never studied Logic to the depth that R' Micha and other have, but even I can see a serious flaw in the above paragraph. In the MB's case of the lulav, the owner had *something* in mind, and we are presuming to know what it was. But in RJR's case, the individual made an effort have nothing in mind at all, and I can easily understand someone who says that this simply won't work. I would suggest this as a practical solution: One should never say simply, "I have in mind whatever Hashem wants me to have in mind," because that is essentially admitting that he really has nothing in mind. Rather, one should use an explicit tenai: "If Hashem wants me to have A in mind, then I do have A in mind; but if He wants me to have B in mind, then I do have B in mind." Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#m_3151624698786785420_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:24:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav Message-ID: > Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH > translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". > Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik > heh under my understanding and also be milera. Upon reviewing the pshat in the word "bushala", it is possible that my understanding was incorrect and the structure would be similar to "yochLUha" where the translation of the suffix in both cases is "it" as opposed to "its" and thus not requiring a mapik heh. Shabbat Shalom, HT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:25:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:25:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67447a90-4764-0dce-4f82-b0f11d5c55af@sero.name> On 06/04/17 18:27, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: > Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH > translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". > > Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik > heh under my understanding and also be milera. It's a verb, not a noun. If it were written as you would have it it would be a noun, presumably meaning "its cooking", but then it would be "bishulah". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 08:46:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:46:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170407154652.GD32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:27:30PM -0400, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: : Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH : translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". : : Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik : heh under my understanding and also be milera. That would make it a posessed noun, "if its cooking was in a copper vessel". RSRH is treating is as a verb. In more contemporary American English, "if it had been cooked in a copper vessel". :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:47:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Afikoman_-_=E2=80=9CStealing=E2=80=9C_and_Othe?= =?utf-8?q?r_Related_Minhagim?= In-Reply-To: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> References: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <0a933758-f6de-9e33-4fd0-33f89b9dc517@sero.name> > http://seforim.blogspot.com/2017/04/afikoman-stealing-and-other-related.html My father gives presents to all those children who *don't* steal. He also explains that if the hidden matzah is stolen he will not pay any ransom for it but will simply use a different matzah. Thus the purpose of the minhag is preserved but the bad chinuch is avoided. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 08:44:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:44:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:10:26PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a korban : pesach? I assume koreikh was the norm. Not that Hillel argued they were necessary and no one else made wraps, but that everyone made a wrap, which is why a machloqes could arise as to whether one is yotzei if not. : i think we all agree that the matzot to make a korech were soft matzot [and : presumably mashiach will rule that's the way we should all be making them ]. One could be yotzei koreikh just putting a tiny lump of meat on a cracker. Not difficult. OTOH, we seem to have proven in numerous years that until the acharonic period, softa matzos were the norm in every community. (Ashkenazim too; see the Rama.) : if the zaytim were like larger then, would the sandwich have been the size : of a big mac? or half a pizza? But they were smaller, so no problem. Another perrennial is whether the growth of the kezayis is halachically binding even after archeology proved the historical assumptions wrong. : kiddush would have started the meal... And Ha Lachma Anya would have been 4 days before, as you can only invite people to join the chaburah BEFORE the sheep is set aside. For that matter, I'm convinced Ha Lachma Anya is not part of Maggid. Maggid ought to begin with questions, so let's assume it does. HLA is an explanation of Yachatz. And then, once we fact out qwhat it's like to have to ration our lachma anya, we express empathy for the dirtzrikh and dichpin. So perhaps Yachatz too would be before picking the sheep. . then some form of maggid [ 3 hrs : long? would the korban be edible that many hours later?]. Sure! How quickly does meat go bad where you live? It looks like there is a fundamental machloqes about the seider. Notice that Rabban Gamliel wasn't present at R' Aqiva's seider in Benei Beraq. OTOH, in the Tosefta at the end of Pesachim Rabban Gamliel hosts big seider in Lod, where they spent the whole night "osqin behilkhos haPesach". (This Tosefta goes with "ein maftirin achar haPesach afiqoman". A whole answer-to-the-chakham vibe here.) Notice that at R' Aqiva's seider "vehayu mesaperim beytzi'as mitzrayim". R' Aqiva held that a seider is all about the story. R' Gamliel -- the mitzvos. Most of Maggid we do R' Aqiva style: 1- We follow R' Yehudah, and tell the story of physical redemption. Avadim Hayinu. 2- Then (after an intermission in which we explain why we're doing multiple versions -- 4 banim, etc...) we follow Rav, and tell the story of spiritual redemption. Betechilah ovedei AZ. 3- And we tell the story using Vidui Biqurim and other texts. 4- Then, at the very end, we make sure to do the least necessary to be yotzei according to Rabban Gamliel. So it would seem we basically hold like R' Aqiva, that the main role of the foods is as aids to the story-telling. But Rabban Gamliel would have Maggid as /during/ the other mitzvos of the seider. We discuss the foods. : washed and then what? hamotzi on 3 matzos? but the mitzva matza was to : eat the korech no? so the rest of the meal was not matza followed by : marror, but rather that of korech. so then the chiyuv-matza was the : afikoman matza? or people would have chazon ish'ed it up twice---at the : matza they washed on and again on korech? The afiqoman was the sheep, all matzos umorerim. Before that was the chagiga, re'iyah and shulchan oreikh. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:48:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Meisner via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:48:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:10 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a > korban pesach? The Rambam in Ch. 8 of Hil. Chametz uMatzah provides a step-by-step description of the seder that includes the eating of the Korban Pesach, which is probably a good start. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 09:32:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:32:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4167b94e-52b7-16a4-0069-0697990750d6@sero.name> On 07/04/17 11:44, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And Ha Lachma Anya would have been 4 days before, as you can only invite > people to join the chaburah BEFORE the sheep is set aside. Not true. One can join or leave a chavurah right up to the moment of shechitah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 09:58:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 17:58:36 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Surely either we'd pasken like Hillel, and eat the full portion of Pesach, Matza and Maror in one sandwich, or else we wouldn't, and there'd be no Korech at all? On 7 April 2017 at 16:44, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > One could be yotzei koreikh just putting a tiny lump of meat on a > cracker. Not difficult. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 10:15:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:15:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170407171523.GI32239@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 05:58:36PM +0100, Allan Engel wrote: : Surely either we'd pasken like Hillel, and eat the full portion of Pesach, : Matza and Maror in one sandwich, or else we wouldn't, and there'd be no : Korech at all? I assume everyone ate koreikh. It's most reasonable to assume that a machloqes over an annual practice kept by everyone is theoretical, not pragmatic. Not that one person is saying what a significant number of people are doing is pasul / assur. For similar reasons, I assume that until the rishonim, people considered both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam tefillin to be kosher. Otherwise, how were both styles in existence and common use since the days of the Chashmonaim until some 1,300 years later when rishonim started voicing preferences? Note my use of the phrase, "I assume". Li mistaber, I have no strong arguments for it. Back to our topic... I figure everyone ate the matzah, marror and lamb in a wrap. Otherwise, how did Hillel come around and argue that what everyone was doing was pasul? And why would it stay with Hillel, wouldn't he have the Sanhedrin vote on it? Rather, the machloqes was whether one was yotzei if they did the weird thing and eat them separately. If this was a rare event, multiple opinions could persist without resolutions. Now when it came time to commemorate, rather than fulfill the mitzvah.... Matzah we have to eat separately from maror, because without the pesach, there may be a problem with our fulfilling the mitzvah of eating matzah without it being the only tast in the mouth. And then there's the question of what are we commemorating -- eating all three in one meal, and the wrap aspect was not a critical facet that needs commemoration, or are we commemorating a wrap? So, we do both. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 10:28:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel In-Reply-To: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> References: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:05:30PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : My son who lives in EY told me that Ashkenazim have to very careful : about the products that they purchase for Pesach, since many products : that are certified for Pesach contain kitnios. The item below reinforces : this. ... : Eretz Yisrael: Strauss Cottage Cheese Contains Kitnios : : April 3, 2017- from the Arutz 7 : : : "Badatz Mehadrin, the hashgacha of Rabbi Avraham Rubin Shlita, alerts... I was wondering about this. Qitniyos is batel berov. Ah, you may say: but they're intentionally mixing in the qitniyos, there is no bitul! So here's my question: If a Sepharadi makes cottage cheese containing qitniyos, he isn't really having Ashkenazim in particular in mind. And for him the qitniyos are mutar. By parallel, a non-Jew mixing 1:61 basar bechalav for his own use or for a primarily non-Jewish customer base isn't bitul lkhat-chilah, as a permitted person's intent doesn't qualify as lekhat-chilah. So, does this Sepharadi man mixing qitniyos in run afowl of the problem of bitul lekhat-chilah? Why can't one argue that as long as the qitniyos is a mi'ut of the cottage cheese, and as long as it's not against the mixer's own minhag or that of the main bulk of people for whom he is mixing, the food is permissible for Ashkenazim too? And does it have to be both the mixer's own minhag AND that of most of the people the cottage cheese if for? After all, this is minhag, not pesaq. It's not like an Ashkenazi holds a Saphradi ought to be holding like us too. What if an Ashkenazi was doing the mixing on a product where most of the target customer base is Sepharadi? (Now, add to that mei qitniyos, and whether corn should have been added to the minhag, the observation that it is primarily NOT made for Ashkenazi Jews, and ask the same thing about Coca Cola.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 15:48:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: <<< I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. >>> Is this only in the DL community? If so, can anyone suggest why this would be so? I can this of two very different possibilities: One is negative, that there is some sort of jealousy to the sefardim, or taavah for the many products that are available. The other is positive, that this is simply a natural development of how minhagim change over the centuries when communities mix. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 13:42:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 22:42:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel In-Reply-To: <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> References: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <43acd44d-c45c-b481-7dfb-2671547565a7@zahav.net.il> This is part of the backlash. People want the labels to read "contains kitniyot", not "for ochlei kitniyot only". Ben On 4/7/2017 7:28 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Qitniyos is batel berov. > > Ah, you may say: but they're intentionally mixing in the qitniyos, there > is no bitul! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 10:44:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:44:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58E92189.9030803@zahav.net.il> [Part 2, a mid-post detour. -mb] And as long as I am writing, a comment on the next posting in the Digest 48. Matza meal is the coarse version and is used for making latkes and kneidlach. Cake meal is the fine ground version for making cakes. Both were on the market and used by my mother in the US some 70- 80 years ago. And R' Micha mentioned a week or so ago that R/Dr Bannet pointed out that in my youth, peanut oil had the most machmir heksher of all Pesach oils. Three comments: It is true that chasidim used only peanut oil made by a Shomer mitzvot Jew. I am neither a R nor a Dr, and my family name ends with two t's. PKvS. David Bannett From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 10:44:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:44:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58E92189.9030803@zahav.net.il> [RCD tried to sneak multiple topics into the same email. For the sake of threading, I split it and fixed the subject lines. -micha] Without commenting on the meaning of Shabbat Hagadol, I'd like to comment on the "fact" that Shabbat is feminine and one would have to say Shabbat Hag'dola. The Rambam in Hilkhot Shabbat 30:2 says Shhabat Hagadol. I then looked in the Bar Ilan Shu"t and found that there are a dozen other sources for a male Shabbat. [End of part 1. Now, part 3. -mb] And then R' Micha on the vayanuchu va, vo and vam in the tefila: There were three nuschaot. One said Shabbat and va, Another said yom haShabbat and vo and the third said Shabbatot and vam. PKvS. David Bannett From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 20:22:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2017 05:22:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If the issue was jealousy of sefardim, people would want to drop the minhag entirely. There is that, but only on the fringe. These chumrot seem like a false imposition, something someone invented. You can only hear "when I was a kid, we ate X, Y, Z" or "I went to a shiur and the rav said X, Y, Z are muttar" so many times before asking yourself "so why don't we eat X, Y, Z"? And yes, intermarriage is a huge factor. On 4/8/2017 12:48 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I can this of two very different possibilities: One is negative, that > there is some sort of jealousy to the sefardim, or taavah for the many > products that are available. The other is positive, that this is > simply a natural development of how minhagim change over the centuries > when communities mix. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:00:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:00:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) > ... > He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak > was never accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat. > He adds that PERHAPS there is a reason to prohibit potato flour > (serach kitniyot - based on chiddishin of RSZA to Pesachim). > Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be > prohibited (ie even according to those that eat gebrochs) ... To me, it seems contradictory to allow gebroks yet forbid matza meal cake. Yet it certainly seems that this is how RSZA held. I think I'm going to have to retract most of my recent posts. Or add least append a big "tzorech iyun" to them. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:22:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimetics [was:kitnoyot] Message-ID: > Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be > mimetically defined, by definition, .... [--RMB] WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be determinative. Lisa >>>>> "Shema beni mussar avicha, VE'AL TITOSH TORAS IMECHA." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:19:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <23551cea-98c2-5446-2323-d0fb7e82cc09@starways.net> On 4/8/2017 1:48 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Eli Turkel wrote: > > <<< I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been > a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. >>> > > Is this only in the DL community? If so, can anyone suggest why this > would be so? I think it's because the DL community is the community that is (a) committed to the Torah and (b) not stuck in fear mode. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 01:16:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 11:16:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller asked why in the dati leumi community there is a backlash against kitniyos? I think there are a number of reasons for this: 1. Theological - The Dati Leumi community views the establishment of the State of Israel as a significant theological event, the beginning of the Geula. They view the state as having significance. Therefore, they view the Jewish people as much more of an organic whole and want to eliminate things that separate the Jewish people into groups. Kitniyos very much does that. There is no question that whan Moshiach comes the division between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no machlokes. The Charedi world on the other hand believes that we are still fully in Galus and nothing has changed. 2. The Dati Leumi community isw much less segragated between sefardim and Ashkenazim. There are no ashkenazi or sefardi yeshivas and there is quite a bit of "intermarriage". If your daughter marries a Sefardi do you suddently not go to her for Pesach because she eats kitniyos? 3. People realize the hypocrisy of not eating kitniyos while eating kosgher l'pesach pretzels. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:31:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:31:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Why can't one argue that as long as the qitniyos is a mi'ut of > the cottage cheese, and as long as it's not against the mixer's > own minhag or that of the main bulk of people for whom he is > mixing, the food is permissible for Ashkenazim too? > > ... What if an Ashkenazi was doing the mixing on a product where > most of the target customer base is Sepharadi? I would like to focus on the words "target customer base". We have to distinguish the manufacturer's customer base from the hashgacha's customer base. The two might be identical for a small brand that markets only to frum neighborhoods, but not for an industry giant like Strauss. We can presume that the manufacturer and their target customer base is mostly not makpid about kitniyos. Therefore, the manufacturer is doing nothing wrong by putting kitniyos into the product, and once they have done so, it is acceptable even for Ashkenazim, exactly as RMB suggests. But the hashgacha cannot put their certification on it. The target customer base of this hashgacha seems to be people who *are* makpid on kitniyos. (If they're not the majority of the hashgacha's clientele, they are at least a very significant minority.) And as such, the hashgacha has accepted the responsibility to act in place of their clientele at the factory. This turns it into a "bittul lechatchila" situation, and the hashgacha cannot grant an official okay to such products without an accompanying warning, which is exactly what they seem to have done. > (Now, add to that mei qitniyos, and whether corn should have > been added to the minhag, the observation that it is primarily > NOT made for Ashkenazi Jews, and ask the same thing about Coca > Cola.) Not just Coca Cola. Weren't we discussing chocolate bars a few weeks ago? Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 23:42:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 02:42:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman Message-ID: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> I tend to agree with the negative aspect of stealing the Afikoman. Very similarly, I feel the minhag to get so drunk on Purim so that you can?t distinguish between blessed be Mordecai and cursed be Haman is a very bad minhag and more offensive than stealing the afikoman. You are encouraging people to get drunk and that also has caused many problems in recent times. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:02:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:02:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman In-Reply-To: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> References: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 02:42:40AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : I tend to agree with the negative aspect of stealing the Afikoman. : Very similarly, I feel the minhag to get so drunk on Purim so that : you can?t distinguish between blessed be Mordecai and cursed be Haman : is a very bad minhag and more offensive than stealing the afikoman. Yeah, I don't see how teaching kids to steal the afiqoman is going to weaken their knowledge that it's wrong to steal. Should kids playing baseball not steal home? Just because the rule of the game is called "stealing"? But there is backlash against the drunk-on-Purim minhag too. The OU and RCA each put out something like annually. Hatzola puts out warnings. There are black-n-white wearing yeshivos that clamped down on their kids getting drunk when doing their Purim fundraising. And there has been backlash to the backlash, by people who value minhag. Really, the treatment of the two has been pretty parallel. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:19:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman In-Reply-To: <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> References: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <621677e8-92b7-ca89-7197-201a3af3f7e6@sero.name> On 09/04/17 09:02, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Yeah, I don't see how teaching kids to steal the afiqoman is going > to weaken their knowledge that it's wrong to steal. Should kids > playing baseball not steal home? Just because the rule of the game > is called "stealing"? That's a different sense of the word: "4. to move or convey stealthily". As in "with cat-like tread upon our prey we steal". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:48:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:48:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > There is no question that when Moshiach comes the division > between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The > Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no > machlokes. This is news to me. There is no machlokes here to be paskened. Everyone agrees that the halacha allows even rice to Ashkenazim. It is all minhag. Even if the Sanhendrin would want to, I don't know where they'd get the authority to do away with minhagim. On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim! > The Dati Leumi community is much less segregated between > sefardim and Ashkenazim. There are no ashkenazi or sefardi > yeshivas and there is quite a bit of "intermarriage". If your > daughter marries a Sefardi do you suddently not go to her for > Pesach because she eats kitniyos? That depends on your posek. By my memory, many poskim, including among the DL, hold that one can eat from the keilim, but to avoid actual kitniyos. And many other shitos in both directions. > People realize the hypocrisy of not eating kitniyos while > eating kosher l'pesach pretzels. I was arguing strenuously against this until a few hours ago, when I was reminded that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach held this way too. Perhaps I have overdosed on inoculations of matza meal cake and matza meal pancakes, and I cannot see myself ever sharing this view. But having seen RSZA's words, I cannot claim that it is only the little people who say this - it's the big guns too. And I would be indebted to any listmembers who would quote other gedolim on this topic. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 15:47:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 08:47:40 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyos - Why do today's Poskim argue with the Mishneh Berurah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can anyone show some Halachic source that argues with the Mishneh Berurah who Paskens that Foods containing LESS THAN 50% Kitniyos that is at the same time not visually discernible Although its taste is certainly discernible, is Muttar during Pesach? Is a Rov permitted to refuse to identify a Kosher product as Kosher (or worse, declare a product not Kosher) because of other considerations? See this article http://www.kosherveyosher.com/chocolate-pesach-lecithin-1001.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 01:45:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:45:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] order of the seder Message-ID: < See "leil haPesach be-taludum shel chachamim" (Hebrew) by David Henshkr who has a detailed discussion -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 01:47:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:47:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Matzah meal Message-ID: <> In Israel it is readily available in many supermarkets -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 02:04:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:04:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism Message-ID: <> Doesn't answer my question of how mimeticism deals with new situations. Sticking to kitniyot by patents used cottenseed oil but knew nothing about Canola oil or Lecitisthin <> Let me use this to sound off. I have a major problem with textualiism. In some circles it means studying a sugya and coming to a conclusion without any regard to the outside world. In regard to shiurim the Noda Yehuda has a question. One doesn't suddenly change minhagim because of a question. In recent years this doubling of shiurim has become popular because of CI. First there is evidence that CI himself did not use his own shiur. It is well known that some descendants of the CC don't use his kiddush cup because it is not shiur CI. However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. Even a slightly smaller shiur would hit various walls making it impossible to walk around while various testimonies make it smaller. There is now a new exhibition of a virtual 3D reality of walking around the bet hamikdash. It is based on aerial photographs of the current Temple mount and supplemented by details in the Mishna and archaeology using the topography of the land. Theis construction places the holy har habayit on the currently raised portion of the Temple mount. This yields an amah of about 38cm (CI=57, CN=44-48) Other proofs included the length of the Siloam tunnel which is documents in amot and can be measured. One of the strongest proofs is based on the meitzah of the cohen gadol which could not possibly hold the shiur of CI (note that if his hands were bigger this would redefine the amah). As to changes over the generations olive pits from the Bar Chocba era are the same size as today. In spite of a preponderous evidence that the shiur of CI is way too large almost all seforim in Israel give the amount of matzah to eat and wine to drink based on CI (at least lechatchila). This is textualism at the extreme in contrast to common sense -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 03:15:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "I have an opportunity to kill the terrorist..." Message-ID: <20170410101557.GA14700@aishdas.org> Anyone want to try this one, with meqoros? RSE raises two issues: killing a neutralized terrorist, and (I guess) dina demalkhusa on the topic. Chag Kasher veSameaich (belashon "lo zu af zu"), -micha The Jewish Press Tzfat Chief Rabbi Was Asked in Real Time whether to Kill Ramming Terrorist By David Israel -- 11 Nisan 5777 -- April 7, 2017 http://www.jewishpress.com/news/jewish-news/tzfat-chief-rabbi-was-asked-in-real-time-whether-to-kill-ramming-terrorist/2017/04/07/ Chief Rabbi of Tzfat Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, who is not known for particularly leftwing sympathies (he encourages his flock to refuse Arab renters, for instance), on Thursday night told a class he was teaching that one of his students had phoned him from the scene of the ramming attack that killed an IDF soldier. The student posed a halachic inquiry: "He told me, I see my buddy here lying down dead," Rabbi Eliyahu recalled, adding that his student had asked, "I have an opportunity to kill the terrorist - should I kill him or not?" Advertisement Around 10 AM, Thursday, an Arab terrorist rammed his vehicle into two IDF soldiers waiting at a hitchhiking post on Rt. 60, outside Ofra in Judea and Samaria. Sgt. Elhai Teharlev HY"D, 20, was killed, and the other soldier was injured. The terrorist was arrested by security forces. Rabbi Eliyahu said that his response was that "this terrorist deserves to die. However, unfortunately, the laws in this country are not well constructed, and so there is no legal way to do to him what needs to be done." "I told him that had he been able to do it while the attack was on it would have been possible, but we were after the event, unfortunately." Advertisement From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 03:39:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed Message-ID: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ > Let me run an idea by you guys... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha > 2. Melacha is forbidden on chol hamoed > 3. One of the permits for doing melacha is for tzorech hamoed, but in this > case, if possible you should do the melacha before the chag > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. > 5. If you find yourself on chol hamoed without pre-torn toilet paper, you > can tear it, however preferably not on the lines. > Am I crazy? :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 04:54:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:54:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> References: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2017 1:40 PM, "Micha Berger via Avodah" wrote... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha > 2. Melacha is forbidden on chol hamoed > 3. One of the permits for doing melacha is for tzorech hamoed, but in this > case, if possible you should do the melacha before the chag > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. > 5. If you find yourself on chol hamoed without pre-torn toilet paper, you > can tear it, however preferably not on the lines. > Am I crazy? Not at all. Please see Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa perek 66 footnote 78. RSZA was machmir for himself, though the author suggests that nowdays it would be unnecessary. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 06:39:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:39:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12e4046f8d104931a3a60fafe99b3947@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > There is no question that when Moshiach comes the division > between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The > Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no > machlokes. This is news to me. There is no machlokes here to be paskened. Everyone agrees that the halacha allows even rice to Ashkenazim. It is all minhag. Even if the Sanhendrin would want to, I don't know where they'd get the authority to do away with minhagim. On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim! --------------------------------------- Aiui there is some debate as to how much practice was/will be standardized-some believe (IIRC R'HS) that the shevet Sanhedrin set local practice and few issues went to great sanhedrin for standardization. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 06:41:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:41:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170410134127.GB29583@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:04:31PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> Mimeticism evolves because culture evolves. : Doesn't answer my question of how mimeticism deals with new situations. It answers your question by implying there is no answer. There is no rule for how common practice will evolve. Rules are textual. But the truth is, halakhah requires both. Not every evolution of a minhag is valid. That way lies Catholic Israel. It has to pass muster against the sources and sevara. :-)|,|ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 07:54:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Misc interesting Halacha questions from R Shlomo Miller shlitah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <035201d2b20a$5ef3d1a0$1cdb74e0$@com> Misc interesting Halacha questions from R Shlomo Miller shlitah http://baisdovyosef.com/rabbi-past-questions/ Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlitah for a printout of all the Q&As (100 pgs) https://www.dropbox.com/s/70y971r0ct2l7x8/RS%20miller%20bartfeld%20questions .doc?dl=0 or email me offline mcohen at touchlogic.com GYT, mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 12 12:45:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:45:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz Message-ID: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy A rav gave over some quick halachot and cited the Shulhan Aruch that if one finds chameitz in one's home, you cover it (if you find it on shabbat/yom tov) and later burn it, or burn it right away (cholo moed). I asked, if one sold one's chameitz, how can you burn it? It now belongs to the non-jew. This rav (and second rav) said that the sale only includes the chameitz that you specify. If you don't have a piece of chameitz in mind, you didn't sell it. OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz, everything in all of his properties. It makes no mention of what you have in mind. If a contract say "ALL" it means all, n'est pas? So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 12 21:09:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:09:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taanis Bechoros - Women? Message-ID: My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros. So I read her Mishne Berurah 470:4, which gives the reason as because there are no halachos in which female firstborns have any such kedusha. That seemed to satisfy her, but it didn't satisfy me. After all, if a boy is his father's first but not his mother's first, then he has no kedusha which would require Pidyon Haben. Aruch Hashulchan 470:2 gives that same logic, but explains that although the father's first doesn't get a Pidyon Haben, he *does* have special halachos about inheritance, and Aruch Hashulchan 470:3 says the same thing regarding a boy who was born after a miscarriage, or a firstborn Kohen, or a firstborn Levi. My question is: So what? Why is the special status of "firstborn for inheritance" more relevant than "would've been killed in Mitzrayim"? (Please note that there is another case that I'm *not* asking about, namely, where none of the people at home was a technical bechor, then whoever was oldest was subject to Makas Bechoros. Since that could vary depending on who was home in any particular year, I can easily understand why it never got included in the minhag.) Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 13 13:24:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 23:24:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefirot Ha`omer Message-ID: Every year I would like to get deeper into the combinations of sefirot (or middot) that appear in siddurim with the counting of the Omer, and every year I get lost and confused. For example, what is the difference between hesed shebigevura and gevura shebehesed? If tiferet is a synthesis of hesed and gevura, how does it differ from either of the above? And so on and so on. There seem to be a thousand books and websites that explain the sefirot and their combinations in modern terms, but I haven't found any that quote or even cite primary sources. Where might one look for such sources? Mo`adim lesimha! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 13 22:56:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:56:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim!" Given the illogic of the minhag of kitniyos I think not. Why would they impose a din that makes no sense in today's world. With regards to visiting children R' AKiva Miler wrote: "That depends on your posek. By my memory, many poskim, including among the DL, hold that one can eat from the keilim, but to avoid actual kitniyos. And many other shitos in both directions." I was saying that facetiously. WADR you missed the forest for the trees. Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child and can't eat all the food. You are looking at this from a pure halachic perspceticve but in truth, there is a non-halachic sociologcal perspective here that needs to be addressed as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 14 01:12:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 11:12:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefirot Ha`omer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71537556-72e6-e4ec-3ea1-61c0f913fb9b@starways.net> Lama li kra? It seems pretty clear on the face of it. Hesed she'b'Gevura means that you're doing Hesed by means of Gevura. Your intended result is Hesed. The way you're achieving that Hesed is by an act of Gevura. So let's take R' Aryeh Kaplan's understanding of the two Middot, where Hesed means going above and beyond what is required, and Gevura is restraining yourself, and here are a couple of examples. You're at the grocery store, and there's one box of Wacky Macs left on the shelf. You see a mother with a bunch of her kids coming down the aisle, and the kids are beginning for Wacky Macs. So you don't take it. You're limiting yourself in order to do something nice (but not required) for the mother. That's Hesed she'b'Gevura. You're at the grocery store, and you've taken the last box of Wacky Macs. You know you shouldn't eat it, because it's all starch and fat, but you can't help it. You're standing at the checkout line, and there's a mother behind you whose kids are giving her a hard time because they wanted Wacky Macs, but the store is out. So you decide that this will help you keep your diet, and you offer the mother the box of Wacky Macs. You're doing something nice (but not required) for the mother in order to limit yourself. That's Gevura she'b'Hesed. It's a thin line, sometimes. Figuring out what the actual action (or inaction) is and what the purpose is. Means and ends. As far as Tiferet, while you can see it as a synthesis of Hesed and Gevura, which is nice if you like the thesis-antithesis-synthesis paradigm, it's really the point of balance between them. Where you aren't refraining and you aren't overdoing. Another term for Tiferet is Tzedek. Meaning doing what you're supposed to do, or what you're allowed to do: no more and no less. I think that one of the reasons there aren't books that cite primary sources about this is simply because there aren't any. There are primary sources about what the meaning of each of the Sefirot mean, but the combination should be fairly clear. That said, I know it isn't. When I was a camper as a kid, we had discussion groups about whether we were "Jewish Americans" or "American Jews". I was 12 the first time we did it, and it was a mess. The next time, I think I was 14 or 15, and I already realized what the problem was, although the counselor leading the discussion didn't. It's a matter of definitions. If you look at it in terms of language, one of those words is the noun, and the other is the adjective. The noun is what you *are*. The adjective just modifies it. So "American Jew" is putting being Jewish first, and "Jewish American" is putting being American first. But a lot of the other kids (and the counselor) were looking at it from the point of view of which *word* came first in the phrase. And theoretically, I suppose, you could interpret X she'b'Y in the opposite way from what I've described above, but I'm not sure there's a real nafka mina, because we cover all the combinations. It just seems to me that the first week, we deal with the concept of *doing* Hesed, with all 7 possible intents, since these 7 Sefirot are fundamentally Sefirot of action (and interaction), as opposed to the first three, which are Sefirot of mind. But can you say that the first week, we talk about the concept of *intending* Hesed, with all 7 possible methods? I suppose. It's not the way I look at it, but absent primary sources to determine which way is right, I suppose it's possible. Shabbat Shalom and Moadim L'Simcha, Lisa On 4/13/2017 11:24 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > Every year I would like to get deeper into the combinations of sefirot > (or middot) that appear in siddurim with the counting of the Omer, and > every year I get lost and confused. For example, what is the > difference between hesed shebigevura and gevura shebehesed? If tiferet > is a synthesis of hesed and gevura, how does it differ from either of > the above? And so on and so on. > > There seem to be a thousand books and websites that explain the > sefirot and their combinations in modern terms, but I haven't found > any that quote or even cite primary sources. Where might one look for > such sources? > > Mo`adim lesimha! > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 14 06:40:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:40:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <491b0760-73a4-cf76-550a-2c2dfb57aeb3@sero.name> On 14/04/17 01:56, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > I was saying that facetiously. WADR you missed the forest for the trees. > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child and > can't eat all the food. If you think that's a problem now, wait till Moshiach comes and you have parents visiting their daughter who married a Cohen. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 11:52:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 20:52:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8fe0a1db-6349-9011-e2d4-ea78a89684eb@zahav.net.il> I've said this before but it bares repeating. I was married to someone with multiple food allergies. Cooking even at home was always a challenge. Going out to eat at someone else's house and giving them the list of what yes, what no made that it even harder. Whenever we had guests, we always asked about food allergies, kashrut requirements, and preferences. Compared to allergies, kashrut stuff was kid's play. More than that, I learned that it is perfectly OK to have food on the table that not everyone can eat. Any vegetarian who came over expecting to be able to eat everything was disappointed. Not being able to eat rice and having to settle for the five other dishes doesn't even make it on my radar. Thinking that one should be able to eat everything is a sense of entitlement that I don't accept. Ben On 4/14/2017 7:56 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child > and can't eat all the food. > > You are looking at this from a pure halachic perspceticve but in > truth, there is a non-halachic sociologcal perspective here that needs > to be addressed as well. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 18:36:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:36:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > Given the illogic of the minhag of kitniyos ... ... > Why would they impose a din that makes no sense in today's world. I could easily argue that avoidance of poultry and milk "makes no sense in today's world." I'd like to hear whether other people think that din to be logical or illogical. (One is a minhag, and the other is d'rabbanan, but that's a side issue. My question is whether one is less logical than the other.) Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 18:22:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:22:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini Message-ID: One of the main areas this portion deals with is kashruth. There is an overriding concept in the laws of kashruth that the characteristics of what we eat somehow have a great influence on the way we behave. We do not want to associate ourselves with cruelty, therefore we are forbidden to eat cruel animals, and in this case certain fowl. Among the fowl that are listed as being non kosher is the chasidah, the white stork. You may ask what cruel character trait does the stork possess. Rashi mentions that the reason it is called a "chasidah" is because it does chesed with its friends regarding the food it finds. On the surface this seems strange. If the stork acts kindly with its food, why is it disqualified as being kosher? A beautiful explanation to this difficulty has been given by the Chidushei Harim, a Chassidic 19th century Talmudic scholar, in which he explains the nature of the stork. He says that the fact the stork only shows its kindness with its friends defines its cruelty. A fowl who is not in the circle of the stork's good buddies is excluded from getting any help from the stork in finding food. In other words, the stork is very selective in its kindness. This type of kindness is misleading. We, as Jews, are commanded to help our foes. If we come across someone we dislike intensely who needs help, we are commanded to help. The stork, on the other hand, helps only his friends. It is this character trait of differentiating between close friends and others when it comes to providing food that makes the stork non-kosher. Chesed means reaching out altruistically, with love and generosity to all. The process of maturing involves developing our sense of caring for others. This is crucial for spiritual health. The Talmud likens someone who doesn't give to others as the "walking dead.? A non-giving soul is malnourished and withered. It is only through unconditional love that our successful future will be built. In the words of King David (Psalm 89:3): Olam chesed yibaneh - "the world is built on kindness.? May we live to see this kindness and care infused in all our lives. Kindness is the language the deaf can hear and the blind can see. Mark Twain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 12:40:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:40:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: <042313fe1c2b495fbe8f8efad437f69d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <042313fe1c2b495fbe8f8efad437f69d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: I was reminded of this question this evening. Our shul is nominally nusach Sefard. However if someone (like moi) does daven Ashkenaz, the gabbi is OK, but insists on things like: Saying Shir Ha'ma'lot in Maariv Saying Keter during Mussaf Ben On 3/30/2017 2:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Visiting a shul questions-actual practices and sources appreciated: > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:45:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:45:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ff40b88-0f88-fb08-9c92-10e44bbdfc3d@zahav.net.il> A bit of perspective here: this is the Orthodox version of a first world problem. 100 years ago how many Ashkenazim and Sefardim even met, much less intermarried or lived in the same neighborhoods? At most, this is a bit of growing pain. Ben On 4/14/2017 7:56 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child > and can't eat all the food. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:34:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:34:27 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: How do we determine when the dough is baked to the point where it can no longer become Chamets? when there are no Chutim NimShaChim When the Matza is torn apart there are no doughy threads stretching between the two pieces. These days this test is not available because so little water is added to the flour that there is no opportunity for the chemical reaction that activates the gluten and even when the Matza, or the batch of dough is torn BEFORE it is put into the oven there are NO Chutim NimShaChim [this is noted by the Chazon Ish] So if one suggests that there is a possibility that some flour within [but not on the surface of] the Matza which is protected from the heat of the oven and does not become baked [as once it is baked, flour can not become Chamets] then the Chashash that this flour might become Chamets if it becomes wet pales into insignificance and is completely eclipsed by the much greater risk that the middle part of the Matza which may not have been baked may actually be Chamets [Gamur] The fact that it is now now dry means nothing that is simply dehydrated dough AKA Chamets, maybe Chamets Nukshe Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:40:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:40:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed Message-ID: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ > Let me run an idea by you guys... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha....... > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. >>>>> It seems to me you are no more obligated to tear toilet paper for the whole week than you are to do all your cooking for the whole week before the yom tov. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:49:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:49:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taanis Bechoros - Women? Message-ID: <63e57.57f1ef36.46246de8@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros. << Akiva Miller >>>>> That's a pretty obscure medrash. It is seemingly contradicted by the Torah itself, which specifies that a pidyon haben is required for a firstborn boy because the firstborn boys were spared makas bechoros in Egypt. Nothing about a pidyon habas. On the other hand, according to Sefer HaToda'ah (Book of Our Heritage), "There are different customs associated with this fast. Some say that every firstborn, male or female, whether from the father or from the mother, must fast on that day. If there is no firstborn, then the oldest in the house must fast.....However others say that only firstborn males need to fast and this is the generally accepted custom." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 21:50:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Martin Brody via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:50:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Fast of the First Born. Message-ID: Akiva Miller posted "My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros etc." Maybe because the fast has nothing to do with the 10th plague at all? They should be celebrating, not fasting! Fasting is for repentance. More likely the Sin of the Golden Calf, when the firstborn lost their priestly status. On the 14th the first born have to watch the Aaronite priests slaughtering the Pascal offering instead of them. Cheers Martin Brody From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 20:55:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:55:38 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen son in law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: when Moshiach comes parents will seek a cohen for a son in law because it's a great investment, they can feed their son in law and his family with their tithes. It's like having the Bechor reinstated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 06:28:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:28:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is > impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har > habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. > ... > This construction places the holy har habayit on the currently > raised portion of the Temple mount. This yields an amah of about > 38cm (CI=57, CN=44-48) > Other proofs included the length of the Siloam tunnel which is > documents in amot and can be measured. ... I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction as well. The minimum shiur for a mikveh is 3 cubic amos, as this is the size that a typical person could fit into. Who among us could fit into a space 38x38x114 cm? (15x15x45 inches)? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 06:41:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:41:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > If you think that's a problem now, wait till Moshiach comes and > you have parents visiting their daughter who married a Cohen. Indeed! And I think an even more common case will be a husband (regardless of shevet) who wants (or needs) to eat taharos, but his wife is nidah. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:28:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:28:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170416212823.GC13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 09:28:13AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Eli Turkel wrote: : > However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is : > impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har : > habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. I pointed out that we know length of the water tunnel in meters and rounded to two digits precision amos. In contrast, the current Har haBayis platform post-dates Hadrian y"sh lobbing off the top of the mountain and dumping it into the valley between the kotel and the current Moslem and Jewish Quarters. So we really only have part of one wall to go on. The floor can't possibly date back to either BHMQ. But that doesn't mean the shiur is impossible. The shiur may indeed be at odds with historical interpretations of the halakhah. Even perhaps by accident. But would that necessarily mean it's not binding? In either case, the CI's ammah is textual. RCNaeh's ammah is a textualist's attempt to formalize a precise number that is basicallhy consistent with the praactice of the Yishuv haYashan. Mimeticism-driven. RAM himself replied: : I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction as well. : The minimum shiur for a mikveh is 3 cubic amos, as this is the size : that a typical person could fit into. Who among us could fit into a : space 38x38x114 cm? (15x15x45 inches)? According to http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13993-stature , in 1906, the average Jewish man was about 162cm high. Let's make his miqvah 165 x 31 x 31 cm. Same volume of water. A maximum belt size of something like 97 cm (39") would fit. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:49:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 10:29:56AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) ... : RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who : determines this minhag?) Well, if it's mimetic, you just watch what people do. And if so, RSZA's statement is descriptive, not descriptive. As in: Lemaaseh, people are nohagim not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach. : He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never : accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason than the one given. ... : Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be prohibited (ie : even according to those that eat gebrochs) (yesh ladun behem - Pesachim 40b : - Rashi that when people are "mezalzel one should be machmir) Who is being mezalzel on chameitz? If he saying that because some people are questioning qitniyos, we should strengthen qitniyos, then what does that have to do with foods not already under that umbrella? And even among those who question the minhag's sanity, is there really a major zilzul going on among Ashkenazim doing less and less to avoid qitniyios? On the contrary, as your translation opens, avoiding shemen qitniyos has spread well beyond the communities that originally had that minhag, to the extent that it's being applied to foods that in the past weren't on the list of qitniyos! The questioning is a counter-reaction to the growth of the minhag. Who is being mezalzel? : In the notes that this was what RSZA said in shiurim and when asked a : question responded that one should follow the family minhag... Ascerting mimeticism over his own textualism. Sevara aside, minhag is whatever is the accepted practice. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:30:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:30:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach - Lecithin does not render chocolate non-KLP for Ashkenasim In-Reply-To: References: <0b78331e-194b-c586-6de0-fc623959e4e3@sero.name> <32449da1-df34-d5e8-7170-a2c8676adf0e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170416213032.GD13509@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 07:25:10AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 2) The prohibition of being m'vateil an issur applies to the super : corporations that run the milk industry? This is a case where buying Chalav Yisrael, which is de rigeur in Zev's Chabad community, would be more problematic. After all, something done for CY milk is being done for Jews. Something done for stam OUD milk would not be. :-)||ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:38:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Poisoning in Halacha In-Reply-To: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> References: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170416213850.GE13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 10:16:10PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: : Tonight my chevrusa and I learned the sugya in Bava Kamma 47b of one who : puts poison in front of his friend's animal. A brief synopsis and : application of the sugya is at : http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/infected: ... : It struck us that it follows that if one poisons another human being by, : say, placing cyanide in his tea, which the victim then drinks and dies, : the poisoner is exempt from capitol punishment. It would seem that such : a manner of murder falls into the category of the Rambam's ruling in : Hilchos Rotze'ach u'Shemiras Nefesh 3:10: It might be similarly true, but I don't know if "it follows". After all, gerama in Choshein Mishpat has a more limited definition than in hilkhos Shabbos. So, it didn't have to be true that the same definitions of gerama and garmi apply in dinei mamunus as in dinei nefashos. Lemaaseh, they are consistent. I would ask the Y-mi-style question: How is retzichah more similar to mamon than it is to Shabbos? :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:10:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:10:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> References: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> Message-ID: <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 2:40am EDT, RnTK wrote: :> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook :> https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ :> Let me run an idea by you guys... :> 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha....... :> 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the :> beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. : It seems to me you are no more obligated to tear toilet paper for the whole : week than you are to do all your cooking for the whole week before the yom : tov. Actually, the heter is that the food tastes better when made closer to eating time. But if one is talking about food that would taste as good if made days ahead (including the logistical limitations of storage), one is actually supposed to be cooking it before YT. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 15:44:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:44:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> References: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> On 16/04/17 17:49, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never > : accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... > > But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod > bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason > than the one given. again, no he doesn't. We just went through this last week. He never proposed it, even as a hava amina, and never gives a reason against it. He merely reports, as a matter of fact and completely without comment for or against it, that he heard that in Germany they forbid potatoes because over there they make flour from them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 15:36:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:36:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> References: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8d50d8fe-f514-fdbf-c460-9971ad347ed9@sero.name> On 16/04/17 17:10, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Actually, the heter is that the food tastes better when made closer to > eating time. But if one is talking about food that would taste as good > if made days ahead (including the logistical limitations of storage), > one is actually supposed to be cooking it before YT. But not before chol hamoed. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 20:00:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:00:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> References: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170419030020.GA29092@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 06:44:54PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 16/04/17 17:49, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >: He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never : >: accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... : >But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod : >bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason : >than the one given. : : again, no he doesn't. We just went through this last week... And given the relatice abilities of RSZA and you to read the Chayei Adam, you're obviously mistaken. : never proposed it, even as a hava amina... He reports the existence of such a minhag, and recommends against its adoption. Close enough. You're setting yourself up as a baal pelugta of RSZA by splitting hairs to crration a distinction without a difference? Really? -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 19:56:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:56:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Isru Chag Message-ID: <68F6CB3B-3D32-4BF0-A68E-3AD77FD7EE69@cox.net> The gematria for Isru Chag is 278, the same gematria for l'machar found in Bamidbar, Ch.11, vs.18. This is in the Sidra, Beha?a'lotcha, where God has Moshe establish a Sanhedrin because Moshe complained that he could not carry on alone. God says to Moshe: "To the people you shall say, 'Prepare yourselves for tomorrow and you shall eat meat..." There is an interesting tie here. The day after a festival is the "morrow" and even though the holiday is over, we must always be preparing ourselves. (Also, in counting the omer, we are preparing ourselves for the climax of our faith in 50 days). A good Isru chag to all. ri ?By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.? Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 21:06:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:06:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: R' Meir G. Rabi explained his logic: > if one suggests that > there is a possibility that > some flour > within [but not on the surface of] the Matza > which is protected from the heat of the oven > and does not become baked > [as once it is baked, flour can not become Chamets] > then the Chashash that this flour > might become Chamets if it becomes wet > pales into insignificance > and is completely eclipsed by the much greater risk > that the middle part of the Matza > which may not have been baked > may actually be Chamets [Gamur] I do not follow this logic. He is comparing two distinctly different risks. For simplicity, I'd like to call one risk "insufficiently kneaded" and the other one "insufficiently baked". "Insufficiently kneaded" means that there might be some flour in the middle of the matza that never got wet and is still plain raw flour, and that if it gets wet it will become chometz. "Insufficiently baked" means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not get baked, and it is already chometz. And RMGR feels that the second of these is a "much greater risk". I don't know where he gets the statistics to say that "insufficiently kneaded" is a small risk (his words are "pales into insignificance"), and that "insufficiently baked" is a "much greater risk". Personally, my opinion is that *IF* one checks his matzos to be sure that they are uniformly thin, *AND* checks to be sure that they have none of the kefulos or other problems that halacha warns us about, then he can be confident that no part of the matza was insufficiently baked, and they are NOT chometz. Thus, there are steps that the consumer can take to minimize the risk that his matzos were insufficiently baked. In contrast, I don't know of any way that the consumer can check the matzos to verify that they were kneaded well enough; who knows if there might be a few particles of flour that never got wet? I guess the consumer has to rely on the manufacturer and hechsher to insure that they are doing a good enough job of kneading the dough. Anyway, my main point is that these two risks are distinct from each other. I don't see any logical connection between them. From the way he worded the subject line, it sounds like RMGR is making a "kal vachomer", that if one is worried about one of the risks, then he must certainly worry about the other one, but I don't see that. (In fact, I can't even figure out which risk he feels leads to the other.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 13:17:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:17:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: I am moving this to Avodah. >From: Ben Waxman via Areivim >To: Simon Montagu via Areivim , areivim > >Why is this even an issue? Meaning, why is it such an issue that people >with a different minhag are davening together*? Or is the issue that >both sides feel that the other is doing an aveira**? > >*Sefardim and Ashkenazim wrap their teffilin differently. That factoid >doesn't stop anyone from praying together. >** Which brings up other issues. >Ben My understanding is that people who wear Tefillen during Cho Moed are not supposed to wear them in a minyan where the custom is that no one wears Tefillen. I know that in a couple of shuls near me they are makpid that those who wear Tefillen and those who do not do wear them do not daven together until after the kedusha of shachris when Tefillen are taken off. In the Kivasikin minyan that I normally daven with, those who were Tefillen are upstairs in what is normally the ladies section. After Kedusha of Shachris, those upstairs join those downstairs for a Hallel. I have been told that in the Agudah in Baltimore those who wear Tefillen are on one side of the mechitza and those who don't are on the other side until after kedusha of shachris. So, apparently there is a problem with having a mix of Tefillen wearers and non-wearers during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 14:17:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:17:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:17:21PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : So, apparently there is a problem with having a mix of Tefillen : wearers and non-wearers during Chol Moed. Lo sisgodedu. The pasuq behind the whole notion of minhag hamaqom altogether. Eg see MB 31 s"q 8. The AhS OC 31:4 is okay with minyanim that are mixed between wearers and non-wearers. Nowadays, when the concept of minhag hamaqom is so weak and has so little to do with our sence of belonging, I think the psychology is the opposite as that assumed by those who apply lo sisgodedu. Having two minyanim is more divided, and certainly if it ends up an argument about which part of the minyan is behind the mechitzah. Look how in Israel, many minyanim ignore the halakhos of having a set nusach for the beis kenesses and just let each chazan use his own minhag avos! And this enables a single minyan to function in spite of diversity; a variety of Jews from different cultures able to daven together! Tir'u baTov! -Micha (PS: "wfb" summarized a nice list of sources about whether they should be worn from R Jacob Katz's article in Halakhah veQabbalah at .) -- Micha Berger Today is the 8th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed for another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 14:41:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:41:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Why would tefillin be any different to the various different practises about who does and doesn't wear a tallis? I have never heard of a non-tallis-wearing post-bar-mitzva boy being banished behind the mechitza at a yekkishe shul, or vice versa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 01:20:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:20:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> I didn't understand the question. My daughter married a sefardi and they eat kitniyot. I was by them for seder and everything served was without kiniyot. BTW I not aware of any shitah that there is a problem with keilim used for kitniyot. BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given modern communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a problem but there might be technological answers to that also. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 01:38:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:38:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kiniyot Message-ID: <<: RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who : determines this minhag?) Well, if it's mimetic, you just watch what people do. And if so, RSZA's statement is descriptive, not descriptive. As in: Lemaaseh, people are nohagim not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach. ... Sevara aside, minhag is whatever is the accepted practice. >> The question is "whose minhag". RSZA is stating what he saw. In my area of New York everyone used cottenseed oil. I recently saw a discussion of women saying kaddish. After a lengthy discussion the author concludes that the minhag is for women not to say kaddish. Well in almost all the shuls in my town women do say kaddish. I understand that even the Rama in SA in quoting minhag means Polish (Krakow) minhag and many other existing minhagim in Russia, or Italy were ignored. Similar things in the Sefardi communities. There are several cases that ROY opposes Morrocan customs as being against (sefardi) halacha but are heatedly defended by Moroccan rabbis. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 05:15:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:15:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Look how in Israel, many minyanim ignore the halakhos of having a set nusach for the beis kenesses and just let each chazan use his own minhag avos! And this enables a single minyan to function in spite of diversity; a variety of Jews from different cultures able to daven together! ---------------------------------- Which gets to the heart of the matter - some see diversity of Minhag as lchatchila (all the shvatim had their own Sanhedrin/practice) while others see it as a result of galut. IMHO this debate will continue ad biat hagoel (may it be very soon) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 05:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41e2d260-e360-8e8e-4d15-6f524b655121@sero.name> On 20/04/17 04:20, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make > sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given > modern communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush > hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a problem but there might be > technological answers to that also. The simplest method of getting word of kiddush hachodesh to the whole world on Shabbos/Yomtov is to have a goy send a tweet, which every Jewish house or shul could be set up beforehand to receive. Amira lenochri is of course midrabbanan, so the Sanhedrin can authorise an exception. But there's an even better solution: Kidush hachodesh (as opposed to notifying people about it) is docheh Shabbos/Yomtov. Eidim can be positioned in advance in places guaranteed to have no cloud cover and a good view of the moon (perhaps Ramon Crater?), and they can then drive to Yerushalayim, arriving in plenty of time to testify as soon as the beit din opens in the morning. They could even be positioned on desert mountaintops in chu"l, and fly in. Thus we could guarantee in advance that Elul will never again have a 30th day, and everyone could rely on that without actually being notified on the day. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 09:38:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:38:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:20:04AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make sense I : vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given modern : communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush : hachodesh instantaneously.... I would like to suggest a different angle on YT Sheini. It's not so much that Chazal were afraid of the same problems might arise in bayis shelishi. After all, the language in the gemara isn't the usual that we find with (eg) chadash on Nisan 16 or other taqanos to avoid that kind of problem. I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh ought to be al pi re'iyah. It is that important to remember that the progression is "meqadesh Yisrael vehazmanim", that people sanctify time, rather than the times imposing themselves on people. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 10:13:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:13:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> On 21/04/17 12:38, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I would like to suggest a different angle on YT Sheini. > > It's not so much that Chazal were afraid of the same problems might > arise in bayis shelishi. After all, the language in the gemara isn't > the usual that we find with (eg) chadash on Nisan 16 or other taqanos > to avoid that kind of problem. The language is "sometimes the kingdom will decree a decree"; therefore in an era when -- according to all opinions -- we will never again be subject to hostile kingdoms, it would seem no longer relevant. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 10:45:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:45:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:13:27PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The language is "sometimes the kingdom will decree a decree"; : therefore in an era when -- according to all opinions -- we will : never again be subject to hostile kingdoms, it would seem no longer : relevant. The language of the azhara to keep the minhag talks about zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah. Rashi ad loc says that the said gezeira would be against studying Torah, the community would lose the sod ha'ibbur and mess up their version of the calculation. But that's not the cause for keeping the minhag going. Because that rationale has nothing to do with where the messengers could arrive on time back when we needed them. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 11:23:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:23:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:58:36PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: :> The language of the azhara to keep the minhag talks about zimnin degazru :> hamalkhus gezeirah. :> Rashi ad loc says that the said gezeira would be against studying Torah, :> the community would lose the sod ha'ibbur and mess up their version of :> the calculation. :> But that's not the cause for keeping the minhag going. : The letter explicitly says that *was* the reason. You don't address my claim, just deny it. What the gemara says the letter read was: Hizharu beminhag avoseikhem! Zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah, ve'asi le'ilqalqulei. This is a motive given for "hizharu". (The letter expliticly says so.) Yes, it could mean that it's the motive for the minhag, which is so strong that that justifies not only keeping it going, but being warned But, given that the potential oppression does not justify the format of the minhag, this explanation must be for the caution alone. :> Because that :> rationale has nothing to do with where the messengers could arrive on :> time back when we needed them. : Those places never had a minhag of two days, so Chazal weren't going : to institute one now. Why not? If the problem is the unreliability of a computed calendar that is done once for centuries ahead without a Sanhedrin, this is new to those in Israel too! I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. Then they add, that one shouldn't say it's not /that/ important, because there is a pragmatic benefit as well. (In any case, Chazal were instituting a derabbanan based on a pre-existing minhag. I don't think you intended to imply that the "one" being instituted now was a minhag.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 11:42:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> On 21/04/17 14:23, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > What the gemara says the letter read was: > Hizharu beminhag avoseikhem! > Zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah, ve'asi le'ilqalqulei. > > This is a motive given for "hizharu". (The letter expliticly says > so.) > > Yes, it could mean that it's the motive for the minhag, which is so > strong that that justifies not only keeping it going, but being warned > But, given that the potential oppression does not justify the format > of the minhag, this explanation must be for the caution alone. No, it's not the reason for the minhag in the first place; we know what that was, and it no longer applies. That's why they wrote to the Sanhedrin asking whether they should abandon it. Hizharu means don't abandon it, keep it going anyway, and the reason for doing so is Zimnin degazru. > : Those places never had a minhag of two days, so Chazal weren't going > : to institute one now. > > Why not? Because that would be an innovation and Zimnin degazru is not enough reason to do so. But it *is* enough reason to continue an already existing practise that has just become obsolete. It takes a lot more to justify changing existing practise than it does to continue it. > I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that > qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices > from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. But there's no hint of this, and the letter explicitly says otherwise. > (In any case, Chazal were instituting a derabbanan based on a pre-existing > minhag. Yes, exactly. It's a din derabanan that behaves *as if* it were a mere minhag, because that's what the rabbanan said it should do. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 12:26:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:26:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421192640.GA20001@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 02:42:49PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : No, it's not the reason for the minhag in the first place; we know : what that was, and it no longer applies. That's why they wrote to : the Sanhedrin asking whether they should abandon it. Hizharu means : don't abandon it, keep it going anyway, and the reason for doing so : is Zimnin degazru. No, hizharu means "be careful", not "keep it going anyway". This is NOT "kevar qiblu avoseikhem aleihem. Shene'emar 'Shemi beni musar avikha, ve'al titosh toras imekha.'" (Pesachim 50b) ... : >I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that : >qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices : >from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. : : But there's no hint of this, and the letter explicitly says otherwise. Again, only once you mistranslate what it means lehazhir. This "explicitly" is not only far from explicit, it's not even there! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 13:37:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:37:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer > make sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside > Israel. Given modern communications, the whole world would know > the time of kiddush hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a > problem but there might be technological answers to that also. Shavuos mochiach. Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. If you can discover all of them, and explain all of them, and explain how Shavuos fits, *then* we can discuss "gezerot that no longer make sense". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 14:21:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:21:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> On 4/21/2017 7:38 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole > taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh > ought to be al pi re'iyah. That's a real possibility. In addition, I suggest that halakha is intended to be feasible without any technology. Just imagine changing something this fundamental to rely on an electronic network that will inevitably be subject to attack by EMPs at some point. I don't think it would be responsible. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 10:35:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 20:35:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole > taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh > ought to be al pi re'iyah. > It is that important to remember that the progression is "meqadesh > Yisrael vehazmanim", that people sanctify time, rather than the times > imposing themselves on people. Even more so once a Sanhredin is reconstituted and there is qiddush hachodesh ougal pi re'iyah.there is no use for YT sheni From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 19:18:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:18:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170423021813.GC19870@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:21:23AM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : That's a real possibility. In addition, I suggest that halakha is : intended to be feasible without any technology. Just imagine : changing something this fundamental to rely on an electronic network : that will inevitably be subject to attack by EMPs at some point. I : don't think it would be responsible. While I get your basic point... What EMPs? Even by Shemu'el's rather prosaic version of the messianic era, ein bein olam hazeh liyamos hamoshiach ela shib'ud malkhius bilvad. Gut Voch! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 00:03:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 03:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: <59924.64874017.462dabd2@aol.com> [1] From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" >> My understanding is that people who wear Tefillen during Cho Moed are not supposed to wear them in a minyan where the custom is that no one wears Tefillen. I know that in a couple of shuls near me they are makpid that those who wear Tefillen and those who do not do wear them do not daven together until after the kedusha of shachris when Tefillen are taken off. << YL [2] From: Allan Engel via Avodah >> Why would tefillin be any different to the various different practises about who does and doesn't wear a tallis? I have never heard of a non-tallis-wearing post-bar-mitzva boy being banished behind the mechitza at a yekkishe shul, or vice versa. << >>>> The difference between the tallis-or-not issue and the tefillin-or-not issue is that the former is in the realm of minhag while the latter is in the realm of halacha. People are not so makpid about differing minhagim in the same shul, but differing piskei halacha in the same shul -- that is much more serious. When you have some men wearing tefillin and others not wearing tefillin in the same minyan on chol hamoed, the presence of each subset implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 00:14:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 10:14:12 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> Hard to imagine that all communication would be lost for 15 days. It certainly is less likely than some problem with lighting fires between mountains. Remember that originally the "entire" galut knew the correct date of Pesach and Succot and so there was only one day of yomtov. Only when there was a deliberate attempt to mislead was the system changed. Also interesting is that there is no discussion of communities beyond Bavel. What was done in Alexandria and Rome? In any case even if locally they kept 2 days it was widespread. BTW I assume it took months to reach Rome. If there was a community in Spain (sefarad) it was even longer. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 12:34:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:34:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tazria Message-ID: <60DB8D20-7368-440D-830C-67A3C69835DD@cox.net> Rabbi Zelig Pliskin, in his book ?Love Your Neighbor,? quotes a hilarious true story about Lashon Hora. Someone asked a cerain woman if she wished to borrow a copy of ?Guard Your Tongue? to study the laws of lashon hora. Her response was: ?I don?t need it. I never speak lashon hora. But my husband really needs it. He always speaks lashon hora." We all know about lashon hora and how speaking ill of others is rather a poor reflection of ourselves. However, taken to another level, it was the S?fat Emes who said that it also can refer to having failed to speak lashon tov. This brings to mind the poignant story of a man weeping uncontrollably at the grave of his young wife. When the rabbi tried to console him by saying how good he was to her, he replied: ?Oh, rabbi, how I loved her so much and once I almost told her.? We have friends who take the time and effort to say nice things, and it would even be nicer if more of us did that. You never know the ripple effect a good word can have. ri After receiving another notice from school about bad behavior, a frustrated father sat to explain to his child the source of each one of the gray hairs in his once black beard. ?This one is from the last time the principal called about your misbehavior. This one is from the time you were mean to your sister. This one is from the time you broke our neighbor?s window,? etc., etc. The father looked at his child for a response to his appeal for better behavior, to which the child calmly replied: ?Oh, now it makes sense why Zaide has such a white beard!? Speech is the mirror of the soul Publilius Syrus, Latin Writer 85BCE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 11:47:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 18:47:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 256 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 25 15:03:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 22:03:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> "When you have some men wearing tefillin and others not wearing tefillin in the same minyan on chol hamoed, the presence of each subset implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment." Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people conscientiously following their family customs and davening together nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. Just a thought from a different perspective. Joseph Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 05:02:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:02:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "Shavuos mochiach. Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. If you can discover all of them, and explain all of them, and explain how Shavuos fits, *then* we can discuss "gezerot that no longer make sense"." The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 04:52:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:52:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Metzorah "LEPERS DO CHANGE THEIR SPOTS" Message-ID: On this, the Shabbos preceding Yom Haatzmaut, we read the Haftarah containing the following verse referring to the four lepers: ?And they said to one another: ?We are not doing the right thing; today is a day of good tidings and yet, we remain silent! If we wait until the light of dawn (until it?s too late), we will be adjudged as sinners; now come, let us go and report to the king?s palace.? Second Kings 7:9 It is fascinating that in our own times, this verse contains a challenging message. It is remarkable how the events of modern Israel ran parallel to the the story told in this Biblical chapter. The Arab armies besieging the Jewish community in Israel, their panic and sudden flight, the great deliverance which followed, and the birth of the State of Israel ? do we not see the hand of Providence in all these events? In one respect we are deeply worried. The lepers of the Haftarah possessed the moral obligation to proclaim the miracle. ?We are not doing the right thing. This is a day of good tidings and it is not proper that we should be quiet about it.? Many of us today (outcasts of yesterday) have still not risen to the moral height of recognizing that a miracle has transpired before our very eyes and therefore our duty to proclaim the greatness of the day! Let us, therefore, proclaim it to our children and to the world. Let us, with a firm belief in the future of Israel, do everything possible to assure its existence, strengthen its foundations, and thus look forward to the day of good tidings, the day of Israel?s total and quintessential Independence! rw John Adams: "I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations? They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews.? John F. Kennedy: "Israel was not created in order to disappear ? Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 13:29:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:03:43PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: :> implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This :> makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look :> bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. : Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly : perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people : conscientiously following their family customs and davening together : nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out : of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that : anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. I think we've lost sight of the original topic. Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. When I was a kid, we tefillin-wearers davened Shacharis in the basement, joining the rest of the shteibl only for the latter part of davening. We are therefore starting with data, the pesaq, and trying to figure out what that means aggadically. Not just blindly guessing about how things look in heaven. If things are as you portray it, the original question is stronger -- what you said doesn't resolve anything. BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos as self-identifications. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 15th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in Fax: (270) 514-1507 harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 14:42:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 21:42:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com>, <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> Lost sight of original topic? If that were a valid criticism we'd hear it at least once if not more in every issue. As to substance. I've been davening in shuls on chol haMoed for more than 50 years and every shul I've davened in, all Modern Orthodox led by rabbis who were well respected talmedei chachamim, had men with and without teffilin davening in one minyan together, sitting next to each other without problems or, I'm pretty sure, thinking of transgressors. That's MY data which I would hope is as valid as shteibl data. And that's what my response to my good friend Toby was trying to deal with. I wasn't the one to raise the perspective of Heaven but I found Toby's thoughtful comment refreshingly interesting and, as always, articulate, so I thought about it a bit and responded. I thought that what we do here on A/A. Joseph Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 26, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:03:43PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: > :> implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This > :> makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look > :> bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. > > : Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly > : perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people > : conscientiously following their family customs and davening together > : nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out > : of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that > : anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. > > I think we've lost sight of the original topic. > > Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in > a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises > evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. > > When I was a kid, we tefillin-wearers davened Shacharis in the basement, > joining the rest of the shteibl only for the latter part of davening. > > We are therefore starting with data, the pesaq, and trying to figure > out what that means aggadically. > > Not just blindly guessing about how things look in heaven. If things > are as you portray it, the original question is stronger -- what you > said doesn't resolve anything. > > BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are indeed > motivated by a consciencous following of family customs and the > perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. And how much > is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification with Litvaks or > Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than identification with the > Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos as self-identifications. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Today is the 15th day, which is > micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. > http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in > Fax: (270) 514-1507 harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 16:11:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:11:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:42:41PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : As to substance. I've been davening in shuls on chol haMoed for more : than 50 years and every shul I've davened in, all Modern Orthodox led : by rabbis who were well respected talmedei chachamim, had men with and : without teffilin davening in one minyan together, sitting next to each : other without problems or, I'm pretty sure, thinking of transgressors. : : That's MY data which I would hope is as valid as shteibl data. And : that's what my response to my good friend Toby was trying to deal with. Those are both anecdotes. (BTW, it was a pretty MO shteibl. We had more professors and other PhDs than you can shake a stick at. R/Dr SZ Leiman, R/Dr David Berger, Rs/Drs Steiner, Rs/Drs Sachat, progessors of Asronomy, Physics (R/Dr Herbert Goldstein, likely author of you physics textbook), Topology...) What is data is that the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed between tefillin wearers and not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 18:24:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:24:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com>, <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB wrote: "What is data is that the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed between tefillin wearers and not." Here's some "data" from R. Chaim (Howard) Jachter: "Nevertheless, in many North American congregations on Chol Hamoed, some wear Tefillin and others do not wear Tefillin in one Minyan. Are all these congregations disregarding the Mishna Berura and the Aruch Hashulchan? One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent authorities. The Gemara (ibid.) states that the coexistence of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad ? two distinct communities maintaining disparate practices in one community ? does not violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 1:158 and 159) notes that in this country Jews have gathered from the various sections of Europe and continue the Halachic practices of their former communities. Subsequent generations continue the practices of their parents. Rav Moshe asserts that American Jewry constitutes ?a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad? and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. The Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan addressed a situation in Europe, which radically differs from the situation in North America, as explained by Rav Moshe. However, it appears that one violates Lo Titgodedu if he wears Tefillin in public in Israel on Chol Hamoed." Joseph Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 22:54:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 01:24:46AM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent : authorities. ... Rav Moshe asserts : that American Jewry constitutes "a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad" : and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) : writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single : community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does : not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of : Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. : The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed... So, that answers the OP. Next question.. How long are we /supposed/ to continue being 2 BD be'ir echad, following the minhagim of our ancestral communities, rather than invoking lo sisgodedu and combining into communal minhagim in our current communities? EY is nearly there WRT tefillin on ch"m, with only a few holdouts like KAJ. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 04:29:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> , <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <36AE5716-00CB-4838-A9CE-5321370B72B4@tenzerlunin.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 27, 2017, at 1:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > > Next question.. How long are we /supposed/ to continue being 2 BD be'ir > echad, following the minhagim of our ancestral communities, rather > than invoking lo sisgodedu and combining into communal minhagim in our > current communities? Considering modern mobility, the world has been made so much smaller that I think the idea of strong communal minhagim imposed on all members of the community may be a thing of the past but not of the future. Joseph From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 16:48:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:48:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. ...<< Akiva Miller >>>>> I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 11:15:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent Message-ID: <20B9894A-31AD-494D-8049-66C38175C660@cox.net> It has been taught that a man must recite 100 b?rachot daily. There are different explanations why 100 and the following are a few: Rabbi Mayer said: a person is obligated to recite 100 Brachos each day. In the Jerusalem Talmud we learned: it was taught in the name of Rabbi Mayer; there is no Jew who does not fulfill one hundred Mitzvos each day, as it was written: Now Israel, what does G-d your G-d ask of you? Do not read the verse as providing for the word: ?what? (Mah); instead read it as including the word: ?one hundred? (Mai?Eh). King David established the practice of reciting one hundred Brachos each day. When the residents of Jerusalem informed him that one hundred Jews were dying everyday, he established this requirement. It appears that the practice was forgotten until our Sages at the time of the Mishna and at the time of the Gemara re-established it. There is an additional hint to the need to recite 100 blessings each day from the Prophets as it is written, Micah, Chapter 6, Verse 8: What does G-d ask of you (Hebrew: mimcha). Mimcha in Gematria is 100. There is also a hint to the need to recite 100 blessings from Scriptures as it is written in Psalms, Chapter 128 Verse 4: Behold, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the Lord (the Hebrew words: Ki Kain appear in the verse. The letters in those words total 100 in Gematria). I?d like to proffer another explanation. In most tests you take in school, a perfect score is 100 or an A+. Hence, when reciting a hundred brachot a day, we come as close to perfection as possible. ?If sin becomes an abomination to you, you will have a hundred percent victory over it.? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 17:35:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:35:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> References: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> Message-ID: <1210e77c-beca-a075-ee6d-2fb9df2cafe8@sero.name> On 27/04/17 19:48, via Avodah wrote: > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the > mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman matan toraseinu. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 18:13:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:13:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> On Areivim we were discussing how some activity could be labeled yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. Along the way I wrote that it couldn't be because the enviroment includes gender mixing. I concluded: : Arayos isn't yeihareig ve'al ya'avor until it's : actual relations. I'm not even sure that yeihareig ve'al ya'avor would : apply to bi'ah with a willing penuyah (who is not a niddah). Two people asked me off list to look at Sanhedrin 75a. In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he could speak to her; at least through a fence. According to either R' Yaaqov bar Idi or R Shemu'el bar Nachmeini, she was even a penuyah. (Peligi bah... chad amar...) But one could learn from that gemara that it would NOT be yeihareig ve'al ya'avor: Bishloma according to the man da'amar she was an eishes ish, shapir. But according to the MdA she was penuyah -- mah kulei hai? Two answers: R' Papa says because it's a pegam mishpachah, R' Acha berei deR' Iqa says "kedei shelo yehu benos Yisrael perutzos ba'arayos". So what's the exchange saying? That it is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor because of the consequent peritzus? Or that bishloma an eishes ish would be YvAY, but a penyah, who isn't, why wouldn't the guy be allowed to speak to her? As I said on Areivim "I am not even sure" which, because the gemara could be taken either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:03:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:03:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: R' Micha Berger concluded: > BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are > indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs > and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. > And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification > with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than > identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos > as self-identifications. That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the MB and AhS were on. By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? Do we really want to accuse the MB and AhS of that? I think there is another way we can look at this whole topic. Let's ask what makes Chol Hamoed Tefillin so unusual. Why is this case different than so many others? Someone else asked why there isn't any enforced uniformity regarding unmarried men wearing a tallis in shul. Why is that different? How about the differing ways of avoiding simcha during sefira? One person will make a wedding during the last week of Nisan, and another person FROM THE SAME SHUL will make a wedding after Lag Baomer. Not only is this tolerated, but the entire shul is allowed to attend both weddings! Why don't we insist that the whole town should go one way or the other, like with the tefillin? Sometimes I feel that our perspective on these issues is so very different than what prevailed in the unified kehilos of yesteryear, that we cannot ever hope to understand it. I think the confusion comes from try to impose one perspective on a differing situation. Perhaps we ought to "agree to disagree". Specifically: *WE* get strength from our diversity; *THEY* got strength from their uniformity. I personally worry about the misfits in those cultures, and the losses they suffered. But perhaps their leaders accepted that as an acceptable price for the chizuk that came to the larger group. We have been trained to be unwilling to accept such a price, and we fight for every single individual. But that too has a price, and we are often unable or unwilling to admit it. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:12:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:12:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement > in the mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. Yes, there is a disagreement over whether the Torah was given on 6 Sivan or on 7 Sivan. And there are lots of cute vertlach about whether Shavuos is about *Matan* Torah, or *Kabalas* HaTorah (and whether or not they happened on the same day). But the bottom line is the the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after Pesach. If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty about Shavuos. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:52:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:52:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025454.YQWS32620.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in >a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises >evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. There's something about this that I've never understood. Suppose a person is having a stomach problem -- isn't he supposed to refrain from wearing tefillin? So, in a shul, a guy is not wearing tefillin -- how do we even know what his reason is? (In fact, I think I recall hearing that R Moshe himself didn't wear tefillin many times towards the end of his life for this reason). So, of all the things regarding lo sisgadedu -- why tefillin? Why not all the other things that daveners wear differently? (E.g., different minhagim via-a-vis wearing a tallis before marriage?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:54:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:54:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Rabbi Mayer said: a person is obligated to recite 100 Brachos each >day. In the Jerusalem Talmud we >learned: it was taught in the name of Rabbi Mayer; there is no Jew >who does not fulfill one hundred >Mitzvos each day, as it was written: Now Israel, what does G-d your >G-d ask of you? Do not read the >verse as providing for the word: ?what? (Mah); instead read it as >including the word: ?one hundred? >(Mai?Eh). IIRC, there's a fun Ba'al HaTurim on this pasek: If you add the alef into the pasuk -- not only does it turn the word into "100" -- but the pasuk will then have 100 letters in it. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:58:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:58:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> > > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the > > mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. Indeed. Machlokes over whether it was Sivan 6 or 7. OTOH, the 50th day could also have fallen on Sivan 5, no? >The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed >calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman >matan toraseinu. Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? (I'm not being snarky -- it's a genuine question) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 21:45:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:45:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170428044535.GC2155@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:58:07PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" : when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? The explanation I like (eg from Maadanei Yom Tov) is that "zeman matan Toraseinu" is not a date in Sivan, but a number of days after Yetzias Mitzrayim or of the omer. Your question is based on the idea that "zeman" is a time on the calendar, not a point in a process (be it redemption or of omer). The MYT I mentioned earlier explains why Matan Torah was on the 7th whereas our Zeman Matan Toraseinu is on the 6th: He (the Tosafos Yom Tov?) notes that omer is both tisperu 50 yom and sheva shabasos temimos. It is 50 days or 7 x 7 = 49 days? So, uusually we think 49 days of omer, Shavuos is the 50th. The MYT says that 49 days of omer and the first day of Pesach is the 0th. Zeman Matan Toraseinu is thus after 50 days of process. For our Pesach, that's day 1 of Pesach + 49 omer, yeilding Sivan 6th. The first Pesach, though, Yetzi'as Mitzrayim was at midnight. So the first full day, usable as day 0, was the 16th of Nissan. Shifting everying off one day, so that process from physical ge'ulah to matan Torah ended on 7 Sivan. But whether you like that vertl or not, the idea that would answer your question is just that "zeman" is not necessarily a date; just as Shabbos is a time based on interval, not date. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:33:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:33:49 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <40e6067e-a5cf-689b-619a-908d5249a8a8@zahav.net.il> When was that prayer written, before or after the calendar was set? Ben On 4/28/2017 4:58 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" > when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 02:33:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:33:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the Exodus. Lisa On 4/28/2017 5:58 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed >> calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman >> matan toraseinu. > > Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" > when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:18:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:18:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428061804.GA19887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : "Insufficiently kneaded" means that there might be some flour in the : middle of the matza that never got wet and is still plain raw flour, : and that if it gets wet it will become chometz. "Insufficiently baked" : means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not : get baked, and it is already chometz. And RMGR feels that the second : of these is a "much greater risk". But... If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently kneeded, would any of the dry flour that went through the oven be still capable of becoming chaneitz if wet? If the dough is now too baked to rise any further, wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be to toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5, which discvusses things not to do because "shelma lo qulhu yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is that possible? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:22:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. Lo zakhisi lehavin. All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty. Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays being of the form of an uncertainty. But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain about the date. What am I missing in the CS's sevara? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 22:03:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:03:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite Message-ID: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> I signed up for something called Carbonite, which uploads everything on your computer to the Cloud where it might be possible to retrieve it all if your computer dies or is stolen. The thing is, either I have way too much on my computer or my computer is way too old and slow, but anyway, Carbonite started uploading on Sunday afternoon and now, Thursday night, it is STILL uploading. It continuously shows what progress it has made, and it is showing me that it has uploaded 43% of my computer. I am no math whiz but I can figure out that if it took from Sunday to Thursday to upload 43% it is not going to reach 100% before Shabbos. I asked the Carbonite tech person what happens if you turn off your computer in the middle, and he said Carbonite will just continue where it left off when you turn your computer back on. Interestingly we had a test case on Monday when my neighborhood lost power for six hours. When the power came back on, Carbonite did NOT resume where it had left off. Instead, I had to call Carbonite and ended up being on the phone for an hour while they told me to do this and that and then they did whatever and finally got Carbonite to resume its weary work. So here is my question for the learned chevra here on Avodah: Can I just leave my computer on all Shabbos, in another room with the door closed where I won't see it and it won't fashtair my Shabbos, and let Carbonite keep running and running? (It looks like it will take a whole nother week to finish.) Or should I sell my laptop to a goy and buy it back after Shabbos? (That was a joke, for those of you in Rio Linda.) Should I turn it off and resign myself to talking to tech support again for another hour to get it working again after Shabbos? Oy, siz shver tsu zein a Yid! Is leaving a laptop on all Shabbos with Carbonite uploading more like [A] leaving your lights, fridge and air conditioning on all Shabbos or [B] leaving a TV or radio on -- dubiously muttar, definitely not Shabbosdik or [C] making your eved Canaani work for you all day Shabbos -- a no-no or [D] giving your clothes to the Greek dressmaker to fix and telling her you need them some time next week, and if she for her own convenience decides to do the work on Shabbos, that's copacetic? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 06:44:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:44:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite In-Reply-To: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> References: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:03 AM, [Rn Toby Katz] wrote: > I signed up for something called Carbonite... > Can I just leave my computer on all Shabbos, in another room with the door > closed where I won't see it and it won't fashtair my Shabbos, and let > Carbonite keep running and running? (It looks like it will take a whole > nother week to finish.) ... What tzurus. I use crash plan. They each have their share of grief. I leave my computer on 24x7 except 2 day yomtov. I turn off the monitor and make sure the keyboard and mouse are secure before Shabbat. Why is it any different than leaving on the A/C? Back in the day, people would set the vcr to record a show over shabbat. That was a bit more dubious but was done. Good Shabbos From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 04:02:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:02:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org>, <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From: Micha Berger Sent: 27 April 2017 13:13 ... > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he > could speak to her; at least through a fence... > Bishloma according to the man da'amar she was an eishes ish, > shapir. > But according to the MdA she was penuyah -- mah kulei hai? ... > So what's the exchange saying? That it is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor > because of the consequent peritzus? Or that bishloma an eishes ish > would be YvAY, but a penyah, who isn't, why wouldn't the guy be > allowed to speak to her? Of note, that gemara is brought in Rambam Yesodei HaTorah in the context of acheiving cure for illness through hana'as issur. Meaning that it's not a halacha of gilui arayos per se, rather hana'as issur. He paskens it's assur even with a pnuya so that bnos yisrael won't be hefker. No mention of pgam mishpacha. (Parenthetically this seems to be an din of yeihareig v'al ya'avor midrabannon (so that bnos yisrael etc..). Any other such cases? I'd assumed YvAY is always d'oirasa, almost by definition) The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought. There is no suggestion that conversation in any normal situation is an issur hana'a per se, so therefore is not assur, certainly not Yeihareig V'al Yaavor. Therefore can't see how this gemara would be relevant to the army issue any more than the familiar dinim of r'eiyas einayim, kirva l'arayos etc which are no less relevant in the workplace and on the street. [Email #2. -micha] On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua. Nonetheless the whole gemara is still only relevant to a case of clear hana'as issur. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 07:57:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:57:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite In-Reply-To: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> References: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> Message-ID: <247ffd82-32aa-3bf1-c6ef-36c008a1a4a3@sero.name> On 28/04/17 01:03, via Avodah wrote: > Is leaving a laptop on all Shabbos with Carbonite uploading more like > [A] leaving your lights, fridge and air conditioning on all Shabbos > or [B] leaving a TV or radio on -- dubiously muttar, definitely not > Shabbosdik or [C] making your eved Canaani work for you all day Shabbos > -- a no-no or [D] giving your clothes to the Greek dressmaker to fix and > telling her you need them some time next week, and if she for her own > convenience decides to do the work on Shabbos, that's copacetic? It's A, shevisas keilim, which is a machlokes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. The halacha of course follows Beis Hillel, that we are not commanded on shevisas keiliim, so it's completely OK. The problem with B is hashma`as kol, which is a species of mar'is ho`ayin; passersby will hear the sound of work being done in your home and will suspect you, if not of actual chilul shabbos, then at least of amira lenochri. It is muttar if there are no Jews within a techum shabbos. C is of course completely out, mid'oraisa, even if the eved sets his own schedule. Avadim are obligated to keep Shabbos. D is amira lenochri, which is completely muttar mid'oraisa, but the chachamim forbade it lest you come to do melacha yourself. Thus it's muttar if the decision to do the work on Shabbos rather than during the week is completely up to the nochri. BTW you don't need to leave it to sometime next week; you can ask to have it ready when the shop opens on Sunday morning, and it's up to the cleaner whether to do it on Shabbos or to stay up all night motzei shabbos to get it done. It's only assur if there are literally not enough weekday hours between now and when you want it, so that the nochri *must* do some of it on Shabbos. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 07:27:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:27:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:14 PM 4/27/2017, R. Micha Berger wrote: >EY is nearly there WRT tefillin on ch"m, with only a few holdouts >like KAJ. This statement does not seem to be correct. See http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x Note the following from there. Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau?er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. and (I do not know what all of the ? stand for.) Here are a few names, a sampling of some past gedolim who wore tefillin on chol hamoed IN ERETZ YISROEL (either betzinoh or otherwise) ? Moreinu HaRav Schach, Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, Rav Michel Feinstein (eidem of the Brisker Rav), Pressburger Rav, and Rav Duschinsky, ????. The ???? ????? was in Eretz Yisroel. In his siddur Shaarei Shomayim, he has tefillin on chol hamoed. Rav Moshe Feinstein ???? writes in a teshuvoh that he knows of thousands of bnei Torah who put on tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel. ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????, ????? of Edah Charedis was heard also taking the position that someone whose minhog is to put on tefillin on chol hamoed cannot just suddenly drop it totally in Eretz Yisroel. The above and previous post is based on what I heard about this inyan ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????, ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????. I think there is an Oberlander minyan in Yerushlayim where they wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed as well, if I recall correctly. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 08:03:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:03:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7af7f734-f777-e833-2997-5d8daf3057af@sero.name> On 28/04/17 02:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos > : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not > : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day > : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a > : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most > : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But > : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the > : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. > Lo zakhisi lehavin. > > All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a > taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty. > > Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the > uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays > being of the form of an uncertainty. > > But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was > like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain > about the date. I think what he means is that even in their days, when most YT Sheni were safek d'oraisa, the 2nd day of Shavuos was a vadai d'rabanan pretending to be a safek d'oraisa. Nowadays that describes *all* YT Sheni (except the 2nd day of RH, which is a vadai d'rabanan not pretending to be anything else, because even in their days this was occasionally the case). So his explanation is merely historical, that what we have is not a new situation, because they had it on Shavuos. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 08:27:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:27:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is > the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the > case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which > we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the > Exodus. Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th day but on the 51st. So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the pseudo-Julian anniversary. Therefore I assume they did *not* say ZMT. In fact I assume they didn't say it even when it *did* fall on the 6th, since that was just a coincidence. Only when it was set to fall on the 6th every year did it take on a new nature as ZMT. This is all, however, on the assumption that we hold like the opinion that yetzias mitzrayim was on a Thursday. This is the basis of the entire sugya in Perek R Akiva Omer that we all know. But right at the end of that sugya, at the top of 88a a new source is suddenly cited, the Seder Olam, that YM was on a Friday, and the gemara seems to say "Aha! Forget everything we said till now, trying to reconcile the Rabbanan's opinion, now everything is simple: the Seder Olam follows the Rabbanan, YM was on a Friday, and MT was 50 days later on the 6th of Sivan, and the sources we've been working with, that say YM was on a Thursday, follow R Yossi, who says MT was on the 7th. So for years I've wondered why it is that we seem to ignore this source and continue to maintain that YM was on Thursday, even though it means accepting the strained explanations the gemara comes up with to reconcile them before it found the Seder Olam. If the SO was enough for the gemara to overthrow its earlier discussion, why isn't it enough for us? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 11:16:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:16:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: <24769a.1d3ee4d4.4634e11b@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> But the bottom line is the the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after Pesach. If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty about Shavuos. << Akiva Miller >>>> In the days when they kept two days Pesach because they didn't know when Rosh Chodesh had been, perhaps you can say that by the time Shavuos rolled around, the messengers had arrived to tell them when Rosh Chodesh Nissan (and therefore when Pesach) had been so by then they knew for sure when Shavuos was. But of course we still keep two days of Pesach until now, as we've been discussing, despite the fact that we no longer have a safeik about the date. So your statement, "If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty" is not really true or maybe is true but not relevant. After all, didn't you start counting Sefira on your [second] Seder Night? Was that not a stira -- counting sefira at the seder? After all, we're supposed to start counting "mimacharas haShabbos" -- the day AFTER yom tov, i.e., the first day of chol hamo'ed. So "fifty days after Pesach" turns out itself to be a slightly slippery concept. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 12:07:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:07:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent In-Reply-To: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> References: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Message-ID: I heard this from the late R Hershel Fogelman, of Worcester MA: The passuk says "ha'elef lecha Shelomo, umasayim lenotrim es piryo". What does this mean? The Gemara (Chulin 87a) says that the opportunity to say a bracha is worth ten golden coins. So we owe You, Melech Shehashalom Shelo, 1000 coins. But on Shabbos we are short 200. Who makes up these 200? Those who keep it with fruit. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 03:17:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 20:17:11 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: "Insufficiently baked" means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not get baked and it is already chometz. RMGR feels that this is a "much greater risk" than the risk of Gebrochts. I hope the following clarifies my argument that G is an utterly fake concern IF one is Choshesh that the baking has NOT reached the central part of the Matza as are Choshesh all those who do not eat G [bcs if it is properly baked then even if some flour remains bcs the dough was insufficiently kneaded that flour which has been baked CANNOT become Chamets] The problem is once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash that the central part of the Matza is not fully baked then never mind the problem of flour which will BECOME Chamets when it gets wet and given time WE HAVE A MUCH GREATER PROBLEM according to the Gebrochts-nicks argument we ALREADY HAVE CHAMETS in the Matza since the dough that is insufficiently baked is ALREADY Chamets -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 19:44:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:44:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently > kneaded, would any of the dry flour that went through > the oven be still capable of becoming chameitz if wet? > If the dough is now too baked to rise any further, > wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be > too toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5, > which discusses things not to do because "shema lo qulhu > yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is > that possible? What's the shiur of "qulhu yafeh"? Maybe roasting flour is more time-consuming than baking matzah? You want to say they're the same, but who knows? If we had a better handle on these things, our Pesach breakfasts could be farina or oatmeal made with chalita, but we have forgotten how to do that correctly. I have a friend who has been a Home Economics teacher at the local public high school for about 40 years. She likes to point out how different baking is from cooking. Cooking, she says, is about flavors, and you can put just about anything you like into a pot, cook it for a while, and it will be okay. "But baking is all about chemistry." You have to get the right ingredients in the right proportions at the right temperatures for the right time, or it will be a disaster. This distinction doesn't show up in Hilchos Shabbos, but it certainly does in Chometz UMatzah. Timing is key. I have no idea what the poskim say about varied situations of "shema lo qulhu yafeh", but it is very easy for me to imagine that if there is some dry flour inside the matza dough, the matza could be adequately baked while that flour is still not yet roasted enough to prevent later chimutz. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 04:10:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 21:10:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe Message-ID: R Micha points out RaMBaM does record the Halacha that we may not cook in water during Pesach toasted grains nor the flour ground from them because Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe perhaps they were not fully toasted and they may become Chamets one assumes this is because over-toasting the Camel grains ruins the taste and it was therefore far more likely that they were under-toasted than over-toasted Furthermore there is no test to apply to toasted grains as there is to baked Matza Matza is tested for being baked by tearing it apart and ensuring there are no doughy threads stretching between the torn pieces -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 19:17:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Acharei Mot Message-ID: Acharei Mot is the only Torah portion with the word ?death? in its title. The two words together are captivating: ACHAREI mot. In other words, we should be focusing on ?Acharei,? AFTER death. As depressing, difficult and mysterious as death is, we must not dwell on it. We must go on with our lives ?Acharei" AFTER. Life is eternal, and love is immortal, and death is only a horizon; and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight. Rossiter Worthington Raymond (April 27, 1840 in Cincinnati, Ohio ? December 31, 1918 in Brooklyn, New York) He was an American mining engineer, legal scholar and author. At his memorial, the President of Lehigh University described him as "one of the most remarkable cases of versatility that our country has ever seen?sailor, soldier, engineer, lawyer, orator, editor, poet, novelist, story-teller, biblical critic, theologian, teacher, chess-player?he was superior in each capacity. What he did, he always did well." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 20:58:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 05:58:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <77074713-e49c-4af3-1f69-39b611caa0e0@zahav.net.il> Read further down on the page: Your exceptions prove the rule. Sorry you are unfamiliar with minhagei eretz yisrael. They are esentially minhagei Hagra, brought here by the famous ?prushim? clan, and these minhagim have been accepted throughout Israel, with some exceptions.In Yerushalayim , they are accepted almost uniformly. The Tukotchinsky Luach for minhagim of the davening is a reflection of this and it is accepted by almost all. True, here and there, as your friend noted, there is a minyan that puts on tefillin. To each his own. But there are thousands of minyanim that don?t, and many of them do not hesitate to unceremoniously throw anyone out that dares put them on, even in the corner or in another room. I have seen this myself. Rav Schach?s custom, and certainly the Erlauer Rebbe indicate that the general custom is not to put on tefillin. None of the yeshivas, including Rav Schach?s yeshiva, adopted his minhag.None of the chassidim here do either except the relatively small numbered Erlauer. Ben On 4/28/2017 4:27 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > This statement does not seem to be correct. See http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x > > Note the following from there. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 20:53:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:53:56 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I had asked whether people had a view on the halachic propriety or otherwise of using a sous-vide machine over Shabbos and received no response. The sous-vide is a method of cooking which one might call very slow cooking. Bags with the food (e.g. meat) are places in a bucket or the like, and the machine is placed inside the bucket together with water which covers the plastic bag(s). It can take a really cheap cut of meat and make it tender and delicious. It?s buttons can be covered if someone is worried about Shehiya, I think the issue is Harmono. It can?t be both. One thing I noticed is that nobody seems to fiddle or touch the bags until the ?given time period?, and then one just pulls the plastic bags out. One can pre-program to turn the machine off, or it can continue keeping the water at the set temperature. There are various scenarios. Where the food is ready on Friday night. Where another bag of the food has a different texture is left till lunchtime on shabbos Where the meat is Mamash Raw (let alone not Maachol Ben Drusoi) on Erev Shabbos but will be good on Shabbos Where the concept of Mitztamek Veyofe Lo has nothing to do with Mitztamek, but rather a quantitative improvement that is still possible without it shrivelling The final issue is whether you say that since it might have had another 12 hours cooking and the temperature does not rise, that the meat is of a different VARIETY as opposed to quality. For example cooked versus roasted steak. Either way, here is a link to the only Tshuva I know of on this issue. I?m interested in reactions. There is a touch of Choddosh Ossur Min HaTorah from Rav Asher Weiss, but in the main, I can?t think of a reason why it?s not Hatmono. Disclaimer: I have not reviewed Hatmono for many years, and started to in dribs and drabs with the Aruch HaShulchan. This is the link to the Tshuva http://preview.tinyurl.com/kvxswnp or http://tinyurl.com/kvxswnp I spoke to Mori V?Rabbi Rav Schachter about it, and interchanged with his son Rabbi Shay, but they haven?t managed to show him the device and he won?t pasken until he has seen it (of course). "It is only the anticipation of redemption that preserves Judaism in Exile, while Judaism in the Land of Israel is the redemption itself." ______________________ Rabbi A.I. Hacohen Kook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 06:34:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:34:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >: The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos >: Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not >: differentiate between holidays... > All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaint[y]... > But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was > like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain > about the date. The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about second day of Yom Tov apply. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 09:48:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:48:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170430164805.GA11800@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 04:34:17PM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: : The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made : b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about second day of : Yom Tov apply. I know. That's my question. He says YT sheini of Shavuos was mishum lo pelug. So, if it's really lo pelug, then how/why would it be different in form than YT Sheini Sukkos, Shemini Atzeres or Pesach (x 2)? If it's lo pelug, then the usual qulos of pretending we're dealing with the old-time safeiq should apply -- or else, there is a pelug. No? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 09:57:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:57:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:02:29AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he : > could speak to her; at least through a fence... ... : The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone : who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as : issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought. ... : [Email #2. -micha] : : On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar : pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned : with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as : arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua. Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy for letting his taavos get so worked up. I see a slight conflict in your answers. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 11:05:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:05:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From AudioRoundup at Torah Musings: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/864540/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-sous-vide-cooking-for-shabbos-(and-through-shabbos)/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-From The Rabbi?s Desk ? Sous Vide Cooking For Shabbos (and Through Shabbos) Sous vide cooking (another thing we?ve lived without but now sounds like it will be the next sushi). If you do it for, or over Shabbat, is there an issue of hatmana or shehiya? FWIW the hashkafa at the end of R?Asher Weiss?s tshuva is well worth thinking about ? we seem to live in an age where any sacrifice is difficult. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 13:50:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> , <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I didn't think I was giving two answers, just clarifying further. So, let's work through it again. I must admit I have looked at neither Rishonim (except Rambam) nor achronim. But here goes: The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of YaVY. The gemara then says that this works fine for an eishes ish, The first question should be why that's obvious? Since when is conversation with an eishes ish YvAY? We answered that by saying, al pi Rambam, that the point of the gemara is to clarify how far we apply YvAY to hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation carries the din YvAY. That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. However, the bottom line for our original reason for analysing this gemara remains that it's not part of the cheshbon governing any standard interactions in which any ben Torah might participate, as it only applies to someone sick enough to have inevitable sexual hana'a from a conversation. R Micha's two correspondents can feel free to challange that whether off or on list. BW Ben Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy for letting his taavos get so worked up. I see a slight conflict in your answers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:22:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:45:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy : ... : OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the : rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very : clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz.... : : So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? I think the "out" is the clause "sheyeish lanu ba'alus alava". So, chameitz that you didn't have baalus on, but was delivered on Pesach wouldn't be included. (And would be a davar shelo ba le'olam, even if you did try to include it.) No, that doesn't cover things you owned since before Pesach and were unware "delo chazisei" that you only found on Pesach. OTOH, wasn't that stuff already mevutal anyway? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:30:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430173012.GB27111@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are :> indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs :> and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. :> And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification :> with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than :> identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos :> as self-identifications. : That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the : MB and AhS were on. : By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they : putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, : ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on : identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? ... I don't see how they are. If someone says there should be a single pesaq for a location and the shul could be consistent is talking about unity. Not about whether our community's minhagim are better or worse than those of another community -- they aren't present to suggest we're comparing. I was contrasting two different motives for breaking that unity: The first archetype is the one who does so because he takes more self-identity from his Litvisher (eg) ancestry than in being in part of the observant community, or Jewish community in general. The second is the one who is motivated by the logic of the pesaq or the hashkafah payoff. Such as someone who is "into" qabbalah for whom "qotzeitz bintiyos" means something and motivates not feeling happy in tefillin on ch"m. I was suggesting that lo sisgodedu only rules out the first motivation, not the second. But the acharon who promotes everyone following one practice isn't a question of whether their motivation is more important than lo sisgodedu to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:30:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430173012.GB27111@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are :> indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs :> and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. :> And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification :> with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than :> identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos :> as self-identifications. : That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the : MB and AhS were on. : By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they : putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, : ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on : identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? ... I don't see how they are. If someone says there should be a single pesaq for a location and the shul could be consistent is talking about unity. Not about whether our community's minhagim are better or worse than those of another community -- they aren't present to suggest we're comparing. I was contrasting two different motives for breaking that unity: The first archetype is the one who does so because he takes more self-identity from his Litvisher (eg) ancestry than in being in part of the observant community, or Jewish community in general. The second is the one who is motivated by the logic of the pesaq or the hashkafah payoff. Such as someone who is "into" qabbalah for whom "qotzeitz bintiyos" means something and motivates not feeling happy in tefillin on ch"m. I was suggesting that lo sisgodedu only rules out the first motivation, not the second. But the acharon who promotes everyone following one practice isn't a question of whether their motivation is more important than lo sisgodedu to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:08:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:08:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430170851.GD19139@aishdas.org> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 08:17:11PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The problem is : once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash : that the central part of the Matza : is not fully baked : then never mind the problem of flour : which will BECOME Chamets : when it gets wet ... Again, if gebrochts were about the middle not being baked, it would be worries about chameitz whether or not the matzah later gets in contact with water. It's about flour that didn't become kneaded. As the SA haRav states, the Besht ate gebrochts because in his day the 1 mil timer was stopped for kneading. We came up with this chumerah of trying to fit everything, including the kneading in the time limit. Which caused us to start rushing the kneading. (Yet, the Alter Rebbe of Lub lauded this new chumerah, despite it coming with new risks.) And so he justified chassidim of his generation following a new hanhagah that the Besht did not. (We discuss this teshuvah annually.) The question I asked is based on the fact that toasted flour doesn't become chameitz. And by simple physics, we expect that if dough, a huge lump, can bake through, then of course we would have completed the toasting of the same chemicals present in fine powder form, like any dry unkneaded flour within the dough. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 17:49:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 10:49:28 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <384BCE1C-0255-4CD6-9547-033963F2DA9C@gmail.com> Rich, Joel wrote: > > > From AudioRoundup at Torah Musings: > http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/864540/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-sous-vide-cooking-for-shabbos-(and-through-shabbos)/ > Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-From The Rabbi?s Desk ? Sous Vide Cooking For Shabbos (and Through Shabbos) > Sous vide cooking (another thing we?ve lived without but now sounds like it will be the next sushi). If you do it for, or over Shabbat, is there an issue of hatmana or shehiya? > > > FWIW the hashkafa at the end of R?Asher Weiss?s tshuva is well worth thinking about ? we seem to live in an age where any sacrifice is difficult. > > KT > Joel Rich R Joel, yes indeed. I got the Tshuva from R Aryeh :-) The other question is why does Halacha entail sacrifice. IF it's halachically sound it may be a hiddur! I know we have it on Tuesdays and everyone loves it. It is a superior form of cooking. If it's NOT Hatmono then why (if one has the implement) would one not use it. I find that a Hungarian Posek approach in general. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 17:34:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:34:13 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on Monday besides Hallel on tues Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 08:39:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 08:39:29 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> References: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <138374BA-01AB-4BF3-8554-304B33684B81@gmail.com> Young Israel century city holds both kulot. No tachanun Monday. Hallel Tues. Curious how most chul shuls do it. .I expect most follow israel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 09:51:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 18:51:40 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/1/2017 2:34 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on > Monday besides Hallel on tues Mine didn't and that was my experience in other shuls as well. The Tfilion app doesn't have Tachanun (but does have an added chapter of Tehillim for the fallen). Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 06:15:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:15:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> On Monday, May 1, 2017 6:02 AM, saul newman wrote: > Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on > Monday besides Hallel on tues Rav Ahron considered Hey Iyar to be Yom Ha'atzmaut and the day that Hallel (without a Bracha) is said and Tachanun is not said -- regardless of when Israel celebrates it (for whatever reason it may be delayed). I (and Yeshivas Brisk) did not say Tachanun at Mincha yesterday (Erev Yom Tov) nor today at Shacharis... nor will I say it at Mincha. I will say it tomorrow. HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 10:23:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:23:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Last year, in http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n055.shtml#10 , RHM gave R' Aharon Soloveitchik's shitah. Much like this year, although last iteration he added: One can review the Halachic sources RAS used in his book 'Logic of the heart, Logic of the Mind'. I responded in the post right below it, quoting RGS, http://www.torahmusings.com/technology-halakhic-change-yom-ha-atzmaut , who in turn was commenting on R/Dr Aaron Levin of Flatbush's evolving practice: In America, where the celebrations can be more easily controlled to avoid the desecration of Shabbos, many authorities did not recognize the change of date, among them Rav Ahron Soloveichik and Rav Hershel Schachter. They insisted that people recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar -- the day of the miracle of the declaration of the State of Israel -- regardless of when Israelis celebrate the day. Rav Aaron Levine's son, Rav Efraim Levine, told me that his father had to change his position on this question over time. Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a community to determine its own date to celebrate. To which I added: RAS might have decided similarly or not had he lived to see the day when the primary intercontinental communication was the telephone, not the aerogram. We can't know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 11:59:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 20:59:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: For Hebrew readers, Rav Yoni Rosensweig sums up Rav Rabinovitch's position on the matter: https://www.facebook.com/yonirosensweig/posts/1761639697197955 Bottom line: Moving Yom Aztmaout doesn't entirely remove the uniqueness of the day. While he does state that the rabbinate holds that one skips Tachanun only on the day Yom Aztmaout is celebrated, RYR doesn't accept that psak. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 12:35:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 15:35:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> On a lighter, more aggadic note, my father suggested that the existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to minimize chilul Shabbos is the very thing a Religious Zionist would be celebrating on Yom haAtzmaaut. Which reminds me of something Rav Dovid Lifshitz said about Yom haAtzma'ut. Rebbe said that Atzma'ut is something special, and certainly worth celebrating. But for now YhA is only half a holiday. We established the atzma'ut of Yisrael, but are still missing its etzem. To rephrase into my father's words: It is worthwhile to celebrate the existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to minimize chilul Shabbos, but what we pray for is the existence of a country that wouldn't have to! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 14:42:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 23:42:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the reading is pushed off until Sunday. Ben On 5/1/2017 9:35 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > It is worthwhile to celebrate the > existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to > minimize chilul Shabbos, but what we pray for is the existence of a > country that wouldn't have to! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 17:38:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 20:38:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:42:18PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the : reading is pushed off until Sunday. Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 22:29:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 07:29:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> Message-ID: 1) It is part of a package deal, the first part of which can fall on Shabbat. 2) When we go back to setting the month based on witnesses, it could fall on Shabbat. Ben On 5/2/2017 2:38 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. > > -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 23:12:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 09:12:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:42:18PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: > : It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the > : reading is pushed off until Sunday. > > Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. > 5 Iyyar certainly can fall out on Shabbat, and as it happens it doe so in exactly the same years when there is Shushan Purim Meshulash: Adar has 29 days and Nisan 30, so from 15 Adar to 5 Iyyar is 29 + 30 - 10 = 49 days or exactly 7 weeks. In other words, Shushan Purim and Yom Ha`Atzmaut (when not postponed or advanced) are always on the same day of the week. This last happened nine years ago in 5768 and will happen again in 5781 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 21:39:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 14:39:34 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Looking Jewish Message-ID: Gemara AZara 58a - R Yochanan b Arza and R Yosiy b Nehuroi, were drinking wine - they requested someone nearby to fix their drinks. After he fulfilled their request they realised he was not Jewish. May they drink the wine, is the Gemara's Q. But how could they make such a mistake? And how might the wine be permitted? the Gemarah 58b explains it was clear to the G that the Sages were Jewish, it was also clear that he thought that they knew he was not Jewish, and it was also clear that he as a non-J knew that if he handled the wine, they wold not be permitted to drink it So he thought - they MUST be drinking mead [which he may handle and mix for them] so even though he was actually handling wine, thinking it was mead, he would not make his usual pagan worship and so it did not become disqualified. So here is the tough part HE was CERTAIN they knew he was not J [that's why he was certain that they were drinking mead and not wine] however the truth was they DID IN FACT THINK he was J [and that is why they did invite him to fix their wine drinks] could this happen today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 04:48:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 07:48:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Ha'atzmaut Message-ID: <3866CC37-90C9-4337-8257-616B6EB01940@cox.net> The story is told of the Chafetz Chayim, zt"l, that he asked one of his visitors who had come from a great distance, "How are you?? which in Yiddish is, "Vos makhst du," literally, "What do you do?" So in answer to this inquiry, the visitor replied, "Thank God, I have a thriving business, I have no financial problems, I have a beautiful home with a swimming pool,? etc. etc. The Chafetz Chayim repeated, "Vos makhst du?" and the visitor, a bit confused as to why the question was repeated, gave the same reply. So for the third time, the same question was asked of the visitor, at which point the visitor looked at the saint and he said: ?I don?t understand why you asked me three times 'How I am.? I told you that thank God, I have a thriving business, a lot of money, a beautiful home, etc.? The Chafetz Chayim replied: ?You don?t understand. You told me what GOD is doing for YOU, but I asked, 'What are YOU doing?' I therefore repeat: 'Vos makhst du?'" How does this apply to Israel Independence Day? We know what Israel has done for US. The question remains: What are we doing for Israel, and what are we doing for each other? May we become ?Independent" enough to help others who "depend" on us. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 11:50:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Avram Sacks via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 13:50:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Cong Or Torah in Skokie said tachanun at shacharit, but not at mincha on erev Yom Ha-Atzmaut. On YhA, at ma'ariv we added additional tehillim at the end of davening, as found in the Koren siddur for Yom HaAtzmaut. At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. Kol tuv, Avi Avram Sacks From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 13:16:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 16:16:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Looking Jewish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170502201609.GB17585@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:39:34PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Gemara AZara 58a ... : the Gemarah 58b explains ... : So he thought - they MUST be drinking mead : [which he may handle and mix for them] : so even though he was actually handling wine, : thinking it was mead, he would not make his usual pagan worship : and so it did not become disqualified. ... : could this happen today? Their wine was this thick syrup that required dilution (mezigas hakos) to be drinkable. They also often had to add spices and/or honey to make it palatable. Inomlin / yinomlin (spelled with a leading alef or yud, depending on girsa; Shabbos 20:2, AZ 30a) was wine mixed with honey and pepper (Shabbos 140a). So, if the grapes were particularly sour, and more honey was added, perhaps it wasn't that easy to determine that it was wine (enomlin) and not meade. A problem 2 millenia of vintners eliminated through breeding better grapes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 14:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 17:20:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5908F811.8040504@aishdas.org> Beautiful sentiments, to be sure, but 100% emotional and 0% halachic. Was there live music on 6 Iyar? KT, YGB On 5/2/2017 2:50 PM, Avram Sacks via Avodah wrote: > Cong Or Torah in Skokie said tachanun at shacharit, but not at mincha > on erev Yom Ha-Atzmaut. On YhA, at ma'ariv we added additional > tehillim at the end of davening, as found in the Koren siddur for Yom > HaAtzmaut. At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel > (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and > ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it > is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet > observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in > Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added > that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about > those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA > on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 15:17:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 18:17:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akrasia and Ritual Message-ID: <20170502221754.GA25834@aishdas.org> Akrasia is a classical Greek term for why we so often don't do what we believe. In more mesoretic terms -- the problem of akrasia is the question of "what is the yeitzer hara?" In http://www.thebookoflife.org/akrasia-or-why-we-dont-do-what-we-believe there is an interesting piece on how ritual helps solve akrasia. It might help one's qabbalas ol mitzvos: ... There are two central solutions to akrasia, located in two unexpected quarters: in art and in ritual. The real purpose of art... (Fans of RAYK or Dr Nathan Birnbaum might want to read the part I'm skipping here.) Ritual is the second defence we have against akrasia. By ritual, one means the structured, often highly seductive or aesthetic, repetition of a thought or an action, with a view to making it at once convincing and habitual. Ritual rejects the notion that it can ever be sufficient to teach anything important once - an optimistic delusion which the modern education system has been fatefully marked by. Once might be enough to get us to admit an idea is right, but it won't be anything like enough to convince us it should be acted upon. Our brains are leaky, and under-pressure of any kind, they will readily revert to customary patterns of thought and feeling. Ritual trains our cognitive muscles, it makes a sequence of appointments in our diaries to refresh our acquaintance with our most important ideas. Our current culture tends to see ritual mainly as an antiquated infringement of individual freedom, a bossy command to turn our thoughts in particular directions at specific times. But the defenders of ritual would see it another way: we aren't being told to think of something we don't agree with, we are being returned with grace to what we always believed in at heart. We are being tugged by a collective force back to a more loyal and authentic version of ourselves. The greatest human institutions to have tried to address the problem of akrasia have been religions. Religions have wanted to do something much more serious than simply promote abstract ideas, they have wanted to get people to behave in line with those ideas, a very different thing. They didn't just want people to think kindness or forgiveness were nice (which generally we do already); they wanted us to be kind or forgiving most days of the year. That meant inventing a host of ingenious mechanisms for mobilising the will, which is why across much of the world, the finest art and buildings, the most seductive music, the most impressive and moving rituals have all been religious. Religion is a vast machine for addressing the problem of akrasia. This has presented a big conundrum for a more secular era. Bad secularisation has lumped religious superstition and religion's anti-akrasia strategies together. It has rejected both the supernatural ideas of the faiths and their wiser attitudes to the motivational roles of art and ritual. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 21:48:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 06:48:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0a07acaa-4c79-5eb5-b387-1887573b3cd1@zahav.net.il> There is an oversimplification here, that the issue is the secular. Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed off even if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash. Getting the country ready for these days means hundreds, thousands of people have to be in place. This includes soldiers, policemen, etc who are 100% dati. Holding these events on a date that would force these people to work on Shabbat is simply a non-starter and everyone understands that point. I have to add the following: My dream is that people will come to understand how wrong it is to make people (including dati'im) work on Shabbat when Lag B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate steps. Ben On 5/2/2017 8:50 PM, Avram Sacks wrote: > He added that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 21:30:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 21:30:06 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] nidche Message-ID: since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on thurs, does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded this way already in the 50's? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 06:38:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 16:38:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:30 AM, saul newman via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on thurs, > does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded this way > already in the 50's? > To be precise, they are only nidche if Pesah starts on Tuesday, like this year. If it starts on Shabbat or Sunday they are brought forward to Wednesday & Thursday. If my memory is accurate, the bringing forward has always been in practice, but the postponement from Sunday-Monday to Monday-Tuesday was introduced later, within the last 10 or 20 years. When I was first in Israel in the 1980s, YHA was still sometimes observed on a Monday. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 06:06:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 09:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> On 5/3/2017 12:30 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on > thurs, does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded > this way already in the 50's? It was instituted during the tenure of Rabbis Amar and Metzger. [Email #2. -micha] On 5/3/2017 12:48 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > There is an oversimplification here, that the issue is the secular. > Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed off even > if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash... > I have to add the following: My dream is that people will come to > understand how wrong it is to make people (including dati'im) work on > Shabbat when Lag B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate > steps. That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to 5 Iyar. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 14:34:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 17:34:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5a7c4dde-aeda-0d6e-0a6f-3824d06a66da@sero.name> On 03/05/17 09:06, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is > no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- > certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically > viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to > 5 Iyar. Why can't a religious holiday be defined by the day of the week, like Shabbos Hagodol and Behab? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 16:28:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 19:28:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: R' Micha Berger reposted from elsewhere: > Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this > subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on > the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his > position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, > Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut > celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with > perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a > community to determine its own date to celebrate. Why should telecommunications affect the day that my community says Hallel? Should we all start reading Megilas Esther on 15 Adar? R' Ben Waxman wrote: > Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed > off even if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash. Maybe not as unique as it seems. Isn't there a gezera against Motzaei Shabbos weddings for exactly this same reason - because of the likelihood that the preparations would begin on Shabbos? RBW also wrote: > My dream is that people will come to understand how wrong it > is to make people (including dati'im) work on Shabbat when Lag > B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate steps. Amen!! Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 20:43:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 05:43:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: Someone pointed out to me off line that the reading is on Friday, Al HaNissim on Shabbat, and Seuda/Matanot is on Sunday. Ben On 5/1/2017 11:42 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the reading > is pushed off until Sunday. > > Ben > > \ > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 21:26:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 14:26:20 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: <26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com> Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can never fall on a Thursday. Under the current arrangements, it cannot fall on a Monday, so those who fast on BeHaB and also wish to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzma?ut no longer need to be concerned. In Hilchot Yom Ha-Atzma?ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim (ed Nahum Rakover, 1973), there is an article by Rabbi Meir Kaplan which discusses what to do when the two did coincide. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 21:29:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 07:29:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Avram Sacks via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel > (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and > ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it > is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet > observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in > Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added > that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about > those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA > on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. ?Since the issue here is tachanun, hallel and suspending sefira restrictions, I fail to follow his logic. We are being asked to not say tachanun on the same day as the not-yet-observant?, on 6th Iyar. But why the 6th any more than the 5th. We should say hallel on the 6th, the same day as the not-yet-observant. Hardly. Sefira restrictions are suspended on the 6th like the not-yet-observant? If the entire sentiment is when we should have ceremonies to mark the significance of the State, you could that any day, or every day, as often as you like. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 22:11:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:11:39 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Nidche In-Reply-To: 26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com References: 26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: <8ff4cb3fb9929c8cf4af49714131daf8@mail.gmail.com> I wrote in haste. Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can fall on a Friday (as it does next year), in which case it is brought forward a day. David Havin *From:* David Havin [mailto:djhavin at djhavin.com] *Sent:* Thursday, 4 May 2017 2:26 PM *To:* Avodah *Subject:* Nidche Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can never fall on a Thursday. Under the current arrangements, it cannot fall on a Monday, so those who fast on BeHaB and also wish to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzma?ut no longer need to be concerned. In Hilchot Yom Ha-Atzma?ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim (ed Nahum Rakover, 1973), there is an article by Rabbi Meir Kaplan which discusses what to do when the two did coincide. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 07:53:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 10:53:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [From an Areivim discussion of how to be safe from house fires on Friday night.... -micha] On 03/05/17 18:26, Akiva Miller via Areivim wrote: > When eating the evening seudah elsewhere than where you're sleeping, > consider lighting at the seudah location, so that they won't be > unattended. My mitzvah is to light my own home, not someone else's. I know women have the custom of saying a bracha when lighting in someone else's home, but I'm not sure on what basis they do so. It seems to me they're not fulfilling their own mitzvah but rather helping their hostess with her mitzvah, just like helping someone else with his bedikas chametz. In that case (as opposed to doing the whole thing as his agent) one is supposed to hear his bracha, not make ones own, so why is this different? Thus it seems to me that this falls into the category of minhagei nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked, but the women have their own traditions and are not asking. But I don't see a basis for men, who don't have those traditions, to follow them. Yes, we are required to follow "toras imecha", but it seems to me that this means those things that women have traditionally taught their sons, not those that they have traditionally only taught their daughters. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 08:52:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:52:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <54B1C0DF-2CD4-49B5-92A0-AC29B878E3F2@sibson.com> The psak I receive many years ago is that you light where you sleep. One concern was to make sure the candles would run long enough so they were still burning when you came home so you could get benefit from them Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 13:50:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 20:50:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Tatoo Taboo and Permanent Make-Up Too Message-ID: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/ken8l8y There is a widespread myth, especially among secular American Jews, that a Jew with a tattoo may not be buried in a Jewish cemetery[1]. This prevalent belief, whose origin possibly lies with Jewish Bubbies wanting to ensure that their grandchildren did not stray too far from the proper path, is truly nothing more than a common misconception with absolutely no basis in Jewish law. Jewish burial is not dependent on whether or not one violated Torah law, and tattooing is no different in this matter than any other Biblical prohibition. Please see the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 15:13:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 18:13:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Tatoo Taboo and Permanent Make-Up Too In-Reply-To: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> References: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <72ddedb9-4172-c476-3fe6-acbb37a1e577@sero.name> > Jewish burial is not dependent on whether or not one violated Torah law, There are cemeteries, or sections within them, where only observant Jews can be buried, in line with the halacha that one may not bury a rasha next to a tzadik. But a person who qualified for burial there would not be rejected for having a tattoo, since it would be assumed that he had long ago repented. (The sin is *getting* the tattoo, not *having* it; once it's been done there's no obligation to remove it.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 20:54:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 21:54:36 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> On May 3, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is > no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- > certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically > viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to > 5 Iyar. My gut is with you on this. But then we do need to at least address the precedent of Purim. We don?t say Hallel, but we say a bracha on the Megillah. And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid chillul Shabbos. Now there are some important differences. For one thing, Purim seemed to be a concern of ignorance, not secularity. But it does seem to establish the precedent that it can be done. Whether it should be done is a different question. Following the precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off until Sunday, but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. Yom HaZikaron could be pushed earlier. ? Daniel Israel Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center of Santa Fe, President daniel at kolberamah.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 21:00:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 22:00:22 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> On Apr 30, 2017, at 11:22 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:45:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy > : OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the > : rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very > : clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz.... > : > : So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? > > I think the "out" is the clause "sheyeish lanu ba'alus alava". So, > chameitz that you didn't have baalus on, but was delivered on Pesach > wouldn't be included. (And would be a davar shelo ba le'olam, even if > you did try to include it.) I have been bothered by this same question for many years, and mentioned to my Rav over Pesach. It was his impression that contracts in EY more commonly did not use loshen including unmarked/unknown chametz. I think that is common in the US. I suggested that it is motivated by a desire to protect against the case of accidentally consuming chometz sh?evar alav haPesach where the person completely lost track and by the time he ate it, he didn?t remember he sold it. But it does seem that burning it would depend on how the contract was written. And I would take it a step further and point out that if it was sold, there is a serious geneivah issue. > No, that doesn't cover things you owned since before Pesach and were > unware "delo chazisei" that you only found on Pesach. > > OTOH, wasn't that stuff already mevutal anyway? Can I burn something that was hefker without acquiring it? If I declare something hefker (I?m not sure the legal implication of batel), and then I burn it, wouldn?t that imply I?m koneh it? Which makes things much worse. ? Daniel Israel Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center of Santa Fe, President daniel at kolberamah.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:08:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:08:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: On 04/05/17 23:54, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > . And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid chillul > Shabbos. The megillah only goes back, never forward. > Following the precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off > until Sunday, but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. The precedent of Purim is to pull it back to Friday *or Thursday*. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:40:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:40:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: 5 Iyar can also be on Shabbos (as it will in 2021), and its commemoration is pushed back two days, to Thursday. Nonetheless, that Thursday can never be a part of BeHaB, since the fasts begin on the Monday after the first Shabbos following Rosh Chodesh Iyar, and the preceding Shabbos is either the 28th or 29th of Nissan. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 6 12:32:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 21:32:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <04a24079-f3e7-a7e9-d195-3dac00552ebe@zahav.net.il> Yom HaZikaron and Yom Azmaut are an inseparable pair. There have been call to break the connection (to make it easier for the bereaved families to celebrate YA) but so far no one is willing to do so. Ben On 5/5/2017 5:54 AM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > Yom HaZikaron could be pushed earlier. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 21:20:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 00:20:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> On 5/4/2017 11:54 PM, Daniel Israel wrote: > On May 3, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: >> That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is >> no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- >> certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically >> viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to >> 5 Iyar. > My gut is with you on this. But then we do need to at least address > the precedent of Purim. We don?t say Hallel, but we say a bracha on > the Megillah. And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid > chillul Shabbos.... > Whether it should be done is a different question. Following the > precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off until Sunday, > but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. Yom HaZikaron could > be pushed earlier. On Purim Meshulash, the Al HaNisim remains on Shabbos, and the Megillah with the bracha is relocated to the day everyone else is celebrating. Moreover, there is no clash between simcha on 16 Adar and some pre-existing minhag to diminish simcha. Those are some of the differences. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:01:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 18:01:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: Discussion of chametz ?received? during Pesach can be listened to here: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/877269/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-girls-scout-cookies/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -From The Rabbi's Desk - Girls Scout Cookies KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 6 22:53:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 07 May 2017 07:53:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives today, certainly not in any practical manner. More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber). Ben On 5/5/2017 6:20 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > On Purim Meshulash, the Al HaNisim remains on Shabbos, and the Megillah > with the bracha is relocated to the day everyone else is celebrating. > Moreover, there is no clash between simcha on 16 Adar and some > pre-existing minhag to diminish simcha. Those are some of the differences. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 07:26:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 10:26:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Haircuts when Lag Baomer is on Sunday Message-ID: Rama 493:2 writes: "When [Lag Baomer] falls on Sunday, the practice is [nohagin] to get haircuts on Friday l'kavod Shabbos." What makes this Friday different from all other Fridays of sefira? If Kavod Shabbos is ample justification to get a haircut on Omer 31 (which is in the aveilus days by all reckonings), then it ought to justify a haircut on Omer 24 (the previous Friday) also, shouldn't it? But I have never heard of anyone allowing a haircut on Omer 24 simply because it is Erev Shabbos, so there must be an additional factor at work. For many years, I presumed the logic to be as follows: If a person would need a haircut on Friday Omer 31, or on Friday Omer 24, and fail to get that haircut, then he has failed to do Kavod Shabbos, but he did it by inaction. He did it in a "shev v'al taaseh" manner, and it is quite common for halacha to suspend an Aseh with a Shev V'Al Taaseh. (Compare skipping this haircut to skipping Shofar on Shabbos.) HOWEVER - If a person would go out of his way ("kum v'aseh") and actually get a haircut on Sunday, that is intolerable. To have been disheveled on Shabbos (even if justifiably), and then suddenly be all fancied up the very next day, that is an insult to Shabbos, and we cannot allow Shabbos to be insulted in that manner. So when the Rama writes that we allow the haircuts "for kavod Shabbos", what he actually means is that we allow the haircuts "to avoid insulting Shabbos." And this is what makes this weekend of Sefiras Haomer different from all the others: On the other Sundays of Sefira, no one is getting a haircut anyway, so the whole question doesn't exist. But in this year, on this particular weekend, we do have this problem. The Rabbis *could* have chosen to protect the kavod of Shabbos by forbidding us to get haircuts when Lag Baomer is on Sunday, but instead they chose to protect the kavod of Shabbos by allowing us to get haircuts when Omer 31 is on Friday. Or so I thought for many years. But I have questions on this logic. According to what I have written, getting a haircut on Sunday is a bad idea - no matter what time of year it is. Yet I don't recall ever hearing anyone advise against it. In particular, when this situation of a Sunday Lag Baomer occurs, I have often hear people cite this Rama as granting permission to get their haircut on Friday. But in actuality, shouldn't it be less of a permission, and more of a *recommendation*? When a person asks the question, shouldn't the answer be, "Yes, you can get the haircut on Friday, and that's even better than waiting for Sunday." But I have not heard anyone suggest this. That's about as far as I was going to write, but then I went to the seforim to make sure I understood the Rama correctly. Indeed, his phrasing, "nohagin to get haircuts on Friday l'kavod Shabbos", could easily be understood to mean DAVKA on Friday rather than Sunday. But although it *could* be understood that way, I don't remember anyone actually doing do. And then I came across Kaf Hachayim 493:33, who writes that the Levush held differently than the Rama in this situation: > The Levush writes that if the 33rd is on a Sunday when the > non-Jews are not barbering because of their holiday, *that's* > when you can get a haircut on Friday. Meaning that in a place > where you *can* get a haircut on Sunday, then you should *not* > get the haircut on Friday. But from the words of the Rama, who > writes "l'kavod Shabbos", he means to allow it in any case. > And Elya Raba #9 writes the same thing about this Levush, that > the Rama allows it l'kavod Shabbos in either case. To rephrase: If one has a choice between getting his haircut on Friday or Sunday, then the Levush gives precedence to the minhagim of aveilus during Sefira, and requires us to wait until Sunday for the haircut, and *not* get the haircut on Friday Omer 31. The idea of suddenly showing up with a haircut on Sunday does not (seem to) bother the Levush, and this is totally consistent with the lack of anyone ever being told to avoid Sunday haircuts the rest of the year. But the Kaf Hachayim (with support from Elya Raba) rejects the approach of the Levush. He seems to accept the word of the Rama, plain and simple, that we can get haircuts on Friday Omer 31 because it is l'kavod Shabbos. And, according to Rama, this applies whether the barbershops are open on Sunday or not. Even if one has the option of waiting until Lag Baomer, he can "violate" the aveilus of Sefira on Omer 31, because the haircut is l'kavod Shabbos. This leaves me stuck with my original question: If Kavod Shabbos is ample justification to get a haircut on Omer 31, then it ought to justify a haircut on Omer 24 also, shouldn't it? Obviously no, but why? with many thanks in advance for your thoughts, Akiva Miller PS: The Levush is not totally machmir; he does allow leniency, but only in the case of where Lag Baomer is on Sunday, AND the barbers are closed on that day. Only in such a case does he allow a haircut on Omer 31. I have to wonder why he would allow that exception, rather than disallowing it entirely. Here's my guess: The Levush was aware of poskim who allowed haircuts on Friday Omer 31, but he felt this to be an improper violation of the aveilus, and paskened that people should wait for Sunday Lag Baomer. But if the barbers would be closed, that means people would have to wait another two weeks for their haircuts, in which case he allowed the leniency. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 03:46:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 13:46:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: No, I'm pretty sure it was the 50th day. The first day after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the first day of the Omer. The 49th day after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the 49th day of the Omer. Shavuot is thus the 50th day after our leaving Egypt. On 4/28/2017 6:27 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >> I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is >> the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the >> case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which >> we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the >> Exodus. > > Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th > day but on the 51st. So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th > of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the > pseudo-Julian anniversary. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 06:38:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 09:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: On 07/05/17 06:46, Lisa Liel wrote: > No, I'm pretty sure it was the 50th day. The first day after our > leaving Egypt corresponds to the first day of the Omer. The 49th day > after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the 49th day of the Omer. > Shavuot is thus the 50th day after our leaving Egypt. Everyone seems to assume we left on a Thursday. The first day after we left was a Friday, so the 49th day was a Thursday. Mattan Torah was definitely on a Shabbat, thus the 51st day. There's no way out of that, unless we adopt the Seder Olam's view that the gemara suddenly springs on us at the end of the sugya that we left on a Friday. Then it all works perfectly, and as I read the gemara that seems to be the conclusion, but I've never seen any later source even deal with this view; everyone who mentions the day of the week on which we left Egypt takes for granted (as the gemara did for most of the sugya) that it was a Thursday. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 03:51:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 06:51:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minhagei Nashim Message-ID: In a thread about Ner Shabbos, R' Zev Sero wrote: > Thus it seems to me that this falls into the category of minhagei > nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked, > but the women have their own traditions and are not asking. But I > don't see a basis for men, who don't have those traditions, to > follow them. Yes, we are required to follow "toras imecha", but > it seems to me that this means those things that women have > traditionally taught their sons, not those that they have > traditionally only taught their daughters. That's an interesting way to classify things. I suppose it makes sense in the context of Ner Shabbos, which a mother would certainly teach to her daughters, but probably not to her sons. In this system, I suppose she would also teach Kitchen Kashrus only to her daughters, but Brachos to all her kids equally. Please consider the following scenario. I suppose it could happen even today, but it might be easier to imagine if you place it during the many centuries when there was no schooling for girls... A wife is preparing some food for dinner. She notices something unusual. Maybe it has something to do with meat and dairy, or maybe it has something to do with the just-shechted chicken she's kashering. Anyway, she concludes - based on what her mother (and both grandmothers and all her aunts) taught her - it's not a problem. Her husband happens to walk in, sees the same thing, and points out that it is a very clear black-and-white halacha that this food is assur. One could say that this sort of thing happens very rarely, because the men tend to stay out of the kitchen. But if you ask me, that only proves that the couple is unaware of the problem. It probably happened quite often, but no one noticed because the husband wasn't around. How could this *not* be a frequent occurrence? The men are busy learning, and the information never reaches the women. I concede that if a woman is unsure, she will ask, and some halachos will filter over to her side. But if she is *not* unsure, she could be blissfully unaware that her imahos have had a tradition for many generations, and it differs from the tradition that her husband got from generations of avos and teachers. And if this sort of thing can happen in Hilchos Kashrus, how much more often might it occur in Hilchos Nida? You may notice that I am taking pains to tell this story without prejudice as to which side is the truer halacha. Just because the women weren't in yeshiva, that does not prove them to be in error. All it proves is that there's been no opportunity for shakla v'tarya. Neither side can be discredited until they've carefully debated the issues. So who is right? As I wrote, these questions have been bothering me for years. But someone said that "Emunah is not when you have the answers; it's being able to live with the questions. " I got that chizuk from R' Haym Soloveitchik in his now-classic "Rupture and Reconstruction", which is all about these opposing chains of tradition, the mimetic and the textual. (The full text is on-line at www.lookstein.org. Just google the title.) He writes in footnote 18 there: > The traditional kitchen provides the best example of the > neutralizing effect of tradition, especially since the mimetic > tradition continued there long after it was lost in most other > areas of Jewish life. Were the average housewife (bale-boste) > informed that her manner of running the kitchen was contrary to > the Shulhan Arukh, her reaction would have been a dismissive > "Nonsense!" She would have been confronted with the alternative, > either that she, her mother and grandmother had, for decades, > been feeding their families non-kosher food [treifes] or that the > Code was wrong or, put more delicately, someone's understanding > of that text was wrong. As the former was inconceivable, the > latter was clearly the case. This, of course, might pose problems > for scholars, however, that was their problem not hers. Neither > could she be prevailed on to alter her ways, nor would an > experienced rabbi even try. There is an old saying among scholars > "A yidishe bale-boste takes instruction from her mother only". Somehow, these chains do find a way to work together. But I must be clear: I am NOT talking about a machlokes haposkim, where the wife was taught one thing and the husband was taught something else. In that case, there is much common ground, and they (or their rav) can go to the sources to figure out what the couple should do. I'm talking about a much more fundamental problem, where generations have passed on different traditions, without anyone ever realizing that there was a mismatch. (I'd like to close by pointing out that I am neither asking anything new in this post, nor am I trying to answer anything. But RZS mentioned a "category of minhagei nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked", and I simply wanted to expound on that category.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 09:43:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 12:43:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: In Avodah Digest 35:53 on Apr 19, R' Micha Berger wrote: > The AhS OC 31:4 is okay with minyanim that are mixed between > wearers and non-wearers. That's not what I see in the last line there: "In a single beis medrash, don't have some doing this and some doing that, because of Lo Tisgodedu." In Avodah Digest 35:55 on Apr 26, he seems to have corrected that: > ... the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed > between tefillin wearers and not. [You seem to have missed http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol35/v35n055.shtml#07 I didn't correct myself; I was forced to reread the AhS by RHK's post. -micha] This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. IF I understand that AhS correctly, he says that if there is only one Beis Din in town, then everyone must follow it, so Lo Tisgodedu doesn't apply. And if there is more than one Beis Din in town, then everyone can follow their own beis din, so again, Lo Tisgodedu does not apply. So when DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be factionalized like that. That is the AhS's explanation of why each town should be united and follow one set of days for the aveilus of Sefira: The question is totally minhag, and not under the jurisdiction of the local posek. It is a minhag of the people, and the people should get together and be united in one practice. The AhS doesn't mention it in that siman, but this explanation does help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 consistent with 493:8? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 8 05:32:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 15:32:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The relevance of the middle perakim of Bava Basra today Message-ID: Perakim 4-7 of Bava Basra (which Daf Yomi has been learning) deal with the sale of various things, what is included and what is not. The common denominator seems to be that these are seemingly solely based on the accepted business practice during the time of Chazal and what people expect to get when they consumate a deal. There are few to no Torah based sources for any of these. Here is a general outline of the perakim. Perek 4 - Hamocher es habayis discusses what is sold when you sell real property (houses, bathhouses, courtyards, fields, etc.) and what is not, for example when you sell a house the Mishna states that you include teh door but not the key Perek 5 - Hamocher es hasefina discusses the sale of movable objects, again detailing what is included in the sale and what is not (boats, wagons, animals, etc.) Perek 6 - Hamocher peiros lachaveiro discusses the sale of agricultural products. It details how much spoilage/wastage there can be in grain and wine etc. It also discusses selling land to build things on it like a house, graves, how much land is given, what access etc. Perek 7 - Deals with sales of real property how exact do the dimensions need to be. Given the above, are these at all relevant today? A house buyer in 2017 clearly has very different expectations as to what he is buying in comparison to the times of Chazal as does someone buying wine, a field, a boat, etc. The same goes for all of these categories. Since the mishnayos seem to be based solely on accepted business practice and have are not based on pesukim can we simply ignore these today? Am I missing something here? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 8 10:47:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 13:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The relevance of the middle perakim of Bava Basra today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170508174705.GA2335@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:32:57PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Perakim 4-7 of Bava Basra (which Daf Yomi has been learning) deal with the : sale of various things, what is included and what is not. The common : denominator seems to be that these are seemingly solely based on the : accepted business practice during the time of Chazal and what people expect : to get when they consumate a deal... : Given the above, are these at all relevant today? ... First reaction: They would be relevant to a poseiq trying to learn how to determine which of today's expectations have halachic import. It would require doing the saqme kind of mapping of market norms to law that chazal did, so the poseiq could learn from example. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 9 05:44:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 08:44:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor Message-ID: <4667BA80-CCF4-42D3-833D-99611C34F822@cox.net> ?And you shall count unto you from the morrow after the day of rest from the day that you bring the omer of the wave-offering; seven complete weeks shall there be.? (Vayikra 23:15) The Rambam included the counting of the Omer as Mitzvah 161 in his Sefer Hamitzvot. Those Rishonim who disagree, do count it as a mitzvah d?rabbanan and therefore, when we conclude the counting each night we pray: ?May the merciful One bring back to us the Temple service to its place speedily in our days, Amen, selah.? So the question has been asked why we do not say a ?sheheheyanu? when we first count the Omer on the second night of Pesach. The Rashba answers that according to most Rishonim who disagree with the Rambam, the counting is connected intricately with ktzirat ha?omer, harvesting the omer, ha?va-at ha?omer, the bringing of the omer and hakravat ha?omer, the offering of the omer as a sacrifice (Vayikra 23:10&16). So since these mitzvot are obviously inapplicable today it pains us to remember what we are missing when we count the omer. Therefore, the rabbis say, we pronounce no sheheheyanu which is said only when we experience joy. When I started counting my blessings, my whole life turned around. Willie Nelson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 06:33:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 09:33:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kedoshim Message-ID: It was brought to my attention that I hadn?t sent out a commentary on Parashas Kedoshim. Here is a belated d?var. ?In the presence of an old person you shall rise and you shall honor the presence of a sage and you shall revere your God ? I am Hashem.? (Vayikra 19:32) This verse is so rich with interpretation. According to Rashi, following one view in Kidudushin 32b, the two halves of the pasuk explain each other, i.e., the mitzvah is to rise and honor a sage who is both elderly and learned. Others hold that these are two separate mitzvot: to rise for anyone over the age of 70 and to rise for a learned righteous man, even if he is below the age of 70. The halacha follows the latter view, the rationale being that anyone can reach the age of 70 but it takes blood, sweat and tears to achieve scholarship and righteousness. I recall as a youngster being in awe when everyone in the beis medrash would stop what they were doing and a hush fell over the crowd as everyone rose immediately as soon as the Rosh Yeshiva entered the hall. There comes to mind the famous saying in Makkoth 22b: ?How foolish are those people who stand up when the Torah is carried by, but do not stand up when a scholar walks by,? indicating that greater than a piece of parchment upon which the Torah is written, is a human being who has put his whole life into learning and struggling in order to acquire a knowledge of Torah, and who in his personal life is a living embodiment of what the Torah teaches and represents. Along similar lines is the custom in some hassidic circles to kiss the hand of a talmid chochom upon first seeing him in the same manner as kissing the Torah when it passes by. The one thing we must never forget is the basic issue involved. It is not the mere person that is the center of the commandment; it is the ?v?yorayso mey-Elohechoh, Ani HaShem that is here involved. In rising before and granting honor to the talmid chochom, we affirm our profound belief in the Torah of God. Who sows virtue reaps honor. Leonardo da Vinci -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 13:24:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 16:24:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety Message-ID: In Avodah V35n60, RJR responded to RZS, who had responded to RAMiller: >>> When eating the evening seudah elsewhere than where you're sleeping, consider lighting at the seudah location, so that they won't be unattended. <<< >> My mitzvah is to light my own home, not someone else's. << > The psak I receive many years ago is that you light where you sleep. One concern was to make sure the candles would run long enough so they were still burning when you came home so you could get benefit from them < As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*); and as I learned as a kid every Pesach that my family was at a hotel (because my parents didn't have Pesach cooking utensils, dishes, etc. in their apartment), everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 14:55:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 21:55:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As RJR implies, I thought the key component of neiros Shabbos was enjoying their light (in contradistinction to neiros Chanukah); and as I learned as a kid every Pesach that my family was at a hotel (because my parents didn't have Pesach cooking utensils, dishes, etc. in their apartment), everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... All the best from Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA _______________________________________________ Except if they were incandescent bulbs in the individual hotel rooms. In that case I was taught that the women make a bracha on the bulbs in their room Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 04:54:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:54:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Lo Taamod Message-ID: Rav Asher Weiss discusses in parshat Vayeitzeih on lo taamod al dam reiacha that one would have to give up all his assets to save a single life if he is the only one who can do it. However, "it's pashut" that if others can also do it, that he doesn't have to give up all his assets. Why is it so pashut if others refuse? (i.e. why isn't it a joint and several liability?) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 04:55:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:55:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Local Government Message-ID: Anyone have any sources on how local government, if any, functioned in times of Tanach? Was there any besides the court system? What was the role of the nesiim of the shvatim? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 12:02:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:02:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App Message-ID: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Someone mentioned tahorapp.com on-line, so I took a look at their web site. To quote: > Keeping Tradition & > Keeping Your Privacy > Rabbinically Approved! Anonymously send pictures of your Taharas > Hamishpacha questions to a Rav right from your own home. Receive answers > quickly and privately. Download Tahor App For Free! I then thought of "The Dress" , a picture of a black-and-blue dress that floated around the internet that many of us perceived as white-and-gold. So, given that people guess at the background lighting when they see a picture and then subconsciously correct for it (see explanation on wikipedia page), how could a rav rely on a Tahor App image? So, I filled out their contact form with something to that effect, and a short discussion followed. They replied: : Color Precision: : Thank you for your inquiry, : To clarify (as this seems not to be clear): : "Tahor" is meant to serve as a halachically approved "filter" for a : majority of Shailos (many of which are straightforward and simple to : determine). It is meant to allow those who may not have access to a rov, or : who may not feel comfortable going to a rov, to have an option, when : halachically viable, to send in their sample anonymously. : What this app is not: : This app IS NOT meant to be an umbrella replacement for the process of : showing questionable bedikah cloths to Rabbonim. Rabbonim were all able to : pasken correctly because of our advanced white balance technology and : Rabbinic measurement capabilities. The cloths which are borderline or : questionable, will be told to show the actual cloth to a Rabbi. : It is obviously preferable to take the cloth directly to the Rabbi when : possible, but many many women are not doing it! This will allow them to : keep Taharat Hamishpachah and get accurate answers. I felt I was getting a barely touched form letter, so I paraphrased my original question: } But given that the human eye will misinterpret colors when the lighting } differs between the camera and the person looking at the picture, how } can you know the results are accurate? After all, the differences in } perception of the colors of The Dress is far far greater han that between } a tamei brown and a tahor one. And their reply: : Shalom, : Yes, this is true. : This is why the Rabbis will only answer questions through the app which are : clearly one or the other. : An example of this would be if a stain on underwear is less than a gris. : The Rabbi can with complete accurately declare this Pure/Impure. : If the Rabbi feels that it is not so clear, he will tell the user to go to : a Rav. I am letting it drop there, because I am not going to argue anyone into wondering whether or not his pet project works. But I myself am still wondering.... Given how pronounced optical illusions can be when it comes to color and how subtle many determinations are, can a rav even know when the question is "clearly one way or the other" rather than only seeming obvious? I saw the dress in a catalog, so I know I am getting it wrong when I look at the infamous picture. And yet, it's suprising. If it weren't for people reporting a different color set, I would have considered white-and-gold "clearly" right. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 30th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation Fax: (270) 514-1507 result in holding back from others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 12:57:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: See the following timeline: http://crownheights.info/jewish-news/575460 http://crownheights.info/chabad-news/575513 http://crownheights.info/communal-matters/575546 http://crownheights.info/chabad-news/575559 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 07:33:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 10:33:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> There is a definite dearth of rabbis on the site. I am somewhat conflicted on this. OTOH, the nuances of coloring will be distorted by many displays - perhaps all displays. OTOH, perhaps women who otherwise would not ask she'eilos would use this service. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 08:37:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:37:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App Message-ID: <11c7f4.7c2a7fc4.464730a1@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org Someone mentioned tahorapp.com on-line, so I took a look at their web site. To quote: > Keeping Tradition & > Keeping Your Privacy > Rabbinically Approved! Anonymously send pictures of your Taharas > Hamishpacha questions to a Rav right from your own home. Receive answers > quickly and privately. Download Tahor App For Free! I then thought of "The Dress" , a picture of a black-and-blue dress that floated around the internet that many of us perceived as white-and-gold...... .....So, given that people guess at the background lighting when they see a picture and then subconsciously correct for it (see explanation on wikipedia page), how could a rav rely on a Tahor App image? -- Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>>> According to wiki the human eye can distinguish about ten million different colors. Other sources say "only" seven million. (Not relevant here but interesting: Some birds, some fish, some reptiles, even some insects, like bees, can see colors we can't see.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision A computer screen can display about 33,000 different colors -- only a small fraction of the number of shades in nature that the human eye can see. http://www.rit-mcsl.org/fairchild/WhyIsColor/Questions/4-6.html The takeaway -- to my mind -- is that the tahor app probably can't be relied on. The rav needs to see the actual color, not on a screen. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 08:36:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:36:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:33am EDT, R Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: : I am somewhat conflicted on this. OTOH, the nuances of coloring will : be distorted by many displays - perhaps all displays. OTOH, perhaps : women who otherwise would not ask she'eilos would use this service. Because of "The Dress" I am worried that "perhaps all displays" really understates the possibility of getting a color wrong. While the problem you raise is real. I would still recommend yoatzos as a better solution. Still, there are women who still wouldn't go to antoher woman, or who live in an area with no one to ask. RnTK wrote: : According to wiki the human eye can distinguish about ten million different : colors. Other sources say "only" seven million. ... : A computer screen can display about 33,000 different colors... : small fraction of the number of shades in nature that the human eye can see. ... : The takeaway -- to my mind -- is that the tahor app probably can't be : relied on. The rav needs to see the actual color, not on a screen. I think the problem I raised can lead to more profound misassessments. The precision of color displays will blur the edges. And the rabbis behind Tahor App say that it's only for more clear cases. What had me concerned is that that perception is based on more context colors and lighting specifics than the phone's camera may capture. Thus "the dress", which is explained, amongst other startling optical illusions involving color perception here . It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in different lighting than it was taken. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 09:33:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 12:33:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 517 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 11:53:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 14:53:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:33:14PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote: : The 33rd day of the Omer is a minor holiday commemorating a break in : the plague. The common translation of askaria is some kind of lung disease. However, the only explanation of the gemara that predates the late acharonim is R' Achai Gaon's -- that the word is sicarii. Meaning, they were killed by Roman dagger- or shortsword-men. Tying the deaths of the omer to the Bar Kokhva rebellion. (The sicarii of the events of Tish'ah beAv were Jewish dagger bearers. Same word, different people.) If I may add, which emphasizes the connection to shelo nahagu kavod zeh lazeh. The galus was started by sin'as chinam; it couldn't be ended by people who still hadn't mastered showing another kavod. (A scary thought about our own hopes...) : This day is observed as a day of rejoicing because on this day, the : students of Rabbi Akiva did not die. Actually, it's not a day of mourning because they didn't die. It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. Or perhaps it's the day Rashbi left the cave the 2nd time, or.... For Litvaks, Yekkes, and other communities, Lag baOmer as a holiday is a new thing. Also, as per other iterations, Lag baOmer at Meron appears to have originally been Shemu'el haNavi's yahrzeit (Mag beOmer? Yom Y-m) at Nabi Samwel, and only moved when Arabs going to Nabi Samwel (from Tzefat) dangerous. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 12:42:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 15:42:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/05/17 11:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while > convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in > different lighting than it was taken. But isn't that explicitly taken care of by the instruction to the user to take the photo only in direct sunlight, and by the instruction to the rav to look at it only on a specific monitor at a specific brightness? However reliable or unreliable the technology is, at least *that* concern has been addressed, hasn't it? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 13:01:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 16:01:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> References: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/05/17 14:53, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined > communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- > find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) > writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then > a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping > the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. No typo is necessary. What could "yom simchas Rashbi" mean if not his yortzeit, which he explicitly instructed his talmidim to celebrate as if it were his yom hillula? That's where the whole concept of celebrating yortzeits rather than mourning on them comes from, as well as the concept of referring to them as "wedding days". > Also, as per other iterations, Lag baOmer at Meron appears to have > originally been Shemu'el haNavi's yahrzeit (Mag beOmer? Yom Y-m) at Nabi > Samwel, and only moved when Arabs going to Nabi Samwel (from Tzefat) > dangerous. This paragraph got garbled enough that if I didn't already know what you meant I could not have figured it out. But it's my understanding that it wasn't danger from Arab marauders that put an end to the pilgrimages to Shmuel Hanavi (from all over EY) but rather a government decree barring Jews from the site. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 14:49:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:49:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: References: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512214922.GB4067@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 04:01:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined :> communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- :> find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) :> writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then :> a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping :> the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. : No typo is necessary. It happened. Necessity isn't at issue. We know what the older version was, and there used to be a ches there. "Shemeis" is simply not what RCV wrote. : What could "yom simchas Rashbi" mean if not : his yortzeit, which he explicitly instructed his talmidim to : celebrate as if it were his yom hillula? Well, isb't that what I said in the last sentence quoted? But it's only the most likely (in my opinion) possibility, and not -- as you are taking for granterd -- the only one. To continue from where you chopped off that text: > Or perhaps it's the day Rashbi left the cave the 2nd time, or.... Simcha, in the sence that seeing the man carry two hadasim for besamim -- zekhor veshamor -- yasiv da'ataihu. His simchah learning with his son-in-law, R' Pinchas b Ya'ir. "Ashrekha shera'isi bekakh..." Shabbos 33b-34a give you plenty of reason to believe he was joyous, and wanted to share that joy with the qehillah. Or maybe R Aqiva started teaching his 5 new students in earnest the very day the massacre or plague stopped. And therefore Lag baOmer is the day Rashbi started learning qabbalah. Or maybe... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 18:04:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 11:04:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The rabbi is shocked He realises After pesach is concluded That one of the contracts he's supposed to sell to the G Was not sold to the G If ownership According to Halacha Is determined by believing one is in control And when that control Is lost There's YiUsh Then this Chamets Had no owner During Pesach This Chamets For all intents and purposes During Pesach Has no owner. And Chamets can be Muttar Even if owned by a Y If it's abandoned For the duration of Pesach That's the Halacha Re the Mapoles The shed collapse On a crate of whiskey It's buried under at least 3 Tefachim It's Muttar after Pesach And it seems Even without Bittul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 14:33:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:33:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512213304.GA4067@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 03:42:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 12/05/17 11:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while : >convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in : >different lighting than it was taken. : : But isn't that explicitly taken care of by the instruction to the : user to take the photo only in direct sunlight, and by the : instruction to the rav to look at it only on a specific monitor at a : specific brightness? ... My wife and I saw The Dress for the first time together, and reported different results. in that picture it is obvious it was taken on a sunny day. And we both saw it in the same lighting. So, I don't think it sufficiently takes care of the problem. Maybe if the distributed a color sheet that must be included in the picture in proximity to the kesem, and the rabbinic side of the software corrects the colors displayed based on knowing what the sheet should look like. If the woman prints the color chart herself, you widen the uncertainty. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 14:23:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 23:23:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I have also been in touch with them (the programmer and one of the rabbis). I haven't come to a final conclusion, but my impression so far is: (1) The people on this project are y'rei Shamayim who take what they are doing seriously and have worked very hard for a long time on developing something that will be reliable (2) It is definitely not as good as seeing a mareh in real life (3) It is not good enough for borderline or difficult-to-pasken cases, and when difficult marot are submitted the rabbis will tell them that they need to be evaluated in person (4) They have had quite good results testing this app with easier cases (and most marot that women ask about are easier cases), which is why they have the confidence to release it (5) There are clear instructions on photographing the mareh in sunlight (6) This is only available for iphone - and deliberately so. They have the camera and white balance technology to give a good enough image, and because everyone is using the same type of phone and operating system, there is more control. Developing an android version will be significantly more challenging. If asked, I think I would cautiously tell women that IF they have no way to get the mareh evaluated in person (they do not live near any qualified Rav or yoetzet, or they are traveling), and they have an iphone and carefully follow the instructions, this seems to be reliable. I have worked online with Rav Auman for a long time, and while I haven't actually met him in person, I do trust him to know what he is doing. I'm still checking into it. If any of you have iphones (like most Israelis, I have an android) and have installed the app, I would be very interested in hearing feedback. Thank you! Shavua tov, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 19:10:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 22:10:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Music on the night of Lag B'Omer Message-ID: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> It seems quite common that people have bonfires with music on the evening of Lag B'Omer. I haven't found a compelling reason for this custom - even those who are meikil like the Rama to lift the Aveilus on Lag B'Omer don't do so until the day, I thought, as miktzas hayom k'kulo. Does anyone have an explanation for this? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 21:20:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 00:20:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Music on the night of Lag B'Omer In-Reply-To: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> References: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <112dafa9-5b8f-9e78-8b3e-2c0fcd51e25b@sero.name> On 13/05/17 22:10, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > It seems quite common that people have bonfires with music on the > evening of Lag B?Omer. I haven?t found a compelling reason for this > custom ? even those who are meikil like the Rama to lift the Aveilus on > Lag B?Omer don?t do so until the day, I thought, as miktzas hayom > k?kulo. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Yes. If one is merely noting the end of aveilus, then it starts in the morning, tachanun (or Tzidkas'cha) is said at the previous mincha, and bichlal it's not a celebration, any more than one celebrates when getting up from shiva. I've never heard of people singing and dancing and playing music on such an occasion, even if it's permitted. But if one is celebrating Rashbi's yom hillula then it's a full holiday, an occasion for song and dance and music, and of course it starts at night, with no tachanun at the previous mincha. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 12:11:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:11:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin Message-ID: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 12:27:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:27:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin In-Reply-To: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> References: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170515192700.GA20468@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:11:29PM -0400, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? MB 40:3 says that's the universal minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 14:49:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 17:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped Tefillin Message-ID: <5F399CEB-B043-4AB8-A067-A8E1495829DF@cox.net> Saul Newman wrote: Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? To the best of my knowledge, YES. However, I also recall that one could give extra tzedaka in lieu of fasting. rw From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 16 19:26:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 22:26:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World" Message-ID: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> This Torah portion sets forth the blessings that are seen in this world in response to our deeds. It then continues with the Tochacha, words of admonition, "If you will not listen to Me and will not perform all of these commandments?" Interestingly, there are seven series of seven punishments each. God warns us throughout the portion that He will punish us in "seven ways for your seven sins. We are now counting seven days a week for seven weeks; the Torah has just recently given the laws for Shemita ? seventh year the land lies fallow and seven periods of seven years, we celebrate the Jubilee year. What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the diatonic scale, seven continents, etc. We wind the T'fillin straps around our forearm seven times. We sit shiva for seven days. At the wedding we chant 7 blessings (sheva b'rachos) and the wedding is followed by seven days of celebration. Even the Torah begins with seven -- the First verse has seven words also containing a total of twenty-eight letters which is seven times four. Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion. When we say "Baruch Hashem" we are praising God for something that is hopefully whole and complete. The acronym for Baruch Hashem (Beis, Hay) also equals 7. Finally, the patriarchs and matriarchs total seven: Avraham, Yitzchok, Ya?akov, Sarah, Rivka, Rochel, Leah. (Please don?t write me to say your phone number has seven digits or the rainbow has 7 colors or that there are seven letters in the Roman numeral system or that nitrogen has the atomic number of 7 or that there were 7 dwarfs with Snow White). :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 05:31:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 12:31:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality, Message-ID: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> See below concerning a frequently discussed issue: Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today, especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:30:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:30:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World" In-Reply-To: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> References: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170518143027.GB13698@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:26:19PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven : represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the : diatonic scale, seven continents... Although the diatonic scale and the division of the colors in the spectrum to fit the numbers 7 are human inventions. They say more about what 7 means to humans -- even without revalation -- than anything inherent. ... : Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion... As does the word. Without niqud, the letters /sb`/ could be read as "seven" or "satiated". (Or swear... go figure that out.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:18:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:18:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170518171844.GD26698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh : Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on : Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives : today, certainly not in any practical manner. A tighter comparison... The minhag as recorded in the SA clearly ran into Lag baOmer -- and ending mourning with the usual miqtzas hayom kekulo. Then the hilula deRashbi turned Lag baOmer into a holiday, and this new holiday overrode the older minhagim of aveilus. What's good for one new holiday ought to be good for another (YhA, where this conversation began), no? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:24:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:24:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:24:41PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was : enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*)... As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel YT") but it's "neir Chanukah". Their kids wouldn't forget. : everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get : enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel : dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... Fire hazard is safeiq piquach nefesh, and ein danin es ha'efshar mishe'i efshar. However, wouldn't the alternative been lighting in the dinig hall, near one's table? The point is to eat by neir shel YT, not to sleep by them! And in this case (combining the above with what RJR wrote), shouldn't they have provided incandescent lamps for each table? (Not that there were small bulbs of other sorts when we were growing up.) Wouldn't it be easier to justify making a berakhah on turning the light on than on lighting in a third room or a table off to the side of the dining room dozens of yards from where you are eating? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:35:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:35:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality, In-Reply-To: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170518143502.GC13698@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:31:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why : there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters : of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the : masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as : all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak : halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would : contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today, : especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.] Not sure what this means. There are halakhos about triage. About how much tzedaqah to give and how to prioritize them. There are a lot of halakhos about morality. I fail to see how this isn't circular. The open moral questions RYBS is referring to are those too situational for every possible situation to be addressed with its own pesaq. Ar the Ramban puts it on "ve'asisa hayashar vehatov". If "morality" is being used in a sense to limit it to those quetions that did not get halachic resolution, isn't he just saying the interpersonal questions that didn't get a pesaq didn't get a pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:46:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:46:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170518144626.GD13698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei : Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events : of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber). It seems (but is not muchrach) from the AhS 394:1-3 . As I wrote (in part) in 2010 . The AhS distinguishes between a global minhag from the Geonic period not to marry and a later minhag bemedinos ha'eilu. He attaches the minhag of 1-33 (and including miqtzas yayom kekulo) to when the talmidei R' Aqiva died (s' 4-5) and the minhag of the last days to "minhag shelanu" (s' 5), localizing the last days to the descendent of those who fled the Crusaders east. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:14:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 11:04:32AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : If ownership : According to Halacha : Is determined by believing one is in control : And when that control : Is lost : There's YiUsh : Then this Chamets : Had no owner : During Pesach But if this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as -- it would be open and shut. I think ba'alus (as opposed to ownership) is defined by having the legal responsibility for something, and only as a consequence about having control or a right to use it. Which would explain why qinyan, a mechanism for eatablishing shelichus or shibud, is more thought of as a means of establishing baalus. Because baalus is also primarily on the hischayvus side. And so, it has as a consequence actual legal right of control, rather than depending on belief that one is in control. Which is why a ganav needs yi'ush plus shinui. Yi'ush, loss of belief of having control, is NOT enough to end ba'alus. But that's ba'alus. We don't have ba'alus over chameitz on Pesach. For example, an avaryan who dies on Pesach while violating bal yeira'eh bal yeimatzeih (BYBY) does not leave that chameitz to his sons. BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs from choshein mishpat, and is not baalus. ... : And Chamets can be Muttar : Even if owned by a Y : If it's abandoned : For the duration of Pesach ... : And it seems : Even without Bittul. ... The mishnah on Pesachim 31b says that if it's buried so deep a dog cannot dig it up, it is a form of bi'ur. R' Chisda in the opening gemara says it needs bitul. But in any case, the question is whether this is destruction. The gemara likens it to bi'ur. Not about a loss of ownership. Which would create a whole different question, as Tosafos (Pesachim 4b "mideOraisa") understand relinquishing ownership to be the very definition of bitul. (The majority opinion -- Rashi "bibitul be'alma", Ritva, Ran, and the Rambam 2:2 -- say it's a form of bi'ur.) Rashi and the Ran say the need for bitul after a mapolah fell on one's chameitz is derabbnan, a gezeira in case it gets unburied. But while buried, it's kebi'ur. The Samaq (#98) says the need for bitul is de'oraisa. And the MA holds that the Semaq would require buried chameitz not was not batul to be dug up and burnt on Pesach. The Mekhilta (on Shemos 12:19, see #2 ) says that chameitz owned by a nakhri which is in a Jew's reshus or a Jew's chameitz are excluded from BYBY by the pasuq's extra word "beveteikhem". "Af al pi shehu birshuso". The Mekhilta is making a split between reshus and BYBY. And it could be we are discussing three different concepts of "ownership", with reshus and baalu being different from each other as well. There is also a whole sugya about buried issurei han'ah on Temurah 33b-34a (starting at the mishnah) that I would need to understand better with rishonim and posqim to really comment in full. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:38:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:38:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> References: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 18/05/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel > YT") but it's "neir Chanukah" In L's case, "neir shel shabbos kodesh", but "neir chanukah". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 13:53:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 21:53:30 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? Message-ID: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> A thought just struck me, and I wondered if this chimed with anybody. The Rambam says (Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 halacha 13): ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????. Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. The Tur says the same except that he has Torah shebichtav and Torah sheba'al peh around the other way (Tur Yoreh Deah Hilchot Talmud Torah siman 246): ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??"? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???"? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? The Sages said all who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking with Torah shebichtav but with Torah shebaal peh he should not teach her ab initio, but if he taught her it is not as though he taught her Tiflut The Beis Yosef says it is a scribal error in the Tur, and should be the same way as the Rambam, and that is how he has the statement in the Shulchan Aruch, and the Taz agrees, pointing to Hakel. The Prisha notes that the Beis Yosef says that it is a scribal error but adds: ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??"? In any event there is to give a small reason for this version in the books of the Tur, since with all of them it is written and published so, because there is a greater loss when Torah shebichtav is brought out as words of nonsense than with Torah shebal peh. However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil Siman 199, the Maharil writes: ?????? ????? ???"? ??????' ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?"? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ? - ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?????' ???? ???? ?? ??? ????' ?? ???????, ??? ??' ??"?? ?"?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????, ??"? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????, ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??'? ???? ???? ??????, ??? ??? ????? ????? ... ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???, ???? ?"? ????? ?????, And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut as it says in perek notlev and we learn it from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, when wisdom enters so does cunning since when wisdom enters the heart of a person there also enters into it cunning and according to the explanation of Rashi because of this she will do things privately, and if so we are concerned that she will come to damage since their knowledge is light and even though it is considered a mitzvah eit l?asot lashem so that one should not drown out the reward by loss and all the more so where there is not a mitzvah ... And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by way of tradition from outside, And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous generations: ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like it says ?ask your father and he shall tell you? and in this it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their upright fathers. But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in the form of the Mishna? That the Torah sheba'al peh was passed from father to son by oral transmission (albeit that at one point schools were instated for those lacking fathers who could teach them)? And on the other hand doesn't the Rosh (ie father of the Tur) famously say that today one fulfils the mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah by writing other seforim in Hilkhot Sefer Torah, chap. 1 as is brought by the Tur and Shulhan Arukh in Yoreh De'ah 270:2? So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al peh - as the vast majority of the details are sourced in Torah sheba'al peh, and if they were only to be taught what is in Torah shebichtav, they would all turn into Karaites! And indeed that women were, as the Chofetz Chaim suggests, taught in the home with the tradition handed over by their fathers in the same way as Torah sheba'al peh has always been learnt all the way back to Moshe Rabbanu. While if you understand Torah shebichtav as including mishna and gemora and rishonim, all so long as they have been written down, then one could indeed understand that as being a possible practical distinction - ie not to teach women to read and write and understand what is in the written seforim? Now perhaps one might say that if the Rambam had poskened like Rav Elazar in Gitten 60b as understood by Rashi, that Torahshebichtav is the majority and Torah sheba'al peh is the minority, because he includes in Torah shebichtav anything that is learnt out of the Torah by way of midrash or gezera shava etc, then it might be possible to understand that by and large women could both learn to do the mitzvot incumbent on them and simultaneously avoid Torah sheba'al peh, but he doesn't, as in his introduction the Mishna he categorises Torah Sheba'al peh into five categories, and is clearly in this poskening like Rav Yochanan. So how, according to the Rambam, did women know what to do if they were never taught Torah sheba'al peh, even ba'al peh, remembering that it is the Rema's addition to the Shulchan Aruch in the name of the Smag (actually Smak) via the Agur that adds in the halacha that women need to learn all the mitzvot that are relevant to them? Is not the Tur's version actually the one that makes more logical sense - especially if you explain Hakel as per the gemora in Chagiga that the women came to listen (ie hear it orally, without looking at the text)? Not that this would seem to explain Rabi Eliezer himself, as Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna in Sotah 21a - objected to women learning that sometimes drinking the Sotah water would not result in immediate death, and in the Yerushalmi, Sotah perek 3 daf 19 column 1 halacha 4 he objected to telling a woman why there are three different types of deaths listed vis a vis the chet haegel when there was only one sin - both of which pieces of learning were, at least in his day, definitely Torah sheba'al peh. So given that the Rambam poskened like Rabbi Eliezer, he would have needed, if a distinction was to be made, have to phrase it the way he did. But maybe what the Tur was saying is that, Rabbi Eliezer or no, the Rambam's solution is not workable, and given the way the gemora explains Rabbi Eliezer's limud from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, and that already in his day that kind of learning was found in Torah shebichtav, the whole thing can be made workable by turning it the other way around? Has anybody seen this suggested anywhere? Any thoughts? Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 15:56:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 08:56:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> References: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 19 May 2017 3:15 am, "Micha Berger" wrote: >: If ownership >: According to Halacha >: Is determined by believing one is in control >: And when that control >: Is lost >: There's YiUsh >: Then this Chamets >: Had no owner >: During Pesach > If this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as I don't understand. Please explain. One who is unaware of the loss of his wallet, believes he is still in control. We Pasken that he remains the owner. Famous story, woman lost her money at a trade fair, was found and taken to the Rov. Although there was no question that it was the money she had lost, there was no way to Pasken that it had to be returned to her. YiUsh. Until Reb Y ? explained that she was never the owner and her state of mind was not relevant. It was her husband's money and he, being unaware it was lost, still firmly believed he was in control. YSheLoMiDaAs suggesting that since he'd be in a different state of mind, if he knew the facts, in other words YSheLoMiDaAs, is still a Sevara that recognises and circulates around the principle that ownership depends upon ones state of mind. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 09:16:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 12:16:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts Message-ID: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Two Faces of Love Twice a day the Jew gives expression to one of the most potent forces in social life ? LOVE. In the morning we plead for ahavah rabbah, abundance of love, for in the morning we want love to expand and grow throughout the day. In the evening, however, when darkness descends upon us, we pray again for love, but not in quantitative terms. Instead we plead for ahavat olam ? enduring and eternal love. In the dark night love does not grow; it deepens. Two Philosophies of LIfe Sarah advised her husband to cast out Ishmael, when she saw he was ?Miitzachaik? and she feared he would be an evil influence on his brother ?Yitzchok.? Interestingly, both ?Miitzachaik? and ?Yitzchok? have a common root, meaning to laugh or to play. What is the disparity? The difference is compelling: ?Mitzachaik? is in the present tense and ?Yitzchok? is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael?s philosophy of life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future. Conversely, she saw that Yitzchok?s philosophy of life was to live life spiritually, delaying immediate gratification and living his life in a way that would provide genuine happiness and enjoyment in the future. The future depends on what we do in the present. Mahatma Gandhi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 11:14:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 14:14:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes Message-ID: <20170519181429.GA31873@aishdas.org> >From this week's emailing from The Halachah Center / Beis haVaad leInyanei Mishpat . There are a number of halachic discussions about e-cig use -- whether kashrus concerns apply, health issues, but then they close with this interesting (to me) more aggadic point. Note found interesting was that R' Yosef Greenwald assumes that venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem isn't about preserving life, but preserving one's ability to pull the ol mitzvos. (That sounds weird, but an animal "pulls a yoke", no?) Which includes preserving life. And thus includes intoxication and other mind- or mood-altering chemicals that could hamper one's ability to function. I could have seen argiong for each as separate values, but... Holy Smokes! A Halachic Discussion Regarding E-Cigarettes Are e-cigarettes problematic from a halachic standpoint? By: Rav Yosef Greenwald ... The Health Concerns of E-cigarettes ... 1. Are E-Cigarettes Any Better than Cigarettes? ... 2. Derech Eretz and a Life of Meaning Let us conclude with one more point about the general imperative to protect our health and its relevance to this case. Although as mentioned there is an injunction to safeguard our health based on v'nishmartem, we also have an assurance of shomer pesaim Hashem, that Hashem will protect those who engage in normal activities, as Rav Moshe explained, which is based on the Gemara (Yevamos 12b and elsewhere).[10] Consequently, eating greasy french fries, doughnuts, and the like, may not be the healthiest thing to do. However, doing so would not violate a halachic prohibition, as eating these foods is considered in the realm of normal behavior (like smoking used to be), and we can apply shomer pesa'im Hashem. There have recently been some questions asked about the kashrus on medical marijuana, due to the possibility that the recreational use of marijuana may be normalized soon. However, before discussing the kashrus questions, one must ask whether it is acceptable to consume marijuana. It would seem to be in the same category as significant alcohol consumption. Leaving aside any possible physical damage caused from overdosing, there is no specific halacha that forbids one from getting drunk, aside from being careful not to miss the proper time for Tefilla, and not issuing halachic rulings while in an inebriated state.[11] Nevertheless, it should be obvious that this is wrong, based on what could be called the "fifth section of the Shulchan Aruch," using common sense in living one's life. Clearly, Hashem does not want a person to waste away their life in a state in which one cannot serve Hashem properly. Rather, one should live life as an intelligent, sober person. One who overdoses on alcohol, or engages in mind-altering or mood- altering by ingesting marijuana, is taking away the ability to function as a normal person. This falls under the category of derech eretz, proper conduct, which precedes the observance of halacha. In other words, even if one does not directly violate the Shulchan Aruch, one must live in a manner in which the Torah and halacha can be fulfilled. To return to e-cigarettes, this notion of living healthy is an important reason why, even if it is concluded that they are 100% kosher even without certification, a non-smoker should not start using such a product. In the merit of being able to curb one's physical temptations, hopefully we as a people can merit to reaching great spiritual heights, and achieve the closeness to Hashem that He, and we, so desire. ... [11] Both of these issues are discussed in the Gemara (Eiruvin 64a) and are cited in the Shulchan Aruch. ... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 12:08:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:08:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Does Orthodox Commitment Provide What is Needed for Good Character? Message-ID: <20170519190815.GA24683@aishdas.org> From http://jewishethicalwisdom.com/does-orthodox-commitment-provide-what-is-needed-for-good-character Critical reading for anyone interested in what AishDas stands for. Jewish Ethical Wisdom Blog Does Orthodox Commitment Provide What is Needed for Good Character? Posted on April 6, 2017 Posted By: Anthony Knopf Does Orthodox commitment provide what is needed for good character? Not yet, I answer in this article. ... Rashei peraqim: Introduction Feeling and Thinking Ethically - Not Always a Matter of Halakha Exclusive Focus on Halakha Distracts from and Attenuates Moral Sensitivity More is Required :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 12:19:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:19:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts In-Reply-To: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> References: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170519191925.GA30260@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:16:28PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The difference is compelling: "Mitzachaik" is in the present tense and : "Yitzchok" is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael's philosophy of : life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as : much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future. However, "Yishmael", the name, is also in future tense, and later in his life, "Yitzchaq metzacheiq es Rivqah ishto" (26:8) -- in the present tense. And while "Yishmael's" name is about listening, not tzechoq, is not listening MORE fundamental to a healthy relationship? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 02:14:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 19:14:00 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah at the Age of 12 Message-ID: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> My maternal grandfather, who lived in Lithuania until his late teens, told me on a number of occasions that he celebrated his bar mitzvah when he was 12 years old, as his father had died and he was considered to be an orphan. Some years ago I recalled this and decided to learn more about the custom, but each of the rabbis I asked had never heard of it. Recently, however, I was re-reading A Tzadik in Our Time: The Life of Reb Aryeh Levin and, at page 95, he recounts that he attended a bar mitzvah of an orphan in Jerusalem on his 12th birthday. Does anyone know anything of this custom? David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 13:39:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:39:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs > from choshein mishpat, and is not baalus. We can see a connection between BYBY and "responsibility" by the situation of a shomer. Even in a situation where a shomer is absolutely not the owner or baal in any sense of the term, he will still violate BYBY if he is responsible for the chometz that he is watching. (I don't know which side of the discussion this supports, but it seems very relevant to *some* side, so I figured I'd mention it.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 19:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'midbar Message-ID: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> Israel?s brithplace was b?midbar ? in the wilderness. It has been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced the monotheistic faith. Man is always in need of fulfillment and his promised land is far away. He is always on the road to the actualization of his dreams, seeking better things and yearning for a fuller, fulfilling life. The wilderness is the symbol of man searching for his destination. It is told that a Chassidic Rebbe, impatient at the sad, mad state of the world (sound familiar?) and overcome with longing for the happiness of mankind, prayed to God: ?If Thou cannot redeem Thy people Israel, then at least redeem mankind!? May we reach the promised land in our lifetime! rw ?Ay me! sad hours seem long.? William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 19:00:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:00:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "Krias Moshe Leynen"? Message-ID: <7c27ddbf-5df2-526c-c8bd-dbfd5a94b96e@sero.name> Has anyone heard of such a thing? I came across it in a Munkatcher publication. If it were buried in a block of text I'd take it for a typo for "Krias Sh'ma Leynen", referring to the children who come on the vach nacht to say Krias Sh'ma for the baby. But it's in a prominent position where I think surely someone would have noticed such a blatant typo and corrected it before it went to print, so my current working theory is that it's some minhag that neither I nor anyone I've asked so far have heard of. So I'm throwing it to the wider Avodah community; does anyone know what this is? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 23:08:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 02:08:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah at the Age of 12 In-Reply-To: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> References: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 20/05/17 05:14, David Havin via Avodah wrote: > My maternal grandfather, who lived in Lithuania until his late teens, > told me on a number of occasions that he celebrated his bar mitzvah when > he was 12 years old, as his father had died and he was considered to be > an orphan. > > Some years ago I recalled this and decided to learn more about the > custom, but each of the rabbis I asked had never heard of it. Recently, > however, I was re-reading A Tzadik in Our Time: The Life of Reb Aryeh > Levin and, at page 95, he recounts that he attended a bar mitzvah of an > orphan in Jerusalem on his 12^th birthday. > > Does anyone know anything of this custom? There is, of course, no such custom of becoming a bar mitzvah early. But it was a common custom that a child with no father would begin putting on tefillin a full year before his bar mitzvah, rather than a few weeks or months as is the usual custom. See Aruch Hashulchan 37:4, who says this is "murgal befi hahamon", but he knows of no reason for it, and disapproves of it. See: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=374&pgnum=295 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 14:40:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 17:40:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts In-Reply-To: References: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Message-ID: <2B3DC5BF-D4C8-4C0D-A9B0-01AE8A89E41E@cox.net> > "Yishmael", the name, is also in future tense ...which means "he WILL hear or listen" which fits in with his personality and character. Presently he doesn't listen and does what he pleases. When he gets old, he will then listen. > And while "Yishmael's" name is about listening, not tzechoq, is not > listening MORE fundamental to a healthy relationship? A healthy relationship is fundamental with many elements: one of which is certainly listening NOW, not in the future. Can you imagine telling your child to do something and he says I'll do it in the future. He isn't even listening because as you point out "He WILL listen -- a lot of good that does for the present. And psychologists will tell you that a healthy relationship must have laughter and humor which can only increase the health of a relationship. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 22 07:47:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 10:47:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag Baomer in pre WWII Mir Yeshiva in Europe In-Reply-To: <1494871334409.64146@stevens.edu> References: <1494871334409.64146@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170522144737.GB29499@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:02:36PM +0000, Prof Yitzchak Levine posted on Areivim: : Please see http://mrlitvak.blogspot.com/ I can understand a desire to reaffirm the authentic Litvisher derkeh. But meanwhile, we have more learning than at any time in Litta's history, and kids are still uninspiring and fleeing in horrendous numbers. How often do people mention the RBSO? How much do we discuss or base decisions on the kelalim gedolim baTorah (cf RBW's recent review of RJB's The Great Principle of the Torah -- ve'ahvta lerei'akha kamokha, de'alakh sani, eileh toledos ha'adam, shema Yisrael, tzadiq be'emunaso yichyeh, etc...)? So, Lag baOmer may not be more than cheap sentimentality. But even if I were to agree this was true, I would still argue that we are in desperate need of sentimentality -- and will settle for the cheap kind rather than letting the pursuit of perfection become excuses for less emotional expression. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 10:54:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:54:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? Message-ID: We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that are on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv is al pi din. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 12:38:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:38:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Added textual mar'eh meqomos alongside the links. -micha] On 23/05/17 13:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would > like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. > Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that > are on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv > is al pi din. These would seem to be dispositive: [Rambam, Hilkhos Shekheinim 10:11:] http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/c310.htm#11 [SA CM 155:26:] https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9F_%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9A_%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9F_%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98_%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%9B%D7%95 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 13:35:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 16:35:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170523203556.GC10104@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 08:54:41PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would : like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. : Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that are : on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv is al pi : din. Related question, really came up last week. Someone had a tree that neighbors were complaining about, that it looked like it was dying and might fall on the neighbor's roof. On a windy day recently it actually snapped -- but not falling on the roof, instead the tree brought down the power lines. A number of people on the block lost food before power was restored and other expenses were incurred. Is the owner of the tree liable al pi din? What if the neighbor hadn't warned him, so that we cannot know if the owner was aware of an issue or not? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 42nd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliability crucial for universal brotherhood? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 13:37:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:37:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'Note found interesting was that R' Yosef Greenwald assumes that venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem isn't about preserving life, but preserving one's ability to pull the ol mitzvos. (That sounds weird, but an animal "pulls a yoke", no?) Which includes preserving life. And thus includes intoxication and other mind- or mood-altering chemicals that could hamper one's ability to function.' The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it either as far as I recall. So that leaves us fairly free to guess what it means, I suppose. I'd assumed it means preserving health, inasmuch as nefesh usually refers to life force, and we wouldn't need it to refer to preserving life itself, since that's covered by a) prohibition of suicide and b) al taamod al dam reyecha. And preserving health would presumably be in order to keep mitzvos the better, no? And I think an animal bears a yoke and pulls a plough. Lashon Hakodesh is always 'nosei ol'. Which corresponds better to bear than pull. So we carry/bear the ol mitzvos I think. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 14:25:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 07:25:01 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away - Mashkon Pikadon Message-ID: In Siman 440 chametz foods owned by a G in the care of a Yid (a ?shomer? / guardian) Siman 441 chametz foods owned by a G left in the care of a Yid as a ?mashkon? (lit. collateral) for guarantee of a loan from the Yid Pesachim 5b Two pesukim Shmos 13:7 ?Chametz shall not be seen to you and leaven shall not be seen to you in all your borders.? You may not see your own (i.e. keep in your possession), but you may see that of others (i.e. non-Jews)? Shmos 12:19 ?For a seven-day period leaven shall not be found in your homes.? a Yid may not accept Chamets deposits from non-Jews.? there appears to be an inconsistency Gemara Pesachim 5b If a Yid may see Chamets of non-Jews why does the Beraisa prohibit the chametz deposit of a non-Jew? It depends upon whether the Y has (monetary) responsibility for the Chametz, When a Y accepts monetary responsibility for the chametz he is considered to be owner to the extent that he is Over BYBY Mishnah Berura discusses whether the Y can sell the ?pikadon?. concludes yes If the Y has no monetary responsibility (i.e. for loss, theft or negligence) it may be kept in his house during Pesach but to ensure it is not mistakenly eaten must close it in a room The ?shomer? who assumes monetary liability becomes a part-owner therefore, a Jew's chametz with a non-Jewish ?shomer? does not absolve the Y he is Over BYBY A visiting non-Jew who brings his own chametz into the home of a Jew need not ask the non-Jew to remove the chametz and may even invite him into his home and eat the chametz right at his table provided the Y does not eat together with the G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 13:42:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:42:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim Message-ID: > > > > I am not expressing an opinion here on the permissibility of maharats, or > of women's ordination. I merely wish to express my respect for those on > both sides of this important question, and my hope that the dispute will > remain on the level of a machloket l'shem shamayim and that ultimately all > of us will benefit from this challenging and passionate conversation. > > ---------------------- Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilana. I have found that discussions about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven ... and of not having a recognized posek to support their halachic position. The discussions rarely focus on the relevant halachic issues. It's nice to hear someone who is willing to respect the other side...and recognize that the discussion is a machlokes l'sheim shamayim. -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 17:37:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 20:37:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170525003710.GA22308@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:42pm EDT, R Michael Feldstein wrote: : Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilana. I have found that discussions : about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because : those who support : shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven ... and : of not having : a recognized posek to support their halachic position. The discussions : rarely focus on : the relevant halachic issues. A discussion on Avodah can focus exclusively on the relevant halachic issues. A decision of what to do in practice has to include deferring to the position that actually is backed by recognized posqim. And one side's unwillingness to ask the question on this level itself becomes a relevant halachic issue. However, the following is true anyway: : It's nice to hear someone who is willing to respect the other side...and : recognize that : the discussion is a machlokes l'sheim shamayim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 20:03:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 05:03:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly accused of being agenda driven. Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. Ben On 5/24/2017 10:42 PM, Michael Feldstein via Areivim wrote: > I have found that discussions > about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support > shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 04:57:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 11:57:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> On 5/24/2017 10:42 PM, Michael Feldstein via Areivim wrote: > I have found that discussions > about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support > shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven _______________________________________________ Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:28:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:28:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? Message-ID: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:30:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:30:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shoftim-Mesorah Chain Message-ID: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&st=&pgnum=484 Fascinating article on the mesorah chain-were the shoftim really part of it ?(doesn't deal with broader question of why we don't see Sanhedrin in Nach). KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:46:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 10:46:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shoftim-Mesorah Chain In-Reply-To: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170525144620.GA16912@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:30:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&st=&pgnum=484 : Fascinating article on the mesorah chain-were the shoftim really part of it ?(doesn't deal with broader question of why we don't see Sanhedrin in Nach). Is this the right link? The article appears to be about the revalation of Tanakh "Dargot haNevu'ah baTorah, Nevi'im uKhtuvim", starting with Devarim vs the other 4 chumashim, then Navi vs Kesuvim. By R Moshe Menachem haKohein Shapira. I think you mean an earlier article, MEsoret haTSBP beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah Neustadt. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252pgnum=474 Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:26:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:26:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minhagei Nashim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526012654.GA29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 06:51:56AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I am NOT talking about a machlokes haposkim, where the wife was taught one : thing and the husband was taught something else. In that case, there is : much common ground, and they (or their rav) can go to the sources to figure : out what the couple should do. I'm talking about a much more fundamental : problem, where generations have passed on different traditions, without : anyone ever realizing that there was a mismatch. Is this really a problem? I highly recommend learning AhS. One of the things you get to watch is how much this conflict drives the dialectic of halakhah. Unlike the clean-room approach to halachic theory one gets from lomdus. You get a sense of how much acceptance of a practice in the field drives how much willingness to accept or draft a dachuq theory to explain how it could be justified in theory. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:43:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:43:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'midbar In-Reply-To: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> References: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170526014307.GC29809@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:37:34PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has : been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced : the monotheistic faith... But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged during the Exodus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:39:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526013946.GB29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, : and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying : observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes : when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ... : [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is : outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be : factionalized like that. .... : help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, : despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it : is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to : the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply : to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. : I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 : consistent with 493:8? Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag, as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin on ch"m either. It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the local court(s) or inherited. Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag side of the AhS's chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 20:53:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 23:53:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes Message-ID: R' Ben Bradley wrote: > The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is > that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui > which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in > fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha > nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it > either as far as I recall. This surprised me so much that I looked it up. Here's what I found: These words are from Devarim 4:15. The only comment of the Torah Temimah is: "This is brought and explained above, in the pasuk Ushmor Nafsh'cha (#9)." So I look at Devarim 4:9, and the Torah Temimah quotes a lengthy story from Brachos 32b, which references both pesukim (4:9 and 4:15). The comments of the Torah Temimah that I found particularly relevant to RBB's comment are found in the second and third paragraphs in Torah Temimah #16, and I will quote them here: > The Maharsha writes here, "This pasuk is about forgetting > the Torah, and these pesukim have nothing at all to do with > a person protecting his own nefesh from danger." According > to him, the tzadik of that story said what he said to the > government official merely to get out of the situation, > because the pasuk is really not about Shmiras Haguf. Further, > the fact that it is a common saying, for people to quote the > pasuk V'nishmartem Me'od L'nafshoseichem for any physical > danger - according to the Maharsha that's a mistake. > > But isn't it the explicit opinion of the Rambam, who wrote > in Rotzeach 11:4, "It is a Mitzvas Aseh to remove any > michshol which could be a Sakanas Nefashos, and to be very > very careful about it, as it is said, 'Hishamer L'cha, > Ushmor Nafsh'cha Me'od.'" So it is explicit that the language > of these pesukim *is* about protecting one's body. At first glance, this seems to go against what RBB wrote. BUT: Even according to the Rambam as cited by the Torah Temimah, it seems to me that the most one can say is that Ushmor Nafsh'cha (Devarim 4:9) talks about physical danger; we don't necessarily know that about V'nishmartem (Devarim 4:15), and it is not clear to me why the Torah Temimah closes that paragraph referring to "THESE pesukim" (hapesukim ha-ayleh). Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 03:18:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 13:18:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Bmidbar Message-ID: Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has : been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced : the monotheistic faith... But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged during the Exodus >> However, the avot were shepherds and it has been suggested that being alone with the flock and nature helped them perceive monotheism. BTW I am now reading The exodus you almost passed over by Rabbi Fohrman who demonstrates that the debate between Moshe and Pharoh and the 10 plagues all revolve about monotheism versus polytheism -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:39:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526013946.GB29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, : and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying : observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes : when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ... : [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is : outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be : factionalized like that. .... : help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, : despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it : is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to : the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply : to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. : I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 : consistent with 493:8? Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag, as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin on ch"m either. It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the local court(s) or inherited. Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag side of the AhS's chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 19:22:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 22:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government Message-ID: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> There is a popular theory that the positive description of the gov't found repeatedly found in the AhS is self-censorship and an attempt to make sure his works make it through the government censorship and approval process. But there are times he goes far beyond this, complimenting them in ways no censor would have expected, never mind demanded. For example EhE 42:51, the discussion of marrying in front of witnesses \who are pesulei eidus deOraisa -- eg converts away from Judaism. Rashi has a case of an anoos who got married with other anoosim, and they all returned. Rashi ruled that she needs a gett, because maybe they had hirhurei teshuvah and at that moment were valid eidim. Then he adds Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed. They would never force someone to convert. Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah, we don't have to be chosheish for it. So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus? In terms of timing, the first booklets of EhE started coming out in 1905. (After YD, which came out 1897-1905.) He stopped sometime during or before 1908, his petirah; but he could have written this well before 1905 -- I only know the publishing date. 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other things. Which then led to a new Russioan Constitution, a multi-party system, the Imperial Duma... and 11 years later, the Soviets. So, it's hard to believe he meant it, but it's hard to believe he would risk empty flattery with those stakes! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 04:50:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 07:50:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> On 25/05/17 22:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Then he adds > Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu > shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed. > They would never force someone to convert. He goes on far longer than that. So long that no reader could possibly miss his meaning. > Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he > continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's > converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah, > we don't have to be chosheish for it. > > So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he > suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO > obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up > to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus? This was a period when some publishers of siddurim felt it necessary to print "avinu malkeinu ein lanu melech bashamayim ela ata". He may very well have feared that including a practical psak about anoosim would arouse the censor's ire, especially since the censors were themselves mostly meshumodim. > 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which > was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other > things. Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would have been obvious to him too. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 07:57:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other :> things. : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would : have been obvious to him too. I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation audience. Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his contemporary readers. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 08:33:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 11:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2dc5d4d3-0686-0f3a-9692-24d0aa39595b@sero.name> On 26/05/17 10:57, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which > :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other > :> things. > > : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see > : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which > : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would > : have been obvious to him too. > > I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in > his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation > audience. candlesticks? I think you meant gelecther. But there's no false psak, just a false description of the metzius, which is so over the top that nobody could miss it. > Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining > qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting > them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his > contemporary readers. How could he possibly know what future conditions might be? Any reference in any sefer to "our times" has to be understood as about the author's times, not the reader's. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 07:53:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:53:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly : accused of being agenda driven. : : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response. Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality. Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a non-halachic agenda by making it look holy. (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:57:32AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post : modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all : agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid) But there are limits to eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. When in a halachic debate, one should be limiting oneself to the various answers that are objectively right. Thus presuming there is an objectively right, while still not being absolutist about it. And if we assimilated too much postmodernism to be able to see where eilu va'eilu ends (tapers off), we should be leaning on posqim who can. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 09:54:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 12:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Tvunah] St. Petersberg White Night Zmanim Message-ID: <20170526165420.GA22041@aishdas.org> >From the web site of R' Asher Weiss's pesaqim . I was told that they had a similar problem in the summer in Telzh. Motza"sh was havdalah, melaveh malkah, night seder, shacharis kevasikin, sleep. Tvunah in English Beit Midrash for Birurei Halachah Binyan Zion Under the Leadership of Maran HaRav Asher Weiss Shlita White Night Zmanim Questions: 1. During White Nights here in St. Petersburg we end Shabbat at midnight (2:00). This is also the time of alot ashahar. Accordingly, there is no opportunity to say a blessing on the candle and eat Seudat melawe malka. Question: Is it possible to rely on the opinion of rabbi Ovadiya Yoseph that alot ashahar is 72 dakot zmaniet before dawn, and accordingly there is a certain night after Chatzot for Bracha on the candle and melawe malka? 2. Can we finish fasts of 17 of Tamuz and the 9th of Av after tzet kahovim according Gaon (0:03 and 23:03)? Answers: 1. Since it is already the beginning of the light of the new day and hence Alot Hashachar, the bracha on the candle for havdala should not be said. However since it is still a few hours before Netz Hachama [sunrise] one could be lenient to eat Melave Malka. In fact, with regards to Melave Malka one could be lenient and eat before Chatzos, as long as 72 minutes have passed since shkiya [even though with regards to Melacha one should be machmir until Chatzos]. 2. With regards to ending Rabbinic Fasts, one could rely on the zman of Tzais Hakochavim according to Rabeinu Tam [according to the Pri Megadim that it is a set time in all places], waiting 72 minutes after shkiya. [Hebrew meqoros ubi'urim elided.] :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 45th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Malchus: What is the beauty of Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity (on all levels of relationship)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 27 12:11:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 22:11:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> On 5/26/2017 5:53 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly > : accused of being agenda driven. > : > : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. > > I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat > believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their > halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response. > > Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda > to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have > a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality. People keep using that word, "feminist". I don't think that's what feminism means. This is egalitarianism, which may overlap with feminism in some areas, but is a different ideology. And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to reality. That would imply that halakha comes first and responds to reality. I think that in the vast majority of cases, and if you want, I'll give you ample examples from the writings of JOFA/YCT people, it is a sense that egalitarianism is a moral imperative. That the egalitarian worldview is quite simply the *only* moral worldview, and that to the extent that halakha comforms to that worldview, it is a moral system, and to the extent that it does not, it is not. > Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means > of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a > non-halachic agenda by making it look holy. It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality that predates this entire debate. When the egalitarians want to try and read their ideology back into Jewish history, they often do so with things like Rashi's daughters laying tefillin, a fiction which is accepted as fact by Conservative and Reform Jews, but has absolutely no historical basis. There is a legitimate argument to be made that those on the side of tradition are afraid of change. But not that they are *only* afraid of change. Casual change of halakhic norms has caused enormous damage in recent history, and wariness or even fear of such things is both rational and reasonable. Again, there may even be something admirable about trying to equalize the two sides the way you're doing here, but it doesn't match the reality. One has only to listen to the types of arguments that are used by the two sides to see that they are operating on the basis of vastly different paradigms, where one *starts* with the Torah and one *starts* with egalitarianism. > (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about > fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" > a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos > that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, > etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or > resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and > general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha. The words of the Ramchal and Rabbenu Bachya are not as rigorously chosen as those in the halakhic areas of the Torah, and are far more easily "adapted" to foreign ideologies. I don't say that they are unimportant, but let's not let the tail wag the dog here. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 27 20:44:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 23:44:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: To quickly review an old question: If Rus and Orpah converted at the *beginning* of the story, then how could Naami send Orpah back to her people? But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews? Some answer this question suggesting that there was a sort of "conditional" conversion at the beginning, and while Rus later affirmed her conversion to be sincere, it was revealed that Orpah's was never valid to begin with. I have never understood this answer, because of the ten years that elapsed from the supposed conversion until it was retroactively nullified. (By analogy, suppose (chalila) that Jared and Ivanka would split up, and Ivanka would claim that she was only putting on a show all along. Who would believe her? Those who currently accept her geirus as valid, would anyone accept such a bitul of it?) Today I came across a different approach to the question. Like any other area of halacha, hilchos geirus has its share of halachic disputes. For example, which parts of the process require a beis din; perhaps a beis din is needed only l'chatchila, or is it me'akev? Or: If the conversion candidate admits that he/she has mixed motivations (such as being interested in a Jewish spouse, but also sincerely l'shem Shamayim), is this acceptable or is it posul even b'dieved? Pick either of those questions, or make up another one of your own. Let's say that both Orpah and Rus converted at the beginning of the story. Let's also say that everyone was up-front and sincere about whatever they claimed their motivations to be, such that no one was surprised ten years later. In other words, there was no disagreement about the facts of the situation. But there WAS a machlokes among the poskim of the time, about the halacha to apply to that situation. Machlon, Kilyon, Rus and Boaz all held like the poskim who said that the conversion was a valid one, at least b'dieved. But Naami held like the poskim who ruled it to be invalid, even b'dieved. Thus, Machlon and Kilyon were able to marry these women in good conscience. For ten years Naami held Orpah and Rus to be non-Jewish, but there wasn't much she could do about it, because their husbands held that they *were* Jewish. When the husbands died, Naami finally had the opportunity to express the view of her poskim. Orpah accepted Naami's advice (for whatever reason), but Rus was committed to continuing her new religion (for whatever reason). At this point, perhaps Rus had a second geirus to keep her mother-in-law happy, or maybe not. Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to speak of. A possible hole in my suggestion appears in pasuk 2:20, where Naami explicitly admits that Boaz is one of "OUR" relatives, and one of "OUR" redeemers. This would not make sense if Naami rejected the validity of the original conversion. However, this occurs AFTER pasuk 2:11, in which Boaz tells Rus (I am paraphrasing): "I know your whole story. Don't worry. I hold your geirus to be valid, and I hold you you be a relative." In the final analysis, Naami goes along. Maybe she decides to accept Boaz's shitah l'halacha, or maybe she merely goes along as a practical matter, given the fait accompli that both Boaz and Rus hold that way. Have I left any loose ends here? Previous approaches have focused on uncertainties of intention. This approach says that everything that happened in Moav was clear, and the only gray part was a machlokes haposkim, but we know which shitah was followed by each character of the story. I invite all comments. advTHANKSance Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 09:16:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 12:16:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0789e301-2374-0dd3-0f9e-8befc1c1052c@sero.name> On 27/05/17 23:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was > valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to > speak of. There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. What is the point of this mitzvah? It's to pay off his obligations and redeem his good name; Ruth -- whether Jewish or not -- was also his obligation, and had to be redeemed. Thus Boaz need not have believed that the initial conversion -- if there was one -- had been valid. But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:51:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:51:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Rut converted when Naomi tried to send her back, while Oprah chose not to convert. Ben On 5/28/2017 5:44 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without > Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 10:50:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 17:50:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> >From last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should always follow the local custom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:16:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:16:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mezonos After Kiddush Message-ID: <1495995457275.89387@stevens.edu> >From Friday's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. Must Kiddush be followed by a meal with bread, or is it sufficient to make Kiddush and then eat mezonos? A. There is a halacha that Kiddush may only be recited at the place of one's meal. This requirement is known as Kiddush b'makom se'udah (Pesachim 101a). If one does not eat a se'udah after Kiddush or recites Kiddush in a location other than where he eats the meal, he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of Kiddush and must make Kiddush again when and where he eats. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch (OC 273:5) quote the Ge'onim who hold that one can fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush without actually eating a full meal at the time and place that he makes Kiddush. Rather, a person can consume a mere ke'zayis of bread or even drink an additional revi'is of wine as his Kiddush-time "meal" to fulfill the requirement of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. The Magen Avraham (273:11) and Aruch Ha-Shulchan (273:8) explain that, according to the Ge'onim, one can eat Mezonos food (e.g. cookies, pastry, or cake), after Kiddush to satisfy the rule of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. This view has become widely accepted, and many poskim permit partaking of Mezonos foods after Kiddush but ideally advise against satisfying the mitzvah by merely drinking an additional revi'is of wine (see MB 273:25). Some halachic authorities, including the Chasam Sofer, as quoted by Rav Moshe Shternbuch, shlita (Teshuvos V'Hanhogos 5:80), have ruled that if one makes Kiddush and then eats Mezonos foods, he must make Kiddush again later at his actual se'udah. This was also the opinion of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l. In the next Halacha Yomis we will discuss whether cheesecake is a proper pastry for one to fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. For more on this topic please read Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer's excellent article "Eating Dairy on Shavuos" featured in the 5777 - 2017 Shavuos Consumer Daf HaKashrus. After eating pungent, strong-tasting cheese one should wait before eating meat, the same amount of time that one waits between meat and milk, regardless of the cheese's age. The following chart shows which cheeses require waiting: Aged Cheese List - Kosher -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:59:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:59:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros Message-ID: <1495998054786.63765@stevens.edu> I received the following response to my earlier email about this topic Sadly, you will always find 1 or 2 people in every shul who "sit" while the entire tzibbur stands. This strikes me as downright arrogant, and IMHO is done more to make a "statement" than to follow a minhag that might be prevalent in some communities. C'mon; if 100 or 200 people are standing, should someone stick out and sit because that's the way he was taught.....? To this I replied Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. And in light of this, may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed. I bet this never occurred to you. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:15:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:15:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> References: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> Message-ID: Some people look at this as purely a matter of minhag, and so criticize those who do not follow the local minhag, calling them arrogant. Well, the Rambam thought this was an issue of an incorrect hashqafa, and worth ignoring any minhag started in ignorance. Part of the problem with modern Jews is that everything to them is an issue of minhag. They do not understand that sometimes there are really important hashqafa issues from teh Torah involved. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels at ou.org ________________________________ From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 1:50 PM To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? >From last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should always follow the local custom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:34:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:34:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to : reality... It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem. ... : It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as : being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality : that predates this entire debate... True, as I wrote : >(My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about : >fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" : >a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos : >that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, : >etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or : >resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and : >general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) >From this perspective, those who are in favor of change are advocating a definition of Torah that includes only black-letter law. ... : It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of : Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha... Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that halakhah must conform to and the law itself. Not "primacy over halakhah", but a voice in resolving between two positions when black-letter law could be drafted to support either. It may only get a quieter voice, it still must have its say. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:16:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 16:16:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the rituals above the menshlichkeit. There's a story I've heard many times. This version comes from Rav Frand at https://torah.org/torah-portion/ravfrand-5755-naso/ > At the eulogy of R. Yaakov Kaminetzsky, zt"l, one speaker > related the following: There was a nun in Monsey, New York > who complained about the way the Jewish population related > to her: Everyone used to walk right past her... The "correct" > people ignored her, and the "super correct" people spat. This > nun then related that there was, however, one old Jew with a > white beard that used to say "Good Morning" every single day. > (That Jew was R. Yaakov.) That?s Kiddush Hashem and "looking > the other way" is Chillul Hashem. Such stories are NOT hard to find. The "frum" newspapers and magazines and parsha sheets are full of them. I don't know why so few people greeted that nun pleasantly. I hope that it changed when that story started to get around. If I write any more, I'll get even more depressed than currently. Suffice it so say that the only reason I'm posting this at all, is to clarify the point that I think RMB was trying to make, and to agree with it. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:52:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:52:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as kedoshim tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in the sense of being like aggadeta. Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos would be incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give the value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan pesukim and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos. Most often that's implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the gemara of value based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the expense of what looks otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular dracheha darchei noam is cited. I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic. Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not operate in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how the value system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We ignore meta-halachic pesukim at our peril. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:18:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:18:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Ben Waxman wrote: > I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their > very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, pages 48-52. R' Zev Sero wrote: > There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the > mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. > But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than > being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why > put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether > it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only > applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk > literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging > such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves. Good question, especially since my post explicitly allowed for "an unknown machlokes". The problem is that the machlokes would have to be one where Machlon, Kilyon, Ruth, and Boaz all held that Ruth's marriage was valid, with only Naami holding it to be not valid. My understanding is that Avoda Zara 36b allows for the *possibility* that it is muttar *d'Oraisa* to marry an Avoda Zara woman who is not from The Seven Nations. And Ruth, being from Moav, was *not* from those seven. But at the very most, that gemara would allow (on a d'Oraisa level) sexual relations, and even doing so "derech chasnus" - as a marriage. It does NOT go so far as to consider Ruth as part of the extended family such that Boaz would have any responsibility to her. I would want a source for that. Granted that there might be some "unknown machlokes" which would consider Ruth to be part of Boaz's family, even if she did not convert at the beginning of the story. But I think such a suggestion would be venturing into fantasyland. Here's why: Even if it is mutar d'Oraisa for a Jewish man to publicly marry an Avoda Zara woman (who isn't from the Seven Nations), the children from such a marriage would not be Jewish, and that's d'Oraisa. In other words, even if the marriage is legitimate, the children are not part of the man's family. And if the children are not part of his family, then kal vachomer, Boaz is certainly not part of his family. So unless you can show a valid source that Boaz held (or even *might* have held) by patrilineal descent, then I can't see RZS's suggestion as reasonable. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 15:07:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:07:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: "And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying, 'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them: May HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers 6:22-26] The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins between man and his fellow man. Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his or her face towards the offender. So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is equally important. Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 15:27:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: <4EECF03B-E505-4324-B37E-96A99F67F0A9@cox.net> "And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying, 'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them: May HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers 6:22-26] The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins between man and his fellow man. Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his or her face towards the offender. So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is equally important. Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 16:14:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 19:14:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170528231426.GD6467@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:16:38PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : : > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of : > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without : > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot : > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... : : I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and : more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly : does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But : for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the : rituals above the menshlichkeit. : This is why I wrote that the hashkafah is necessary in order to observe halakhos like qedoshim tihyu. But I realized the language problem, which is why when I replied to Lisa I used the idiom "black-letter halakhah", to refer to the kind of laws that can be codified in the SA. Which isn't only ritual. Eg the limits of ona'as mamon is black-letter halakhah. One of the saddest things about the writings of the CC (other than the MB) is that they represent the realization that shemiras halashon and ahavad chessed were going to continue to get short shrift unless someone made black-letter halakhah out of them. When in reality, HQBH would be "Happier" -- I am guessing, of course -- if we would do things things simply because ve'ahavta lerei'akha kamokha. At the Alter of Slabodka put it: I don't love mtself because there is a mitzvah to do so. So too, the mitzvah is to develop of love of others, and therefore all these things would come naturally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:31:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 14:31:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: It seems to me that the opponents of ordination of women are hiding behind conflation of terms. What is first needed is an understanding of what ordination is in this day and age. The plain meaning of the Shulchan Aruch YD 242:14 is that it is permission from a teacher to a student to instruct in issur v'heter. it is perhaps more instructive to go through the process step by step and see where those who object have a problem. 1. women learn the subject matter 2. the teacher thinks they are capable 3. if the teacher dies, according to SA YD 242:14, nothing further is needed 4. the teacher gives the student permission(to avoid transgressing on the prohibition of moreh l'fnei rabo) So, if there is a problem, which step is the problem and why? is it that a teacher cant give a women permission to be mora l'fnei raba? what is the source for that? Essentially what we use the term semicha today is a teacher giving the student immunity from transgressing a particular prohibition. If the issue is that of a woman giving hora'ah, then it is necessary to establish exactly what that is in this day and age. Is it just 'mareh mekomot'? is it more formal hora'ah? we should keep in mind that R. Schachter, in defining terms for converts, writes that hora'ah in issur v'heter is NOT serarah, and that according to some opinions, judging dinei mamanot is not serarah. Furthermore, he writes of a difference of opinion whether semicha is a din in dayanus, or a din in hora'ah. So, if semicha is a din in dayanus, and not hora'ah, then there is no reason to bring the restrictions from dayanus over to hora'ah. and, if semicha is a din in hora'ah, then the restrictions on dayyanus don't apply to semicha. I would add that the entire basis for the claim that women cant get semicha starts with the restriction on women being witnesses, then that being extended to judges, and then being extended again to semicha. It is not necessarily a given that these extensions should be made. We should note that there are a number of others who are prohibited from being witnesses- those who lend with interest, deaf, blind, etc. The internet reports that there are those who were deaf that recieved orthodox semicha. I dont have any information on semicha for the blind. However, it does not appear that the OU has taken a position on these, nor has anyone accused the deaf and the blind who are seeking semicha of being heretics nor have they been threatened with being kicked out of Orthodoxy. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 17:00:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:00:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529000002.GA17436@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:01:37AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Areivim wrote: : 'that a pesaq is by definition someone eligable to be a dayan,' : Which surely most community rabbis are not, since most have yoreh yoreh but not yadin yadin. 1- Eligable, not qualified. 2- Who said one has to have Yadin Yadin to serve as a dayan? Yes, to judge fiscal matters, we need someone who knows CM, but for someone to decide questions of YD? On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:21:20PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Areivim wrote: : I was thinking along very similar lines. In which case, the main : (only?) difference between the yoetzet and the community rabbi is that : the rabbi's job also includes "masculine" roles like leadership, while : teaching and paskening are neutral and shared. As I wrote in every other iteratrion of this question, there is a difference between teaching halakhah pesuqah and applying shiqul hada'as. Someone who follows a rav's pesaq is obeying lo sasur, and therefore did the right thing even if the rabbi's shiqul hada'as was faulty. Any hypothetical qorban chatos would be the rabbi's. If the person is not among those covered by mikol asher yorukha, then the qorban chatas is yours for listening to her, not the Maharat's. On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 02:31:52PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that the opponents of ordination of women are hiding : behind conflation of terms. What is first needed is an understanding of : what ordination is in this day and age. The plain meaning of the Shulchan : Aruch YD 242:14 is that it is permission from a teacher to a student to : instruct in issur v'heter... I cwould use the word "hora'ah" rather than the misleading "instruct". One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in the same town as one's rebbe. ... : 3. if the teacher dies, according to SA YD 242:14, nothing further : is needed : 4. the teacher gives the student permission(to avoid transgressing on : the prohibition of moreh l'fnei rabo) I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. IOW, we have no indication that when the Rama says that if the rebbe was niftar, nothing else is needed that he is talking about anything more than needed to satisfy kavod harav ONLY. IOW, one of these two criteria is necessary, but -- even assuming competency is a given -- are they sufficient? Semchiah could well be hetero hora'ah plus. Both R/Prof Saul Lieberman and RHS argued they are not. And so it appears from Taosafos. And since we have no indication that the Rama is disagreeing with Torafos... For that matter, since the form "yoreh yoreh" is peeled off of the formula for ordaining a member of sanhderin -- "Yoreh? Yoreh! Yadin? Yadin! Yatir bekhoros? Yatir bechoros!" -- there is sme connection to dayanus as per Tosafos implied in the traditional ordination text itself. ... : I would add that the entire basis for the claim that women cant get : semicha starts with the restriction on women being witnesses, then that : being extended to judges, and then being extended again to semicha. : It is not necessarily a given that these extensions should be made. We : should note that there are a number of others who are prohibited : from being witnesses- those who lend with interest, deaf, blind, etc. : The internet reports that there are those who were deaf that recieved : orthodox semicha... Deaf? To you mean cheireish, a caegory we rule refers to the uneducable and thus does not mean today's deaf mutes? Blind? Chalitzah has a special gezeiras hakasuv, "l'einei", specifically because a blind man is allowed to serve as a dayan. (And as RHS points out, geirim can be dayanim for other geirim, so we see their disqualification to serve in most courts is not athat they are outside of lo sosuru, but another issue.) But I do not think those who lend with interest are kosher rabbanim. Refardless of social ills which may cause that din to be largely ignored in practice. Our discussion here should not be about whether you or I agree with the OU's priorities, but whether the shitah they are supporting in the particular question at hand is well-founded in principle. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 16:53:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 19:53:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg cited a story with an apparent contradiction, and resolved the contradiction this way: > Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between > man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can > show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But > when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His > face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his > or her face towards the offender. > > So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the > Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately > towards other human beings is equally important. It seems to me that although religious or ritual behavior is important, Rebbe Yossi HaKohen is teaching us that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is EVEN MORE important. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 17:18:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:18:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 07:53:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that although religious or ritual behavior is : important, Rebbe Yossi HaKohen is teaching us that behaving : appropriately towards other human beings is EVEN MORE important. Look at the list of holidays in parashas Emor. 23:21-22 describe Shavuos. Look which mitzvos are associated with Shavuos. Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which mitzvos are listed specifically? Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice of Shavu'os reading. To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani. We really need a flavor of O that takes Hillel's "de'ealh sani", or R' Ariva's or Ben Azzai's kelalim gedolim, or for that matter the oft-quoted medrash "derekh eretz qodma ... leTorah" as one's actual first principle for life. And not just a platitude for the early grades, a truism repeated unthinkingly to get nods during the rabbi's sermon. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:11:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:11:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Someone who follows a rav's pesaq is obeying lo sasur, and > therefore did the right thing even if the rabbi's shiqul > hada'as was faulty. Any hypothetical qorban chatos would be > the rabbi's. If the person is not among those covered by > mikol asher yorukha, then the qorban chatas is yours for > listening to her, not the Maharat's. L'halacha, I totally agree. L'maaseh, it is critical to determine who is a "rav" and who isn't. That is, who is "covered by mikol asher yorukha" and who isn't. It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these teachers, because, after all, *Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! > I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. > IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that > anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. I agree that YD 242 is about kavod harav. And if the rav is niftar, then that permission is no longer necessary, but that's not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about who is covered by mikol asher yorukha. So why wouldn't the semicha place a musmach into that category? In other words: Suppose a certain person *is* in that category, and then gives semicha "yoreh yoreh" to another individual. Doesn't the semicha announce to the world that the second individual is now covered by mikol asher yorukha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:15:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 05:15:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> If "black letter law" is the criteria, then issues like womens Megila readings and women dancing with a Sefer Torah disappear. All the opposition because these practices are not "Torat Sabba" doesn't even begin if all we do is ask "Muttar? Yes? Fine". Ben On 5/28/2017 9:34 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of > : Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha... > > Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black > letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that > halakhah must conform to and the law itself. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:20:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 05:15:03AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : If "black letter law" is the criteria, then issues like womens : Megila readings and women dancing with a Sefer Torah disappear. All : the opposition because these practices are not "Torat Sabba" doesn't : even begin if all we do is ask "Muttar? Yes? Fine". I am totally at lost as to your intent. Megillah reading or dancing with a sefer Torah are reducible to black-letter law. In contrast to, for example, deciding how to triage my tzedaqah donations. Wehther that reduction can be done within vanilla halachic process or by appeal to metahalakhah, or by appeal to the general "feel" of halakhah -- like the Rambam's "li nir'eh" -- is a different question. But either way, the question exists. So, what do you mean? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:06:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:06:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat/R. Micha Message-ID: R. Micha, thanks for the response. so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah. And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't necessarily apply to anything else. But the OU authors claim that some of YD 242 is based on classic semicha, and therefore all the restrictions of classic semicha should apply. But that makes no sense of you are claiming that YD 242 ONLY applies to the teacher/student relationship. So your own argument works against your claim. There is not a single hint that anything else about classic semicha applies to what we currently call semicha. (Incidentally I wonder when the first claim of more extensive connections were made, and why, if there is such a close connection, we dont mandate that semicha be done only in Israel, and all the other attributes of classic semicha, it seems that the ONLY aspect of classic semicha that is being brought forward is the prohibition on women). You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much against that possibility. It states: ??????? ???????????? ??????????? ????????? ??????, ?????? ??????????? ???? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ????? ??????????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ???????????, ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????????. ????? ??????????? ?????, ????????? ?????????????? ??????, ????????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????????.(???''? ?????? ??''? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ?' ?????? ????????). ?????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ???????????, ???? ???????????? ???????, ?????? ??????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????, ??? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????. (???''? ?????? ??' ?' ?????''? ??' ?''? ???''?). ?????? ????????? ???????????(?????????? ???''? ?????''?). ?????????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????????, ????? ??? ????????? ?????, ???? ????????? ???? ?????????? ???????, ???? ?''?. ?????? ?''? ?????????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???????????? ????????, ????? ??? ???? ??????????? ??????????? ????????????? ????????????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????, ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????????? ????????. specifically, semicha IN THIS TIME, so that people know that....he has permission. So if his teacher died, there is no need for semicha. The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general" It is very forced to claim that there is more here. You basically have to read things into it that are not there. I am not sure if you are claiming that women cant have semicha? or that they cannot be moreh hora'ah. because it seems very clear here that those who can be moreh hora'ah can get semicha b'zman hazeh..And there is a long list of poskim who agree that women can be moreh hora'ah. Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable. And also, that even though the Talmud specifically states that someone in a particular category cant be a judge or witness, when the understanding of that person's abilities changes, there is potential for them to be witnesses and/or judges- essentially in some cases, where the understanding of the Talmud was at variance with what we know now, the restrictions on some categories is not fixed. If I am reading correctly, R. Herschel Schachter in b'din ger dan et chavero (available at YUTorah August 2002), seems to state that hora'ah in issur v'heter is NOT a issue of serarah. and, according to some opinions, being a dayan for dinei mamanot is similarly not an issue of serarah. Perhaps more to the point, In 'Kuntrus HaSemicha"(published in eretz hatzvi and it seems to be the basis for a talk given at an RCA convention- the talk is available at YUTorah(1985) Smicha in the talmud and today), if I understand correctly, R. Soloveitchik made a distinction as to whether Smicha was a din in dayanus or in Hora'ah. It would seem that such a distinction would indicate that restrictions on dayyanus via semicha do not automatically apply to hora'ah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 00:14:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:14:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 5/28/2017 10:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >: And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to >: reality... > It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are > other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem. I'm not sure that the views of Avodah's LW are the point. To the extent that they argue in favor of those with "other, less defensible, ideologies", it's reasonable to argue against those "other, less defensible, ideologies". And I would be willing to supply examples of where members of Avodah's LW do appear to see it that way, but I suspect such examples would be bounced as "adding more fire than light to the discussion". On 5/28/2017 11:52 PM, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of > Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' > I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as > kedoshim tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in > the sense of being like aggadeta. I don't see that. They are halakhic in the sense that they are commandments. > Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos would be > incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give the > value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are > part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan > pesukim and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos. Most > often that's implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the > gemara of value based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the > expense of what looks otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular > dracheha darchei noam is cited. There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what can be done today. When members of the left claim that brachot should be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old. > I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic. > Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not > operate in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how > the value system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We > ignore meta-halachic pesukim at our peril. The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum". If you mean that the system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to respectfully disagree. The ethics must themselves come from within our own cultural framework, based on our own traditions. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:32:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:32:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:11:37PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least : equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, : because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has : not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself : included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these : teachers, because, after all, *Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! I do not think the typical yo'etzet is qualified under mikol asher yrukha regardless of how capable she is. The term only applies to be elegable to recieve full semichah -- if the chain hadn't been lost, or could be restored. THat's the thesis of what I'm pushing here; that even the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services. And, since this seems ot be turning into a full reprise, even though we should all know the other's position by now, my third problem is with egalitarianism in-and-of itself. It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah. By justifying finding worth in this way, we are indeed teaching girls their traditional role is inferior and they can't reach equality. Rather than trying to find equal meaningfullness without egalitarianism. Second, the fact that we can't reach full eqalirianism implies something about the anature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely consistent with our religion. It should mean that we should really think through our even wanting to make halakhah more egalitarian, and how to balance that with the clear message of laws like davar shebiqdushah, talmud Torah, esrog, sukkah, shofar... Again: 1- Who can pasqen 2- Who was shul designed to serve 3- Trying to accomodate agalitarianism is both strategically and in terms of values, a bad idea. Notice the absense of the word "serarah". Trying to minimize or eliminate the role of serarah in our conversation won't do much to sway me, as it has little to do with my arguments to begin with. Now, back to R/Dr Stadlan's email: :> I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. :> IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that :> anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. : I agree that YD 242 is about kavod harav. And if the rav is niftar, : then that permission is no longer necessary, but that's not what the : discussion is about. The discussion is about who is covered by mikol : asher yorukha. So why wouldn't the semicha place a musmach into that : category? It could or couldn't -- I believe couldn't. (Following R/Prof Lieberman and RHS.) But SA 242 can't be cited on the topic either way, since the se'if is not on topic for our discussion. R/Dr N Stadlan brought it as the defintion of the role of semichah, so I wanted to dismiss taking this siman that way.` "Mikol asher yorukha" is written in the context of dayanim. The only reason why we say it applies to today's musmachim, despite the lesser kind of semichah and the lack of sanhedrin is that "yoreh yoreh" is framed as a splinter of dayanus (which is where the phrase "yoreh yoreh" comes from) and that they are appointed to act as the surrogate of the last (so far) sanhedrin. None of which pro forma can be applied to women. Only someone who could be a dayan, if the situation were such that they could become qualified and real semichah were available can serve as their fill-in. On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:06:06PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah. : And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't : necessarily apply to anything else. But the OU authors claim that some of : YD 242 is based on classic semicha... They note that the Rama in 4-5 is drawing from the Mahariq, and then explain that the Mahariq tells you he is basing his conclusion on the idea that what's true for classic semichah should be true for our current Yoreh-Yoreh (YY). They also cite the AhS 242:30, who assumes that only those eligable for classic semichah can be ordained YY. Those are the ony two mentions of siman 242 in the paper, neither of which refer to the se'ifim you did. And what you are attributing to the OU is actually the Mahariq and the Ah -- a source and an interpreter (who is for us a source in his own right) of the SA -- not their own take. : You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly : where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much : against that possibility. It states: ... : The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the : ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general" YD 242:14 isn't trying to define semichah. It's in a siman about kevod harav, not a siman about semichah. You are nit-picking in the wording about se'ifim that are only tangentially related, and ignoring the Rama's stated source. I disagree with how you read the se'if, since his "only" would be about kevod harav, not "semichah is only". But really that's tangential. Your read of the Rama contradicts one of the sources he names. ... : Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be : witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable... I do? Where do I say that? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 22:01:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 01:01:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the entire aliya in which the dibros appear. For those who feel the dibros merit standing, they are indeed standing. For those who feel that the dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria of the dibros begins. Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since their end is always the end of the aliya. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:04:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 23:04:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/05/17 15:18, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Ben Waxman wrote: >> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their >> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. > > Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that > Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent > introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, > pages 48-52. Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation that has such "gedolim". > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the >> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. > > It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it > something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus > and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus > then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. On the contrary. If it were a matter of yibum then it would depend on whether there was an original marriage. But then why would it be connected to redeeming the field? It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations would not be settled. Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz agreed with them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 00:10:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:10:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/28/2017 10:18 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Ben Waxman wrote: >> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their >> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. > Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that > Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." Yes, but the dor in question was one where "each man did what was right in his own eyes". So their being gedolei hador doesn't mean they were any better than, say, Yiftach. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:23:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:23:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation : that has such "gedolim". According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah Neustadt , this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam. Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim". But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el... If this is the Rambam's intent, it would fit a number of gemaros which refer to various shofetim as amei ha'aretz. See the article. OTOH, Tosafos's treatment of the question of how Devorah could serve as shofetes presumes the role includes being a dayan in the halachic sense (and then explains why Devorah is neither role model nor eis-la'asos exception), rather than only the serarah question of her being a civil leader. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:17:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:17:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29/05/17 01:01, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his > minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not > to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two > different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the > entire aliya in which the dibros appear. For those who feel the dibros > merit standing, they are indeed standing. For those who feel that the > dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up > specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria > of the dibros begins. Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since > their end is always the end of the aliya. Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. (Personally I stand for the whole leining so it's not an issue for me, but this is what I've seen.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:33:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:33:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <10c1c9ed-6b4e-cb90-8297-cdeb5a507e94@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <13c3a1e0-26da-f70b-7b13-b80c95bf5d1d@zahav.net.il> <58F44DE5-8AE0-4CF7-BC79-7048F752624D@sibson.com> <10c1c9ed-6b4e-cb90-8297-cdeb5a507e94@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: > Ok let's accept your presumption-Who that has the authority to determine which changes are with in the halachic system and which aren't. Can I say libi omer li if I have smicha and that's good enough? If not , how do you draw the line? ------------------------ I can't say that I can draw a clear line. Certainly someone who passes a 2 year smicha program (a change, BTW) shouldn't be doing this type of thing. It seems that change doesn't require unanimous agreement and very possibly it can be done even if the greatest rabbis disagree. My example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher. Ben ----------------------- Yup, as said, the wheel is still in spin with regard to this and the other current thread Maharat/smicha. Now "everyone knows" it was obvious that Chassidus would be accepted and Conservative not (see Kahnemaan Tversky on how we all do this) Anyone who thinks these or those are simply matters of black letter law discussions (hat tip R'Micha) IMHO is fooling themselves. Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 06:09:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 09:09:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in > the same town as one's rebbe. If the shiur-giver is very careful to merely read and explain the QSA, then I'd agree with you. But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require require semicha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 06:12:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 13:12:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] (no subject) Message-ID: "Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. And in light of this, may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed." Do you also sit for the musaf amidah on Rosh Hashana and Ne'ilah on Yom Kippur? And since there are those who cannot and do not stand for those because of physical infirmities, would you suggest that everyone sit for those teffilot so as not to embarrass the ones who truly must sit? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 09:41:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros Message-ID: <33c01f.93b651f.465da93b@aol.com> From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. YL >>>>>> I want to thank RYL for the reminder we all need -- myself very much included -- not to be too quick to assume we know other people's motives. Sitting during the reading of Aseres Hadibros may indeed be an indication not of arrogance but of arthritis. Let us be kind to one another, even in our thoughts. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 07:26:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 29/05/17 08:23, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation > : that has such "gedolim". > > According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP > beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah > Neustadt, > this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam. > > Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim > of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim". > > But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers > of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past > that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el... I actually had that article in mind, but was not taking Rashi's side. Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel Bedoro". So even if Machlon & Kilyon were considered "gedolei hador" that wouldn't seem to be sufficient reason to assume that they acted properly, even in the sense that they had an opinion which is one of the shiv'im panim and followed it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 09:46:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:46:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum," or you call it something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. Akiva Miller >>>>>> There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events in Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 13:01:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 20:01:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <92dae2a6-a1ea-f563-f350-cddd9a9fbade@starways.net> References: , <92dae2a6-a1ea-f563-f350-cddd9a9fbade@starways.net> Message-ID: 'There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what can be done today. When members of the left claim that brachot should be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old.' No argument there at all. The point was really to buttress the truism that halacha and Torah are not synonymous. Halacha works within the larger structure of Torah and is guided by principle and values. Your point that this idea is mangled and misused throughout heterodoxy is well taken though. I was not suggesting that someone can pick a favourite value, decide that it doesn't shtim with a particular halacha and proceed to mangle the halacha into submission. Not for a moment. 'The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum". If you mean that the system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to respectfully disagree. The ethics must themselves come from within our own cultural framework, based on our own traditions'. Again, agree 100%. Don't think I suggested otherwise. I'm a neo-Hirschian after all. What I was taking issue with was your contention that it is 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' That's true for the heterodox tendency to sidestep halacha (or worse) due to what they consider to be ethical issues. But it doesn't take into account the centrality of of values in the whole system of Torah, including underlying TSBP. Just for example, Pirkei Avos is not halachic but it's vital and has implications for halacha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 12:38:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:38:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> References: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> Message-ID: <2ba3e007-8860-37d6-2941-c41f1aac13bf@sero.name> On 29/05/17 12:46, RTK wrote: > There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events > in Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no > mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was. 1. How could anyone hold there was a mitzvah of yibum, when the Torah explicitly limits it to brothers? 2. If he held as a matter of halacha that Boaz was wrong, then he should have insisted on redeeming the field without marrying Ruth. The fact that on being informed of this requirement he backed out of the whole deal shows that he acknowledged Boaz's point. Therefore that point was not about yibum but about mitzvas geulah. Boaz pointed out that Machlon had an obligation to Ruth, and so long as it remained outstanding the mitzvah to discharge his obligations would remain unfulfilled. Ploni agreed, and since he could not do that he waived his rights. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 12:51:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:51:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel : Bedoro". The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah". Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so? Yes, it's dachuq. But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include the generation's gedolim. I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology, but that doesn't mean I share it. However, given Chabad's linking HQBH medaber mirokh gerono shel Moshe to Moshe bedoro keShmuel bedoro to yield the notion that every generation has a Yechidah Kelalis, a single tzadiq who is uniquely that generation's person in that role, I would think the notion that Yiftach as that person but not one of the baton-passers of mesorah to be even harder to fathom than within my own hashkafah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 13:25:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:25:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <46edbb0e-6394-3e98-a574-f1c53410f0bf@sero.name> On 29/05/17 15:51, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the > : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the > : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel > : Bedoro". > > The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing > Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah". Yes, precisely. And yet he was the "gadol hador". > Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our > obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring > whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so? > > Yes, it's dachuq. > > But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but > not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm > not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include > the generation's gedolim. Your unstated but clear assumption is that "gedolei hador" means "gedolei *hatorah* shebador". I am challenging that assumption. I am saying that when Machlon & Kilyon are described as "gedolei hador" it does not mean that they were talmidei chachamim, any more than it means that when Yiftach is described as "kishmuel bedoro". It just means they were the generation's leaders, and thus if they did wrong everyone else would follow their lead. Meanwhile Pinchas was still the gadol hatorah. Remember, "Yiftach bedoro" is an explicit gemara, so the Rambam can't dispute it. So how can this machlokes between Rashi & the Rambam, that the article posits, exist? This is how. The Rambam accepts Yiftach bedoro, that Yiftach was indeed the "gadol hador", but that is irrelevant to his topic; he is listing who passed the Torah down from that generation to the next, and that was not Yiftach but Pinechas. > I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I > think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology, Wow. Just wow. No, it has nothing to do with Chabad *or* theology. It's an explicit pasuk and gemara. Yiftach was the one and only gadol hador, because the pasuk says so, and he had the same authority as Shmuel because the gemara says so. But one wouldn't ask him a shayla about "an egg in kutach". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:03:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing. Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R. Micha's interpretation: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/ Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to understand the Rama, but one of them is: " The first and simplest view, drawing the logical conclusion from the above depiction of semikhah and adopted by Rama in both the Darkhei Moshe and Shulh?an Arukh, concludes that anyone is eligible to receive semikhah when their teacher certifies they have acquired requisite knowledge and licenses them to issue halakhic rulings. The scope of this license may be limited to certain areas of law (depending on the studentVs actual knowledge and qualifications) and may be granted to one who is ineligible to receive Mosaic ordination that was present in Talmudic times. As such, basic contemporary semikhah is based on oneVs knowledge and competence to answer questions of law". the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have sources to rely upon. I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong with semicha for women. The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 05:08:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 08:08:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am going to revise and restate my original post, which got sidetracked onto issues of marriage to a non-Jewess, and of the role of a "redeemer", which I confess to knowing very little about. But it is very clear to anyone who has looked at it (again, pages 48-52 of ArtScroll's Ruth is an excellent summary) many of Chazal were uncomfortable with the possibility that Machlon and Kilyon would marry women who had not been converted at all. At the same same, they are also very uncomfortable with Naami telling women who *had* converted that they should leave. Some have tried to resolve this by suggesting some sort of "tentative" conversion, but I cannot imagine that we'd allow such a conversion to be cancelled after ten long years. Instead, my solution is that there was a genuine halachic machlokes involved, such that Machlon and Kilyon held the conversion to be valid (at least on some minimal b'dieved level), while Ruth held it to be totally invalid. This simple approach answers all the problems listed above. (It also allows you to think whatever you like about the level of Machlon's and kilyon's gadlus.) I will leave it as an open question whether Ruth reconverted to satisfy Naami's shita, or whether Naami resigned herself to accepting the first geirus. I also retract all my comments about Boaz, as they will turn on topics that I am woefully ignorant about. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:32:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 17:32:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging > Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an > obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he > owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations > would not be settled. > Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages > were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz > agreed with them. I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a related question which is probably simpler: What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then there was no kiddushin. I'll repeat that: Even if it is mutar to marry a woman AZ-nik (not from the Seven Nations) that marriage is one of convenience, maybe even love, but not of kiddushin, and I'm not aware of any halachic obligations that the husband has toward such a wife. I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have towards the husband himself, and we see in pasuk 4:4, that Ploni Almoni was willing to buy the field from Naami in order to meet those obligations to Elimelech. But in 4:5, Boaz pointed out that buying it from Naami would be insufficient. He'd have to buy it from both Naami and Ruth, at which point Ploni declined and Boaz himself accepted the responsibility. My question is: *What* responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid? (I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so, then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech left. Why did they wait ten years?) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:51:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 23:51:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > RMB: the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. > All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and possibly the latter. > > RMB: Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of > shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use > to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi > in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services. > On the one hand, I completely agree with you. One of the things I love about Orthodox Judaism is the all-women spaces - women's shiurim and batei midrash and tehillim groups and ladies' auxiliaries and all-girls schools. I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have comfortable space for women as well. I understand that the "men's club" gets to run the tefillot and be the gabbaim and the ba'alei tefillah and ba'alei korei and rabbi - and that losing that space would not be good for men. But I hope that having an ezrat nashim open for all tefillot (during the week, Shabbat mincha) would not ruin the mens' club atmosphere. Does having a woman give the drasha go too far in this regard? I think it depends on the community. > > > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah.... > Second, > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about > the > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely > consistent with our religion.... > Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. I think you have presented some compelling reasons for declining to endorse or promote the institution of maharats. I see no reason for maharats to be universally accepted. However, I believe that the maharats personally, and the communities they serve, remain clearly within the Orthodox community. We can disagree strongly with another Orthodox sector's practices (Hallel on Yom Ha'Atzma'ut comes to mind) without declaring them out-of-bounds. Finally, a perspective from Israel. Women rabbis/maharats are a particularly contentious issue in the US, because (a) it is similar to changes made by the Conservative and Reform movements, (b) a very common career path for American male rabbis is the shul rabbinate, which is particularly problematic for women, and (c) it seems to have perhaps been instituted in a manner designed to provoke controversy. In Israel, Conservative and Reform are a small minority with little influence. Most male rabbis work in education, writing/translating/publishing, or computer programming - all perfectly acceptable careers for learned women. Full-time shul rabbis are almost unheard of. And I can think of three or four respected, mainstream, dati leumi institutions that are essentially giving women the equivalent of smicha, without a lot of fanfare. Some people think this is great, some people think this is awful, and many people have not really noticed - but there isn't a big brouhaha and questioning of Orthodox credentials. Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it seems to be shaping up as the latter. Chag sameach, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 03:10:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 06:10:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170530101006.GA10791@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have : sources to rely upon... Again, the Rama cites the Mahariq... So, so rule leniently is to read the Rama and ignore his source. : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the : specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. Well, in the case of Maharat in particular, the big bold print in the middle of the certificate reads "heter hora'ah larabbim". http://www.jta.org/2013/06/17/default/what-does-an-orthodox-ordination-certificate-look-like Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 49th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 7 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 goal of perfect unity? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 04:51:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 06:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R Micha. You did not answer my question. When you and/orthe OU panel use the word semicha when you forbid it to women, what exactly does it mean? Heter hora'ah? Something more? Something different? Clarity please. Thank you Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 07:27:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shavuos (Lifeline) Message-ID: <448A28D9-D7AC-47C4-807C-08E3C10A0318@cox.net> The Rabbis tell us the Book of Ruth teaches neither of things that are permitted or forbidden. Why then is it part of Holy Scriptures? Because its subject matter is gemilus chassodim. Along the same line, three times a day we recite ?God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob.? However, we conclude the blessing ?mogen Avraham? ? only with Abraham. Why? In explanation, a Chassidic Rabbi explains that each of the patriarchs symbolizes one of the three essentials as articulated in Pirkei Avos 1:2). Jacob represents Torah; Isaac, Avodah; and Abraham, gemilus chassodim. Though all three principles are vital, kindness is sufficient to stabilize the world (how we need it now more than ever!). An interest in the performance of good deeds was the quality that marked Abraham ? a quality which can be a shield and support to us even when other qualities in our nature are weak ? hence, MOGEN AVRAHAM. Ruth was no ordinary convert. Her name gives us a clue to her essence. In Hebrew, Ruth's name is comprised of the letters reish, vav, tav, which add up to a numerical value of 606. As all human beings have an obligation to observe the seven Noachide commandments ? so called because they were given after the flood ? as did Ruth upon her birth as a Moabite. Add those seven commandments to the value of her name and you get 613, the number of commandments in the Torah. The essence of Ruth, her driving life force was the discovery and acceptance of the 606 commandments she was missing. Another lovely aspect is the meaning of the name "Ruth." In Hebrew the name is probably a contraction of re'ut, ' friendship,' which admirably summarizes her nature. The meaning in English is also very apropos: ? Compassion or pity for another ? Sorrow or misery about one's own misdeeds or flaws. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 15:46:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 01:46:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Naso In-Reply-To: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> References: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos > 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which > mitzvos are listed specifically? > > Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice > of Shavu'os reading. > > To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms > of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of > observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani. > Barukh shekkivanti. I made exactly this comparison in a Tikkun Leil Shavuot this time last year, and a parallel observation in a shi`ur last Shabbat: when the Zohar needs an example of how Basar veDam can make a hit`aruta dil'tata which will cause a hit`aruta dele`ela and kickstart the process of atzilut shefa from the upper to lower worlds, it typically says something like "hoshiv ani al shulhanecha". Because for Hazal, the Torah is above all Torat Hesed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 06:06:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:06:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. ---------------------------------------------------- Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the debate on black letter law? KT Joel Rich (full disclosure-kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-not everything that is permitted to you should be done) THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 07:22:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:22:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Probably the best and most succinct historical analogy I've seen for this question. Ben On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > > Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women > rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the > vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it > seems to be shaping up as the latter. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 13:59:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:59:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation. Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. How can this be? Dare we imagine that he did such things unauthorizedly? Certainly he must have had/received some sort of Heter Hora'ah. If so, then when and how did he get it - and without getting semicha at the same time? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 10:22:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] matched soldier and praying for them In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014801d2d969$41c5c800$c5515800$@com> A while ago on Avodah, a well known (chareidi) Baal machshava was quoted as disagreeing strongly with the concept of matching frum people with a nonfrum soldier in order to pray for them. "we have no brotherhood with secular Israelis" Recently, I posted to Avodah a link to a collection of 1400 short tshuvot from HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlitah (of Toronto) On the above topic, he writes there.. #600 Pray As They Go Q. There are two organizations here in Eretz Yisroel, one called; Elef LaMateh, and the other; The Shmirah Project. Basically, their intent is to match Israeli soldiers with Avreichim and bochurim learning. Each Avreich and Bochur who volunteers, receives the name of a specific soldier (his name and his mother's name) that he takes responsibility to daven for and learn specially for so that in the merit of the tefillos and learning, that soldier will merit to return home alive and well. (Is this a good idea) A. HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is a great mitzvah to pray, learn Torah and accomplish mitzvos for the benefit of all our brethren B'nay Yisroel in times of peril and need, especially for those who put their life in harm's way to save and protect others. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 00:39:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:39:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should be identical for each community and each generation? - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 20:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: . I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start farming? I suppose it was pretty desolate after a ten-year famine, but did she even try? She must have at least gone there to see the place, if for no other reason than to be sure that no squatters took over while she was gone. Without making sure of such things, how could she even hope that anyone (even a goel) would buy it? Maybe she expected to get a better profit from Boaz than she'd get from farming it herself, but maybe there are other answers? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 20:05:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:05:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the distinction? When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on this. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 02:14:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (ADE via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:14:59 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are still being machshiv some pesukim over others. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk > *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:32:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:32:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <510d4fd4-6c91-fb85-0c23-f6cdfa7ffcbf@sero.name> On 02/06/17 05:14, ADE wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one >> pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this >> reason. > Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are > still being machshiv some pesukim over others. There is no requirement to treat all pesukim exactly the same. One is entitled to stand or sit during KhT as one wishes, and has no obligation to choose one policy and stick to it. The problem is only with standing up for special pesukim, such as Shma or the 10D. Since there's nothing special about the pasuk before the 10D, there's no problem with deciding to stand for it. And when the special pesukim come along one is already standing, so one has no obligation to sit down. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 18:46:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:46:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> In our personal religious commitments there are those among us scrupulous in performance of the ceremonial mitzvot but at the same time displaying reckless disregard of our elementary duties towards our fellowman. Halacha embraces human life in its totality. One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social trait from our behavior! A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 08:31:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:31:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought In-Reply-To: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> References: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170602153131.GA15356@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made : a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study : of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social : trait from our behavior! Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, among the aphorisms of his listed in R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 21:28:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:28:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4dd6e4f1-2d00-a274-ace0-e5d2a803039a@sero.name> On 01/06/17 23:05, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I only see four instances of "Ruth Hamoaviah", three in ch 2, and only one in ch 4, in Boaz's description of the situation to Tov. Since his purpose was to scare him off, it made sense to mention her origin, so Tov would be reluctant to risk his future. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:20:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:20:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/2/2017 6:05 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I can't cite a source for it, but I remember once reading that Ruth HaMoaviah was intended to praise her, since she gave up her position in Moav to join us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:31:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:31:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Actually if the land had lied fallow for 10 years, it should be in good shape. Granted it needs weeding but the soil should be good. It only requires a relatively small amount of rain for grass to grow and re-invigorate the soil. Maybe she was too old to work the land and figured that a sale would provide her with enough money to live out the rest of her days in dignity? Ben On 6/2/2017 5:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 00:04:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 09:04:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? They came back on Pesach, at the beginning of the barley harvest. Nothing was growing on their land, presumably. Planting is after Sukkot, at the beginning of the rainy season. If they planted, it would be a full year until they could harvest the first barley. As we see from Megillat Rut, the barley then had to dry and wasn't threshed or winnowed until after the wheat harvest (early summer?). When they come back, they have nothing. They need to eat. And two women alone will not be able to do all the work of planting and cultivating in the fall. They would need money to hire workers and probably buy or rent an animal to help with plowing. And to buy seed. They didn't have the capital to go back into farming, or the means to support themselves until the first crop. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 21:17:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:17:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <272b8698-d5c1-55a1-560b-2bc6d0c39b74@sero.name> On 01/06/17 23:01, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? It seems to me that finding a buyer for the property was not at all important to her, and in fact she had shown no interest in doing so until she saw how she could use it to get Boaz to marry Ruth. It was Boaz who spun the story out for Tov in order to scare him off; first he drew him in with the prospect of an easy transaction for Naomi's portion of the field, but then he threw in the Ruth monkey wrench. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:18:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:18:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/2/2017 6:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the > halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I > think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: > > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? In the set of priorities that we had back then, the principle of yerusha was more important than simple economics. As I understand it. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:21:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:21:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22efff8f-5ee7-d47e-8701-b1541a7a8e41@zahav.net.il> And of course the irony is even greater in that many yeshiva rabbis will tell their guys to go to a community rav because they, the yeshiva rabbis, don't deal with shailas. Ben On 5/29/2017 4:11 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least > equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, > because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has > not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself > included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these > teachers, because, after all,*Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:16:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:16:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> On 6/1/2017 10:39 AM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly > egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the > experiences of women and couples and families and communities to > affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian > direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. > > RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument > is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically > permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically > forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without > asking whether HKB?H prefers it? > > Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should > be identical for each community and each generation? > I'm not sure that's the question. The problem is, as I see it, that when one adopts an external -ism as an ideal, and try and "move in a somewhat more -ism-friendly direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted", they're essentially saying that their motivating principle is that -ism. That halakha isn't the motivating principle, but merely bookends. Limits to how far they can push the -ism that's important. It's the difference between a static principle and a dynamic one. What you're describing has egalitarianism as the dynamic force, and halakha as a static one. A fossil. And there's no way to maintain that worldview for long without starting to chafe against the static limits. At which point, people put their shoulders into it and *push* those limits a little bit further. And then a little further than that. And they feel frustrated by those limits. That's probably the biggest problem. It turns halakha into shackles and frustration. And you only have to read articles written by certain YCT teachers and grads to see the hostility that comes out of that. Yes, there are people who can manage to walk the tightrope and not fall into that kind of frustration, but they are few in number, and not representative of the "movement", as such. And many of them, in my observed experience, eventually fall off. Permit me to illustrate this mindset with something that just happened *as* I was writing this. My 17 year old daughter was reading a comic book from the early 1990s. In the comic, the hero (Superboy) is 16, but all of the women he dates are in their 20s. Today, we call that statuatory rape, and have little to no tolerance for it. But if you recall the early 90s, that idea was rather new, and while the writers of the comic gave lip service to the idea, even having characters laughingly calling Superboy "jailbait", it wasn't nearly as taboo as it is today, at least when the younger person was male. But my daughter is livid about it. Appalled. And she isn't able to imagine a world in which that was the way people thought. Similarly, people immersed in the egalitarian ethos so prevelent in the Western world today cannot *imagine* a world where that isn't the universally accepted ideal, except for barbaric and backwards societies. It's a given that egalitarianism is the more advanced worldview. The more civilized worldview. That to the extent that a worldview is less egalitarian, it is less civilized. More backwards. So now consider what it means to say, "I want to be as egalitarian as possible, within the bounds of halakha". It means "I want to be as civilized as possible, within the bounds of the less civilized and more backwards system of halakha." How can that help but breed disrespect, discomfort, and eventually contempt for halakha? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:50:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:50:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> Message-ID: > > LL: The problem is, as I see it, that when one adopts an external -ism as > an ideal, and try and "move in a somewhat more -ism-friendly direction > WITHIN what is halachically permitted", they're essentially saying that > their motivating principle is that -ism. That halakha isn't the motivating > principle, but merely bookends. Limits to how far they can push the -ism > that's important...... > > Similarly, people immersed in the egalitarian ethos so prevelent in the > Western world today cannot *imagine* a world where that isn't the > universally accepted ideal, except for barbaric and backwards societies. > It's a given that egalitarianism is the more advanced worldview. The more > civilized worldview. That to the extent that a worldview is less > egalitarian, it is less civilized. More backwards. > > So now consider what it means to say, "I want to be as egalitarian as > possible, within the bounds of halakha". It means "I want to be as > civilized as possible, within the bounds of the less civilized and more > backwards system of halakha." How can that help but breed disrespect, > discomfort, and eventually contempt for halakha? Yes, if one defines one's ideology and worldview primarily as feminist, one is going to struggle with halacha. Some people struggle and still maintain Orthodox practice. Some become "halachic egalitarian." But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah live in an increasingly egalitarian society. Even women who would never dream of making a women's zimmun (range of psak on this goes from obligatory to optional to assur) have their own credit cards and vote in elections and choose whom they want to marry. Halachic psak does not exist in a vacuum; it applies to a particular metziut in a particular time and place. I can certainly see room to argue that the institution of maharat is an example of an attempt to "push" halacha to evolve artificially to conform to feminism. But to some extent, increased involvement of women teaching and learning all areas of Torah, at all levels, is a natural halachic development in response to changing reality. Each posek will draw his own line as to what is a positive development (maharats? yoatzot? Rebbetzin Heller?), and what needs to be reined in. Halacha is dynamic. (This is true even if the Conservative movement also says it!) Obviously, there are boundaries, but there is also plenty of room for different opinions, and for development over generations. I am not advocating always choosing the most feminist interpretation possible within the bounds of what is mutar. I am pointing out that increasingly egalitarian psak within halacha reflects the reality in which we live. Shabbat Shalom, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 10:00:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Martin Brody via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:00:09 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat etc. Message-ID: "R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation" Did the Chazon Ish have semicha?.I think not -- Martin Brody -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 11:35:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:35:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <960df966-7387-baf7-202b-5a6624127fed@sero.name> On 30/05/17 16:59, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura > did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the > ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite > involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send them to the rav. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 11:46:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:46:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37d489e2-09cc-d836-f973-74d1b831ec0a@sero.name> On 29/05/17 17:32, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging >> Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an >> obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he >> owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations >> would not be settled. >> Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages >> were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz >> agreed with them. > I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to > respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too > complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a > related question which is probably simpler: > > What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then > there was no kiddushin. I don't see how this matters. Machlon was shacked up with this woman for ten years, and left her high and dry. She was now in Beit Lechem living in poverty, and everyone who saw her would say "there's Machlon's widow, poor thing". Thus seeing her settled was an unsettled obligation that Machlon had left behind, so taking care of it was part of the goel's duty, just like paying off his credit cards and returning his library books, so that nobody should be left with a claim against his memory. > I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's > relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have > towards the husband himself [...] My question is: *What* > responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might > be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid? Yes, the goel's duty is to his relative, not to the relative's creditors. But that duty *is* to discharge the relative's obligations, which he is himself unable to discharge, whether because of poverty (as in the Torah's example) or death (as here). Neither Tov nor Boaz owed anything to Ruth, but Machlon did. > (I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the > family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we > want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be > paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so, > then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech > left. Why did they wait ten years?) Redeem it from whom? At that point it still belonged to Elimelech. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 12:55:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 15:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170602195535.GA7359@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 09:09:10AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this : other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that : question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require : require semicha? Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also not an open question that requires decision-making rather than just reporting the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:51:26PM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: : > the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore : > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. : All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to : offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not : sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and : possibly the latter. I am missing something. My assertion was that "the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur" for the same reason that she could never give hora'ah as a dayan either. I wasn't denying the reality that there are women who know enough for their knowledge not to be a barrier to their pasqening. ... : I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the : other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have : comfortable space for women as well... I think there should be comfortable space for women too, and that it makes sense for it to be in the same building. Our topic was women rabbis. My first point was my belief that the Mahariq holds like Tosafos, the Rama like the Mahariq, and therefore we cannot ordain a poseqes. In this, my 2nd point, I was arguing that since shul and minyan as Anshei Kenses haGadolah invented them are men's spaces, we shouldn't want women speaking from the pulpit or otherwise making it a co-ed experience, a second element of the rabbi's job. : > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for : > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be : > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah.... : > Second, : > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about : > the : > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely : > consistent with our religion.... : : Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that : is highly egalitarian... And this was my third point. That the notion doesn't fit the gestalt built of numerous halakhos. I don't think our living in a world where opportunity is increasingly egalitarian changes that. The disjoin poses a challenge, not a license. : And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the : experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect : religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction : WITHIN what is halachically permitted. I tried to explain why that can't happen. You're not moving into a setting of greater equality; you are aiming women toward hitting a glass cieling. The implied message of "as much egalitarianism as allowed" is that it's the role traditionally given to men that is meaningful, and women can't fully take on that role. To my mind the long-term outcome, once there is little room for further innovation left, will be worse that trying to find different but equally valuable roles. Aside from the "minor" problem that that message about male roles is simply sheqer. On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 01:06:28PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that : as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted : (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by : r'mb's black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether : HKB"H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all : or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the : debate on black letter law? I don't think that's fair. We all learn in the early grades that derekh eretz qodmah laTorah, but we'll talk about frum theives, but not frum shellfish eaters. Our culture's focus on those mitzvos and dinim that can be reduced to black-letter is a problem we need to work on, and not a given to be leveraged further. On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:50:32AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: : But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah : live in an increasingly egalitarian society... Egalitarianism as metzi'us, the fact that gender roles are progressively becoming more similar, is different than eqalitarinism as a value -- the notion that they should. At the very least, halakhah is telling us there are a number of greater values that override egalitarianism. I argued that some of them actually impact who enters the rabbinate. But really the burden of proof lies in the other direction: It is change that needs justification. One has to prove that whatever those conflicting values are -- and I guess this would require identifying them -- they are not issues that impact the desirability of ordaining women. So, to get less abstract, here's an example. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting : R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing. : Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid : muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R. : Micha's interpretation: : http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/ But lemaaseh he wrote a letter against ordaning women that held up JTS changing policy until after R/PSL's passing. has a complete translation by Rabbi Wayne Allen. The issue isn't how RGS read the letter, but the letter itself. And I understood your father-in-law differently than your (and your wife's, judging from her choice of subject line) take. He writes: Professor Lieberman might have been opposed to any clerical role for women. Nevertheless, he only cited the classical sources that indicate that only men may be dayyanim or even serve on a bet din as laymen (hedyotim). Since Yeshivat Maharat is careful to remain within the bounds of Halakhah by not ordaining women to roles that are proscribed by Halakhah, Professor Liebermans responsum does not apply to the yeshivah or to any of its graduates. So he agrees with RGS that R/PSL was opposed to orgaining women as rabbi. After all, most of the letter is about what we mean today by "Yoreh Yoreh", and how it's NOT dayanus. It was about admitting women to JTS's semichah program, to "being called by the title 'rav'", not "dayan". It would seem that minus the political pressures within JTS, R/PSL's letter would at most permit "Rabbah uManhigah". Your FIL writes that R/PSL only cites sources about dayanus, not that his point was only about dayanus. And as we saw, there is a connection made between who can become a dayan and who can give hora'ah. His only mention of the political dynamics at JTS at the time is to explain his own position -- why he was against ordaining women when he was among those starting UTJ, but is in favor of Yeshivat Maharat. His letter to your wife does not speak of this issue in terms of his rebbe's position. For that matter, his description of R/PSL's lack of proving his point WRT non-dayan rabbanim reads as explaining why his own position was justified despite R/PSL's letter, rather than justified by that letter. He doesn't say RGS is wrong, he says it's "beside the point". : Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and : Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to : understand the Rama, but one of them is: But the burden or proof is on the innovator. You can't simply say your read is possible -- and given the aforementioned citation of the Mahariq, I don't see how this se'if can be, you would have a self-contradictory siman. But in any case, you have to prove your read is the Rama's intent; saying "it's possible" is not enough to justify a mimetic rupture. ... : the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have : sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have : sources to rely upon. I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and : Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong : with semicha for women. "Rather than nitpicking"? How do we learn a sugyah without nitpicking? In any case, you jumped from "could be read as someone to rely upon" to "someone to rely upon". : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the : specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. Sorry I made you wait long enough that you felt a need to re-ask this question. Semichah today may well be a heter hora'ah, but that doesn't mean that it's the only barrier to hora'ah. And if one's rebbe passed away, there is no need for heter hora'ah -- and yet still other barriers could exist. Tosafos, and the Mahariq cited by the Rama link the authority for hora'ah with being eligable to gain the qualifications and become a dayan. That's a barrier to hora'ah even if someone's rebbe wrote them a "qlaf" or passed away. We would have to find another shitah about hora'ah, show it's not dekhuyah -- and given we're talking about an opionion that disputes 3 pillars of Ashkenazi pesaq (if I include the Rama's se'if 4), for someone of Ashekazi background, that's a tough row to hoe. And then there are my other two problems.... Both of which would also reflect on Rabbah uManhigah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 3 20:23:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 23:23:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . Is semicha required for hora'ah? To illustrate the possibility that it is *not* required, I wrote: > Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura > did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the > ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite > involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. R' Zev Sero responded: > Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, > and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send > them to the rav. And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression of his personal opinion. Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"? I had written that a non-semicha person could give a shiur in Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, provided that he is careful to merely read and explain the text, but ... ... > But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this > other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that > question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require > require semicha? R' Micha Berger responded: > Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also > not an open question that requires decision-making rather than > just reporting the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community. "Black-letter halacha" is often not as black as we might think. Who gets to decide which shita is the dominant one? If the community has a recognized rav who issued a ruling on this exact question, then I can quote that. But in the great majority of cases, there are two or more shitos, and I have no idea which is "dominant". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 3 22:51:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 07:51:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c3c1e25-04b7-878e-d93b-d6b5edc10a0f@zahav.net.il> My intent, or my desire, is to reduce the number of issues on which we decide to break Torah community into even more pieces. If these issues are meta halachic, or have a bad feeling, then let's take the argument between the RWMO and LWMO down a notch or two. Let's lower the tones. For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi community consider to be kefira. If so, than kal v'chomer many of the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in getting hung up on multiple non-issues. Ben On 5/29/2017 4:20 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I am totally at lost as to your intent. Megillah reading or dancing with > a sefer Torah are reducible to black-letter law. In contrast to, for > example, deciding how to triage my tzedaqah donations. > > Wehther that reduction can be done within vanilla halachic process or > by appeal to metahalakhah, or by appeal to the general "feel" of halakhah > -- like the Rambam's "li nir'eh" -- is a different question. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 04:36:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 07:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a0d51cd-f693-b8a0-f2bd-a23a15a3e44a@sero.name> On 03/06/17 23:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > >> Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, >> and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send >> them to the rav. > And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to > find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim > wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us > which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other > expression of his personal opinion. > > Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"? AIUI no, it is not. Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a specific shayla for a specific person. Writing books does not involve any shikul hada`as, it merely involves setting down the halacha as one understands it, including, if applicable, the range of options available to a moreh hora'ah when applying his shikul hada`as. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 09:40:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 12:40:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170604164052.GA8050@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 11:23:05PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to : find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim : wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us : which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other : expression of his personal opinion. Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone know what has been said in the years since the standardization of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh. I argued that the difference between the AhS and the MB was not that one was a mimeticist and the other a textualist, but that the AhS was out to justify accepted pesaq, and the other is a collection of texts, a tool for the poseiq -- not pesaq. The personal opinion is just that, advice, not hora'ah. Or, other assumed you need to dismiss the MB's self-description as reflecting the CC's anavah, and not to be taken at face value. But then one has to explain the numerous stories of the CC personally not following the MB's conclusion -- the size of his becher, his tzitzis were tucked in, he supported the building a a community eiruv, etc... (Something is broken on my blog right now. It may take a 3-4 refreshes before getting anything but the AishDas "page not found" page.) In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable. And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving R Ploni answering questions. (The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the model.) This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads -- or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her rebbe's license? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 08:48:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:48:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you understand the OU panel as defining it. Otherwise you are just using a nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning. The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here: http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah ). There was a period when leaders did not have semicha, The Tzitz Eliezer points out that Sephardim for a long time did not have semichah, yet communities had religious leaders. So one does not need semikhah to be a communal religious leader(in keeping with the Rama in 242:14). Furthermore, R. Lichtenstein points out(Leaves of Faith vol 2 293) "originally a samukh would pronounce a decision that was binding by don't of his authoritative fiat. ...Now, he essentially serves as a reference guide, providing reliable information about what the tradition and its sources, properly understood and interpreted, state; but it is they, rather than he, that bind authoritatively." (quoted in the name of the Rav, in the name of his father, Rav Moshe.) Furthermore, as R. Lichtenstein points out, the Rambam viewed that Smikhah applied to hora'at issur v'heter as well as din. However, as R. Schachter himself points out, (see Kuntrus Ha semicha in Eretz Hatzvi chap 32) the other Rishonim hold that Semichah is a Halacha in beit din, NOT Hora'ah. AND, there are lots of authorities who clearly state that women can give Hora'ah. So you really need to define exactly what you mean by Semicha and how you are using it So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that apply to beit din. That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist. The semikhah for that type included wearing a specific garment, only being given in Israel, and according to most(but not all), prohibited to women. According to most Rishonim, that category did not apply to Hora'ah, just beit din. And, R. Lichtenstein illustrates that there is a clear and gaping difference in authority. There have been many years and many communities where leaders did not have any formal semikhah. But obviously there was some sort of Hora'ah going on. So it is clear that Hora'ah doesn't require semikhah, unless you want to argue that they were doing it all illegitimately. granting a degree of ordination was re-established(perhaps in response to universities, perhaps other reasons, see "The Emergence of the Professional rabbi in Ashkenzic Jewry by Bernard Rosensweig in Tradition, especially references in note 6) and the word Semikhah was used(although not always and not always exclusively). But you are arguing that somehow someway the restrictions from ancient Semikhah still apply- well, actually you are only arguing that the restrictions on women still apply, you have conveniently neglected to argue for the restriction of semikhah to Eretz Yisrael, for the wearing of special clothing, and all the other restrictions that were in place on ancient Semikhah. I have not had a chance to see the Maharik inside. But just because he applies halachot of relationships between teacher and student doesn't seem to be a reason to generalize that everything that applied to ancient Semikhah applies to today's neo-semikhah. That logically makes no sense. Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus tradition trope. It is a false dichotomy. First of all, as R. Shalom Carmy wrote, the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism. More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of our Masoretic values has changed over time. We don't value slavery or polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more. And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah. Furthermore, our Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a women. L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 07:40:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:40:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is becoming increasingly clear to me that I need a very basic lesson in the concepts of "redemption" and a "redeemer's" responsibilities. In my experience, we find two different sorts of redemption in Judaism. (I was going to write "in Halacha", but it seems that Boaz's actions were more sociological and ethnic than halachically mandatory.) One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and "redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many others. The other sort of kedusha has nothing to do with kedusha, but rather ownership of land. If I'm not mistaken, we find this in Shmitta, Yovel, and ordinary land sales in a walled city (and maybe elsewhere too?). In these cases, land has been sold outright, but under certain circumstances, the original owner has a right to buy it back from the new owner. AFTER WRITING THE ABOVE, I remembered another sort of redemption, that of the Goel Hadam. That seems irrelevant, because even though Naomi is now destitute, and her husband and sons are dead, no murder was committed. I also found yet another kind of Goel, described in Vayikra 25:47-54: If a person became poor and sold himself, then close relatives are obligated to redeem him and purchase his freedom. Although Naomi and Ruth did not reach that level (slavery), I can easily imagine that a social sort of redemption would require Tov or Boaz to help them out. I would call this "tzedaka" (not geula) but I suppose this might be the origin of the rule that one's primary obligation in tzedaka is to relatives. Many thanks to all who wrote to me (both on- and off-list), who put so much effort into helping me learn this subject. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 03:01:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:01:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= Message-ID: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a commentary how do you read it? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 02:59:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 09:59:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] support? Message-ID: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah restrictions are generally not observed (e.g., hello includes a social hug between the sexes), although Reuvain is meticulous in his observance of them. He is in his office in a conference with two colleagues when Miriam, the wife of a third tier social friend, also well past childbearing age, comes to the office door and says with a tear in her eye, "Reuvain, I hate to do this to you." Reuvain quickly asks his colleagues to excuse them, and Miriam blurts out, "David (her husband) just passed away," and she begins to slump, crying. Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to comfort her and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not make any request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but she did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion of the community which did not presume a social negiah restriction. Was Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, what should he have done? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:23:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 15:23:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:01:10AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a : commentary how do you read it? I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq venimtza qal" were written out. That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:43:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 22:43:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?va=E2=80=99v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <30b106b1-2a2d-f8dd-e692-4af1979063c9@starways.net> v'doke On 6/4/2017 1:01 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a > commentary how do you read it? > Kt > Joel rich > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:33:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 15:33:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] support? In-Reply-To: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170604193342.GA24739@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 09:59:23AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a : Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah : restrictions are generally not observed... A real maaseh shahayah, which would liely garner the same thoughts. One day, around 10am, the woman sitting in the cubicle next to mine gets a call on her cell, and after a few moments had her screaming and crying. It was the Salvation Army, where her son volunteered and lived. He didn't wake up that morning. Another co worker of ours, a yehivish guy who grew up in Israel but lives in Lakewood, got us a conference room, dialed some phone calls for her -- the coronor's office and the like. He was clearly cfrom communities in which persumed social negi'ah restrictions are fully observed. But when our co worker broke down in a fresh round of crying, he put his arm around her. I think to do anything else is to be a tzadiq shoteh. But I never asked a she'eilah; that was just my gut reaction at the time. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:01:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 23:01:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Noam, It's not a "trope". While there can be situations in which egalitarianism vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them. Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not. It seems a poor argument, as well. I don't believe there is anyone who, without the impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical concepts of justice demand that we ordain women." Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Distinctions are one of the hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and non-Jews or men and women. We have never viewed having different roles as indicating superiority and inferiority. That judgment is foreign to our tradition. Foreign to halakha. Foreign to the Torah. Please note that I'm not talking about whether, given the assumption that having different roles conveys inferiority, one could argue in favor of equalizing roles in the name of justice. I am talking about that assumption itself. It is an assumption that comes from egalitarianism, and cannot be found in Jewish tradition, which is not subject to Brown v Board of Education. Different does *not* necessarily mean unequal in Judaism. Polygamy was never a "value". To Mormons, perhaps. Not to us. It was simply something permitted. Slavery is out of the question purely on dina d'malchuta dina grounds. Were that not the case, we might still engage in it. We certainly haven't changed the halakha pertaining to either kind of avdut (K'naani or Ivri). You say that modern values have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in our Mesorah. Can I ask where the need for such a re-evaluation comes from? It was my understanding that we value all of our Mesorah, and do not sift through it, deciding what parts of it we value and what parts we do not. Also, please note that I have specifically referred to egalitarianism, and *not* to feminism. I don't believe that feminism requires egalitarianism, and the moves by the left to try and force Orthodox Judaism into an egalitarian framework have nothing to do with the basic idea that women are fully competent adult human beings, which is what feminism was originally about. On 6/4/2017 6:48 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus > tradition trope. It is a false dichotomy. First of all, as R. Shalom > Carmy wrote, the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to > Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism. > More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of > our Masoretic values has changed over time. We don't value slavery or > polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more. > And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for > us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah. Furthermore, our > Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna > in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a > women. L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:53:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:53:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . I wrote that the Mishneh Berurah, despite a lack of semicha, > frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the > ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression > of his personal opinion. R' Micha Berger responded: > Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed > this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone > know what has been said in the years since the standardization > of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh. Yes, he does self-describe as a summary and teaching/learning tool. But he does *not* specifically disclaim being a posek for halacha l'maaseh. The Igros Moshe and many other recent seforim do that, but I do not see it in the Mishneh Berurah. As an example, let's open to the very first page. He writes in MB 1:2 (near the end) about Netilas Yadayim upon waking in the morning: "Some say that for this, the entire house is considered like four amos. But (4) do not rely on this except in a shaas hadchak." Let's analyze that: He cites an unnamed lenient opinion, and clearly tells us not to rely on it. Note 4 leads us to his own Shaar Hatziun, where he gives his source, the Shaarei Teshuva. The Shaarei Teshuva, fortunately, is printed on this same page, and I direct your attention to the last four lines of #2, where the lenient opinion is named as being the Rashba. It is not clear to me whether the psak to *not* rely on that Rashba comes from the Shvus Yaakov, or whether it is from the Shaarei Teshuva himself. But either way, it is clear to me that the Mishne Berurah is taking sides, and IS PASKENING TO US that we should be machmir unless it is a shaas hadchak. > In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in > every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, > which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise > unreachable. Then we need to figure out what *is* required for hora'ah. Because it seems clear to me that the Chofetz Chaim felt that he met the criteria, and (perhaps more importantly) Klal Yisrael agreed. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:58:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 19:58:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2F566ED7-C27E-4141-9BAA-E81C69F30CE1@sibson.com> > > I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq > venimtza qal" were written out. > > That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. > > HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" > -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. ------------ I had always been taught the latter. The bar Ilan data base uses the former. I suppose one could rationalize one person's try and it will seem easy is another's it's a bit of a stretch. Then again Kuf lamed could be kal lhavin or kasheh li. :-) Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 15:56:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 17:56:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > It's not a "trope". While there can be situations in which egalitarianism > vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them. > Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to > the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not. It seems a poor > argument, as well. I don't believe there is anyone who, without the > impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical > concepts of justice demand that we ordain women." > Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Distinctions are one of the > hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and > non-Jews or men and women. We have never viewed having different roles as > indicating superiority and inferiority. That judgment is foreign to our > tradition. Foreign to halakha. Foreign to the Torah. Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" It isn't an issue of being like men, it is an issue of fairness and justice. Regarding 'modern values' and Mesorah. please read Rabbi Walter Wurzburger, regarded as one of R. Soloveitchik's most prominent students here: http://download.yutorah.org/TUJ/TU1_Wurtzburger.pdf Since chazal owned slaves and the Gemara didn't outlaw them, obviously owning slaves was not seen as odious as it is now. I doubt that current rabbis have the same positive view of slavery as you do. in fact, one published author does not. see R. Gamliel Shmalo here: http://download.yutorah.org/2013/1053/798326.pdf Similar to polygamy, I doubt that any current rabbinical authority thinks that polygamy should be instituted(except in the very rare situations of heter me'ah rabbonim when in practicality there is only one wife) Many authorities, including Rav Lichtenstein, R. Nachum Rabinovitch(and see R. Wurzburger's article for citations to classic authorities of the past) and others state clearly that encountering 'modern values' helps us figure out which how to better balance the values already in our Masorah. And, as I pointed out, our Masorah has already moved towards egalitarianism, as demonstrated that most MO poskim don't hold by the Mishna in Horiyyot. And who was denying that there are different roles? no one denies that there are different roles for the genders. But Halacha should be the determinant of what those differences are. Not someone saying, "well, there have to be differences, and I am going to tell you what those differences should be." If there are no good Halakhic arguments against women's ordination(and there aren't), then claiming that there should be different roles for different genders is not a coherent argument. Basically you could use the same argument for everything and anything, since there is no Halachic basis for it. You could say that women shouldn't ride bikes because gender roles have to be different. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:47:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <6736acd1-ba2d-c1bc-1762-d8e55bb8e473@sero.name> On 04/06/17 06:01, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a > commentary how do you read it? Vest du velen kvetchen, kadoches vest du vissen On 04/06/17 15:23, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. > HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" > -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. Or "vedayeq vetimtza qashe" -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 20:38:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 23:38:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605033858.JVPC32620.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a >specific shayla for a specific person. I guess the question is: is that related to semicha? Note the following (by Joel B. Wolowelsky, from that Tradition issue last year that focused on women's leadership issues) The standards of the semikha might vary from yeshiva to yeshiva even though the text of the klaf certificate is generally the same. I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters of grave import. Very few rabbis are viewed as posekim, and their authority surely does not rest on any formal semikha they were awarded at an early stage in their professional career. Most rabbis even most pulpit rabbis are relied upon to relate what the accepted halakha is, not what it should be. They are not assumed to be posekim. Rabbi Menachem Penner, Dean of RIETS, recently made this clear when he stated that: not all individuals given the title of rabbi are entitled to serve as decisors of Jewish law... Following the halakhic opinion of a scholar or rabbi who is not recognized as a posek would represent a fundamental breach in the mesorah of the establishment of normative halakha... Musmakhim of RIETS, along with all learned individuals, are entitled to their personal opinions on halakhc matters and the halakhic system as it functions today and may publicize their views as opinions that are not halakhically binding. If this is true of musmakhim of RIETS, who have completed many serious and demanding years of study, all the more so for the myriads of rabbis who earned their semikha by simply sitting for a less-demanding final exam after self-study or learning in a beit midrash up until their wedding, at which time they received semikha. We should quickly note that this is not intended to imply a diminution of the value of semikha. Rather it reflects an unprecedented expansion of Torah study in our community. Which raises the obvious question: if so many men have semicha that shouldn't engage in hora'ah, what's the problem of having a woman in a similar position? [Email #2.] Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that in Israel, this doesn't seem to be so much of an issue. May I recommend an utterly fascinating article on this: A VIEW FROM THE OTHER SIDE By Rachel Levmore, Ph.D. - Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 05:42:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 12:42:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" ----------------------------------------------------- As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question (chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", on what basis are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" I'd say the debaters on this issue would be well served to read J Haidt's The Righteous Mind https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj_nMSM3abUAhUG7CYKHRfcAJgQFghZMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Frighteousmind.com%2F&usg=AFQjCNH2OB9Ny75lbVswde2ndpkNKXvilQ&sig2=hBXRmEu1I6x-J0radUdXqA to better understand why they aren't convincing each other KT Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 12:00:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lo Taamod In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605190033.GD3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:54:06AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Asher Weiss discusses in parshat Vayeitzeih on lo taamod al : dam reiacha that one would have to give up all his assets to save a : single life if he is the only one who can do it. However, "it's pashut" : that if others can also do it, that he doesn't have to give up all his : assets. Why is it so pashut if others refuse? (i.e. why isn't it a joint : and several liability?) I am not sure halakhah has the concept. The nearest I can think of is a zeh vezeh goreim, such as if a shor tam pushes another ox into a third party's bor bereshus harabbim. SA CM 410:32 rules that the baal habor must pay 3/4. Hezeq by a shor tam need only be reimbered 50%. So, the owner of the shor tam only has to pay 50% of his half of the guilt -- 25%. The baal habor therefore would cause the loss of the other 75%, so he has to reimberse it. But there is a machloqes about what happens when one of the two doesn't have the money -- does the other have to pick up the difference, or not? If not, then wouldn't that mean halakhah doesn't have a notion of joint and several liability?" But even if he does have to pay what the other can't... One may still be choleiq between someone who did something that incurs a fine and a chiyuv to spend money. It's not really a "liability". And this is beyond the usual limits of a chiyuv.... If there are others who can save the guy, RAW says I'm not chayav to spend all my money, but what about spending up to a chomesh, like for any other chiyuv? Maybe even if there is joint and several liability, it stops at 1/5 rather than 100%. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 12:33:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:33:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? In-Reply-To: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim : b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman : shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? The SA says "yekhavein lehispalel besha'ah shehatzibur mispallelim". Your question is why the Rama -- or is the Semag, I couldn't find the citation -- doesn't mention minchah. I think the MB s"q 31-32 *implies* that the emphasis is on Shacharis and Maariv since the solar landmarks vary the most, and therefore the minyan is more likely to have their own idiosyncratic time -- late Shacharis or early Maariv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The waste of time is the most extravagant micha at aishdas.org of all expense. http://www.aishdas.org -Theophrastus Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 11:49:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:49:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170605184905.GC3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 10:00:22PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : Can I burn something that was hefker without acquiring it? If I declare : something hefker (I'm not sure the legal implication of batel), and then I : burn it, wouldn't that imply I'm koneh it? Which makes things much worse. We might argue whether bitul chameitz means something other than hefqer. But even if it does, how can a formula that ends "vehefqer ke'afrah de'ar'a" not render it *also* hefqer? I am not sure what kind of qinyan burning would be. (Shinui? but shinui to something worthless is back to not having anything shaveh perutah to own.) Taking from hefqer means there is no maqneh, does that mean there is no qoneh? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 11:37:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:37:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a : conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of : YaVY... Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because there is no actual issur la'avor. : Since when is conversation : hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes : the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation : carries the din YvAY. I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from hirhurim. And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA: : That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, : causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of : hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and : certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? : : The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya : due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the downward character spiral. Tie'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:13:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? In-Reply-To: <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> References: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5424769a-057e-b1d6-87b8-130dad06850d@sero.name> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > : S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim > : b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman > : shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? It seems to me that "shacharit v'arvit" here may not mean the tefillot but the times: they should daven each morning and evening when they know the minyan in the city is davening. The city minyan presumably does mincha and maariv together in one evening session, so that's what individuals should do. This is so especially if this is from the Smag, and we know from Rashi and Tosfos Brachos 2a that the minhag in France at that time was to daven maariv immediately after mincha, while it was still daylight. We also know from elsewhere that minhag Ashkenaz at a later time was similarly to go straight from the Kaddish Tiskabel after Mincha to Vehu Rachum and Borchu, with no Aleinu or Shir Hamaalos/kaddish (or Ledavid in Elul) in between. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:55:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:55:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:40:56AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and : "redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually : to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many : others.... I think that bringing up pidyon and temurah just cloud the issue. IMinsufficientlyHO, it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that strikes me as a progression): - the go'el hadam - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) - and of people (ibid v 48) - the end of galus To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on its nachalah. But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first -- "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why there are different words in lh"q. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 14:06:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:06:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605210617.GB23709@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 03:18:13PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that : Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent : introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, : pages 48-52. Which ties to the other thread about how we're to view Yiftach or Shimshon -- baalei mesorah or amei ha'aretz? It's possible that at the nadir points in the days of shofetim, being the gadol hador didn't rule out also having fundamental flaws. : R' Zev Sero wrote: :> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the :> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. : It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it : something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus : and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus : then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. If it was some general Semitic notion of ge'ulah, then perhaps being common-law spouses in a 7 Mitzvos b' Noach sense would be enough to trigger ge'ulah, even if yibum would require real qiddushin. After all, the basis for ge'ulah was likely that the woman came to depend on the family for her support, and it would be wrong to let her down. Which is true of a Moaviah intermarrying into a Jewish family, even if the marriage only seemed real to her. I am also reminded of the Rambam IB 13, discussed hear repeatedly ad nauseum. Shimshon's and Shelomo's wives were p[resumed Jewish until their actions showed that they not only had ulterior motive, they lacked a true motive (qabbalas ol mitzvos) altogether. Geirei `arayos all are in that boat -- if we think they were mequbalos al mitzvos along with wanting to convert to marry, we presume they're kosher Jews but suspect and watch whether behavior matches presumption. Rus would be in a similar situation, no? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 14:55:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:55:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> References: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4674ee8c-5f5e-c740-051a-00191c18b4fb@sero.name> On 05/06/17 16:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > IMinsufficientlyHO, it pays to just stick to trying to find a common > theme to all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that > strikes me as a progression): > > [...] > > - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's not an > actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) Where is the word found in this context? My position is that the use in Megilath Ruth is an instance of the next meaning. > - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) - and of people (ibid v 48) This one. AIUI the underlying theme of this mitzvah is discharging ones own obligations, or those of a relative who is unable to do so himself. When one has sold the family patrimony, one must buy it back so that people will no longer look at one as someone who had to do that. If one can't, then whoever in the family can afford to do so must buy it back, to clear ones name. Included in this is a sub-obligation that if one is aware that a relative has to sell family land, and one can afford to buy it, one must offer to do so, so he is never subjected in the first place to the ignominy of selling it out of the family. (That, as near as I can tell, is what was happening in Ruth. Naomi and Ruth, having claimed Elimelech's property for their ketubot, were now purportedly looking for a buyer, and turned to the family to give them first refusal.) By extension this also includes discharging other obligations, not to do with the family land, such as ones obligation to a woman whom a relative has left destitute, so that her state will not be a disgrace to the family. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:56:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 20:56:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to comfort her > and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not make any > request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but she > did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion > of the community which did not presume a social negiah restriction. Was > Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, > what should he have done? I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to include any contact in any social situation in addition to more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly consistently not included are professional scenarios where your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors, nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says there that even in his generation he was unique in being able to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for this situation. But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei aveira then there is no issur of negia. I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred option. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 03:08:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 10:08:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? I heard from Rav Matis Weinberg that the final reference to Ruth Hamoavia emphasises that, despite the way we usually think of geirus, and despite everything she's gone through, she remains a Moavia. Meaning that she retains her Moavi roots and personal context, and brings the positive from that into Klal Yisrael. I understand him as polemicising against the tendency to destroy ones previous identity, consciously or otherwise, in order to join the Jewish world either as a ger or a baal teshuva. Ben ________________________________ From: Avodah on behalf of via Avodah Sent: 02 June 2017 03:34 To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 72 Send Avodah mailing list submissions to avodah at lists.aishdas.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org You can reach the person managing the list at avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." A list of common acronyms is available at http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms Avodah Acronyms ? The AishDas Society www.aishdas.org Here?s a hopefully useful but incomplete list of acronyms that are standard to Avodah, but aren?t in common usage. I marked each either ?A? for those specific ... (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) Today's Topics: 1. Re: Maharat (Rich, Joel via Avodah) 2. Re: Maharat (Ben Waxman via Avodah) 3. Re: Maharat (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 4. matched soldier and praying for them (M Cohen via Avodah) 5. Re: Maharat (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) 6. Elimelech's land (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 7. Ruth Hamoaviah (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 8. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (ADE via Avodah) 9. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (Zev Sero via Avodah) 10. A Holiday Afterthought (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) 11. Re: A Holiday Afterthought (Micha Berger via Avodah) 12. Re: Ruth Hamoaviah (Zev Sero via Avodah) 13. Re: Ruth Hamoaviah (Lisa Liel via Avodah) 14. Re: Elimelech's land (Ben Waxman via Avodah) 15. Re: Elimelech's land (Zev Sero via Avodah) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:06:28 +0000 From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" To: 'Ilana Elzufon' , "'The Avodah Torah Discussion Group'" , Micha Berger , "Akiva Miller" , Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05 at VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. ---------------------------------------------------- Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the debate on black letter law? KT Joel Rich (full disclosure-kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-not everything that is permitted to you should be done) THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:22:13 +0200 From: Ben Waxman via Avodah To: Ilana Elzufon , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Micha Berger , Akiva Miller , Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Probably the best and most succinct historical analogy I've seen for this question. Ben On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > > Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women > rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the > vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it > seems to be shaping up as the latter. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:59:33 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation. Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. How can this be? Dare we imagine that he did such things unauthorizedly? Certainly he must have had/received some sort of Heter Hora'ah. If so, then when and how did he get it - and without getting semicha at the same time? Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:01 -0400 From: M Cohen via Avodah To: , Subject: [Avodah] matched soldier and praying for them Message-ID: <014801d2d969$41c5c800$c5515800$@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A while ago on Avodah, a well known (chareidi) Baal machshava was quoted as disagreeing strongly with the concept of matching frum people with a nonfrum soldier in order to pray for them. "we have no brotherhood with secular Israelis" Recently, I posted to Avodah a link to a collection of 1400 short tshuvot from HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlitah (of Toronto) On the above topic, he writes there.. #600 Pray As They Go Q. There are two organizations here in Eretz Yisroel, one called; Elef LaMateh, and the other; The Shmirah Project. Basically, their intent is to match Israeli soldiers with Avreichim and bochurim learning. Each Avreich and Bochur who volunteers, receives the name of a specific soldier (his name and his mother's name) that he takes responsibility to daven for and learn specially for so that in the merit of the tefillos and learning, that soldier will merit to return home alive and well. (Is this a good idea) A. HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is a great mitzvah to pray, learn Torah and accomplish mitzvos for the benefit of all our brethren B'nay Yisroel in times of peril and need, especially for those who put their life in harm's way to save and protect others. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:39:53 +0200 From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah To: "Rich, Joel" Cc: Avodah , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Micha Berger , Akiva Miller Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should be identical for each community and each generation? - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:01:50 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" . I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start farming? I suppose it was pretty desolate after a ten-year famine, but did she even try? She must have at least gone there to see the place, if for no other reason than to be sure that no squatters took over while she was gone. Without making sure of such things, how could she even hope that anyone (even a goel) would buy it? Maybe she expected to get a better profit from Boaz than she'd get from farming it herself, but maybe there are other answers? Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:05:01 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the distinction? When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on this. Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:14:59 +0100 From: ADE via Avodah To: Zev Sero , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are still being machshiv some pesukim over others. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk > *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:32:23 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: ADE <9006168 at gmail.com>, The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: <510d4fd4-6c91-fb85-0c23-f6cdfa7ffcbf at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 02/06/17 05:14, ADE wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one >> pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this >> reason. > Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are > still being machshiv some pesukim over others. There is no requirement to treat all pesukim exactly the same. One is entitled to stand or sit during KhT as one wishes, and has no obligation to choose one policy and stick to it. The problem is only with standing up for special pesukim, such as Shma or the 10D. Since there's nothing special about the pasuk before the 10D, there's no problem with deciding to stand for it. And when the special pesukim come along one is already standing, so one has no obligation to sit down. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:46:10 -0400 From: Cantor Wolberg via Avodah To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50 at cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In our personal religious commitments there are those among us scrupulous in performance of the ceremonial mitzvot but at the same time displaying reckless disregard of our elementary duties towards our fellowman. Halacha embraces human life in its totality. One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social trait from our behavior! A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:31:31 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Cantor Wolberg , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <20170602153131.GA15356 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made : a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study : of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social : trait from our behavior! Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, among the aphorisms of his listed in R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I. :-)BBii! -Micha ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:28:00 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Akiva Miller via Avodah , "akivagmiller at gmail.com >> Akiva Miller" Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: <4dd6e4f1-2d00-a274-ace0-e5d2a803039a at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 01/06/17 23:05, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I only see four instances of "Ruth Hamoaviah", three in ch 2, and only one in ch 4, in Boaz's description of the situation to Tov. Since his purpose was to scare him off, it made sense to mention her origin, so Tov would be reluctant to risk his future. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:20:16 +0300 From: Lisa Liel via Avodah To: Akiva Miller , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 6/2/2017 6:05 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I can't cite a source for it, but I remember once reading that Ruth HaMoaviah was intended to praise her, since she gave up her position in Moav to join us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus [https://static2.avast.com/11/web/min/i/mkt/share/avast-logo.png] Avast | Download Free Antivirus for PC, Mac & Android www.avast.com Protect your devices with the best free antivirus on the market. Download Avast antivirus and anti-spyware protection for your PC, Mac and Android. ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:31:41 +0200 From: Ben Waxman via Avodah To: Akiva Miller , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Actually if the land had lied fallow for 10 years, it should be in good shape. Granted it needs weeding but the soil should be good. It only requires a relatively small amount of rain for grass to grow and re-invigorate the soil. Maybe she was too old to work the land and figured that a sale would provide her with enough money to live out the rest of her days in dignity? Ben On 6/2/2017 5:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:17:52 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Akiva Miller via Avodah , Akiva Miller Subject: Re: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: <272b8698-d5c1-55a1-560b-2bc6d0c39b74 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 01/06/17 23:01, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? It seems to me that finding a buyer for the property was not at all important to her, and in fact she had shown no interest in doing so until she saw how she could use it to get Boaz to marry Ruth. It was Boaz who spun the story out for Tov in order to scare him off; first he drew him in with the prospect of an easy transaction for Naomi's portion of the field, but then he threw in the Ruth monkey wrench. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/avodah http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org ------------------------------ End of Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 72 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 04:24:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:24:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <545028A09009CEB1.0C33F862-E0BD-4F09-B72B-2B14A928A471@mail.outlook.com> I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter, the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat, is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin and relay the answer. We have fine female educators like Shani Taragin etc and we have Yoatzot Halacha as above. I consider this ordination movement as a Western valued and inspired institution. Indeed, these days I know Shules look for husband *and* wife teams. The Rebbetzin occupies an increasingly important place. This is most certainly also true of successful Chabad Houses, and here I speak of people like Rivki Holtzberg hy'd whom I knew well personally and I watched as the women gathered around her and the men around her husband. This is the mimetic tradition not withstanding exceptions. That, I believe is the thrust of the OU proclamation and it is dead on the money. Judaism certainly adapts but it is not the plasticine for Western values and aspirations. Even at a funeral, where one expects little hope for Yetzer Hora, the Halacha mandates the Shura to be separate for males and females. This category of notion underpins our Mesora and always did; right back to the days when our tents were arranged with Tzniyus in mind. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 07:26:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:26:41 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap Message-ID: can anyone explain and show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from non-Kosher fat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 07:23:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:23:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh Message-ID: regarding Chamets buried under a collapsed building where we remain the owner - we intend to salvage it after Pesach but are not transgressing BY and BY without needing to make Bittul I explained that Halachic ownership is determined by ones perception of control and explained this is the reason that YiUsh means one is no longer an owner for example you forget your wallet holding your ID and some money in a restaurant even though you go back in the HOPE of finding it or are HOPING an honest person will return it this is nevertheless YiUsh you no longer believe you are in control although RaMBaM encourages that the finder return it Halachically the finder is entitled to tell you Once upon a time this was yours - but you were MeYaEsh so it is no longer yours and I picked it up AFTER you were already MeYaEsh This is the foundation for the Pesak of R Y E Spektor that money lost by a woman at a trade fair MUST be returned because there was NO YiUsh the money had been found and taken to the local Rav it matched perfectly the description given by the woman who lost it but the finder insisted he wants to keep the money unless he is obliged to return it even though the woman had Simanim Muvhakim there was no doubt the money found was the money she lost she was certainly MeYaEsh she is not the owner Reb Y E Spektor Paskened that there was no YiUsh her husband is the owner and he, sitting many miles away was unaware of the loss of the money so there was no YiUsh R Micha argues that this is not correct he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost so there is no YiUsh however if they would know it is lost they would be MeYaEsh I would suggest that there is no problem the Machlokes is simply a dispute about ACTUAL belief one is in control versus POTENTIAL belief one is in control for example walking behind a fellow Yid you notice a diamond fall off his ring he would be unaware of his loss if we say YiUsh requires DaAs then there is no YiUsh yet you would have to wait until you see the fellow stop and look around for something then you can take your foot off the diamond and take it home [BTW is such a person a Rasha? or worse, not a Mentsch?] If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs then you can take the diamond straight away because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 10:48:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:48:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> , <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a : conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of : YaVY... Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because there is no actual issur la'avor. I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where there's an issur involved? That's why I'm suggesting that since it's on pain of yeihareig then we know there must an issur la'avor so the point of the sugya is to work out what that is. The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below. : Since when is conversation : hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes : the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation : carries the din YvAY. I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from hirhurim. >From hirhurim? Chazal were gozer yeihareig on hirhurei aveira? If that were true we'd find the same din in a lot of other places. Which is why is seems to me we must be dealing with something else here. And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA: : That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, : causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of : hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and : certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? : : The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya : due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the downward character spiral. Me'heicha teisi that we're dealing with Hilkhos De'os here? Where do you find a din of yeihareig in Hilchos De'os? Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does. Your partially stated assumption is that this din in both man d'amrim is d'rabanan. Rambam strongly implies otherwise. Kol tuv Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 09:19:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha wrote: "In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable. And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving R Ploni answering questions. (The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the model.) This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads -- or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her rebbe's license?" me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using. They are hiding behind ambiguity. if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do hora'ah. AND, you cant use the model of semicha to prohibit women from hora'ah, becuase in the Venn diagram of the topic, there is hora'ah outside the lines of semicha. So R. Micha et al need to provide some other basis for their issur of hora'ah, AND, address all those who write that a woman can provide hora'ah. AND, address the quote from R. Penner that the semicha for REITS graduates is not one to pasken(or perhaps even to give hora'ah). AND, address why(rather than simply say) the Rabbanut semichah test system, perhaps the most popular semicha in Orthodoxy, does not undermine his entire thesis. One can give a woman 'heter hora'ah l'rabbim' because there has not been a cogent argument presented not to do so, and there are many poskim who write that a woman can give hora'ah. The argument regarding 'what would HKBH' want is interesting. Does he want us to restrict women from doing things just so that we can say there are differences between men and women? Or, did He establish Halakha to help us sort out those that He wants, rather than ancient ones that and are gradually being re-evaluated, similar to how we have gradually moved away from embracing slavery, polygamy(in the vast majority of instances), restrictions on the deaf/dumb, the devaluation of women(see Mishna in Horiyyot 'men's lives are saved prior to women....), the idea that a women's wisdom is only with the spindle, one who teaches his daughter Torah has taught her tiflut, etc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 11:28:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:28:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/6/2017 7:19 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all > those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to > clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using. They are > hiding behind ambiguity. if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then > saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do > hora'ah. Are you suggesting that the burden of proof is on those *opposed* to a radical change in Jewish practice? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 11:18:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:18:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> (And also some "Re: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim".) On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:48am CDT, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you : understand the OU panel as defining it. Otherwise you are just using a : nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning. To me, "semichah" is a secondary concept. My focus was to assert whose halachic decision-making can qualify as hora'ah. That question involves semichah in the discussion. We were discussing the Rama YD 242:14. The Mechaber writes in strong terms that a higi'ah lehora'ah is obligated to actually provide hora'ah. The Rama there adds that this is only if there is no barrier of kevod harav -- his rebbe passed away, gave him semichah, is a rebbe-chaver, or the like. He doesn't make semichah a definition of magi'ah lehora'ah, but only a removal of a barrier, a necessary condition in the usual circumstances. Not a defining feature. If we look at the Rama in se'ifim 5-6, he tells you he is basing himself on the Mahariq (113.3, 117 [and the OU panel adds, cf 169). The Mahariq's position is based on assuming that what was true for classical semichah is still true for modern day semichah. The Rambam (Sanhedrin 4:8) agrees with that comparison -- he derives the need today for netilas reshus from Mosaic semichah. IOW, who needs reshus for hora'ah? Someone who is magi'ah lehora'ah and has kevoad harav issues in giving hora'ah without one. A magi'ah lehora'ah can only be someone eligable to sit on a BD of [Mosaic] musmachim (or according to the Rambam, other mumchim). Not because "rabbi" is defined by "has semichah", but because "yoreh yoreh" or Yesivat Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim" declares someone to be a hegi'ah lehorah. I find the OU's argument compelling, fits the words of R/Prof SL's letter and is probably his intent, and how I understood the sugyah in general before the notion of an O woman as rabbi became a topic people would seriously discuss. I am interested to know if you asked R/D Novak which one of us understood his intent. Did he mean to explain R/Prof SL's position or explain why he differs with it in ways that makes Yeshivat Maharat an option? Agreed that few rabbis pasqen, and that we could have female clergy that avoid this first issue that I have even if a Maharat's semichah read "Rabbah uManhigah" instead of "heter hora'ah lerabbim". : The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship : between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah : to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here: : http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah ... : So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that : apply to beit din. That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist... And yet the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama all think that one continues enough of the other that we can draw conclusions across that bridge. It's not me doing the category taking, it's the Rambam and the SA. What greater authorities do you need? While on the topic of magi'ah lehorah... On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 11:24am GMT, Isaac Balbin wrote: : I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his : students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the : aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was : a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter, : the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat, : is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is : 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin : and relay the answer. There is a difference. Hopefully, someone who get "Yoreh Yoreh" is first magi'ah lehora'ah. But that's a sliding scale. They could get reshus to pasqn because there are less weighty or less involved questions they can and should be answering, while still being aware when they are in over their heads and should call RMF. Whereas the impression I got from RYHH's posts here on Avodah is that a Yo'etzet isn't supposed to ever be giving pesaq; only answering questions that the community has definite answers for -- reporting halakhah pesuqah. But then there's the second and third issues.... 2- How do we know shul is no supposed to be a men's club? Men's clubs work, or at least the Rotary and the Masons have for centuries. Movements that went egalitarian now have issues getting male participation in shul; this is a big topic in Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs (C umbrella organization) discussion. And more fundamentally, how do we know that this social dynamic was not Anshei Keneses haGdolah's intent? I would assume indeed it was. This would rule out having a woman for much of the congretational role of rabbi. 3- Halakhah is inherently non-egalitarian: a- Importing an external value over those implied internally. And more functionally, we are telling women that indeed, the traditionally male role is the better path to holiness -- let us help you run at that glass ceiling. b- This is bound to lead to greater frustration as soon as LWMO has gone as far as it could up to that halachic limit. and c- It is making a claim that is false. One is sacrificing Judaism's model of equal worth despite hevdel for the sake of egalitarianism and erasing havdalah. The last being more of a perceptual issue. And this may explain why you can get a bit further not using the word "rabbi". It's not merely a word game, there is an issue at stake; are we trying to be egalitarian, or to accept a system in which kohanim not only defy egalitarianism, but apparently start out holier than I am. Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW. On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 7:51am IST, Ben Waxman wrote: : For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community : that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like : Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi : community consider to be kefira. Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'" (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not! : If so, than kal v'chomer many of : the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are : some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in : getting hung up on multiple non-issues. There are two possible sources of division here. 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators, and therefore in practice will be a separate community. Comfort zone isn't only a psychological issue. it nostalgia, mimetic tradition, Toras imekha or minhag Yisrael sabba, communal continuity is a big issue. 2- The ideological problem isn't in the bottom-level issues but in how they highlighted the loss of common language. The opposition to these changes are talking about Mesorah, values, etc... and the proponents just see the issue as "if it's halachically allowed, why are you giving us a hard time?" This lack of common language, more specifically, the lack of a notion of metahalakhah* is disconcerting. So to my mind the schism-level battle isn't over ordaining women, Partnership Minyanim, or whether Document Hypothesis is a viable option without O as much as these decisions are apparently being made by a different set of rules. And that could quite validly be a schismatic level issue. (* In this sense of the "word" "metahalakhah". We on Avodah have also used "metahalakha" to refer to the halachos of making halakhos, even when the rules are more black-letter. Such as discussions of when we say halakhah kebasrai, or whether there is acharei rabbim lehatos in this post-Sanhedrin era.) Back to R/Dr Noam Stadlan... I believe in a role for women in the clergy that isn't that of poseiq, part of minyan, nor claiming to be egalitarian. The OU thinks that categorizing the resulting role set as "clergy" is itself too egalitarian. Again, I see that as a perceptual issue. But they too end calling for finding more venues for women to contribute communally and to be visible role models. (An Areivim-esque tangent: It would be interesting to see if the OU acts on these closing remarks as rapidly as they did about the 4 member shuls that already have Maharatos.) But then, the only difference between the position now taken by Aish or Chabad kiruv today and the actual permission granted in the driving responsum is perception as well. In terms of dry facts, both were premitting causing the non-observant to drive on Shabbos rather than let them remain disconnected. They only differed in how they let the person perceive his own driving. And yet one was a major part of a broad collapse of observance, and the other is apparently increasing observance. Presentation and perception matter. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:03:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:03:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606150330.GB26549@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:23:51AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : R Micha argues that this is not correct : he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control : then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs : i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost : so there is no YiUsh : however if they would know it is lost : they would be MeYaEsh Rather, I was saying ownership hinges on responsibility, which I suggested was both a consequence of and license for having actual control. : I would suggest that there is no problem : the Machlokes is simply a dispute about : ACTUAL belief one is in control versus : POTENTIAL belief one is in control It would help if you can find a case where somone has potential of believing they control an item for reasons other than having actual control, and has the din of ba'al, OR someone has potential to believe they lost control of an item for reasons other than actually losing control, and does not have ba'alus. Yi'ush is giving up on finding it again, not knowledge of loss of control, real or potential. Let me use your example to explain how I see it: : for example : walking behind a fellow Yid : you notice a diamond fall off his ring : he would be unaware of his loss ... : If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs : then you can take the diamond straight away : because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss But this is a case where he loses actual control. The yi'ush shelo mida'as is more of an expectation not to regain it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:06:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606150633.GC26549@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:26:41AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : can anyone explain and : show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim : to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from : non-Kosher fat "Preferable"? Because we make a point of using dish soap that is ra'ui la'akhilah. So, using a treif one means taking a position on akhshevei. I believe the OU knows they are just pandering to the market when they give such a heksher, though, and don't lehalakhah require it. (But you did say "preferable", and avoiding even a shitah dechuyah could be deemed preferable.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:55:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 09:53:30PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil : Siman 199, the Maharil writes: ... :> And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive :> commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we :> should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut ... :> And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible :> to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules :> and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in :> our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and :> hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by :> way of tradition from outside, I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather than knowledge of abstract ideas. However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. There I ass more promise. he quotes the Rambam (which you already discussed) and the Sema"q's haqdamah (from near the end). There the Maharil talks about oseiq beTorah as in kol ha'oseiq beparashas olah kei'lu hiqrivu qorban, and that this should apply even to mitzvos in which they are NOT obligated (like qorbanos). Is this exclusively TSBK? It might; the Maharil talks about men saying birkhos haTorah before reading pesuqim they do not understand. Ayin sham. : And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in : Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous : generations: :> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their :> upright fathers. Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. Which the Maharil you cited appears to be doing as well. I place more hope on the second Maharil. Which is why I disagree with: : But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the : ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach : women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was : taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in : the form of the Mishna?... Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an example to imitate. (Tosafos believe Rabbe compiled the mishnah; writing down didn't happen for centuries. So what the mishnah was to the amora'im was an official text to memorize and repeat. As in "tani tana qamei deR' ..." Not that it really touches on our discussion.) : So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what : the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women : to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al " peh... True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask why, etc... but it's not an "education" setting. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 16:57:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men gather. Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis. So that women can gather around women rabbis. certainly it is not an argument against women rabbis. And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals does not apply either. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 18:50:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:50:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: - R' Shalom Simon wrote: > I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value > as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters > of grave import. No one?!? I imagine this might be true about people who are relatively learned, and relatively savvy in the ways of certain yeshivishe circles. But I can testify that it is certainly not true of a typical less-learned nominally-Orthodox person. Towards the end of my first year in yeshiva in Yerushalayim, as I made my plans to returns back to the USA, my friends were nudging me to stay for a second year. I felt that the proper thing for me to do was to return, as per my plans. But their annoying reached a certain level, and I felt the most effective response would be to ask my gemara rebbe (who I was very close with), and then I'd be able to tell them to keep quiet. Surprise! He answered me honestly, that leaving the yeshiva would be a mistake, I needed a second year of chizuk, etc etc etc. I was devastated, having to choose between his p'sak and what *I* felt to be right. In the end, I wasn't strong enough to follow Hashem's halacha. I left the yeshiva, returned to YU for the one remaining year to get my degree, and then returned to my yeshiva in Yerushalayim. All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha. Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 19:25:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 22:25:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support? Message-ID: - R' Ben Bradley wrote: > I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur > derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what > consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to > include any contact in any social situation in addition to > more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly > consistently not included are professional scenarios where > your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors, > nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who > can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like > the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says > there that even in his generation he was unique in being able > to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for > this situation. > > But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively > certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei > aveira then there is no issur of negia. I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses, physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her, she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia. But in the case at hand, the physical contact is not incidental. It is the goal. Nay, I would argue even more strongly: The mere physical contact isn't the goal -- The EMOTIONAL RESPONSE to the contact is the goal! The whole point of hugging this person is for emotional support. I certainly agree that this sort of hugging is on a lower level that the sort of hugging that leads to sexual relations. But at the same time, it *IS* more intimate than the examples you cited. A person will choose a doctor, nurse or therapist, based on their medical ability -- but the sort of hugs we are discussing here are valued more when from a friend than from a stranger. > I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And > preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in > sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved > in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred > option. "The need to comfort the bereaved..." Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor" regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this "needed" comfort from someone else. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 20:28:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 03:28:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R Meir Rabi asked for mekoros. I suggest Yechaveh Daas 4:43 Although Chacham Ovadya is Meikel he does bring Rishonim who would hold its an Issur Derabonnon as in Pesach for 'off' Chametz. This is probably the place to look but I don't have the Sefer in front of me at the minute. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 03:38:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 06:38:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607103838.GC10990@aishdas.org> There are also sources in RAZZ's column in Jewish Action https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_kosher_soap (He sent me the link privately. Perhaps R/Dr Zivitofsky wanted to spare me being corrected in public.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 06:35:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:35:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> >Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed >incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis >are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community >in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to >do so?" >----------------------------------------------------- >As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question >(chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", >on what basis >are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a >Halachic reason to do so?" But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no? We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni or Tzlophad's daughters. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 06:49:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 08:49:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maharat Message-ID: R. Micha- if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL). It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is one of them. You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get semicha. You obviously hold that a woman cant be a judge, and the barrier to the woman is actually not semicha, but her not being qualified to be in the category of hl. Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness. There are others in that category. Since there is no reason to differentiate between those in the category, you are saying that all those others in the category also are forbidden, not from semicha, but from being in the category of HL. We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be dayyanim in some cases. So, the disqualification of women from HL actually wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot. So your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not claiming to be eligible for semicha. I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive lomdus. Is there a source that specifically states that women are forbidden from being HL? The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age. It seems that you may be distinguishing between hora'ah, and HL, there being hora'ah that is not in the category of being given by someone that is HL(if not, you have to deal with the myriads of sources that state specifically that women can give hora'ah). So you and the OU authors may be referring to HL in the mosaic understanding, and moderns, including YM, are using it in a different fashion, to refer to non-formal HL. Because if there is hora'ah that is not part of the formal HL, there is no restriction on women. And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? what is the basis for that? It seems that even assuming that you are correct(for which I have not found any support in any references), there is no basis for excluding women from having non formal hora'ah, someone acknowledging that they are capable of that non-formal hora'ah, and them functioning as a rabbi and doing what rabbi's do in shuls and elsewhere. Your restriction only keeps them from occupying a formal title which is not neccessary or needed for the job description. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 07:05:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 14:05:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> References: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> Message-ID: <94258eaf26e94a0ea0c49de3630ef2ce@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no? We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni or Tzlophad's daughters. ========================= So just to complete the loop-the question is who gets to answer this request for whom Kt Joel rich _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rn0JnHwKAKxEU5lYbmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGWm5q4mhsFBBsamlgbGDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAF5osAg&Z THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 09:38:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607163850.GA12495@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:49:45AM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL). It's not me positing it. Look again at YD 242:13-14, warning against the talmid shelo higia' lehora'ah against giving any, and the chakham who did higi'ah lehora'ah and was not moreh, applying condemnatory pesuqim to each. The SA is based on R' Abba amar R' Hunah amar Rav on AZ 19b. : It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can : give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is : one of them. So yes, it is clear. The SA says so outright. : You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get : semicha... Again, not me, Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq all assume comparability between the two. A Mahariq the Rama then cites (se'if 6) as the basis for his concluding how a musmach should behave toward the rav who gave him semichah, when not his rebbe. So it would seem the Rama buys into the notion that our "semichah" of declaring someone a hegi'ah lehora'ah (and in the case of a rebbe, implicitely that he has permission to be moreh) follows the rules of Mosaic semicha for beis din. So, thinking you are arguing against me, rather than centuries of dissentless precedent, you propose a line of reasoning at odds with the Rambam and Tosafos: : Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for : those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness... The Sema and Be'eir heiTev (on CM 7:4) does say yalfinan lah mei'eidus. See Nidah 49b But see the Y-mi, Shevuos 4:1 (vilna 19a) brings several derashos. One of them (R' Yosi bei R' Bun, R' Huna besheim R' Yosi) does learn is from a gezeira shava from eidus. ... : We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be : dayyanim in some cases. So, the disqualification of women from HL actually : wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot. So : your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not : claiming to be eligible for semicha. One thing at a time. Eligability for true Mosaic semichah and how it reflect on who can give hora'ah is what's relevant now. Not who can serve in other judicial roles that did/will not require semichah. : I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive : lomdus. Is there a source that specifically states that women are : forbidden from being HL? There are numerous sources that say women can't get real Mosaic semichah, and numerous sources that say that the laws of today's "semichah" are derived from those. The fact that I don't know anyone before the current dispute actually connect the two to deny something no (O and pre-O) observant community considered a plausible question even as recently as the late 1990s (including a statement by R' Avi Weiss) really doesn't make the argument less compelling. If you have A =/= B and B = C, do you really demand a source telling you that A =/= C? : The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara : and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age... No, that HL in the SA is the same. ... : And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the : requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? ... Never claimed that. I separated my problem with declaring a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" for women from my problem with a woman serving during services and from my 2 or 3 problems with giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings in halakhah. You have only responded to the first. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 10:33:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:33:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607173338.GB9596@aishdas.org> As I see it, the question WRT hora'ah is whether we follow the Rama's lead and hold like the Mahariq, or the Birkei Yoseif CM 7:12 a viable shitah -- and then, does "viable" mean "advisable"? (We aren't heter shopping, after all.) The Birkei Yoseif says Af de'ishah besulah ladun, mikol maqom ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah basing himself on one of the opinions in Tosafos (Yevamos 45b "mi", Gittin 88b, ve'od) about what it means that "Devorah melamedes lahem dinim". (Devodah vs. ishah asurah ladun is the topic of 11.) It seem to me that "melameid lahem dinim" is a different use of the word "hora'ah" than the SA is using in YD. And thus it seems to me that Birkei Yoseif would explicitly permit a yo'etzet, who is teaching established halakhah and defering questions that require shiqul hada'as to a rav. But he is not describing hora'ah as assumed in a Maharat's heter hora'ah lerabbim and the YD 242 sense of magi'ah lehora'ah and who needs such a heter when he does. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 10:12:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:12:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607171230.GA2858@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:25:57PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses, : physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a : "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one : will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so : too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked : her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her, : she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia. "Melakhah she'inah tzerichah legudah" is specific to the 39 melakhos, so "sort of" indeed. Besides, might be more of a pesiq reishei. In any case, when a professional violates negi'ah, the heter is ba'avidteih tarid (BM 91b). And it's specifically to professionals and the air of professionalism. (As well as the lowered odds of a problem for someone who has a license at risk.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 12:22:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 21:22:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/7/2017 3:50 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I > will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I > *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for > disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi > Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha. > > Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar > things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent. I would agree that this is an extreme example. I don't know you so I can't say anything about you in particular (not that I would anyway, not on a forum) but I would expect a yeshiva guy who had been learning with a teacher/rav for a year to take the teacher/rav's words much more seriously than the average ba'al habayit. The first thing a ba'al habayit would do is say "Well, I went to him for advice, not psak, so I don't have to listen to him". >I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value >as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters > of grave import. I don't know what constitutes grave import - an abortion? learning Biblical Criticism? Marrying someone of questionable yichus? Whether or not a particular business maneuver constitutes fraud in the eyes of halacha (or if it isn't but is illegal)? Accepting charity from criminals? Would the average MO Jew speak a rav and get his psak on these issues? Or do people limit themselves to strict Orach Chayim issues like eating on Yom Kippur? Are there issues that people will do whatever the rabbi says and ignore what he has to say about other things (obviously people ignore what rabbis have to say about a lot of issues, but I mean a straight psak)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 11:57:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maharat Message-ID: R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress. You are engaging in a theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls. (they were not arguing against specific wording on a claf, they were arguing against holding a specific position). Given what you wrote, we both agree that the OU argument against does not hold water. Even if they are technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are capable of doing so(even if according to you they actually do not need permission from their rav). Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R. Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and others. Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav) have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and the authority is in the sources, not the person. You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments. You have admitted that the issue of women semicha has not been considered until recently. So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong. (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an arguement, that it be consistent. So if you are claiming that the reason women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot. you cant have it both ways). Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.' Please read the article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier. He makes it very clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that external 'modern values' are an important part of that. Modern values are neither positive nor negative. Those that find resonance in the Mesorah are elevated. R. Nachum Rabinovitch and R. Lichtenstein point out that our goal is to make moral progress. You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'. It isn't about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion. As R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice. I happen to be married to a Maharat student and personally know many of them and their teachers. It is the ultimate in hubris and mansplaining for you and the others to claim to know what their motivation is. It was reprehensible of the OU panel to claim to know what the motivation is when they failed to talk to anyone actually involved in the enterprise. Even if we incorrectly grant that it is due to 'egalitarian yearnings,' is that wrong? I suggest that our Mesorah has incorporated egalitarian yearnings. The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way, and those that would probably would give all sorts of apologetics and rationalizations for it. (I am aware of the different shitot, and know that RSZA for example gave so many other rationales to decide that even though l'halacha he held this, there were so many other bases for deciding ahead of gender that practically it never would have been applicable.) Even the OU panel said that we value women the same as men. Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women. The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large or as small as possible? Because as we have decided above, if we go by strict halacha, there is no problem with women serving as shul rabbis. is it a value to have differences, and because you want to have differences, you are going to prohibit women from doing things? Just to have differences? There are differences between Jews and Converts. Is it a Halachic value to maximize the differences, or minimize the differences between Jew and Gerim? R. Moshe wrote that a convert can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah is not a problem. Would he have agreed that a women can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah is also not a problem for her? (rosh yeshiva does not require semicha). Mishpat echad yehiyeh lachem, ka-ger ka-ezrach. The OU paper brought up tzniut. I do not think that the MO community thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a violation of tzniut. So there is no violation of tzniut when women or men perform the functions of clergy on their side of the mechitzah(one could designate a man to take of things on the men's side of the mechitzah if you were worried about interactions across the mechitzah). if you are claiming that this is a tzniut problem, then it applies to every interaction of women and men, inside the shul and outside. The OU paper claimed that a synagogue required greater tzniut, and therefore women cant perform rabbinical duties. That is a non-sequitor. First of all, it hasnt been demonstrated that appropriately dressed and acting people are a problem with tzniut. and, why is this particular action the one picked to fulfill the mandate of more tzniut? perhaps the men fulfilling EH 21 would be a better starting place. I understand you and others not being comfortable with ordination for women. no one is asking for you to be comfortable with it. If you dont think it is a good idea(halacha v'ain mori'in kein), that is fine to say. But it isn't fine to say that Halacha bans it when it doesn't, and it isn't ok to try to kick people who are shomrei Torah u'mitzvot out of the tent because of your comfort or lack of comfort. I would hope that you are at least as uncomfortable with some of the people on the far right wing. No one is asking for you to go to their shul, ask them a shailah, or learn their Torah if you dont want to. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:10:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:10:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:57:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress. You are engaging in a : theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU : rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls... Well, my first point is a discussion of hora'ah, and consequently for whom is semichah meaninful. But my argument on this point is a subset of the OU's argument on that point. See their paper, pp 8-9 : Given what you wrote, we both agree : that the OU argument against does not hold water. Even if they are : technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give : hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are : capable of doing so (even if according to you they actually do not need : permission from their rav). HOW do you get from what I wrote an implication that we have agreement on that? I think it's firmly established by aforementioned rishonim (plus others in the OU's footnotes) that if someone is ineligable for Mosaic semichah they are ineligable to give hora'ah and therefore have no use for today's yoreh-yoreh. Or the Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim"? : Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch : who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R. : Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a : later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't : invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and : others. Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav) : have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and : the authority is in the sources, not the person. Asked and answered, although in a post after the one to which you replied. Some use the word hora'ah to mean "melameid lahem dinim". Which is not hora'ah as the Rama is discussing it. I pointed you to the Birkei Yoseif. The Chinuch is similar; his : You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments... Another? What's the first? : So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only : poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong. The OU paper doesn't make that argument. Not that I see everything the way the OU panel does. (But halakhah lemaaseh, I would be more likely to follow their opinion than my own.) Nor did I find RJF's analysis of this claim in neither (his general position on ordaining women) nor the only place where I saw him discuss the OU panel on Lehrhaus. As an activist on the subject, I'm sure you've spent more time reading up on it than I. Could you kindly provide more specific references? But let me deal with what you wrote: IOW, you are saying that because our ancestors thought the idea was absurd, we ought to go ahead? What such an argument would say is that we historically had numerous women capable of being rabbis and even so no one even considered making any of them one. The OU's section on mesorah should explain why such attitudes have precedential authority. But again, none of this reflects on what I myself was arguing : (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an : arguement, that it be consistent. So if you are claiming that the reason : women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from : being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including : that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot. you cant : have it both ways). I argued the opposite causality. Lo sosuru mikol asher YORUKHA refers to dayanim. So, someone who is excluded from becoming a dayan can't be the subject of the pasuq, and their decisions don't fall under the halakhos generated by this pasuq. Their decisions are not hora'ah, in the pasuq's sense. (YOu had me saying: Can't give hora'ah implies can't be dayan. I am really saying: Can't be dayan implies can't give hora'ah.) : Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.' Please read the : article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier. He makes it very : clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that : external 'modern values' are an important part of that. Modern values are : neither positive nor negative... Not because they're modern, no. But obviously some are positive, some negative. We can judge them. Mesorah and its values are logically prior to modern values. Numerous halakhos are unegalitarian. Even if egalitarianism is a good idea for benei noach, as a perspective it is inconsistent with that the Torah expects of Jews. : You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'. It isn't : about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers : to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion. As : R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice... The motive I attributed, really echoed back from what I heard in prior iterations, is not that anyone is about making halakhah more egalitarian, but a desire to make halakhah fit a more egalitarian reality. So I don't know what you're rebutting. I argued that some realities reflect values that must be resisted rather than accomodated. We can talk about the end of inequality in the workplace as a good thing, but can we talk about reducing the differences in avodas Hashem, differences that can't be eliminated because halakhah demands they're there, as a good thing? Good point here to address RSSimon's post. On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 09:35:14AM -0400, Sholom Simon wrote: : But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight : halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's : education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent : this", no? To avoid making this a false dichotomy, you have to define halakhah broadly, to include the obligation to live according to the values and general guidelines of aggadita -- mitzvos like qedoshim tihyu, vehalakhta bidrakhav, ve'asisa hayashar vehatov (a/k/a Chovos haLvavos or Hil' Yesodei haTorah and Hil' Dei'os). I think this is what the OU is trying to get to with the concept of "Mesorah". But if I may be frank, they are handicapped in their ability to discuss the aggadic by too many of them seeing the world with Brisker eyes. Back to R/Dr Stadlan... In addition to the question needing to be asked about the Torah's evaluation of a modern value before we simply adopt it (rather than tolerate, limit the scope, or entirely reject).... Second, I do not think justice is served by telling women to find their religious meaning in a headlong rush toward a glass ceiling. I think it's more just to teach them how to find meaning in ways that aren't dead-ended for them. More equal, if less egalitarian. ... : Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women. : The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large : or as small as possible?... That decision should be made by starting with "why does halakhah have those differences"? And what do our aggadic sources say? As I said above, we judge whether to adopt, tolerate or resist new values based on TSBP. : The OU paper brought up tzniut. I do not think that the MO community : thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a : violation of tzniut... Tzenius isn't about clothes. I don't agree with their argument, but don't fight strawmen. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 13:55:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:55:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a > woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken > that way I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:21:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 23:21:05 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB writes: >I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" >in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather than knowledge of abstract ideas. No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these were not "textual" sources - how would you translate ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? better though, to keep the flow and that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? >However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult to understand them as having been written by the same person. Indeed the Birchei Yosef, who seems to have only seen the first one inside, and seen the second one referred to in other sources, particularly the Beis Yosef,( who himself seems to have had the second on but possibly not the first) challenges the quotations from the second teshuva on the basis of the first, and seems to suggest (in the politest possible way) that the Beis Yosef got it wrong, because they just do not match. I do not know any real way to reconcile these two, and can only note that the two compilations of teshuvos were compiled by different students of the Maharil . : And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in : Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous : generations: :> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their :> upright fathers. >Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk, it is about actively teaching (albeit oral). Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting up of schools), but it is a strange pasuk to use if he was talking purely about mimeticism. >Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at all the experiential aspect. When the gemora cites a ma'aseh rav, is this *not* TSBP because it would seem to be mimetic? >I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an example to imitate. The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two types of TSBP. And the other alternative would seem to be to write this kind of teaching out of TSBP. But is not a lot of TSBP, even though by no means all of it, this kind of teaching. Is not the gemora etc filled with this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. : So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what : the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women : to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al " peh... >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting. But the Rambam doesn't say either - "but with regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she ba'al peh taught in a formal educational setting, but that not taught in a formal education setting is fine". And note of course that one cannot just observe Mum taking challa, one also needs to be told about the correct shiur. It is highly unlikely that anybody would necessarily conclude, by watching week after week, exactly what the correct shiur for taking chala and the bracha is by mere observation. That has to be communicated as a form of rule. Ok a situational rule, - taught in context, but the tradition would be lost in a generation if it was left for every generation to guess the correct shiur by watching closely enough week after week. >-Micha Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:53:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:53:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we have now is historically completely wrong. From "b'inyan semichat chachamim' published in Or Hamizrach: 'At this time when semicha is batel, all the mishpatim from the Torah are battel..based on lifneihem- and not lifnei hedyotot. And nowadays we are all hedyotot. And the only way it works is that we act as shlichim of Mosaic beit din' So everyone is a hedyot. More to the point in section five there is a detailed examination of semicha included what was required in various areas. 'The Chatam Sofer writes...that this semicha of morenu and chaver has NO BASIS IN SHAS but is a ashkenazi minhag and does not contain anything real'. 'They issue of semicha that they estabkished(tiknu), according to the Rivash, because it is forbidden for a student, even one who is hegiah l'hora'ah, to give hora'a or to establish a yeshiva(note that this obviously is not hora'ah)while his teacher is alive....therefore they had the PRACTICE of semicha...that he is no longer a student but can teach others(the word is l'lamed, not hora'ah)' There is a lot more. But it is quite clear in the sources brought in this article that the historical record clearly shows No connection between Mosaic semicha and what was begun in the Middle Ages. Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:53:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 22:53:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> References: , <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> Message-ID: <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 7, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > >> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: >> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way > > I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this Not really. They basically say either that there are other tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why.specific citations available upon request Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:07:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:07:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> References: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> Message-ID: On 07/06/17 18:53, Rich, Joel wrote: >> I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that >> this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this > Not really. They basically say either that there are other > tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it > would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why. That's what I thought too. I was surprised to read RNS not only insisting otherwise but deducing an entire shita from this supposed fact. In practise I doubt it was ever meant to be implemented kipshuto, because even on its own terms it applies only when all else is equal, and it rarely is. But it seems to me that when all else *is* equal, i.e. when we have no other information so all else is zero, and we are free to set our own priorities without fearing negative consequences (that too constitutes additional information which makes all else not equal), then the halacha must still apply. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:51:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:51:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170607225122.GA14289@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 05:48:13PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : > Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because : > there is no actual issur la'avor. : : I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on : pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where : there's an issur involved? Red shoelaces? : The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that : yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below. No, it could be preservational and still deOraisa. Like my example of a ben soreier umoreh, who Chazal say dies al sheim ha'asid -- we're also preventing the continuing deteriation in a downward spiral. This "downward spiral" was what I was calling Hil' Dei'os. Hirhurim and hana'ah -- devarim sheleiv in general -- aren't even punishable altogether, how could they allow a court to decide yeihareig? Most dinei nefashos don't even qualify. : Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context : of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must : be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as : issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does. And qiddush hasheim could involve avoiding something that is not assur either. (Agian: red shoelaces.) That too is death to preserve an attitude. I am just saying that your desire to make this yeihareig ve'al ya'avor is putting an overly formal halachic box. Whether or not something is a qiddush hasheim or otherwise worth dying for is not necessarily reducible to a Brisker chalos-sheim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:17:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:17:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we : have now is historically completely wrong... And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah? The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up to imitate the other with no continuity between them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:58:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> Message-ID: The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way, and that saying that modern semicha was set up to imitate ancient semicha(to such an extent that the same prohibitions apply) is a distortion of history and Halachic history. Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources. The Rama makes more sense when read in the context of the quotes that I provided from the Chatam Sofer et al. The Rambam, could well be discussing ancient semicha in the sources you describe........ On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun > 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: > : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we > : have now is historically completely wrong... > > And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based > on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical > study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah? > > The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up > to imitate the other with no continuity between them. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 23:40:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 09:40:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> References: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> Message-ID: <5938F16E.9010705@biu.ac.il> the topic is addressed in this article: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0048-0068.pdf ?A MAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER from Tradition in 2014 Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > >> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a >> woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken >> that way > > > I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this > is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? > What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument > is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the > question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O? > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 06:14:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:14:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check Message-ID: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> [RJR poses these questions at the start of his Audio Roundup column on Torah Musings . I prodded him to share them here as well, as questions work better in an actual discussion venue. But I didn't think he would do so without plugging his column! So, here's my plug: Worth reading, and if you have one -- pointing subscribing to on your news agreegator / RSS reader. -micha] A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled the commandment to wear tfillin. In fact, many pasul tfillin were pasul from the start (e.g., missing a letter). The Rav later reported that a listener heard the shiur and had his tfillin checked and found such a psul, even though he had bought the tfillin from a reputable sofer and had them checked earlier by another reputable sofer. The Rav was pleased with this result. Two questions: 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status) appropriate? 2) As a societal issue, how should current rabbinic leadership view the tradeoff of now requiring (suggesting) frequent checks? We will have some who will have the listener's result. OTOH, we will also have those whose tfillin will more likely become pasul due to uncurling the klaf and the increased costs of checking. BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan checking be appropriate? Kt Joel rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 06:15:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:15:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Parenthesis Message-ID: <1c9fcdd2c38f43e7af59d24ffe246c8b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> [See my plug of RJR's column in the previous post. His question about a distraught new widow and negi'ah as well... And that's just the column's *padding*! Extra credit if you answer the question about parenthesis while "vayehi binsoa'" and its upside-down nuns is still in parashas hashavua. -micha] 1. In the Shulchan Aruch -- who is the author of the statements in parenthesis in the Rama like print that don't start with Hagah? 2. In Rashi (or Tosfot), who decided to put certain words in parenthesis and why? (e.g., differing manuscripts, logic, etc.) Kt Joel rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 04:31:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 07:31:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . I would like to start a new thread to discuss exactly what we mean by "redemption". I will begin by quoting most of R' Micha Berger's recent post from the thread "Elimelech's land": > ... it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to > all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that > strikes me as a progression): > > - the go'el hadam > - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's > not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) > - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) > - and of people (ibid v 48) > - the end of galus > > To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even > something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on > its nachalah. > > But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more > to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first -- > "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of > redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why > there are different words in lh"q. Several years ago I tried working on this as part of my preparations for Pesach. The first obstacle I encountered was (as RMB mentioned in the last line here) that there are so many interchangeable synonyms. The first two that came to my mind are "geulah" and "pidyon", such as in Yirmiyahu 31:10: > Ki fadah Hashem es Yaakov, > Ug'alo miyad chazak mimenu. I agree that a good starting point, as suggested by RMB, is "restoration". This carries over to English as well, and I could cite several pieces of literature whose theme is "the chance to redeem myself," where someone suffered a significant loss of status (justified or not) and is trying to correct that loss, and restore himself to his prior status. This is very much what Naomi was trying to accomplish. But I'm not so sure how relevant it was to Mitzrayim, where the problem was not merely social status, but physical danger. And that brings more synonyms into the mix: yeshuah and hatzalah. A useful tool for distinguishing synonyms is when they occur near each other in the same context. I brought an example of pidyon and geulah above from Yirmiyahu, and here is a case of hatzalah and geulah: Shemos 6:6-7: "V'hotzaysi... V'hitzalti... V'gaalti... V'lakachti..." On this, Rav SR Hirsch explains: "Whereas hitzil is deliverance from a threatening danger, gaal is deliverance from a destruction which has already occured." In Shemos 8:19, RSRH seems to say that "padah" refers to redemption when "anything has fallen into the power of someone else, to bring it out of that power." I suppose that relates to kedushah (Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, etc) because the redeemed object is no longer encumbered by the halachos that applied before. On the other hand, Vayikra 25:24-54 teaches about using money to redeem land, or a house, or an eved. In those pesukim, the word "redeem" appears as some form of geulah 17 times, but as pidyon not even once. How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? Looking forward to your thoughts Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 04:49:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:49:29 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500 From: Noam Stadlan via Avodah > R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men > gather. Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis. So that women > can gather around women rabbis. I'm sorry this does not compute halachically or logically. The men don't gather around the Rabbi either, and I have never seen a problem when the Rav who has been directing everything requests women on one side and men on the other. > certainly it is not an argument against > women rabbis. It was a comment that even in a place where the Yetzer Horah is least likely to have an influence, we are asked to be separate from each other. > And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like > the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly > dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual > immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals > does not apply either. Ger does not make that their focus. They have Gedorim for their own wives even if dressed Tzniusdikly etc One doesn't have to be modern orthodox to encounter women in the workplace either. It would be good if there were more women asking shaylos period. For Nida shaylos there have always been ways to treat a matter discretely. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 07:30:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of > any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even > punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of > the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? Yes, it's what the victim's blood needs and deserves, and the victim is unable to provide it for himself, so as the closest relative it's his duty to provide it for him. The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. Ya`akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because Kel Nekamos Hashem. We are commanded to love our fellow Yidden so much that we forgive them and *forgo* our natural and just desire for revenge, just as we would do of our own accord for someone we actually loved without being commanded. Even the neshama of a murder victim is expected to forgive his Jewish killer, and Navos was punished for not doing so. But we can't forgive on someone else's behalf, especially on our father's behalf, or assume he's such a tzadik that he must have forgiven his killer. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 09:13:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:13:39 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Psak of a Musmach Message-ID: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> The Maharat thread got me thinking about this, but it is a bit of a tangent, hence the new thread. It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don?t recall that it is mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 07:23:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 10:23:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170608164150.ETSG4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> At 09:43 AM 6/8/2017, via Avodah wrote: > >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather >than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she >noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask >why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting. Surely, *some* of it is. Rn Ch L gave the example of a shiur, but there's an awful lot that goes on in the kitchen, and I would guess (I don't know, as I've never been a mother or a daughter) that the mother would be almost negligent if she didn't actually explain some various rules. (I'm using a slotted spoon here, but in cases x, y, z, I can't use a slotted spoon; or: when I do this it's not considered borer because x, y, z; or: if I want to return the pot to the blech, I have to have in mind x,y,a; or: this is how you make tea, and this is how you make coffee, and this is why I can't melt the ice in a cup, and this is why you can defrost the orange juice, etc etc etc). I have a teacher who told me that any women who is doing a competent job in the kitchen has to have learned TSBP. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:28:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:28:47 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> Message-ID: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of >> any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even >> punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of >> the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? > > The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like. Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:45:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 14:45:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <3c673353-b5e9-d704-9cb0-52aff2f213c7@sero.name> On 08/06/17 14:28, Daniel Israel wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not >> Jewish. > An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. > Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos > chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an issur on doing so againstyour own people, because you are commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in itself does not come from any Jewish source. > That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like. > Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam > should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise > above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes. He's not go'el ha'emes, he's go'el hadam. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 13:43:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 20:43:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? ------------------------- The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an extension of the beit din. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:40:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 18:40:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Psak of a Musmach In-Reply-To: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> References: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <70d0ce58d48443a8a6b7fb558f001745@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From: Daniel Israel via Avodah Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 12:14 PM > It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, > then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying > on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or > her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not > obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don't recall that it is > mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha. Good starting point is first Mishna in horiyot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 14:01:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:01:33 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> References: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2D819FCB-5A0D-497C-8E21-EE99A6A9069A@kolberamah.org> A few points that have been swirling around my head reading through this thread. 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? Let?s concede, for sake of argument, that there are halachically permissible ways for a woman to do much of what communal rabbis actually do in practice. Not everything that is mutar is advisable. I don?t see why we should be embarrassed that community policy is being set by Torah principles which are not purely halachic. And while we are all entitled to our own opinions, community policy must be set by gedolei Torah of a certain stature. I don?t believe any of the Rabbaim who are supporting these ventures, with all due respect to their legitimate scholarship and accomplishments, are among the select few who a significant portion of the Torah world look to for answers to these kinds of questions. They were never among those who set gedarim for the community before they become involved in this issue, and so it should be no surprise that their taking the initiative on this issue is widely not accepted. 2. As far as hora?ah, we are discussing it like there is a clear line: halacha p?sukah and hora?ah. (And some comments make a third distinction, between what a local Rav can pasken, and what requires phone call.) But every case requires some amount of shikul hada?as. Sometimes it is so trivial we don?t notice it (?is this specific package of meat marked ?bacon,' treif??). But there are lots of questions we essentially MUST pasken for ourselves. Things like, ?is my headache painful enough to justify taking asprin on Shabbos??. OTOH, most of the questions we ask a Rav (?is this spoon okay??) aren?t really about shikul hadaas, they are more about his knowing all the relevant sugyos. I.e., they are topics that we could (should?) learn enough to answer for ourselves. Note also that any responsible Rav is continually evaluating which questions he feels capable of answering on his own. Just to be clear, I?m not saying there is no distinction to be made. Given that hora?ah lifnei Rabo is assur, clearly there is such a category. But what it is is not so clear cut. Also, I?m not pointing this out to support Rabbanus for women (although one could formulate such an argument), rather to suggest that hora?ah is not this place this needs to be argued out. 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher.? I think this is a good model. First, I would note that there are definitely still circles which strongly disagree with aspects of the chassidic approach. What has changed is that no one is seriously concerned that it will degenerate into widespread k?firah. (Keep in mind there was precedent. Chassidus arose soon after exactly that happened with regard to the Sabbateans.) That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, much as happened with the Conservative movement. Fifty years from now, if that happens, the question will be answered. If it doesn?t happen, then those who are still opposed may be willing to make their peace with it as part of Orthodoxy, even they don?t themselves hold that way. Given this long term view, perhaps the vehement opposition is an important part of the processes (as it may well have been with regard to chassidus). 4. Related to the prior point, RnIE (I think) suggested that this is less of a big deal in E?Y. And RSS posted a link to an article by Dr. Rachel Levmore that concludes with a list of reasons the situation may be different in E?Y and the US. For myself, WADR to those involved, who I am sure really feel they are acting l?sheim shemayim, I share RMB?s concern that they are aiming at a glass ceiling (extremely well put!). And, consequently, I suspect that there will eventually be a schism with at least some of that camp transforming into a neo-Conservative movement. After reading the above mentioned article by DrRL, perhaps another reason for the difference is that in E?Y these developments are fundamentally a response to a need. That is, there are specific issues having nothing to do with female clergy which are creating a need, and in some natural way it has come out that the best solution is the creation of these new roles for women. Whereas, in the US, the driver seems to be a conviction that there should be some form of female clergy, in and of itself. Which leads to a concern I?ve long had about many issues where people point to historical halachic change to justify contemporary changes. Perhaps certain changes are okay if they happen on their own, but we really shouldn?t be pushing for them to happen. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 14:25:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 17:25:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170608212546.GB25737@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 06:58:57PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam : Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way... But you neither explain 1- If it is a "distortion of history and Halachic : history" to claim that current yoreh-yoreh is an imitation of the elements of true Mosaic semichah that are still meaningful, how and why the Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq the Rama quotes lehalakhah all derive laws of yoreh-yoreh from Mosaic semichah for dayanus? Nor 2- How the CS's claim -- citation would be helpful -- that today's semichah is "merely" an Ashkenazi minhag means that this minhag was not set up to certify who is standing in the shadow of the true Mosaic musmach? Don't we need something explicit from the CS before we can just assume he would not deduce the rules of the minhag from the rules of true semichah. After all, you're setting him up against the precedent of doing just that (in Q #1). See the AhS YD 242:29-30. He explains that contemporary "semichah" is to announce to the nation that (1) he is higi'ah lehora'ah, and (2) his hora'ah is by permission of the ordaining rabbi. (He also requires a community to have a rav ha'ir, and others need the RhI's reshus to pasqen in his town as well.) This is much like what you said the CS says, as well as the Rivash. And the Rivash, which appears from your quote is the CS's source, talks about hora'ah -- just as the AhS does. In any case, I am looking for the Tzitz Eliezer's discussion of Sepharadim and their not accepting the notion of contemporary "semichah". Because IIRC, his discussion about semichah, not higi'ah lehora'ah. Recall, AISI the real question isn't the nature of a semichah, but how can be higi'ah lehora'ah. Semichah is only a good belwether, because it's not meaningful to say yoreh-yoreh to someone who can't give hora'ah with or without that permission. And it's semichah the CS dismisses as minhag; the extra gate can be minhag without changing who is allowed to enter. The discussion of semichah doesn't touch on who can give hora'ah, it is just out one precondition before actually doing so. : Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of : the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the : Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources... I don't know what you mean. Does the Rambam derive halakhah from dayanim musmachim with Mosaic semichah to today's morei hora'ah or not? Does Tosafos? Do they not take it for granted that the laws are consistent between the two, without which those derivations would not work? What exactly is your other understanding? (To reword Q #1.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 19:36:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:36:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will bow out. A few details: I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look up the underlying sources to be sure. The article is in Or HaMizrach 44 a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski(I hope the transliteration does him justice). There are other sources on the the Halachic/ historical aspects of semicha including one by R. Breuer in the journal Tziyon. and many others. I do not have time to find and read them all, but I think the point is clear in the article cited above. In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may explain my difficulty in finding it. I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot both of which are not applicable(or have not been applied) to modern semicha. So it is a stretch to state that this Rambam implies anything about current Hora'ah or semichah. I have not found any specific statements that a woman is not qualified to reach the state of 'hegiah l'hora'ah', and certainly not in the modern(non-Mosaic) context. I am not arguing that some of the sources cant be read to come to this conclusion, but it seems to be a novel halachic statement(similar to the OU rabbis making a new halachic category of "stuff that a shul rabbi does") and the only characteristic is that women are forbidden from it. I suggest that if someone on the left had made a similar claim, they would be accused of pretzeling the Halacha to support a pre-existing mahalach. I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable understanding of the Halacha. And perhaps even that those who oppose are the ones who are trying to find arguments when a fair reading of the sources indicate that there really is none specifically applicable to the issue at hand. Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical Ethics on the topic of triage. thanks Noam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 20:55:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 05:55:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Cherlow's Post Message-ID: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> https://www.facebook.com/RabbiCherlow/posts/1442987509096046 In response to a question regarding a psak that supposedly allows women to recite Sheva Brachot and an accusation that certain rabbis are distorting the halacha because of feminism, Rav Cherlow wrote a response. I am summarizing a few points. Full text is in the link above.. Introduction: Your words are a perfect example of how someone can break the Torah's most serious commandments and yet act as if he is a yirei shamayim. 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah. 2) Never mock rabbis (or anyone) because you disagree with their opinions. Mocking people publicly is one of the most serious aveirot. 3) Never use a nickname for others, in this case "Dati Light". 4) Always be careful about generalizing. 5) Never accuse someone of being guilty of what you assume to be their hidden motivations. You don't know and accusing someone violates "M'devar sheker tirchaq". More importantly, you're assuming that you're a tzaddiq and don't have an agenda. 6) Never use a group name to mock someone. The Torah world owes feminism a great debt for things its done (Talmud Torah for women, leading the fight against sexual harassment, etc) along with strong criticism for other things done in its name. 7) Always try and live according to Halacha as it is written. Don't have other gods, like opposition to chiddushim. 8) Bring halachic arguments to halachic discussions. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 02:15:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:15:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: On 6/8/2017 9:28 PM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah > > wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. > > An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. > Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos > chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. > Where is there any issur on taking revenge? Against fellow Jews, yes, of course. But generally? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 04:21:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:21:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Cherlow's Post In-Reply-To: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> References: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <9f3eaf48-0c03-fc88-cc90-e84a27b77ea9@sero.name> On 08/06/17 23:55, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in > Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to > do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you > guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah. And yet in this case the newspaper seems to have got it right, and R Cherlow's correspondent simply hadn't bothered to read it before fulminating. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:06:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:06:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption Message-ID: Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it. Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time before they went into exile was simply waiting time? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 07:32:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 17:32:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern > day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? Who says it was? > What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin > (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah > tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work > to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It > doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it. Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite. But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. I don't think their much more lengthy exile was a punishment. I think it was simply necessary. Had they rejoined us, by which I mean all of them, and not just those who Jeremiah brought back, and we had been exiled as a single nation, things would have been different. But viewing themselves as a separate nation from us, how would you envision things having worked in the ancient world? I don't think it would have been significantly different from what happened with us and the Samaritans. In fact, the Samaritans called themselves Israelites; not Samaritans. (That's the root of the mistake in the Christian "good Samaritan" story, btw.) > Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time > before they went into exile was simply waiting time? Not at all. Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 07:50:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:50:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 09/06/17 11:06, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern > day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? Assuming that it was, and that Yirmiyahu didn't bring them back. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:20:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:20:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <019f7de8-108b-d533-3e11-4556470c1c43@sero.name> On 08/06/17 22:36, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is > that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the > time of the Gemara. I think that is obvious, and it didn't occur to me that this could be what R Micha was referring to. I thought there must be some other Rambam, perhaps a teshuvah, where he discusses "modern" semicha to whatever extent such a thing even existed in his day and place. BTW I have seen it suggested that the original semicha was kept alive at the yeshivah in Damascus (they would cross into the borders of EY to confer it) until it was destroyed in the 2nd Crusade, which, if true, would mean there may still have been living musmachim in the Rambam's day. > Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. > That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar > statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical > Ethics on the topic of triage. But that article doesn't support the claim you made, that there exist poskim -- and in fact that it is the unanimous position of MO poskim -- that this halacha is no longer operative. The article cites sources relevant to the entire topic of triage, in all circumstances, including the mishneh and gemara in Horiyos, and I didn't see any suggestion that they are less authoritative or applicable today than they ever were. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:00:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1af6febd-3d16-f901-472d-92f0a5cd66e7@sero.name> Another idea: To expect a redeemer from the House of David one must first subject oneself to that House. Those who reject its sovereignty can't (by definition) expect one of its members to save them, so on being exiled they would naturally assume that this would be their new home and these their new neighbors, with whom they must assimilate. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 11:08:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 05:32:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: :> Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any :> modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? : Who says it was? First, I think we concluded among ourselves that the 10 lost tribes are really 9+1 lost tribes, with Shim'on, living in Malkhus Yisrael, being a separate case. With, perhaps, it's own spiritual malais. They lived amongst sheivet Yehudah; is it likely their culture was more like Yisrael than their own neighbors? With that tangent out of the way... It's a machloqes tannaim in Sanhedrin 10:3 (110b), no? "The 10 shevatim are not destined to return, 'Vayashlikheim el eretz achares kayom hazah' (Devarim 29) [derashah elided]... divrei R' Aqiva. "R' Eliezer omer: [his own derashah] ... even as the 10 shevatim went through the darkening, so too it will grow light for them. The gemara's discussion focuses on the previous part of the mishnah's machloqs -- their olam haba. But Rebbe says they do have olam haba and seems to be implying that the kaparah is total -- so they will return to EY. The Sifra (Bechuqosai 8:1) has R' Aqiva saying they won't return, but based on (Vayiqra 26:38), "vavadtem bagoyim..." And it has R' Meir as the one disagreeing with R' Aqiva. In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman, we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim. Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. R' Chaim Brisker uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. Which R' Aharon Lichtenstein uses as a snif not to support giving them Israeli citizenship in "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity." :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:19:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:19:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema Message-ID: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in the famous midrash about Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry halacha guide demands that they be sourced? Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 09:39:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:39:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170609163954.GA24832@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:36:08PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will : bow out. A shame, as we went in circles on one issue and didn't touch the others. Including my assertion that the Chinuch (142) speaks "ishah chokhmah hare'uyah lelhoros" and "assur lo leshanos letalmidav" -- whether someone who has the skills to give hora'ah shouldn't be teaching when drunk. No mention of hora'ah, but ra'ui lehora'ah and teaching. Because, he explains, their teaching will be accepted by those who look up to them, as if it were hora'ah. Similarly the Chida (Birkei Yoseif, CM se'if 7:12) rules out ordaning women, following the example of Devorah. People can voluntarily listen to Devorah (or, it would seem, to a yo'etzes), but she cannot be appointed a rabbi nor ordained as one because her opinion could not be imposed. Picture the town hiring a rabbi that any chazan can say, "Well, I don't follow him" and therefore can break from the shul's norm, or even "I don't follow him on this one." But more to the point, following the Chinukh (who is cited), he says "deDevorah haysah melamedes lahem dinim." R' Baqshi Doron mentions this problem in his letter, which RGS has scanned at http://www.torahmusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Rav-Bakshi-Doron-on-Women-Rabbis.pdf#page=2 REBD concludes that because of this, women should not be tested or given semichah, as that would be an appointment rather than voluntary acceptance of a particular teaching. And, while the Chida (and thus REBD) says "ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah", he is defining this as teaching law, not interpresting law -- nidon didan. Which is consistent with the Chinukh the Chida is building on. Nor did we get to my non black-letter-halakhah concerns. Including my concern that the whole project reflects a misrepresentation of Judaism's demands by thinking that anything that can fit the black letter of the law is in compliance with the Torah. That there is none of the more nebulous side of the law; an obligation to pursue a given value system and ethic. The fact that "Mesorah" is dismissed as political rather than a real Torah issue is to my mind a blunder; and your disinterest in discussing this aspect actually hightened those concerns. Nor the question of telling women that they are correct to seek value in a manner that has a glass cieling for them. Nor the question of whether a woman belongs in shul service, or whether it was designed to be a Men's Club. And if not designed, whether its function as a Men's Club is too useful to be sacrificed. As one example, but not the whole problem: Will male attendance lessen if we lose that character; will Tue, Wed and Fri (workdays with no leining) Shacharis attendance among O men go the way of Shabbat attendance among their C counterparts? But on, the topic we did discuss... : I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing : certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look : up the underlying sources to be sure. The article is in Or HaMizrach 44 : a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski... But having a reference in the CS itself would have been more ... : In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of : the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may : explain my difficulty in finding it. It's the Rama who says 113. (It's either that the copy in OhC is idiosyncratic, or, the OU copied a typo in the Rama and didn't check. I know that's what I did.) : I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he : is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the : Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz : Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot ... Limnos ledavarim yechidim is not always to be a dayan. One can get reshus lehoros be'issur veheter or lir'os kesamim but not ladun. It's the same process as geting reshus ladun or ladun dinei kenasos, or... Do you think "lir'os kesamim" was ever limited to dayanim? The fact that the Rambam treats reshus lit'os kesamim and reshus ladun as one topic that's the whole point! (And that addresses Zev's recent post, which I approved while this one was sitting around mid-edit.) Now that you found the Mahariq that the Rama se'if 6 says he bases himself on, I would have like to have heard if you disagree that he too is treating the rules for yoreh-yoreh and the rules for Mosaiq semichah as one topic. And Tosafos? : I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the : discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very : least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of : women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable : understanding of the Halacha... I haven't heard a complete defense, but I didn't see at all a positive case for. After all, the burden of proof is on the innovator. We didn't touch the whole conversation of proving that the innovation is positive enough *in Torah values* to justify settling for just what could be read as a not 'beyond the pale' understanding. On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 03:01:33PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? ... : 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My : example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were : huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are : today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher." ... : That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two : camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that : this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically : okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, : much as happened with the Conservative movement... My own concern is (as Avodah long-timers should expect) more meta. Why is the only quesiton that of black-letter halakhah? Why the ignoring of -- what do I call it, "gray-letter halakhah"? -- laws that don't codify cleanly, that require a feel for what seems in line with the Torah, that which RHS calls "Mesorah"? (Although "mesorah" has become an ill-defined concept, including both Torah-culture values and mimetic practice. For that matter, I find that R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's use of "mimeticism" also blurs both, as both are transmitted culturally.) To me, that's a critical meta-innovation that warrants asking if we're still all playing by (evolving our practice with) the same rules. I am not worried about a slippery slope to C. To my mind, that's worrying about when the problem, if there is one, becomes symptomatic. To me the question is whether procedurally, the process R/D NS is defending is already unlike the rest of O IN A DEFINITIONAL WAY. After all, once you define MO to include an openness to modern values, following the Torah becomes just using the halakhah as a test -- can this new idea fit black-letter law or do we have to do without? But also our test itself changes. Deciding which shitah to follow depends in part on our priorities, and in LWMO, those modern values also define the priorities. As R/Dr Stadlan put it: : ... I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very : least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of : women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable : understanding of the Halacha... Thinking something is okay to do as long as one can find understandings of shitos that can combine to show the idea is plausible and not "beyond the pale" is to my mind itself beyond the pale. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 12:07:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:07:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> On 09/06/17 11:19, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in the famous midrash about > Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem > Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a > source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry > halacha guide demands that they be sourced? > > Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice? I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. When we say the Rambam doesn't give his sources, we mean that he doesn't tell us where in the gemara he derives the halachos. He doesn't expect his audience to be familiar with the gemara, and he's not interested in convincing those who are, or in defending himself to them. But he always gives the pasuk where a mitzvah or halacha is stated, or tells us that it comes "mipi hashmuah", or was instituted by chazal or by the geonim. When he gives a psak which doesn't come directly from the gemara he says "ken horu hage'onim", "ken horu rabosai", or "ken nir'a li". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 12:51:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:51:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> On 09/06/17 14:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman, > we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim. Only if he's from the countries where they were taken. > Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his > day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact; the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. As for the men's descendants by nochriyos, according to the first lashon Shmuel derived from the pasuk that they're nochrim, and according to the second lashon it's a halacha pesukah ("lo zazu misham"). But according to either lashon the problem of the women was solved. Also, there's no "by his day". Either the problem was solved within one generation, or it was never solved at all. Not by his day. By at latest the 2nd BHMK. Either Yirmiyahu brought them back, so they're not there any more, or the first generation had no children so they died out then and there, or the Sanhedrin decreed them to be goyim. > R' Chaim Brisker Where is this R Chaim? > uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not > halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. On what basis? Unlike the ten tribes' descendants, these children exist. How can they not be Jewish? Even if you want to say the second lashon applies to both the men and women, and it means they lost their Jewish status, this was not a gezera, it was derived from a pasuk, that Hashem took away their Jewish status, so in the absence of any pasuk about other people how can it be extended? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:03:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:03:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >In Yevamos... : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. : : Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke; he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...") : the : women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there : never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. That's Ravina. Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu". Which is inconsistent with Ravina. Whom I forgot about entirely. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 11:31:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:31:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check In-Reply-To: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 01:14:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is : needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without : knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled : the commandment to wear tfillin... : Two questions: : 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha : by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status) : appropriate? We're discussed variants of this question before. Usually WRT whether a person in the same situation buit with their mezuzah will get less shemirah. My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was really cheilev. And if that is true of cheilev and timtum haleiv, why not the protection of mezuzah or the effects of wearing tefillin? But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely, are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome. And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... If someone is doing everything they're supposed to, and we're not talking about the teva necessary to allow for human planning, then why wouldn't Hashem just give a person as per their deeds. Why have a whole metaphysical causality if it doesn't aid bechirah, nor Din, nor Rachamim? .... : BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has : changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan : checking be appropriate? I take this as evidence of the "Litvisher" answer. If it were really a problem, why wouldn't halakhah reflect a greater need to check? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:33:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:33:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 12:15:04PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos : >chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. : Where is there any issur on taking revenge? Against fellow Jews, : yes, of course. But generally? "Revenge is bad" is not the same as "revenge is assur". The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim. In which case, he would hold that only lo siqom would hold for them, whereas only lo sitor would apply to a yisra'el chotei. But Shabbos is coming, so I can't check about "chaveirim". But in any case, the notion that hene'elavim ve'inam olevim shome'im cherpasam ve'einam mashivim, aleihem hakasuv omeir, "ve'ohavav ketzeir hashemesh bigvuraso" (Shabbos 88b) has nothing to do with who the counterparty is. Not a chiyuv or issur in and of itself. But the person who doesn't take offense nor act on taking offense is among "ohavav". Similarly, the Rambam (ibid) talks about lo siqom in terms of "ma'avir al midosav al kol divrei ha'olam", not just offenses by chaveirim. This appears to be included in his "dei'ah ra'ah hi ad me'od". :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:26:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check In-Reply-To: <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> References: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <781fc94e-241d-e738-5060-522eeeb4f325@sero.name> On 09/06/17 14:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When > something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell > the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about > the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was > really cheilev. But if it's nisbarer afterwards that it really was chelev the kelim need to be kashered. Ditto if it's nisbarer after someone toveled that the mikveh was pasul all the taharos he touched since then are retroactively tamei. In fact if a mikveh is found to have been pasul all the taharos touched by all the people who used it since it was last known to be kosher are retroactively tamei. > But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely, > are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk > to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the > case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome. That's not a mystical position, it's a plain rational Litvisher position on risk assessment. > And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... Now *there's* mysticism! To a Litvak that shouldn't be a consideration. The din is the din, and it's not up to us to justify it. But IIRC you never deal with the explicit gemara about mikvaos. A gemara that explicitly distinguishes the case of kohanim who were found to be pesulim from *every other case* in the Torah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:40:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:40:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <81e3d31e-aa58-5f1a-fefb-bdc0297298a2@sero.name> On 09/06/17 16:03, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : >In Yevamos... > : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his > : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. > : > : Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact > > "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke; > he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the > issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...") No, he wasn't. Lo zazu misham has no connection to finding a solution to any problem, and there's no indication that "they" were even thinking of this problem. It's simply a statement that it was agreed upon by all that the pasuk makes the ten tribes (or at least their men) nochrim. No connection to any practical problem. > : the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there > : never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. > > That's Ravina. No, it isn't. It's Shmuel himself, answering why the womens' descendants are not a problem -- they didn't have any. Ravina is the one who says the halacha we all know, that the child of a nochri and a Yisre'elis is a Yisrael. > Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu". > Which is inconsistent with Ravina. It's irrelevant to Ravina, because in this lashon he isn't citing the general halacha about the child of a Yisrael and a nochris being a nochri, but instead says those children (of the men with nochriyos) were ruled to be nochrim from the pasuk. The women's children still aren't a problem, because there weren't any. But even if you say that according to the second lashon Shmuel didn't say the women were sterile, and he meant the pasuk to apply to both the men and the women, still it's specifically about them, not meshumadim in general. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:51:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:51:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: > The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any > Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different objects. > I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only > those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim. I don't believe so. The only non-Jewish "chaverim" I can think of are the sect that ruled in Persia in the Amoraim's times -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 15:36:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 18:36:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not > Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, > but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min > ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world. Me'am Lo'ez (R' Aryeh Kaplan's The Torah Anthology, pg 293) explains: "You must realize that your brother is suffering very much because he has no place to go. If his soul comes to heaven, it will be all alone, since no one else is here. If it comes down to earth, it feels great anguish when it sees its body's blood spilled on rocks and stones." > Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source? > And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because > Kel Nekamos Hashem. I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples, but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than "yikom". In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean it's appropriate for us. RZS continues in another post: > But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an > issur on doing so against your own people, because you are > commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want > revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in > itself does not come from any Jewish source. Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 14:07:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:07:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> Message-ID: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other places. I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? This one stands out. On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and > sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the > previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons > for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third > parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha > four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 14:16:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:16:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' AM wrote: 'Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor" regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this "needed" comfort from someone else.' Halachos of contact between husband and wife are more strict than with strangers, vis all the harchakos during nidda which are unique to a spouse, due to the familiarity of pas b'salo. So I wouldn't be as surprised. Although just to return my theme for a moment, If I'm right then the act is one of outright mitzva, probably including kiddush hashem. If I'm wrong, then the act is one of aveira lishma. Now I realise that we don't hold with aveira lishma these days, but when the overall cheshbon is as stated, I think I'd be willing to chance it. Especially when you add the possibility, as R'MB mentioned, that if you don't do it you're a chasid shoteh. Because then the cheshbon becomes tzadik or chasid shoteh for not doing it vs big mitzva or aveira lishma for doing it. Given that in any given circumstance we wouldn't be able to be clear about which of these would apply, I think the worst of those four options is probably the chasid shoteh. If this was on Areivim I'd sign off with :) Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 19:04:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:04:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170611020429.GA20848@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: : >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any : >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. : : Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase : with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei : amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different : objects. See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. Gut Voch! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 20:45:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:45:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <720f24ed-7e17-74ae-afc7-3e7d2a0f3a7b@sero.name> On 10/06/17 17:07, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and >> sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the >> previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons >> for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third >> parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha >> four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. > Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the > Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other > places. > > I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he > often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat > haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? > This one stands out. He has to give the source, explain why we do this, and he uses as few words as he needs to. He says mesorah hi beyadeinu; what else could he say? How could he express that any more concisely? BTW he cites medrash all the time; that's where halachos come from, after all. But here he doesn't mention any medrash, just this mesorah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 22:39:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 07:39:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Who says it was? As was stated in other posts on this thread, it is a machloqet in the Gemara if they will or won't come back. That more or less proves my point - their return, if it happens will be something completely different than what happened with the rest of the tribes. Even if we take the claims of various people claiming to be descendants seriously, they still have to convert. Their return will be tipot-tipot, individuals, that have to be re-integrated and not whole groups. > > Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of > assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where > they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite. But > even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . . Not at all. > Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were people from the > northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first > posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two separate exilic > populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our exile to have ended successfully? The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, it doesn't speak well of our history. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 23:54:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 09:54:49 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03c78b43-410c-30ec-c2bf-33691b72f348@starways.net> On 6/10/2017 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > > R' Zev Sero wrote: > >> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because >> Kel Nekamos Hashem. > I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. > Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is > intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. You're mistaken about the Hebrew. Yikom is not "uphold". That would be yakim. Yikom has a dagesh in the quf because of the dropped nun. There is literally no question whatsoever that Hashem yikom damo means may God avenge his blood. > It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples, > but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an > experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh > apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem > mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 > hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both > numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than > "yikom". Yinkom is a mistake. Just like the future of nosei'a is yisa and the future of nofel is yipol, the future of nokem is yikom. > In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean > it's appropriate for us. Consider Bamidbar 31. In the second verse, Hashem tells Moshe: Nekom nikmat bnei Yisrael me-ha-Midyanim. Take the vengeance of Israel against the Midianites. In the next verse, Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael latet nikmat Hashem b'Midyan. To take the vengeance of Hashem against the Midianites. Moshe isn't arguing with Hashem here. When we take vengeance upon our enemies, it *is* Hashem's vengeance. I recommend that you watch the video of Rabbi David Bar Hayim debating Jonathan Rosenblum at the Israel Center back in 1991 (I think). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYefNy1D0DY They both bring sources for their arguments on the subject, and rather than repeat all of them here, have a look. > RZS continues in another post: > >> But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an >> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are >> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want >> revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in >> itself does not come from any Jewish source. > Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo > sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) It doesn't just say lo tikom v'lo titor. It says lo tikom v'lo titor *et bnei amecha*. Do not take vengeance or hold a grudge *against* your own people. Detaching the first part of that from its object is unjustifiable. It would be like taking lo tochal chametz, dropping the object, and saying that we're forbidden to eat. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 02:02:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:02:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. > Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is > intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. > "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will avenge". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 20:40:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:40:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68dacd1f-f6c7-8792-daad-b5b21531f3bc@sero.name> On 09/06/17 18:36, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not >> Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, >> but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min >> ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. > Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in > pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world. Interesting, I'd never heard that. But in that case why "eilai"? That implies wanting something from Me. >> Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. > I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source? Yismach Tzadik ki chaza nakam, pe`amav yirchatz bedam harasha. When Chushim knocked Esav's head off, his eyes fell onto Yaakov's feet and Yaakov sat up and smiled. >> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because >> Kel Nekamos Hashem. > I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. Yikkom does *not* mean uphold, it means avenge. There's no such word as "yinkom"; the nun disappears into the kuf and becomes a dagesh. Perhaps you are thinking of yakim. > experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh > apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem > mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 > hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both > numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than > "yikom". For a non-existent word that's pretty good. I'm relieved that it doesn't outnumber the correct word :-) > In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean > it's appropriate for us. It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not something to be ashamed of. >> But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an >> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are >> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want >> revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in >> itself does not come from any Jewish source. > Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo > sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) Es benei amecha. [Email #2. -micha] On 10/06/17 22:04, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: >: >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any >: >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase >: with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different >: objects. > See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. > This doesn't answer the question. Lo sikom has the same subject as lo sitor. It's not even the identical object, it's literally the *same* object. So how can we pry them apart? Beside which, if netira is forbidden against a Jewish non-chaver, then how is nekama against him even possible? Netira would seem to be a necessary prerequisite for nekama (which is why the pasuk lists them as lo zu af zu). [Email #3 -mi] On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" > (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will > avenge". Is yinkom even a valid form? AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that have it in Av Harachamim are in error. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 09:11:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:11:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <83aef0cf-edbb-3ac8-3727-cc086f348ffa@sero.name> References: <83aef0cf-edbb-3ac8-3727-cc086f348ffa@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > >> >> "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" >> (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will >> avenge". >> > > Is yinkom even a valid form? AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that > have it in Av Harachamim are in error. > > It's irregular, but I would hesitate to say it's a mistake: there are a few exceptions to the rule that the initial nun assimilates, e.g. yintor in Yirmiahu 3:5; yinkofu in Yeshayahu 29:1; or tintz'reni in Tehillim 140:2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 11:29:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <2f8fdb3a-11ac-11d2-eea8-d064a7265bda@sero.name> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> <20170611020429.GA20848@aishdas.org> <2f8fdb3a-11ac-11d2-eea8-d064a7265bda@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170611182926.GA20138@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:56:06PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase : >: with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei : >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different : >: objects. : : >See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. : > : : This doesn't answer the question... But you didn't ask the question. You asserted that what I said was "not true". Since the Maharshal and Avodas haMelekh said it, and I don't know of a dissenting interpreter of the Rambam, I would assume it is indeed true. This was a bit of a hasty judgement on your part. But you said a great question, and worth exploring. Doesn't change that the Rambam apparently does hold what I said he did: > The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any > Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 12:32:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 22:32:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> References: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 6/11/2017 8:39 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of >> assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point >> where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were >> Israelite. But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . >> . Not at all. Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were >> people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards >> that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two >> separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been >> disastrous in very many ways. > That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our > exile to have ended successfully? Why harsh? Causes have effects. > The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of > (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them > (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal > with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this > feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, > it doesn't speak well of our history. Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind. And we don't gloat over their downfall. Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, which they were. And what kind of attempts would you have wanted? Jeremiah brought some of them back. I'm sure others joined us in Bavel after we were exiled. But their exile was their own doing. Though it affected us as well. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 16:18:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:18:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170611231815.GA29585@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:32:22PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind. And we don't gloat over : their downfall. Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, : which they were. (Quibbling about the orogin of the word "Jews" and whether or not Malkhus Yisrael and their descendents qualify aside. We all know we mean "Benei Yisrael", right?) Actually, one of the topics raised was whether the descendents of Malkhus Yisrael exist, bdyond the refugees absorbed into Malkhus Yehudah. And if they do, R Chaim Brisker takes the gemara as concluding the descendents are not part of the community of Beris Sinai. Yes, but in either case, as we cited numerous source showing in the past, "binfol" is not only about the fall of fellow Jews... Which I then collected into a blog post : The most common reason we pass around [for spilling wine at the mention of the makkos at the seder], however, is that we're diminishing our joy out of compassion for the suffering of other human beings, even the Egyptians. This reason is relatively new, but it is found in such authoritative locations as the hagaddah of R' SZ Aurbach and appears as a "yeish lomar" (it could be said) in that of R Elyashiv (pg 106, "dam va'eish").... ... The Pesiqta deRav Kahane (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a) gives us a different reason [for chatzi hallel (CH) during the latter days of Pesach]. It tells the story of the angels singing/reciting poetry at the crossing of the Red Sea... ... This is midrash is quoted by the Midrash Harninu and the Yalqut Shim'oni (the Perishah points you to Parashas Emor, remez 566). The Midrash Harninu or the Shibolei haLeqet ... The Beis Yoseif (O"Ch 490:4, "Kol") cited the gemara, then quotes the Shibolei haLeqet as a second reason... Sources from RAZZivitofsky (same blog post): The Taz gives this diminution of joy as the reason for CH on the 7th day (OC 490:3), as does the Chavos Ya'ir (225). The Kaf haChaim (O"Ch 685:29) brings down the Yafeh haLeiv (3:3) use this midrash to establish the idea that we mourn the downfall of our enemy in order to explain why there is no berakhah on Parashas Zakhor (remembering the requirement to destroy Amaleiq). Amaleiq! R' Aharon Kotler (Mishnas R' Aharon vol III pg 3) ... Then I listed others' suddestions here: ... R' Jacob Farkas found the Meshekh Chokhmah ... R' Dov Kay points us to the Netziv's intro to HaEimeq Davar... (Since we're going from Maharat was to ethics wars, might as well play the game to its fullest...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 16:27:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:27:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170611232725.GB29585@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 06:36:45PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" : actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is : often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. : Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is : intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. : Hashem yiqqom damam does indeed refer to revenge. : In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean : it's appropriate for us. Keil neqamos H'. (A little obvious this discussion didn't span a Wed yet.) But the whole point, to my mind, for sayibng HYD is a longing to see Divine Justice in the world. HYD undoes the chilul hasheim of the wicked prospering. Hinasei shofit ha'atzetz... Ad masair recha'im ya'alozu... If we were to take neqamah (qua neqamah; pre-empting a repeat attack is a different thing) we rob most of the possibility of that happening. Even the Six Day War gave people the opportunity to say it was luck or human skill -- "Kol haKavod laTzahal" Implied in HYD is that revenge is G-d's, not ours, to take. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 19:49:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 22:49:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . When I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong. I was wrong, and I thank all the chevreh who pointed out my error. "Yikom" does mean to avenge. Thank you all. But the main question is our attitude towards revenge in general. R' Zev Sero wrote: > It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not > something to be ashamed of. He seems to feel that there's nothing wrong with wanting to take revenge in general, except that we're not allowed to do it if the object of the revenge is a fellow Jew. I suppose he might compare vengeance to eating meat: right and proper in general, but sometimes forbidden. (Pork in the case of meat, and Jews in the case of revenge.) Exactly *why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew? RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct source. But either way... I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be in the "Ribis" category. There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a non-Jew.) Setting Nekama aside for a moment, does anyone know of a source which goes through the various Bein Adam L'chaveiros, and categorizes them in that manner? (I can easily imagine that most people would avoid publishing such a list, to avoid supplying the anti-Semites with ammunition, but I figured I'd ask.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 20:07:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 20:07:35 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists Message-ID: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into hashem's business. And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the future even though they were right. One surmises he would not have been surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land... Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 22:57:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:57:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> References: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9b2f0d53-8794-4b0d-43b7-3bb0ee4d6e3c@zahav.net.il> On 6/6/2017 8:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW. > > Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'" > (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL > Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not! However one defines the Chareidi opposition to Zionism and Zionists, the former wrote book after book justifying it and explaining why Zionism is so awful and why it is so wrong to participate in the Zionist enterprise. It is still going on today. Back in the 20s, people used extremely strong language about Rav Kook, language which was much worse than anything used today, not to mention what the Satmar Rebbe wrote about RK. > There are two possible sources of division here. > > 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were > only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My > predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply > de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators, > and therefore in practice will be a separate community. Here I have a couple of questions. 1) Like my wife always tells me, if someone is triggered by something he has to ask himself why. I know people who would walk out of shul if a woman gave the dvar Torah on Friday night. Yet the same people are perfectly OK having a Rosh Hashana tefilla that incorporates a lot of Sefardi piyuttim. Completely different prayers, tunes, flavor. But in order to have an experience of "b'yachad" we do it. 2) What what exactly would change? Does one see more women in shuls that have a maharat? Do the maharats come to Tuesday afternoon Mincha? If they do they're behind the mechitza, yes? What changes are people talking about? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 03:09:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 06:09:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:49:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" : only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of : morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be : in the "Ribis" category. : : There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even : to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed : against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. : (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a : non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I : admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B : or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, : things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a : non-Jew.) IOW: (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited. (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition when you do them against your sibling. (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito neshekh vesarbit". As for neqamah, I argued from quotes like kol hama'avir al midosav and ne'elavim ve'eino olvin that it's in (B). I would add now that this is implied by the Rambam's inclusion of these two issurim (lo siqom velo sitor) in Hil' Dei'os p' 7 that he is considering the middah bad, not only the act wrong. Interesting to note, the Rambam puts them after LH. Also, I noted that the only commentaries on the Rambam that I could find that discuss his change in terminology between Dei'os 7:7 and 7:8 explain that he is prohibiting neqamah against all chaveirim but netirah "mei'echad meYisrael". Meaning you now need a B' and C' where the category is only observant Jews. (And I still have a nagging recollection that the Rambam's "chaveirim" in general includes geirei toshav and other observant Noachides.) And neqamah is in one of those. So, (B'). How you get such a distinction in two issurim that are written in the pasuq as verbs sharing the same object is a good one. But the Avodas haMelekh says that the Maharshal reaches the same conclusion in his commentary to the Semag, and I see the Semag uses the same difference in nouns. Lav #11 - "[Lo siqom.] Hanoqeim al chaveiro". #12 - "Kol hanoteir le'echad miYisrael". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 03:53:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:53:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> References: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> On 6/13/2017 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > IOW: > > (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited. > > (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition > when you do them against your sibling. > > (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family > nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito > neshekh vesarbit". I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews. Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 04:37:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal > judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C (Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 04:33:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:33:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> References: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170613113340.GA11269@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:53:18PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: ... : >(B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition : >when you do them against your sibling. ... : : I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an : outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly : doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against : non-Jews. Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal : judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. But there are things that are morally wrong and yet not prohibited. "Stretch goals" like the Rambam's take on ego and anger in Dei'os pereq 2, the Ramban's "hatov vehayashar". Here, the gemara talks about (1) a ma'avir al midosav, (2) taking insult and not responding, it even says (3) a tzadiq is one who never takes revenge -- which, if it were about neqamah when assur, would be heaping overly high praise on someone for just keeping the din. So, two or three times that I am aware of, the gemara talks positively of the middos that would avoid ever taking revenge. It seems neqamah in particular is a moral wrong even when the black-letter halakhah allows the act. The Torah does manage to relay to us goals beyond those it prohibit or demand in black-letter halakhah. (Something Chassidus and Mussar were each founded on...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 06:44:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:44:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] restaurants Message-ID: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From the OU: Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example, one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility. Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food. Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based? For example, in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in a treif restaurant, what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % threshold for concern? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 07:16:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 10:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6388500a-9329-9367-9de2-e75ed55d6022@sero.name> On 12/06/17 22:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Exactly*why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew? > RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that > "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct > source. But either way... It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. > There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even > to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed > against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh *re`ehu* basater". > (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a > non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I > admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B > or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, > things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a > non-Jew.) Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 19:11:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shelach Message-ID: " We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." (Numbers 13:32-33). One of the greatest teachers of Torah of our age, Nechama Leibowitz, zt'l, in one of her essays on this parsha, asks an important question: how did the spies know what the "giants" thought of them? If they really were giant beings, then one could understand the feeling that "we seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes," but how did they know if the "giants" even noticed them? Unfortunately, although Nechama Leibowitz posed this great question, she didn't give any hint as to an answer. The following is a Midrash in which God rebukes the spies: "I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11). On the other hand, Rashi says that the spies reported overhearing the giants talking to one another, saying that "there are ants in the vineyard that resemble human beings.? (Rashi is also quoting an ancient midrash from the Talmud). Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities and an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties. Harry S Truman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 09:10:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:10:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/13/2017 2:37 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R"n Lisa Liel wrote: >> Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal >> judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. > My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category > A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C > (Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)? I would have to say that, by definition, if it's permissible to speak LH against non-Jews, it isn't immoral. But of course there are numerous subcategories of LH, and it'd be interesting to see if all of them are mutar against non-Jews, and if so, why? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 10:49:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:49:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shelach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170613174946.GA24674@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 10:11:31PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The following is a Midrash in which God rebukes the spies: : "I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to : ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to : them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? : Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11). ... : Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear : not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies : but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon : His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, : and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). Good -- is the yeitzer hatov, *very* good -- is the yeitzer hara. But in any case, the spies are an imperfect example, because they had G-d's promise that this specific mission would succeed. We don't have such reason to be optimistic. Related: I wonder if the difference between Chassidic or the Alter of Novhardok's view of bitchon is related to history. The AoN said that sufficient bitachon generates success, to the extent that he felt that being a "baal bitachon is an objective reality provable by experience and he signed his name with a B"B without fear of it being bragging. The CI's view is that bitachon is not prognostic, but the attitude that everything is happening according to Hashem's plan. I may fail and suffer, ch"v, but knowing it is all for a purpose makes it easier to cope. The history that I think divides them -- the CI's Emunah uBitachon was written in the shadow of the Holocaust. (It was published in 1954, a year after the CI's passing.) Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:57:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:57:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists In-Reply-To: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> References: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> Or they were part of a self fulling prophecy. Instead of going in confident in themselves and in God's ways, they chose to second guess God. The Bnei Yisrael who had actually seen Yitziat Mitzrayim would have gone into Israel. Instead a weakened Bnei Yisrael went in and almost immediately got trapped in the lure of the local idol worship. Ben On 6/13/2017 5:07 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into hashem's business. And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the future even though they were right. One surmises he would not have been surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:53:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:53:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Does it make a difference that the woman in the hypothetical scenario is - unfortunately - no longer an eishet ish, and presumably at her stage of life also not a niddah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:22:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:22:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. Can one enter a non-kosher establishment to buy a can of soda or use the bathroom? Message-ID: <1497385351309.31544@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. Can one enter a non-kosher establishment to buy a can of soda or use the bathroom? A. Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example, one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility. Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 18:09:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:09:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists In-Reply-To: <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> References: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170614010904.GA6321@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:57:19PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Or they were part of a self fulling prophecy. Instead of going in : confident in themselves and in God's ways, they chose to second : guess God. The Bnei Yisrael who had actually seen Yitziat Mitzrayim : would have gone into Israel... Or not. After all, Hashem didn't pick that generation for a reason. Apparently they didn't just sin, but they sinned in a way that made working with them a bad idea. And even before that Vayehi beshalach Par'oh es ha'am velo nacham E-lokim derekh Eretz Pelishtim ki qarov hu, ki amar E-lokim, "Pen yinacheim ha'am bir'osam milchamah veshavu Mitzrayim" Remember, they were also stuck with a slave mentality. But I agree with your point, about the self-fulfilling prophecy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 18:33:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:33:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special > consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah > of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not > hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend > him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip > about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. I would think that killing and stealing are in this category too. But you would then point to the phrase "special consideration". In other words, there is a particular shiur of consideration. Some actions are below that shiur; they are so basic that they apply even to non-Jews. And other actions are above that shiur; it is "special" consideration that we extend to family, but not to outsiders. I would accept such a response, but it isn't very helpful. Exactly what is that shiur? Where do we put the line? I have always thought that *all* these things are basic menschlichkeit, and apply to everyone, Jewish or not. > Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? > The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh > *re`ehu* basater". That's just two pesukim. Sefer Chofetz Chayim brings a lot more than that - 31 if I remember correctly. Granted that one doesn't violate these particular mitzvos if the object of the Lashon Hara isn't Jewish. But the others aren't so simple. At the very least, you're gambling that the Lashon Hara will remain secret and not result in a Chilul Hashem. > Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. True. I have always thought of ribis in a class of its own, for the simple reason that the entire world considers it to be a generally acceptable business practice. This includes Chazal, who felt it important to find a way to structure certain business activities in ways that would skirt this issur. The point is that ribis is NOT inherently immoral. It *can* be abused and thereby *become* immoral. But if done properly, it is a neutral (or even benevolent) business tool. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 21:17:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:17:28 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Anyone have access to HaRav Sh Goren's Terumas HaGoren? Message-ID: Anyone have access to HaRav Sh Goren's Terumas HaGoren? I am looking for 3 pages to be copied [pictured?] and sent to me - meirabi at gmail.com Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 21:02:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:02:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ac357ec-2fb0-c5c8-e187-ccbd26cd60f9@sero.name> On 13/06/17 21:33, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special >> consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah >> of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not >> hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend >> him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip >> about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. > I would think that killing and stealing are in this category too. No, those are inherently wrong, no matter who is the victim. You don't need to love someone in order not to kill them, hit them, steal from them, damage their property, etc. They have the right not to have these things done to them, so you may not do so even if you actively hate them. They have the right to be treated with common decency. Or, in the lashon of libertarianism, non-aggression, i.e. not to have you initiate force or fraud against them. Whereas they have no right to any favors from you; you have no duty to lift a finger to help them or to give them anything. Doing favors for people is a gift which you naturally give only to those you love; the Torah therefore commands you to give it to those whom it wants you to love. > But > you would then point to the phrase "special consideration". In other > words, there is a particular shiur of consideration. Some actions are > below that shiur; they are so basic that they apply even to non-Jews. > And other actions are above that shiur; it is "special" consideration > that we extend to family, but not to outsiders. No, it's not a matter of degree but of kind. > I would accept such a response, but it isn't very helpful. Exactly > what is that shiur? Where do we put the line? I have always thought > that *all* these things are basic menschlichkeit, and apply to > everyone, Jewish or not. No, they are not. >> Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? >> The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh >> *re`ehu* basater". > That's just two pesukim. Sefer Chofetz Chayim brings a lot more than > that - 31 if I remember correctly. The hakama to CC is mussar, so he piles on pesukim, but it you look at them they all pretty much flow from a very few sources, all of which specify "re'echa" or "amecha", etc. > The point is that ribis is NOT > inherently immoral. It *can* be abused and thereby *become* immoral. > But if done properly, it is a neutral (or even benevolent) business > tool. So are all these other things. They're normal and natural behaviour between people who don't necessarily like each other, but one would never treat someone one genuinely loved like that, so the Torah tells us that we must not treat our fellow yisre'elim like that. [Email #2] Google produced this: http://www.havabooks.co.il/article_ID.asp?id=1046 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 00:50:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 10:50:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 241) explains the prohibition of lo sikom as follows (my rough translation): "A person should understand in his heart that everything that happens to him good or bad is caused by Hashem and between people there is nothing but the will of Hashem. Therefore when someone bothers or hurts you, you should know that your sins caused this and whatever happened is a gezera from Hashem. Therefore, you should not think about taking revenge because the other person is not the cause of your troubles, rather your sins are the cause. " Based on the Chinuch's explanation there should be no difference between taking revenge on a Jew or a Goy. In either case they are not the cause of your suffering they are just the instrument of Hashem and therefore there is no reason for revenge. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 06:44:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:44:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/06/17 03:50, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 241) explains the prohibition of lo sikom > as follows (my rough translation): > > "A person should understand in his heart that everything that happens to > him good or bad is caused by Hashem and between people there is nothing > but the will of Hashem. Therefore when someone bothers or hurts you, you > should know that your sins caused this and whatever happened is a gezera > from Hashem. Therefore, you should not think about taking revenge > because the other person is not the cause of your troubles, rather your > sins are the cause. " > > Based on the Chinuch's explanation there should be no difference between > taking revenge on a Jew or a Goy. In either case they are not the cause > of your suffering they are just the instrument of Hashem and therefore > there is no reason for revenge. That is the basis for Chazal's dictum that "Whoever gets angry [over *anything*] is as if he serves idols", but there is no actual mitzvah against anger. Obviously one who truly believes in and fully accepts what we on Avodah have dubbed "strong HP" has no need for either of these two mitzvos, because it will never occur to him to hold a grudge, let alone to take revenge; but one who *does* gets angry or upset at what a fellow Jew does to him, but doesn't hold a long-term grudge against him over it is not violating a mitzvah. One mitzvah is that even if you *do* feel upset you shouldn't hold it against the person who did it, and another mitzvah is that even if you do hold it against him you shouldn't punish him for it. Therefore despite the Chinuch's relating this mussar idea to these two mitzvos, it cannot be the actual reason. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 09:16:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:16:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Akiva Miller wrote: 'I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be in the "Ribis" category. There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a non-Jew, such as Ribis.' I think this categorisation may need refining. It assumes that the Torah doesn't want us to do unethical things to non Jews either by black letter law or by unlegislated preference. The problem with this is that the Torah assumes that non-Jews are ovdei Avoda Zara and some mitzvos are specifically intended to malign them as such. Take Lo Sechaneim - The gemara learns that we can't even praise a non Jew, never mind be kind in a more concrete way. Gerei Toshav don't have this prohibition but the pshat din of the Torah is that it applies to non-Jews stam. In other words the mitzvos of the Torah treat non-Jews as transgressors and so it's likely that at least some of thing the otherwise unethical things we are allowed to do to them are due to this status. So we need at least to distinguish between what is allowed to any non-Jew and what is prohibited to a Ger Toshav. For example Ribis is clearly allowed even to a Ger Toshav. It's not unethical per se, just prohibited to a family member viz a Jew. So we need possibly, categories of: A) forbidden to everyone B) Forbiden to Jews and Gerei Toshav but totally allowed to Ovdei Avoda Zara C) Technically allowed to non-Jews of whichever category but best avoided as a bad midda D) Forbidden to Jews but totally allowed to all non Jews Re nekama, I think, subject to correction, that it is only ever positive when by Hashem or on his behalf. The nekama on Midian is 'nikmas Hashem m'es HaMidianim'. We needed to be commanded in order to do it. Hashem is 'El nekamos Hashem' in Tehilim. If anyone has a source for it being a positive thing to take personal revenge then let's hear it. Not sure the agadeta of Yaakov waking and smiling fits that bill. Otherwise the Rambam's placing of nekama in De'os as a bad midda should tell us what we need to know about it. That would be consistent with nekama being forbidden against Gerei Toshav, although we haven't found a source for that (yet). Lisa Liel wrote: 'I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews. ' The Torah clearly allows things which it considers morally wrong - Shivya Nochris for example. And the gemara says that's assur to bring one's wife as a Soteh, yet it's a whole parsha in the Torah. And the Ramban's naval birshus haTorah. Seems to me the Torah sets a floor, not a ceiling, and prompts growth through the mitzvos. Isn't that the whole thrust of Hilchos De'os? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 12:45:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:45:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish optimism [was: Shelach] Message-ID: <23c6ce.6a161a0e.4672ec49@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah ... : Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear : not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies : but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon : His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, : and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). [--Cantor Wolberg] RMB wrote: >> ...But in any case, the spies are an imperfect example, because they had G-d's promise that this specific mission would succeed. We don't have such reason to be optimistic.... ....Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? << Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> I once heard a powerful and inspiring talk given by R' Joseph Friedenson a'h. He had survived a number of different concentration camps in hellish circumstances, and had lost all or most of his family. He said in his talk that the last time he ever saw his father, his father said, "I don't know if you and I will survive this war, but no matter what happens, remember this: Klal Yisrael will survive!" R' Friedenson said that he never saw his father again but he went through the war with an unshakeable optimism. That's what he called it, optimism. He underwent horrendous suffering, but nevertheless he had a firm conviction that the Nazis would ultimately fail. He always held onto his father's words, "Klal Yisrael will survive." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 13:25:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:25:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shoah Message-ID: <842320B8-8657-4A22-98E8-76CAA22765DC@cox.net> R? Micha wrote in regard to the Shelach posting: Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? Along the same lines there was a fascinating book written many years ago by a legitimate, authentic, respected orthodox rabbi who wrote that someone who was not a victim in the holocaust has no right to say there is no God. Here is what was really an astonishing and somewhat shocking statement he made: if someone was actually in the Concentration Camp, this person has the right to deny God. I can see many raised eyebrows, but I would greatly appreciate someone remembering this book. Since it was rather revolutionary to be coming from a musmach who is respected by other orthodox rabbis. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 15:39:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:39:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: <20170614223903.GA14026@aishdas.org> In some, more Zionist, circles, the Satmar Rebbe's position that Israel is a maaseh satan is often left not understood. Many of the RZ camp have summarily dismissed it as overly polytheist for their liking. However, it is possible -- even if I or you do not find it plausible -- that Zionism was a challenge to the Jewish People. To see if after the Holocaust we would be so desperate for political relief that we would stop working toward true ge'ulah. As per the title of the SR's response to the mood after the Six Day War -- Al haGe'ulah ve'Al haTemurah (About the Ge'uilah and about the Replacement; perhaps "Decoy"). And, there is a particular mal'akh charged with posing spiritual challenges for us to grow through overcoming -- the satan. Thus, such a temurah would be a maaseh satan. Pretty conventional metaphysics, even for those who find the other religious positions bothersome. I mentioned this because of R' Gidon Rothstein's latest column in TM on the Ramban. "Ramban to Re'eh, Week Two: Avoiding False Prophets, Hearing From Hashem" http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/06/avoiding-false-prophets-hearing-hashem Along the way, RGR writes: It Might Actually Be From Hashem In the last verse in this passage, Moshe warns that this false prophet is a nisayon, a test, from Hashem. Ramban points out that back inBereshit, he had already dealt with the question of why Hashem "tests" us (doesn't Hashem know the future, and therefore know the outcome of the test? There are many answers, this is Ramban's). It's only a test from our perspective, he said. Hashem indeed knows the outcome, and is engaging in it to bring our potential into actuality (that implies that everyone always passes these tests, which works well for figures like Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov. It seems to me less convincing about the nisayon here, since the Jewish people have in fact occasionally followed such false prophets). Still, that's the less surprising part of this Ramban, since it is the face value of the verse, that the wonder did in fact come through the Will of Hashem, Hashem showed him this dream or vision to test our love of Hashem. Ramban doesn't say more, but I think he means--and this is the part that is more surprising and a bit challenging- that all people involved must realize that this is not what Hashem wants. I think he means the prophet him/herself was supposed to refrain from giving this prophecy (the other option is that Hashem was commanding and condemning this person to be a false prophet, to forfeit his/her life in doing so, and that someone we would put to death as a false prophet is actually a hero of Hashem's service. I find that unthinkable, unless the prophet said "I had this vision, but you clearly shouldn't listen to because we're not allowed to ever worship any power other than Hashem." But it's logically possible). The prophet aside, anyone who hears that prophecy, even if it's supported by uncannily accurate predictions, must both refuse to obey and react to this person as a false prophet. That is what true ahavat Hashem would lead us to do, a reminder that acting on our love of Hashem sometimes means doing that which under other circumstances should be distasteful. Putting someone to death for sharing his/her vision is not usually conduct we applaud. Here, it would still be upsetting, but necessary for those whose love of Hashem fills their beings. If the Ramban could say that there could be a navi sheqer who gets his message from Hashem for the sould purpose of challenging us, is it such a far stretch to the SR's anti-Zionism? IMHO, it's easier to understand Satmar or Munkacz anti-Zionism than Agudah's classical position of non-Zionism. The former agrees with the RZ that the Medinah is a huge event of vast import, but disagree about what the import is. The Agudist (at least classically, there were exceptions in the early years of the state, and things seem to be wearing down now) believe that Jews can regain sovereignty over EY for the first time in 2 millenia without it being religiously significant. (I am not talking about those of Neturei Karta who protest with the Palestinians and their supporters, or who visit Iranian gov't officials. They pose a whole different and perhaps even more fundamental set of problems. The SR's anti-Zionism included praying for Tzahal, as these were Jews led to danger through a horrible (in his opinion) error; an error that exists in part for the purpose of putting Jews in danger.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: RGR -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 18 10:59:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:59:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Korach Message-ID: <2943596C-CE9C-488B-B333-D25328C619BD@cox.net> 1) 16:1 "Vayikach Korach...." "And Korach, the son of Yitzhar, the son of Kehoth, the son of Levi took, and Dathan and Aviram, the sons of Eliav,etc.? The question is what did Korach take? The verb has no object. Resh Lakish said: "He took a bad 'taking' for himself" (Sanhedrin). Rashi said: "Korach...separated [lit.,took] himself. Korach placed himself at odds with the rest of the assembly to protest against Aaron's assumption of the priesthood." Ibn Ezra said it meant: "Korach took men..." 2) In the Ethics of the Fathers 5, 17 it states: "Every controversy that is pursued in a heavenly cause, is destined to be perpetuated; and that which is not pursued in a heavenly cause is not destined to be perpetuated. Which can be considered a controversy pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And that not pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Korach and his congregation." An analysis of this by Malbim explains in quite a compelling fashion why the Mishnah was not worded as we would have expected it to be: "A controversy pursued in a heavenly cause...that is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. That not pursued in a heavenly cause is the controversy of Korach and Moses." Instead it reads: "Korach and his congregation." As Malbim explains-- they would be quarreling amongst themselves, as each one strove to attain his selfish ambitions. The controversy therefore was rightly termed "between Korach and his congregation." They would ultimately fight among themselves. And the denouement would be their self-destruction. 3) "Korach quarreled with peace, and he who quarrels with peace quarrels with the Holy Name." (Zohar, Korach 176a [ed.,Soncino], Vol. V, p.238). The bottom line here is "Don't Mess with Hashem." In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves. Buddhal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 18 17:07:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 17:07:22 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: the aguda made a very practical decision-- to not make a halachic decision, but rather to seek support economically and non-military . the only halachic issue was to determine that the State's money is muttar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 01:17:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shalom Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:17:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shoah Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg's reference to the Orthodox Rabbi who wrote about who has the right to disbelieve after the Holocaust is most likely Eliezer Berkovits in his Faith After the Holocaust. Shalom Rabbi Shalom Z. Berger, Ed.D. The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education Bar-Ilan University http://www.lookstein.org https://www.facebook.com/groups/lookjed/ Follow me on Twitter: @szberger NETWORK*LEARN*GROW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 09:40:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:40:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. I am required to attend a business meeting at a non-kosher restaurant. How do I avoid the issue of maris ayin? Message-ID: <1497890418438.2614@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. I am required to attend a business meeting at a non-kosher restaurant. How do I avoid the issue of maris ayin? A. The general rule regarding maris ayin is that one can avoid the prohibition of maris ayin if there is a heker (sign) that indicates that the action is permitted. For example, Rama (YD 87:3) writes that one may not cook meat with almond milk, since this gives the impression that one is violating the prohibition of cooking milk and meat together. This would constitute maris ayin. However, this situation is permitted if one places almonds near the pot, since the almonds will alert a bystander that the milk comes from almonds and not from an animal. Therefore, if one must enter a non-kosher restaurant, one should do so in a manner that makes it clear that one is entering for business and not for pleasure. For example, one should enter carrying a briefcase or a stack of papers. Rav Schachter, shlita said that in such an instance it would be preferable to wear a cap instead of a yarmulke. Rav Schachter also said that once seated, one may order a drink -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 12:56:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:56:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur Message-ID: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> This is a comment on R Yaakov Jaffe's article at http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2017/6/13/get-your-hashkafa-out-of-my-chumash Since the Lehrhaus doesn't take comments, I thought we could discuss it here. (CC-ing RYJ.) He writes: Lehrhaus Get Your Hashkafa Out of My Chumash! [R] Yaakov Jaffe ... It has become commonplace in Modern Orthodox circles to lament the lack of alignment between the beliefs of the movement and some of the editions, translations, and versions of ritual texts that members of the movement use. These critiques are often welcome, such as Deborah Klapper's[13] recent excellent essay about the Haggadah for Pesach, and tend to frame ArtScroll Publishers as the almost villain who has taken the ideologically open, natural, innocent, uncorrupted foundational texts of Judaism and colored them with an Ultra-Orthodox translation, skew, or commentary.... Okay, that's the general topic. Here's the point I wanted to discuss: For me, there is a more grave concern when Modern Orthodox Jews flock to a different ritual text because it aligns more purely with their own ideology, and that is that the ritual text ceases to be important for its own sake (as a Siddur, Humash, or Hagaddah), a vehicle for transmitting sacred texts and values through the generations, but instead becomes a mere bit player in a larger drama about movements and self-identification. ("I use this Siddur because in many ways it demonstrates that I am a proud Modern Orthodox Jew.") This carries the risk that readers will stop reading the text of the Humash or being taken by the poetry of the Siddur and instead become hyper-focused on ideological markers that appear in those ritual texts. And for reasons that we will demonstrate below, the subordination of prayer within the mind of the person at prayer, beneath the selection of outward identifiers of ideology undermines the very purpose and notion of prayer itself. In 1978, Rabbi Soloveitchik authored a[15] short essay entitled "Majesty and Humility" in Tradition, in which he poses a dichotomy critical for Jewish religious experience and prayer. He describes one pole as majestic humanity, striving for victory and sovereignty, as "Man sets himself up as king and tries to triumph over opposition and hostility." The other pole is humble humanity, full of "withdrawal and retreat," which appreciates the smallness of human beings in the scope of the cosmic order. In the essay, prayer is an example of man in the mood of humility, of withdrawal, who finds the Almighty not when humanity triumphs over the forces of nature, or in the scope of the galaxies, but when humanity recognizes its own limitations, and, as a result, causes that "God does descend from infinity to finitude, from boundlessness into the narrowness of the Sanctuary," or: All I could do was to pray. However, I could not pray in the hospital... the moment I returned home I would rush to my room, fall on my knees and pray fervently. God in those moments appeared not as the exalted majestic King, but rather as a humble, close friend. While at prayer, the individual is constantly focused on his or her own inadequacy compared to the Divine Creator and his or her own limitations. The individual cannot be engaged in the battles of denomination supremacy, as he or she is paralyzed by his or her own smallness while attempting to pray. Moreover, prayer is generally a uniquely unsuited vehicle for conveying specific, unique, or modern ideologies and beliefs. It focuses on requests and aspirations, not on statements of creed. The text of the Siddur also serves as a unifying tool for the Jewish people (given the enormous general similarity despite centuries of division and dispersal) and highlights what we have in common and not what we have apart. 13. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-haggadah-without-women-2/ 15. http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2017/No.%202/Majesty%20and%20Humility.pdf 16. http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/?author=5886cfaabebafbcb2d43550f My problem is that tefillah is all about ideology, and the siddur runs from statement of creed to statement of creed -- Yigdal to Ani Maamin. (Not saying AM is mandatory, but it's there...) For example, RYBS's is one approach to prayer. It's different than that of Nefesh haChaim, where the focus of baqashos are what the world needs for G-d's sake, not our own needs for our sake. Curing the sick because His Presence is enhanced when people are healthy. Etc... It's different than RSRH's approach to berakhos, where they are declarations of personal commitment. So that we ask for health so that we can contribute to His Say in the world -- "berakhah" lashon ribui, after all. Etc... (I think I dug up 7 different theological resolutions to how to undertand "barukh Atah H'" given that ribui and HQBH don't mix.) This is taking a specific hashkafah's side in order to argue that tefillah shouldn't be taking a specific hashkafah's side. As for Tanakh... It is true that in one community, maximalist positions that magnify G-d's Greatness -- whether it's a description of qeri'as Yam Suf or Rivqa's age at meeting Yitzchaq -- have a near-exclusive currency. Saying that the sea simply split vehamayim lahem chimah miyminam umismolam is seen as the product if ignorance; of course it split into 13 tunnels, each providing all of our needs, ready to be grabbed out of the walls. Whereas the other prefers more rationalist positions, and in any case there is a broader array of Chazal's statements taken as possibly true. Or, does an MO Jew relate to a chumash in which the only topic of footnotes on the berakhos of Yissachar & Zevulun is their possible precedent for kollel life? (Despite there never having been an entire community where kollel was the norm until the past century.) In a community where wearing hexaplex (the snail formerly known as murex) dyed strings is a significant minority, isn't there more interest in sefunei temunei chol than in a community where it's unheard of? Then there is just different communities having different tastes in what kind of Torah thought they find more appealing / satisfying / moving. People who gravitate to the words of the Rav like the ideas in Mesores haRav for that reason. Just as Chabadnikim are more likely to find things to their taste in the Guttenstein Chumash than in the Stone Edition. Shouldn't, then, all these options exist? And is that any less true when thinking of how to relate to some complex poseq in Tehillim or a line composed by Anshei Keneses haGdolah (or the typical Ashkenazi paytan) to be a palimpsest of meanings? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 03:25:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:25:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: <> R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah poisition basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful but is against the wishes of G-d. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 06:19:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yaakov Jaffe via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:19:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Hi, Regarding the first point that "This is taking a specific hashkafah's side in order to argue that tefillah shouldn't be taking a specific hashkafah's side." I confess that I am guilty as charged. But one approach to tefilah (let's call it the one that resonates with me) is that it is purely a communication between the speaker and his or her Creator, and that consequently, it is not the time and place to be focused on proclaiming our ideologies. Obviously others may argue, and there are numerous siddur options for them. But we shouldn't pretend that this is the only approach to prayer, or that every Jew must use ideology in chosing a siddur. Regarding the second point, which I understand to be saying "each occasion of Torah study involves someone chosing an approach they prefer to understand the text, so they should chose a Chumash that furthers the approach that they prefer" I also tend to agree as well, but here my post focuses on the reductio ad absurdum problem of splitting hairs and hyper-focus on details hashkafa. I did not conduct a comprehensive study of the stone Chumash, but wonder whether the troubling explanations are ubiquitous, occasional, or somewhere in between. The problem with a "Modern" chumash, is that there are many "modern" explanations that could be equally troubling, depending on how modern the chumash and conservative the reader. Did Bilaam's donkey talk or was it a dream (Ramban versus Rambam)? If Artscroll said he spoke, and for example a new chumash says that he did not - then which one most accurately reflects my hashkafa? And if you imagine 100 different texts that can be each read multiple ways, how do we find the chumash that on all 100 provides the perfect match? Hope this makes sense, happy to continue the conversation further, Yaakov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 08:07:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:07:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Shmitta fund Message-ID: <2A3CAC10-A501-4AF5-A666-AB7B0D35E90C@gmail.com> http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2017/06/proposed-law-shmitta-fund.html?m=1. Is that the general psak, that heter mechira is no better than nothing? Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 15:02:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:02:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] restaurants In-Reply-To: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170620220230.GB29839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:44:00PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From the OU: : Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher : restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would : be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness : the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad : (giving the appearance of impropriety)... A question about that "and"... I agree with their parenthetic definition, but I will rephrase to show why I think it's rare-to-impossible for something to simultaneously be both mar'is ayin and cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone who sees the action will assume it's mutar, or at least informally "not so bad". Cheshad is where someone who sees the action is sure it's assur, and therefore think less of the person doing it. How many actions involve two conflicting default umdenos? So, being confused, I looked up the Igeros Moshe. The teshuvah is primarily about a frum minyan in a room in a non-O synagogue. The last paragraph begins "Ubedavar im mutar le'ekhol berestarant..." ("Restaurant" transliterated in Yiddish or hil' gittin style.) The line is "yeis le'esor mishum mar'is ayin vecheshad". But if someone is mitzta'er tuva, so that these gezeiros do not apply, they could eat betzin'ah something that has no actual kashrus problem. Does "ve-" here have to mean both? Or could it mean that between the two, it is assur in all circumstances? Like "lulav hagazul vehayaveish pasul" doesn't refer only to a lulav that is both stolen and dried out. Chazal's "ve-" is more complex than "and". (I am tempted to discuss de Morgan's laws and ve-, but I will just leave in this hint rather than detour into a class in symbolic logic.) If it does have to mean both mar'ish ayin and cheshad, can someone : Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based? I am not clear how they could NOT be. : For example, in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in : a treif restaurant, what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % : threshold for concern? In NYC, if you see two people, only one of which in O uniform, entering a restaurant, it's common to just assume this is a business meeting and accomodations were made. Restaurants in Manhattan routinely take delivery for a kosher meal when catering a group; it's a matter of the minimum size of the group they'll make such accomodation for. (I have been one of three, and got Abigails delivered double-sealed.) In such a climate, I don't think people would assume you're there to eat treif even if it's just two people meeting and no kosher could possibly be brought in from the outside. It's just a known thing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 16:11:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 19:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170620231132.GC29839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:33:00PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. : : True. I have always thought of ribis in a class of its own, for the : simple reason that the entire world considers it to be a generally : acceptable business practice... According to the Rambam, it's a mitzvas asei. The SA (YD 159:1) holds like the Tur, it's mutar de'oraisa, and usually prohibited derabbanan "shema yilmod mima'asav". Bikhdei chayav, tzurba derabbanan and if the profit is only defined derabbanan as ribbis are three exceptions. (Charging ribis from a mumar shekafar be'iqar is also mutar, because we are not obligated lehachayaso; but paying ribis to him is not.) The Levush says "shema yilmod mima'asev" doesn't apply in the current economy. Chazal assumed a primarily Jewish economy where we have a few exceptional deals with non-Jews. So for us, ribis is always mutar lemaaseh. I wonder whether this heter of the Levush would apply to Jews in Israel today. In any case, halakhah pesukah (assuming the reader isn't Teimani) doesn't mention any mitzvah asei. In terms of the taam being because their own economy is based on interest... Would you argue that it's wrong to lend a Muslim or an Amish person money with interest? (Even in the Levush's opinion?) Particularly in a Moslem country. where they have their own parallels to heter isqa , and the person's whole culture (I presume) reviles interest. So is it whether or not ribis is considered immoral by the person being charged, or whether or not kelapei Shemaya galya ribis is moral? I argued the latter, but your wording left me wanting to articulate the chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 13:49:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:49:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting Message-ID: What would you like the first thing that HKB"H says to you at 120 when you report to the beit din shel maaleh(heavenly study hall)? Kt Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 13:50:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban Message-ID: What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:53:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:53:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 11:21:05PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : > I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi : > haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, : > like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" : > in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather : > than knowledge of abstract ideas. : No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these : were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi : haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and : that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? "They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..." :> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. : These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult : to understand them as having been written by the same person... Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position. ... :: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in :: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21... ::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us ::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the ::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers ::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their ::> practice on their upright fathers. :> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. : Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the : pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] : and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk... But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write: : Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the : context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting : up of schools)... Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's derashah. I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with "chadash assur min haTorah".) :> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. : Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas : etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody : define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at : all the experiential aspect... Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect? :> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when :> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an :> example to imitate. : The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is : as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with : Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her : ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." : The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard : to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, : excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of : Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily : in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education. After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior? In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49. : And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they : could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward : etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two : types of TSBP... Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah. : Is not the gemora etc filled with : this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it occuring... So I am toally lost here. Maybe the "this" has been stretched further than I can follow. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 19:00:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Message-ID: The gematria for Rosh Chodesh is 813. In the whole of tanach there is only one verse with the gematria of 813. It is B?reishis, Chapter 1, verse 3. ?Vayomer Elohim ohr, vay?hi ohr? ?And God said: Let there be light and there was light.? Music is moonlight in the gloomy night of life. Jean Paul, Author From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:42:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:42:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170621234200.GF18168@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 09:19:46AM -0400, Yaakov Jaffe via Avodah wrote: : But one approach to tefilah (let's call it the one that resonates with me) : is that it is purely a communication between the speaker and his or her : Creator, and that consequently, it is not the time and place to be focused : on proclaiming our ideologies. Obviously others may argue, and there are : numerous siddur options for them. But we shouldn't pretend that this is : the only approach to prayer, or that every Jew must use ideology in chosing : a siddur. But if a person wants to approach tefilah as a pure communication, then shouldn't they pick a siddur whose ideology is that tefillah is a pure communication? Having a siddur of a given ideology is not necessarily about proclaiming that ideology. (But if you want to rail about the fact that too often this call for an MO siddur /is/ about proclomation, there is room to do so.) It is about having a siddur that aids the kind of prayer you want to do. Which is why I never understood why people assign value to having "their siddur". I have a collection, as I go from more cerebral to more experiential moods, and want different siddurim depending on where my head is just then. For example, the as-yet-unpublished RCA siddur has something in it about shelo asani that would say something that a Mod-O Jew is more likely to be concerned about saying than someone who is less engaged with the more egalitarian west would feel a need to say. ... : I did not conduct a comprehensive study of the stone Chumash, but wonder : whether the troubling explanations are ubiquitous, occasional, or somewhere : in between... In my experience, occasional. But the rationalists are under-represented, given the chareidi tendency toward more maximalist approaches. That's not troubling, but it's promoting one worldview and not allowing the other to reach the market-share it deserves. : or was it a dream (Ramban versus Rambam)? If Artscroll said he spoke, and : for example a new chumash says that he did not - then which one most : accurately reflects my hashkafa? ... My ideal chumash would present both, or if space requires, inform me that both possibilities are discussed without full presentation. If two hashkafic ideas are viable, why should I let an editor choose between them for me? But that's a different story. The problem the MO nay-sayers have with the absence of a vaiable alternative to ArtScroll is less that there is a specific problem with a comment. As I wrote, those are rare. But that without variety, without a survey that includes ideas current and popular outside the Agudist community, those ideas will cease being thought of as normative. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:20:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:20:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170621222015.GB18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:50:41PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? #1 Qedoshim Tihyu -- naval birshus haTorah #2 The end of Bo (although you didn't ask for a runner-up) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:28:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:28:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170621232850.GE18168@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:07:45PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : >I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons : >and sources, and this chapter is a perfect example... In the Bavli "Mai ta'ama?" is a request for a reason. In the Y-mi, it is a request for a pasuq as source. Reasons and sources are different things, and I think the difference helps clears up the question. : Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites : the Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than : in other places. Zev was saying that the Rambam usually opens or close with a reason, a ta'am hamitzvah. (And, as he explains in the Moreh, he only expects these to cover the generalities.) Usually, these are unsourced. But, kedarko, when he can paraphrase a source he does. Which is what he is doing here. : I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he : often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or : "pashat haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a : Midrash? This one stands out. This paragraph addresses the Rambam's not spending much time on sources, not about reasons. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:16:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:16:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170621221634.GA18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:49:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What would you like the first thing that HKB"H says to you at 120 when : you report to the beit din shel maaleh(heavenly study hall)? (After introducing me to my daughter...) "I'm proud of you, son!" "I would help you get used to this, but techiyas hameisim will be underway..." "So THAT'S why I did that..." But according to Rava (Shabbos 31a) I should expect, "Nasata venatata be'emunah?" Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:24:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:24:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170621232402.GD18168@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 08:43:42PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : > How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of : > any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even : > punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of : > the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? : : The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an : extension of the beit din. Perhaps according to the Rambam (Rotzeiach 1:2), who says "mitzvah beyad go'el hadam..." and if the go'el doesn't want to or there is none, "BD memisin es harotzeiach besayif". Rashi al haTorah appears to hold that "ein lo dam" means the go'el is killing an already dead man, and therefore bears no guilt. Not a mitzvah, but a reshus. (But see below.) And if the go'el only has reshus, it's hard to say he is operating as beis din's appointee. Sanhedrin 45b says "mitzvah bego'el hadam", but if there is no go'el, BD appoints one. There is no sayif. BUT, Makos 2:7 has a machloqes: R Yosi haGelili says that if the killer is found outside the techum, it is a mitzvah on the go'el hadam and a reshus for everyone else to kill him. (According to the beraisa on 12a, if there is no go'el, there is reshus...) R' Aqiva disagrees, saying it's a reshus for the go'el and a non-punishable issur for anyone else. (According to the beraisa, they are chayav.) And here's the weird part -- despite what I quoted above from the Yad, the Rambam on the mishnah says halakhah is like R' Aqiva. Rashi on Makkos 12a says about Bamidbar 35:27 "ika leferushei lashon tzivui ve'ika leferushei lashon tzivui. In sum, I think RJR is understating it. It's not "only" the pesuqim that are unclear. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 01:29:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:29:00 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: : No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these : were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi : haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and : that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? And RMB replied: >"They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..." I like "the root principles and the general rules .." - thanks, that is better than my use of source - but I think "osmosis" is not quite right either. I don't think "osmosis" as we understand it would necessarily have been within the Maharil's conception, and that it is not a great translation for "al pi hakabala" - maybe "from tradition" - but osmosis isn't right. The girls in question probably learnt how to speak the local language by osmosis (even if eg Yiddish was spoken in the home), but you would not say that is "al pi hakabbala". There is a big difference. :> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. : These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult : to understand them as having been written by the same person... >Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position. I don't think you can say that. First of all, the second one, ie the one from Maharil HaChadashos, made it into the Shulchan Aruch, - it is quoted by the Rema - and you can't just dismiss that. And the first one was in the possession of the Birchei Yosef, who is very influential in a whole host of ways in terms of psak. I think rather you have to treat them as two different rishonic teshuvot, and give them weight on that basis. It may well be that they were influenced by, or even possibly penned by, the student of the Maharil who collected them (hence my note that they came from two different collections) , and we may never know which one was really the Maharil's opinion and which one was in fact that of his student or some other rishon from around that time and attributed to the Maharil, but they are both rishonic source material, and I don't think we can ignore either of them. ... :: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in :: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21... ::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us ::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the ::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers ::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their ::> practice on their upright fathers. :> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. : Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the : pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] : and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk... But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write: : Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the : context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting : up of schools)... >Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's derashah. Yes, but even in terms of pshat, it seems very difficult to come away from the idea of transmission of tradition from father to children when using this process. "Asking" is not about osmosis - it is about an attempt at formal learning, and answering in response to an ask is exactly the process of formal learning in pretty much all contexts (it is why we still have teachers even in Universities, and not just books). If you have system where you are supposed to "ask" and somebody else is supposed to then answer, you have formal education. This is a step up from where you are expected to learn by watching (but not asking) - but where at least sometimes the educational aspect is clear - eg, I want you to watch and see how I go to place X, so you can find it yourself next time, is a less formal process than asking, but it is still a form of education, which is a step up from osmosis, where nobody on either side necessarily realises that something is being learnt, it just seeps in (language is a classic case, or how about accent - kids pick up their accent from school by osmosis, it is not a conscious process, and maybe the parents would in fact prefer, and maybe even they would prefer, that they talk with the parent's accent, rather than that of their peers, but it doesn't happen that way, you send a kid to school, they start talking like the locals in their school). >I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with "chadash assur min haTorah".) Because the proof text resonates, it does even in the pshat. In the pshat it is clearly linked to "vshinantam l'vanecha" - ie is the flip side of it (which is why the extension into drash makes sense, just as v'shinantam l'vanecha is the basis of the command for Torah study, this is the basis of the need to listen to the master of Torah). And if you know the drash, even when you use it in the pshat form, you will get the resonance. "V'shinantam l'vanecha" is the pasuk from which the obligation for boys to learn is learnt (banecha v'lo banotecha) - with the emphasis then on the father's teaching - the formal school process came later, when the father's obligation was delegated to a school teacher. Ask you father (in the masculine) is similarly in the pshat about a boy's obligation to learn. Applying it to girls is an odd stretch in the first place. What you are saying is that the proof text when applied to girls suddenly doesn't mean what it means when applied to boys, in either pshat or drash, that to me seems odd. :> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. : Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas : etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody : define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at : all the experiential aspect... >Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect? Well the CC is explaining the Rambam. The Rambam says: ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????, ???? ??? ??????, ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????, ???"? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????, ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????, ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man, because she is not commanded and all who do a thing that they are not commanded to do, there reward is not like the reward of one who is commanded and does rather [their reward] is less than these, and even though she gains a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning, and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut. So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav (note that the Rambam himself in Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 Halacha 11 - says a man is required to divide his time into thirds, a third in Torah shebichtav, a third in Torah sheba?al peh, and a third in understanding and weighing - what he calls Gemora, so there he seems to have three categories, but the third requires a knowledge of the other two, and presumably cannot be taught). So, in terms of your question "does anybody force the CC to define the set of TSBP that was classically prohibited as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including the experiential aspect" - it seems to me that the Rambam does. Ie given that the CC is explaining the Rambam, and the Rambam has only two categories of Torah, then either the experiential aspect is Torah shebichtav or it is not Torah at all. But saying that the experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase. I therefore think it very difficult to say that experiential teaching, especially when linked with the formality of "asking", as the CC does, can be defined as not Torah at all. So that leaves Torah shebichtav. I did try and say that was the Tur's point, what you are should not teach are the laws as written down, but to say that the experiential is Torah shebichtav seems to me a very difficult assertion. :> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when :> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an :> example to imitate. : The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is : as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with : Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her : ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." : The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard : to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, : excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of : Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily : in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". >I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education. >After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior? Yes he does, the minute he is "asked", or if he says "watch what I do" (similar to when I take my children somewhere to show them how to get there on their own, eg a new school, including pointing out the landmarks, that is most definitely active teaching, despite the fact that it is experiential, and not done from giving them a map and teaching them to map read). >In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49. And "look, let me show you how ..." is formal teaching, whether it is a maths problem or it is how to bake chala. And if that particular aspect of teaching falls within the definition of Torah, then one is teaching Torah, albeit informally. And the danger with understanding "lelameid" to only mean formal teaching, not informal teaching, is that you then write out of a father's obligation to a son an awful lot, as it is not within the mitzvah. You can't have it both ways, either when a father teaches a son informally (eg shows him how to put on tephillin, as that seems very difficult to learn from a book) he is teaching him Torah or he is not. Which is it? : And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they : could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward : etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two : types of TSBP... >Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah. So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect, showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn?t take the bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid? Isn't that the consequence of what you are saying? That the only Torah that men are obligated to learn as Talmud torah are the formal abstract rules and regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially? : Is not the gemora etc filled with : this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. >The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it occuring... I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules. If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? -Micha Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 06:27:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:27:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> On 22/06/17 04:29, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: >> The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or >> memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it >> occuring... > I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the > formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the > formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules. > > If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of > the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? Indeed, it's an explicit gemara: "*Torah* hi, velilmod ani tzarich". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 09:32:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:32:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170622163247.GA19841@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:27:07AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: :>If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of :> the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? : Indeed, it's an explicit gemara: "*Torah* hi, velilmod ani tzarich". I am excluding informal education from "lelameid bito", not excluding the acquired info from "Torah". When the R' Eliezer (as quoted by the Rambam) talks about learning or teaching, is he thinking about mimetic osmosis and the like or is he referring only to formal education? It is indeed a key way to learn how to practice. In many cases -- eg milah, safrus, mar'os, tereifos, etc... -- it's the /only/ way to learn the necessary Torah. "Mimetic osmosis *or the like*" is my acknowledgement that Chana managed to convince me that my dichotomy is really a spectrum from the informality of unconscious imitation to raw text study. And therefore there will be gray are that is more or less likely to be included by R' Eliezer or the Rambam rather than a yes-or-no. My talk of mimeticism and osmosis overstates where I am going, and created needless problems with the CC's use of "she'al avikha". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 06:26:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:26:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Letter from Europe Message-ID: <84dd8782469149f99c23cf85a031e37b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I seem to remember a letter from a European (German) Jewish community to someone/thing in Eretz Yisrael with the general message that their hometown was where they intended to wait for Moshiach whether moving to Eretz Yisrael was possible or not. Does this sound familiar? If so, do you know the source? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 07:06:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:06:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple Message-ID: <20170623140615.GB17536@aishdas.org> SA EhE 62:11 says that if the benei hachupah have to divide up into chaburos, they all make sheva berakhos. Even if the locations are not open to each other nor is there a common server -- none of the normal things that combine a zimun. The AhS #37 adds that they each make their own 7 berakhos. Does this mean that if a man needs to leave a wedding early, he should really invest the effort to find 9 others and not just 3, not only because zimun requires trying, but also because the 10 of you would be passing up a chance to bentch the chasan & kallah! To add more weight to the idea, earlier in the siman the AhS discusses the function of panim chadashos at 7 berakhos. In #23-24 he says that the Rambam (Berakhos pereq 2) implies that the reason why we need panim chadashos for 7 berakhos is that the whole thing is to fulfill *their* chiyuv to bentch the chasan & kallah. As guests of the couple, they have a chiyuv to give them a berakhah, which is fulfilled at the minimum by their amein. Whereas if everyone there already fulfilled that obligation, the berakhos are levatalah. Then in #35 he gives besheim "rov raboseinu" the usually quoted reason (at least in my circles) that it's their addition to the simchah that legitimizes the berakhah. Which is why the neshamah yeseirah and Shabbos meal can serve in the same role. (However, he warns, this only works for a real se'udah shelishis. A yotzei-zain shaleshudis lacks that requisite simchah.) So, it could be that according to the Rambam, walking out of the se'udah without 7 berakhos is neglecting one's chiyuv to give the couple a berakhah! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 10:46:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:46:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> <20170621234200.GF18168@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170623174657.GA20760@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:00:14PM -0400, Yaakov Jaffe wrote: : Thank you for your perspective. I understand your argument - rather than : my three-options (hashkafa a, hashkafa b and hashkafa c), you suggest a : fourth with a & b side by side, for the reader to chose. I hadn't : considered it - but it does have a lot to offer! We need to distinguish between a specific commentary -- R' Hirsch's Pentateuch, Mesoret haRav works, Divrei Moshe -- and an anonymous collector of footnotes as in the Stone Chumush, the ArtStroll or RCA siddurim, etc... And I want to acknowledge the gray areas. R/Lord Sack's siddur can be either, depending upon whether someone bought it out of esteem for R' Sacks and wanting to know his position, or it's as just Koren's contender in that market. I am only talking about the latter category, the anonymous shul chumash or siddur. Chareidism is founded on the need to protect ourselves from the modern. And only after dealing with the thread, one considers the opportunities. And part of that defense mechanism is deffering decisions to those more knowledgable. In contrast, Mod-O embraces the West's admiration of autonomy. Thus leaving a gap between the communities about when one turns to gedolim for answers, and when not. A side-effect of how "daas Torah" is formulated is that it has little tolerance for plurality. "The gedolim hold" is an oft-repeated idiom, in my hometown of Passaic, even by people who -- if you made them stop and consider the question -- know "the gedolim" often disagree. Because if we need to choose between valid answers, we could run the risk of choosing wrongly, a dangerous variant of one, the other, or in combination. A comparative unknown yeshivish rav or collection of avreikhem providing such commentary, choosing a consistent style of comment over others is perceived from that mindset. As promoting one position as the sole truly normative approach. The same often happens with Rashi. We think of Rashi's position as the default, because it's girsa diyenuqa, and another rishon is seen as the machadesh. Did the brothers sell Yoseif or did they find the pit empty after the Moavim got there first and selling him? There is a machloqes tannaim about Rivqa's age when married, but Rashi quotes one, and that becomes the default in some circles. In other circles, peshat is more likely to trump medrashic stories. With the position of numerous rishonim and acharonim (are there cholqim?) that medrashic stories are repeated for their nimshalim, not the story itself. Which brings me to a second effect of daas Torah... The more one takes pride in deferring to authority the more likely one is to embrace the maximalist position, to accept that which is further from rationalist, from what the autonomous decision would have been. A second reason why Rivqa must have been 3 when married, not 15. Yes, many people know both, but isn't there a clear emotional attitude about one position being normative rather than the other? I therefore think that giving a survey of opinions is itself an inherently MO way of doing this kind of text. It allows someone to choose autonomously between rationalism, mysticism, maximalism, etc... without the relatively-unknown rabbi -- or anyone but my own rav, his rav, his rav's rav... ("my gadol" is a much more MO view than "the gedolim) -- setting himself to tell large numbers of the observant community what to view as the mainstream, and what is an acceptable but avant-gard alternative, even if they ever learn of the other options. If we want RYBS's position to be viewed as part of the mainstream, or R' Herschel Schachter's (which is far closer to yeshivish but still not something ArtScroll would quote too often) or R' Aharon Soloveitchik or RALichtenstein, R' Amital, R CY Goldvicht or any other rosh yeshivas hesder, R' Kook, etc... there has to be chumashim that put these ideas in the hands of the common people, the ones who aren't spending spare time hanging out in the sefarim store or following e-zines, blogs, email lists or even FB groups that discuss (usually: argue) such things. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 15:56:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:56:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d2ec73$fba1e110$f2e5a330$@gmail.com> R' Joel Rich: What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? ------------------------ The one about being a naval b'rshus haTorah. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 14:04:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 23:04:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: <2a88576c-335d-3d30-a014-301f177029c1@zahav.net.il> References: <2a88576c-335d-3d30-a014-301f177029c1@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <297327dc-ba39-c064-1bd4-0a61c750d11f@zahav.net.il> Mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisrael, including conquering it. Ben On 6/21/2017 10:50 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? > KT > Joel Rich > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 06:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 16:10:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple Message-ID: "Does this mean that if a man needs to leave a wedding early, he should really invest the effort to find 9 others and not just 3, not only because zimun requires trying, but also because the 10 of you would be passing up a chance to bentch the chasan & kallah!" Actually, even without regard for Sheva B'rochos, the din of zimmun requires that one not who has eaten with a minyan not bentsch with less than a minyan. There is mention on OC 193:1 that only where there would be difficulty in a minyan hearing, thus necessitating the bentsching calling attention to itself and thus offending the host, that it can be done in groups of three; it would seem to be a kal vachomer that gathering ten and saying Sheva B'rochos would be even more noticeable, and thus more hurtful. It would also seem that if one person has to leave, he should not request two others to join him in zimmun unless they, too, must leave early, since otherwise they should not violate their obligation of proper zimmun so that the one leaving have an incomplete fulfillment of his obligation. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:01:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 01:01:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: . R' Eli Turkel wrote: > R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He > understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah position > basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a > state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful > but is against the wishes of G-d. Could you please explain to me what the Agudah position is, and *how* it denies that G-d affects history? Personally, I do not know what the Agudah position is about the Medinah. I'm not convinced that they even *have* a position. Over the years, I have gotten the impression that they have deliberately avoided publicizing their views, because at this point in history it is so difficult to be sure of such things. You yourself concede that the state "APPEARS" to be successful. Who knows? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:21:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:21:57 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] perhaps not such a well-known RaMBaM, but ... Message-ID: in his intro to Sefer Shemos Matan Torah was just a device employed to re-attain the standards that had already been accomplished by the Avos when they came to Mount Sinai - made the Mishkan and HaShem returned His Shechinah amongst them, that is when they restored their status to be like their Avos .... and that is when they were deemed to be redeemed [from the servitude in Egypt] Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:42:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:42:05 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] redemption - The GoEl HaDam Message-ID: the family can come to terms with the killer. when circumstances are such that the killer is deemed too negligent, he can not seek refuge in the Ir Miklat and they MUST come to terms, of the aggressor lives his life in constant fear of being executed. Lo SikChu Kofer LeNefesh RoTzeach Hu - is a warning [to BDin] NOT to take redemption money, NOT to avert the death penalty, NOT to come to terms; but in other circumstances it seems we ought to seek strategies to come to terms. That may include but is not limited to offering money - it probably has more to do with Teshuvah, which is the need to persuade the victims that the regret is sincere, which is why BDin cannot provide a ruling, it can only be negotiated through direct communications, and finding friends of the victims and persuading them of the sincerity and getting THEM to intercede - this is the Shurah that is described in Halacha and RaMBaM. Why are they defined as the GoEl the redeemer? It is a redemption for the society - an evil [negligence of this magnitude, especially when Chazal indicate it is a reflection of other misdeeds, is an evil] of this magnitude leaves an impression on the collective mind of the community, the Eidah, those whose lives is a testimony to HKBH, and if it goes unpunished, the community is tainted. So the community requires redemption. This too feeds into the coming to terms with the aggressor - it is not only the friends of the victim who are impressing upon their traumatised consciousness the need to forgive to accept that the aggressor truly regrets [and that the victim is also as Chazal say, a contributor to his untimely own end] but the community is a sort of spectator to these negotiations and the aggressors feel a need to be accepted by the community and not be seen as being too harsh and vengeful or rapacious in their demands for compensation. This is a very redeeming experience for everyone Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 10:10:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:10:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] most famous ramban Message-ID: <000b01d2edd5$f855df80$e9019e80$@actcom.net.il> First Ramban in Yayera-polemic with the Moreh Nevukhim. After that, 'Kedoshim tihiyu', (which many people are horrified by or completely misunderstand and yes, the Ramban was an ascetic and makes a brilliant case for asceticism) but we could probably have a whole lot of fun on this list making a list of Rambans that everyone should know. In fact, we may actually have done this already. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 10:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:05:14 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting from God Message-ID: <000601d2edd5$3d08f5a0$b71ae0e0$@actcom.net.il> I'd be thrilled to hear: "It's okay-don't worry about it" but I'm not counting on it. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 07:06:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:06:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170626140643.GD29431@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 04:10:45PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : hurtful. It would also seem that if one person has to leave, he should not : request two others to join him in zimmun unless they, too, must leave : early, since otherwise they should not violate their obligation of proper : zimmun so that the one leaving have an incomplete fulfillment of his : obligation. OTOH, if they have an obligation to bless the chasan and kalah, perhaps the threshold for "must leave early" has to be raised. After all, there are cases of need where we do break a zimmun, but we would never (e.g.) walk out on a beris milah over the same motivation. "Need" is a relative term. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 09:15:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 12:15:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> On this thread, did any of us mention birkhas ge'ulah? "Ufdeih khin'umekha Yehudah veYisrael" expresses our expectation that Hashem will redeem both malkhios. Or is there another way to talk separately about Yehudah and Yisrael. So I would think the siddur pasqens, and this is in all traditional nusachos, that the 1- tribes are not permanently lost. I am assuming since this is a birkhas shevakh rather than baqashah, this is an expectation "you will surely redeem", and not a request. Requesting the impossible is a tefillas shav. So... As a baqashah, the berakhah would only prove they could be redeemed; as shevakh (which is, I believe, the correct category), the berakhah is expressing our faith they will be redeemed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 14:51:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:51:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Talmud Torah vs Mitzvah Maasis Message-ID: <20170626215120.GA8220@aishdas.org> Another data point... AhS EhE 65:4 says "mevatlin talmud Torah lehakhnasas kalah lechupah", even toraso umenaso. But limited to someone who sees them going to the chupah. If you just know of a wedding in town, you aren't obligated to stop learning to go. For sources, the end of the se'if cites 1- Semachos 11[:7], which RYME summarizes as "dema'aseh qodem leTT". The mishnah itselces cites both Aba Sha'ul and Rabbi Yehudah, that "hama'aseh qodem letalmud". (Rabbi Yehudah would enjoin his talmidim to participate as well.) 2- Qiddushin 40b which discusses whether talmud gadol or ma'aseh gadol. R' Tarfon: ma'aseh R' Aqiva: talmud "Ne'enu kulam ve'amru: talmud gadol" because talmud leads to ma'aseh. (And so on, discussion elided.) This gemara concludes that talmud is greater. 3- And for exaplanation of how to resolve Semachos vs Qiddushin, he points you to Tosafos BQ 17[a] "veha'amar". The gemara there says "gadol limud Torah shemeivi liydei ma'adeh", much like Qiddushim. Rashi says "alma ma'aseh adif". R' Tam asks on Rashi, from the gemara in Qiddushin. Tosafos then explains the gemara's distinction between learning and teaching in two opposite ways: 1- It's teaching which has priority, because it brings the masses to action. Whereas one's own learning or acting are one person either way. 2- It's learning, which tells one how to act, that has priority. But since teaching doesn't inform the teacher how to fulfilll a mitzvah, it does not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 08:22:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:22:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chukas Message-ID: <9B3AD7FA-3712-4F5A-B2FC-BAC8F688CD87@cox.net> Rashi picks up on the juxtaposition of the consecutive sentences where we first read of Miriam?s death and immediately following ? of the lack of water. This would indicate some connection which Rashi points out that the existence of the water was on the z?chus of Miriam. Nonetheless, the question of the Sifse Chakhamim is also quite valid. Weren?t Aaron and Moses worthy enough to warrant the existence of the water on their z?chus? As a chok has no rational explanation, so, too, there is no logical explanation as to why as long as Miriam was there, offering her inspired leadership, the waters of the be?er, the wells of Torah, flowed ceaselessly and with her death, the waters stopped; whereas, the greatness of Aaron and Moses paled in comparison. This shows the error of those who downplay the role of women in Judaism. Remember, it?s the mother who determines the child?s religion and it?s the mother who plays a major role in her children?s development. The dedication and devotion of the exemplary Jewish mother are a shining example to all who would seek idealism in a Jewish woman. "The Lord gave more wit to women than to men." Talmud - Niddah ??And the Lord God built the rib which teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, endowed the woman with more understanding than the man.? Niddah 45b ?A beautiful wife enlarges a man?s spirit.? [adapted from] Talmud, Berakhot 57b -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 15:15:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:15:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <78965e20-72ab-5232-fd11-bfbe6b3a4ee2@sero.name> On 26/06/17 12:15, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On this thread, did any of us mention birkhas ge'ulah? "Ufdeih > khin'umekha Yehudah veYisrael" expresses our expectation that Hashem > will redeem both malkhios. Or is there another way to talk separately > about Yehudah and Yisrael. > > So I would think the siddur pasqens, and this is in all traditional > nusachos, that the 1- tribes are not permanently lost. It is not in all traditional nuschaos. TTBOMK it's found only in Nusach Ashkenaz. Sefarad substitutes the pasuk "Goaleinu", Italians substitute "Biglal avot...", I don't know what other traditional nuschaot do. (Modern Nusach Ashkenaz and some versions of the Chassidic "Sfard" combine the old Ashkenaz and Sefarad endings; this was originally Nusach Tzorfat, back when that was distinct from Ashkenaz.) (The reason for the Sefaradi ending with the pasuk rather than the other two versions is that the bracha is about Geulat Mitzrayim, not the future Geulah, hence the chatima "Ga'al Yisrael" as distinct from "Go'el Yisrael" in the 7th of the 18, so ending with a prayer for the future Geulah is off topic. I don't know how the other two nuschaot would respond, but maybe that's why NA ended up adopting the Tzorfati combination.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 22:08:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:08:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Agudah [was: Support for Maaseh Satan] Message-ID: <15180d.31f3d54b.4685e552@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <> [--I don't know who is being quoted here] R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah poisition basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful but is against the wishes of G-d. -- Eli Turkel >>>>>> All through Tanach there are examples of reshaim who succeed (if only for a while). Obviously it is Hashem's wish that they succeed, even if it is not His wish that they sin. What is remarkable and miraculous about the last century of history in Eretz Yisrael is how Eretz Yisrael has been built up, the growth of agriculture, cities, the economy, the Jewish population, and most of all the amazing growth of Torah living and learning -- despite secular socialist Zionism. The Medinah gets some credit but what is most remarkable is that so much good has happened despite the Medinah or even very much against the will of the secular government. There is so much ohr vechoshech mishtamshim be'irbuvya. Nevertheless it is impossible /not/ to see the Yad Hashem in the overall course of events over the past century. How many prophecies are coming true before our very eyes! A thriving economy grew up under the very feet of the socialists! Is that not a miracle?! Has such a thing ever happened in any other country?! :- ) So what is the Agudah's position? In November 1947, when the UN voted for the establishment of the Jewish State, the Agudah made the following declaration: --begin quote-- The World Agudas Yisroel sees as an historic event the decision of the nations of the world to return to us, after 2000 years, a portion of the Holy Land, there to establish a Jewish state and to encompass within its borders the banished and scattered members of our people. This historic event must bring home to every Jew the realization that ***the Almighty has brought this about in an act of Divine Providence*** [my emphasis] which presents us with a great task and a grave test. We must face up to this test and establish our life as a people, upon the basis of Torah. While we are sorely grieved that the Land has been divided and sections of the holy Land have been torn asunder, especially Yerushalayim, the holy city, while we still yearn for the aid of Mashiach tzidkeinu, who will bring us total redemption, we nevertheless see the hand of Providence offering us the opportunity to prepare for the geula shelaima if we will walk into the future as G-d's people. --end quote-- [quoted in __To Dwell in the Palace: Perspectives on Eretz Yisrael__ edited by Tzvia Ehrlich-Klein, 1991] The above is still fairly representative of the hashkafa of broad swaths of Klal Yisrael who are charedi or charedi-leaning, yeshivish or chassidish, neither Satmar nor Dati Leumi. That is, the majority of all frum Jews in America and Eretz Yisrael. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 22:31:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:31:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? Message-ID: <151979.a3a1c08.4685eabc@aol.com> From: Chana Luntz via Avodah I Well the CC is explaining the Rambam. The Rambam says: --quote-- A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man, ...and even though she gains a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning, and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. --end quote-- That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut. So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav ... ....But saying that the experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase.... .....So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect, showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn't take the bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid? Isn't that the consequence of what you are saying? That the only Torah that men are obligated to learn as Talmud Torah are the formal abstract rules and regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially? Regards Chana >>>>> I think that different uses of the word "Torah" are being confused here. The very word "Torah" has many meanings, depending on context. It can refer to just the Chumash -- the Torah shebichsav -- about which the Rambam says "but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." Some chassidishe schools to this day do not teach girls Chumash. The word Torah can mean both Chumash and Gemara. "The Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut." There is universal agreement that "Torah" in this context means Gemara. NO ONE thinks that teaching halacha to girls is tantamount to teaching tiflus. The word "Torah" can refer to the vast corpus of everything that has ever been written by or about the Tanaim and Amoraim, Rishonim and Achronim. The word can refer to halacha, to hashkafa, to everything that makes up Jewish life and thought. "Torah" can also refer to that which is taught and learned by example, or by osmosis, or by a mother's tears when she bentshes lecht and davens for her children. "Al titosh Toras imecha." Every language has words like that, words whose precise meaning depends on context. Certainly in the Gemara itself there are many such words. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 29 06:18:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:18:11 +0000 Subject: What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem’s name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? Message-ID: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem's name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, HY"D the Av Bais Din of Shomloy in Hungary, once wrote a letter on this subject. It reads in part, "We have a tradition in our hands from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty, that the reading of the honored and awesome name of Hashem is AH -- DOY -- NOY (AH-DOE -- NOY or AH-DOW-NOY) using the vowelization of Chataf Patach for the Aleph, a Cholam for the Daled and a Kamatz for the Nun..." "Our master the Chasam Sofer and the author of the Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah, zt"l and a whole group of Geonim and Kedoshim have already warned us that unfortunately there are many mistakes concerning this. One needs to be very careful about this matter for a common mistake has spread among the masses and even among those with fear of Hashem. Through a lack of concentration, the Daled (of Hashem's pronounced name) is said with a Sheva as "AHD-ENOY." It is certain that whoever pronounces Hashem's name this way has not said Hashem's name at all and must repeat the bracha again, and so did the Chasam Sofer rule." Rav Shimon Schwab, zt"l in his classic work on Siddur, Iyun Tefilla (p. 25), adds that one should also be careful not to say AH -- DEE -- NOY. He writes: "One must pronounce the Daled with a Cholam (DOY, DOE or DOW) and the Nun with a Kamatz, and not use a Chirik under the Daled (DEE) as is the custom of some who are mistaken and think that they are pronouncing the Name properly... This is a disgrace of the honored and awesome Name. One who pronounces Hashem's name with a Chirik even a hundred times a day is not transgressing the prohibition of saying Hashem's name in vain." Rav Pinchas Scheinberg, zt"l was once asked if Ahd-enoy or Ahdeenoy are acceptable be'dieved, after the fact. His response was a resounding "No!" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 29 06:30:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zalman Alpert via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:30:39 -0400 Subject: What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem’s name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? In-Reply-To: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> References: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 29, 2017 10:18 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > From today's OU Halacha Yomis > > *Q. What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem?s name in Shmoneh Esrei > and other brachos?* There are different ways in Ashkenazi hebrew to pronounce many vowels like cholom zeira segol etc so this answer isof little meaning Galicianer Lithuanian German Ukrainian Hungarian and Central Polish jews each have their own pronunciation See Michtvei Torah by Gerer rebbe Imre Emes where opines different than what is written here Rabbi Heschel of Hamodia several yrs ago discussed this issue in a very cogent manner Although many American college educated frum Jews believe there is only 1way of halachic practice that is absurd,there are many authentic practices to the chagrin of a group of yedhivashe people seeking to impose uniform practicr namely their own Nehare nehare upishteh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 30 06:56:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:56:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Forgotten Fast Days Message-ID: <650c141a32674be8bd8ee65a52bc1d83@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see the article at https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5929 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 30 09:04:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:04:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Authority of Cherem deRabbeinu Gershom Message-ID: <20170630160442.GA20546@aishdas.org> AhS EhE 1:23,25 etc... refers to taqanos or gezeiros passed by Rabbein Gershon meOr haGolah and his contemporaries. Not the idiom I heard in the past, "cheirem deR' Gershom" -- not even the same last letter on the name. Since this was well after the last beis din hagadol / Sanhedrin (so far), we have discussed in the past where the authority to pass such laws came from. My own suggestion revolved around them being charamim for anyone who... rather than direct issurim. But the AhS would be more medayeiq to call them charamim if he thought that was a critical part of the mechanism. But here is something that had me wondering all over again. AhS EhE 119:17... The question is how a gett given without the wife's agreement would be valid if one holds "i avid lo mahani" (like Rava). And yet the Rama says "avar vegirshah ba"k" he is an avaryan (and thus in nidui) until she remarries. One it can't be fixed, because he cannot remarry his gerushah anymore, the nidui is removed. But the AhS writes, if this is true for a derabbanan (Kesuvor 81b) *kol shekein* dChdR"G hu kemo qarov le'isur Torah. Without explaining why. And I can't even figure out how it has the authority to be more than minhag altogether... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 13:45:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:45:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Aruch HaShulchan was not happy with the minhag that the baal haseder has his wine poured by someone else. He writes that it's a bit haughty to order his wife to pour for him and that in his city it was not the minhag. Aside from the interestingly contemporary sound of his concern, it seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for everyone to pour for everyone else, which would avoid the concern of the ArHaSh. 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? 2. If so is it a) based on the poskim, b) an old practice without formal endorsement, or c) a new-fangled sop to modernity? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 17:49:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzav: "As Long As The Soul Is Within Me, I Will Give Thanks Unto Thee, O Lord, My God And God Of My Fathers" Berakhot, 60b Message-ID: <476D9522-69B8-43D1-9E77-D0491911541D@cox.net> Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the korban todah, Thanksgiving Offering. The Medrash (Lev. R., 9.7) tells us that in the future all the sacrifices will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering. Rashi (Leviticus 7:12) states (paraphrased): A man offers a thanksgiving offering (in the Temple) when he is saved from potential danger. There are four types: sea travelers, desert travelers, those released from prison and a seriously ill patient who has recovered. As the verse says in Psalms (107:21), "They should give thanks to God for His kindness, and for His wonders to mankind.? Interestingly and providentially, the mnemonic for this group of four is Chayyim, which stands for [Chavush (jail), Yisurim (illness), Yam (sea), Midbar (desert)], (Shulchan Aruch 219:1). In our times, we fulfill this concept with the recitation of the blessing, HaGomel ("He who grants favors..."). There is a beautiful insight in the Avudraham on laws and commentary on prayers. The author was student of Ba'al HaTurim (R. Yaakov ben Asher) and was a rabbi in Seville. When the hazzan says Modim, the congregation recites the "Modim d'Rabbanan" (The Rabbis' Modim). Why is that? The Avudraham says that for all blessings in the Sh?moneh Esrei we can have an agent. For 'Heal Us', for 'Bless Us with a Good Year' and so forth we can have the sheliach tzibbur say the blessing for us. However, there is one thing that no one else can say for us. We must say it for ourselves. That one thing is "Thank You". Hoda'ah has to come from the individual. No one can be our agent to say 'Thank You.' (This is similar to asking for forgiveness. You must obtain it from the individual wronged. Not even the Almighty can forgive you for wronging a fellow human being). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 20:28:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:28:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: <5101c.42bfc52f.460fb895@aol.com> References: <5101c.42bfc52f.460fb895@aol.com> Message-ID: > "The Halachic Adventures of the Potato" ? by R' Yitzchak Spitz > https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5184 > [...] > In fact, and this is not widely known, the Chayei Adam does actually > rule this way, Sigh. This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location, but do *not* cheat by copying a citation from some secondary source; I will not accept it, because I know very well that there are many secondary sources who claim this, but none of them give a *valid* reference to where he wrote it. What I *have* seen in the Nishmas Adam is an aside, in the course of writing something different, that by the way in Germany they treat potatoes as kitniyos. In fact I'll go further: I don't believe that there has ever been a posek of any stature who forbade potatoes as kitniyos, nor any community that ever accepted such a practice. I have seen many sources claiming that someone else, somewhere else forbade it, or that some other community far away treats it as kitinyos, but never any first hand acccount. When the Rosh writes that in Provence they said Tal Umatar from Marcheshvan 7th I believe it, because he was there and saw it with his own eyes. But I have never seen anyone report having seen with his own eyes a community that forbids potatoes, or a psak din to that effect. It's always someone else somewhere else. Until I see a first hand account I don't believe it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 20:30:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:30:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked about guests in a shul where the guest's practices differ from the shul's. I am bothered by the question, and even more so by the responses. What has happened Porush Min Hatzibur? What has happened to Derech Eretz and simple good manners? (Previous discussions here on Avodah have claimed that some poskim actually hold that a visitor who davens Nusach Sfard should use that text even if he is in the tzibur of a Nusach Ashkenaz shul. Ditto for responding to Kedusha, so I will not discuss those particular examples.) But: > Would your shul allow a guest to say 13 middot aloud > by Tachanun (if local practice is not to)? We're not talking about a few words here, but approximately a whole page worth, that the tzibur would be forced to say. It's not clear from the question whether this guest is the shliach tzibur or not, but I think it is safe to say that in my shul, a shliach tzibur who tries this would be quickly informed of his error, and if it came from someone in the seats he'd simply be ignored. > Would your shul allow a guest to read his own Aliya? >From your use of the word "guest", I am presuming that this was not arranged in advance. If the guest had approached the gabbai a few days in advance to make this request, I don't know what the answer would be. But it sounds like the guest was called up, and at that point he asked the koreh, "May I read it myself?", as in the story that R' Josh Meisner told. I am horrified by the lack of consideration that this guest has toward the time and effort that the baal koreh put into preparing the laining. In RJM's story this happened on Rosh Chodesh, and I do concede that RC is by far the most frequently read parsha of all. But the question as posed was more general, applicable to any laining whether weekday or Shabbos. I am particularly surprised by the reaction of RJM's rav, who <<< insisted ... that the next two olim also read their own aliyos so as not to directly draw a distinction between those who read their own aliyah and those who do not. >>> While I appreciate the sensitivity involved, I am really surprised that this shul has such a large pool of people who can be called upon to lain properly, even for Rosh Chodesh - literally at a moment's notice. How common is this? Are there shuls where any randomly chosen person is able to lain? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 03:40:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:40:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chazkah that changed Message-ID: <> I would venture that according to everyone chazakot in financial matters can change. The famous case is a borrower who denies everything (kofer ba-kol) according to the Torah he doesn't pay anything and is not required to swear since no borrower would be brazen to completely deny a lie. The gemara says that "today" people are brazen and so we require a "shevua". I would guess that other financial chazakot for example that someone doesnt repay a loan ahead of time would depend on the current situation. If today there would be some reason for people to pay back a loan early that I would guess that the halacha indeed would change. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 04:01:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:01:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Visiting a Shul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJRich asked: > Visiting a shul questions-actual practices and sources appreciated: > * Would your shul allow a guest to read his own Aliya? > * Would your shul allow a guest to say his own nussach of kaddish (not as shatz)? > * Would your shul (in galut) allow the shatz not to say baruch hashem l'olam in maariv? > * Would your shul allow a guest to say 13 middot aloud by Tachanun(if local practice is not to)? > * Would the answers be different if requested before prayer (vs. gabbai intervention at time of event)? Me: In all those cases, in our shul, local minhag trumps the wishes of the guest, though we won't jump at anyone for adding vekooraiv mesheechay or werewa'h weassalah. Sometimes the reading of one's own aliya may be tolerated. When I was an avel, I mostly davvened in shuls that did not adhere to my minhag (though I layer "converted" to one of those other minhaggim), and as shaliach tzibbur, always followed their respective minhaggim. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 06:15:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:15:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked about guests in a shul where the guest's practices differ from the shul's. I am bothered by the question, and even more so by the responses. What has happened Porush Min Hatzibur? What has happened to Derech Eretz and simple good manners? ----------------------------- I have seen them all occur. What triggered the question was a shiur on yutorah where a pulpit rabbi mentioned that a visiting guest sfardi scholar asked in advance and was granted the right to read his own aliya. I was surprised and then thought of other situations that I had a similar reaction to. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 19:16:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 22:16:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Poisoning in Halacha Message-ID: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> Tonight my chevrusa and I learned the sugya in Bava Kamma 47b of one who puts poison in front of his friend's animal. A brief synopsis and application of the sugya is at http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/infected: ?A person put some poisoned food in front of his neighbor?s animal,? Rabbi Dayan said. ?The animal ate the food and died. The owner sued the neighbor for killing his animal. What do you say about this case?? ?I would say he?s liable,? said Mr. Wolf. ?He poisoned the animal.? ?I?m not so sure,? objected Mr. Mann. ?The neighbor didn?t actually kill the animal. Although he put out the poison, the animal chose to eat the food.? ?Animals don?t exactly have choice,? reasoned Mr. Wolf. ?If they see food, they eat! Anyway, even if the neighbor didn?t directly kill the animal, he certainly brought about the animal?s death.? ?But is that enough to hold him liable?? argued Mr. Mann. He turned to Rabbi Dayan.?The Gemara (B.K. 47b; 56a) teaches that placing poison before an animal is considered grama,? answered Rabbi Dayan. ?The animal did not have to eat the poisoned food. Therefore, the neighbor is not legally liable in beis din, but he is responsible b?dinei Shamayim. This means that he has a strong moral liability to pay, albeit not enforceable in beis din (Shach 386:23; 32:2).? It struck us that it follows that if one poisons another human being by, say, placing cyanide in his tea, which the victim then drinks and dies, the poisoner is exempt from capitol punishment. It would seem that such a manner of murder falls into the category of the Rambam's ruling in Hilchos Rotze'ach u'Shemiras Nefesh 3:10: Different rules apply, however, in the following instances: A person binds a colleague and leaves him to starve to death; he binds him and leaves him in a place that will ultimately cause him to be subjected to cold or heat, and these influences indeed come and kill the victim; he covers him with a barrel; he uncovers the roof of the building where he was staying; or he causes a snake to bite him. Needless to say, a distinction is made if a colleague dispatches a dog or a snake at a colleague. In all the above instances, the person is not executed. He is, nevertheless, considered to be a murderer, and "the One who seeks vengeance for bloodshed" will seek vengeance for the blood he shed. (translation from http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1088919/jewish/Rotzeach-uShmirat-Nefesh-Chapter-Three.htm) Perhaps this was a davar pashut to everyone else, but for me, tonight, it was a mind-boggling revelation! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 06:05:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:05:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hilchos Chol HaMoed Message-ID: <1491224727245.62311@stevens.edu> >From the article at http://tinyurl.com/l8ll4lf The following is meant as a convenient review of Halachos pertaining to Chol-Hamoed. The Piskei Din for the most part are based purely on the Sugyos, Shulchan Aruch and Rama, and the Mishna Berurah, unless stated otherwise. They are based on my understanding of the aforementioned texts through the teachings of my Rebbeim. As individual circumstances are often important in determining the psak in specific cases, and as there may be different approaches to some of the issues, one should always check with one's Rov first. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 12:50:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:50:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> > RZS: > In fact I'll go further: I don't believe that there has ever been a > posek of any stature who forbade potatoes as kitniyos, nor any community > that ever accepted such a practice. I have seen many sources claiming > that someone else, somewhere else forbade it, or that some other > community far away treats it as kitinyos, but never any first hand > acccount. When the Rosh writes that in Provence they said Tal Umatar > from Marcheshvan 7th I believe it, because he was there and saw it with > his own eyes. But I have never seen anyone report having seen with his > own eyes a community that forbids potatoes, or a psak din to that > effect. It's always someone else somewhere else. Until I see a first > hand account I don't believe it. > This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade potatoes. David Riceman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 09:15:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 12:15:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: <7f1aa7e091a1468c8cc6c5df61f610ac@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <7f1aa7e091a1468c8cc6c5df61f610ac@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <29.EA.10233.B3572E85@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 11:57 AM 4/3/2017, Ben Bradley wrote: >The Aruch HaShulchan was not happy with the minhag that the baal >haseder has his wine poured by someone else. He writes that it's a >bit haughty to order his wife to pour for him and that in his city >it was not the minhag. > >Aside from the interestingly contemporary sound of his concern, it >seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for everyone to >pour for everyone else, which would avoid the concern of the ArHaSh. > > >1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? In my home the children poured my wine once they were big enough and now my older grandchildren do this. And they pour for my wife also. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 10:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:10:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bourbon no Longer an Automatic, Faces Kashrus Issues Message-ID: <1491239439011.48127@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/kh92xxv "Companies that once distilled just a few barrels of bourbon every year are now churning out dozens of other drinks-Sherries, brandies, flavored vodkas-which might not be kosher. They can contaminate the bourbon, Rabbi Litvin said, if the liquors are run through the same pipes or tanks." The Litvins, a family that lives in Louisville, "have taken it upon themselves to keep bourbon kosher." Despite the fact that Jews are proportionately poor Bourbon consumers (it is an $8.5 billion industry), there has been a dramatic increase in demand in recent years, particularly by younger kosher consumers. "Alcohol consumption has definitely increased manifold," said one kosher wine and spirits expert. Heaven Hill, one of the largest liquor companies in the world, is owned by a Jewish family, but only a few of the bourbons-Evan Williams, the company's largest brand, and the high-end single-barrel whiskeys-are still guaranteed to be kosher. The others are run through the same pipes and storage tanks as other products, including untold flavors of vodka, spiced rum and mint whiskey. ______________________________________________________________ I guess that I have been ahead of the trends, because I have been drinking bourbon for decades and never liked Scotch. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 12:21:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:21:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Good manners will open doors that the best education cannot. Clarence Thomas Message-ID: <708AB73F-9427-468E-AAEE-C0DD97D63B94@cox.net> One of my doors recently broke and I?m having a new one installed Wednesday. It brought to mind a MIdrash I once learned telling of the basic distinctiveness of the Jewish door and the secret of its architectural design, which served as a protection against annihilation. ?And strike the upper doorpost through the merit of Abraham, and the two side-posts, in the merit of Isaac and Jacob. It was for their merit that HE saw the blood and would not suffer the destroyer? (Midrash Rabbah XVII - 3 Exodus). It set me to thinking. Aren?t the doors to a home indicative of the nature and character of those who live beyond them? I began to think of doors with various emblems displayed upon them. Some say: ?We have given.? ?No Beggars or Peddlers Allowed.? ?Nobody lives here,? etc. But next Monday evening, the Jewish emblem on the entrance door will say: "Let all who are hungry, come and eat." On this Festival of Pesach, let not Judaism pass over our doors. When we open our doors to welcome Eliyahu Hanavi, let us keep it open wide, to welcome all that is positive, invigorating and creative in Jewish life. Let our doors be indicative of proud Jewish occupants. Let us display our Mezuzot not as mere adornments but as emblems which proudly proclaim for all to see: ?We are proud to be the sons and daughters of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and we are determined to carry on in their tradition. Grief is a room without doors but Passover?s power not only changes that situation but it sends Eliyahu Hanavi right through. Truncated clich?, rw From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:11:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> References: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> Message-ID: On 03/04/17 15:50, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: >> > This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a > friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly > gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one > ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. > Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras > kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade > potatoes. That comes close, but not close enough. If the name of the town were given, so that one could track down other families from that town and verify it, then I'd accept it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:17:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:17:00 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach Message-ID: *<<*This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location >> *Nishmas* *Adam*, *Hilchos* *Pesach*, Question 20 (from the article on Potatos) mentions retzke that are called tatarka which are used to make flour are kitniyot My yiddish is very limited I saw one place that translated this as corn while another used buckwheat later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called erdeffel which I saw a translation as potatos. If this translation is accurate then the Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that allowed potatos on Pesach in case of a major famine. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:43:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:43:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170403204335.GC6792@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:17:00PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not : true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or : whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location >> : : Nishmas Adam, Hilchos Pesach, Question 20 (from the article on : Potatos) mentions : retzke that are called tatarka which are used to make flour are kitniyot It's Kelal 119, Q 20. : later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called erdeffel which : I saw a translation as potatos. If this translation is accurate then the : Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that allowed potatos on Pesach : in case of a major famine. And so, as Zev pointed out, it is untrue that the CA advocated this position. Which is what is commonly retold. (At least, in my experience.) The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:47:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:47:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 01:15:37PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What triggered the question was a shiur on yutorah where a pulpit : rabbi mentioned that a visiting guest sfardi scholar asked in advance : and was granted the right to read his own aliya. I was surprised and : then thought of other situations that I had a similar reaction to. Isn't there a problem that the second you let those who are able to lein for themselves, you destroyed the minhag of leveling the playing field with a baal qeri'ah? Along thse lines, my father -- who certainly doesn't have to -- reads the berachos from the card on the bimah. The whole procedure is built around avoiding embarassing those less educated Jewishly. And today, where so many who get aliyos may be newer baalei teshuvah who don't know the berakhos by heart, shouldn't everyone read the berakhos, just the way everyone has a shaliach do the reading? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 14:34:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:34:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> References: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 03/04/17 16:47, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Along thse lines, my father -- who certainly doesn't have to -- reads > the berachos from the card on the bimah. The whole procedure is built > around avoiding embarassing those less educated Jewishly. As I understand it, the purpose of reading the brachos from a card is to make it clear that one is not reading them from the Torah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 14:30:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:30:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> On 03/04/17 16:17, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not >> true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or >> Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the >> location > Nishmas/ /Adam/, /Hilchos/ /Pesach/, Question 20 (from the article > on Potatos) Yes, I'm obviously aware of this reference, which *does not say* what so many people cite it as saying, because they saw it cited to that effect somewhere else, and have not bothered looking it up. This is frankly getting up my nose, which is why I specified that I am not interested in citations that the poster has not looked up himself and verified that they actually say what they are represented as saying. > mentions retzke that are called tatarka which are used to > make flour are kitniyot My yiddish is very limited I saw one place > that translated this as corn while another used buckwheat Retchke, or Gretchke, means normal buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum). Tatarke means Tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum). > later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called > erdeffel which I saw a translation as potatos. Yes, bulbes are potatoes. as in the famous song "Zuntik bulbes, Montik bulbes". > If this translation is > accurate then the Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that > allowed potatos on Pesach in case of a major famine. He reports having heard that in 1771-72 there was a famine and the community of Frth convened a beis din which permitted potatoes and kitniyos, but not buckwheat. His purpose in citing this is simply to demonstrate that buckwheat is worse than kitniyos, since even in this extreme case they refused to permit it. Of course this immediately causes the reader to wonder why they'd need a heter for potatoes, so he throws in the explanation that in Germany they don't eat them on Pesach. Of course anyone who sees this can see immediately that (a) he reports this practise neutrally, without expressing any support for it, and (b) he doesn't claim first hand knowledge that it even exists, but merely repeat a rumour he'd heard about some other place. Somehow, in the hands of irresponsible people, this seems to have transformed into the received wisdom that he forbade potatoes, or wanted to forbid them, or thought they ought to be forbidden, etc, none of which has the slightest tinge of truth, and it's perpetuated by lazy and dishonest people who repeat it as fact, complete with a fake citation which they have not bothered to verify. This, in turn, by exaggerating the extent of gezeras kitniyos, is used to make it seem ridiculous, onerous, impractical, and ripe for reform. On 03/04/17 16:43, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. and did so merely as a rumour. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 20:11:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:11:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder Message-ID: R' Ben Bradley wrote: > it seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for > everyone to pour for everyone else, which would avoid the > concern of the ArHaSh. > > 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? The ArtScroll Haggadah says (in the instructions for Kiddush), "The participants fill each others' cups", without mentioning any minhagim to the contrary. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat, in Halachos of Pesach, on pg 468, cites Haggada Kol Dodi (Rav Dovid Feinstein) 7:2, writing: > The Ramoh (473;1) specifies that the leader of the Seder > should not fill his own cup, but should allow others to pour > for him, as this displays cheirus (freedom). > > Although the wording of the Ramoh seems to imply that this > requirement only applies to the host and leader of the Seder, > the general custom is to do this for all the participants. > Most people therefore pour the wine for each other at each > juncture of the Four Cups. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 03:40:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 06:40:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> References: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170404104004.GA3715@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 05:30:34PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. : and did so merely as a rumour. What he repeated was a story about someone making an exception to their minhag. The explanation as to why the minhag was needed isn't given as part of the story. And if the CA puts the story into writing and uses in halachic argument, he obviously thought it was more than mere rumor. Still, not his own position, not even something he advised in theory, even before ein hatzibur yakhol laamod bah considerations. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 05:52:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 12:52:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman Message-ID: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> There is a shiur about this at http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 19:29:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 22:29:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Isn't there a problem that the second you let those who > are able to lein for themselves, you destroyed the minhag > of leveling the playing field with a baal qeri'ah? Yes, that's what MB 141:8 says. Actually, that MB goes a bit farther, and points out that "harbeh" such people *don't* know the laining so well, and the result is that the tzibur isn't yotzay. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 06:42:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:42:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato Message-ID: "This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade potatoes." This has nothing to do with potatoes but I was talking to the wife of a Moroccan this morning and she said that he told her (third-hand again) that many Moroccan towns had their own minhagim. For example, in one town they didn't use sugar because it was stored in bags near grain. So it's certainly possibly true about potatoes as well. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 06:23:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:23:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: from an OU bulletin My grandparents, may they rest in peace, would be startled to discover that I can purchase OUP kosher for Passover items such as breakfast cereals, pizza, bread sticks, rolls, blintzes, waffles, pierogis and farfel. OTOH the OU has many chumrot on what is kitniyot I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily be mixed up with chametz. It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 08:58:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:58:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> On 04/04/17 09:23, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer > makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as > kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. > > To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and > bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our predecessors made. Thus the machlokes acharonim about newly discovered legumes and pseudo-grains: was the original gezera only on certain species, or was it on the entire class? Most acharonim seem to say it was on the entire class, but then argue about how to define that class, and thus how to decide what it includes. But very few if any say zil basar ta`ma to include new things that definitely don't fall in the original definition of the banned class. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 09:45:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 19:45:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> References: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> Message-ID: <6bd3ddad-9fb6-b9ae-d7e5-edded0b2f267@starways.net> On 4/4/2017 6:58 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 04/04/17 09:23, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> >> It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer >> makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as >> kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. >> >> To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and >> bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. > > It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no > authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our > predecessors made. I was under the impression that gezeirot weren't something that could be instituted after the Sanhedrin. Even Rabbenu Gershom only instituted his rules as chramim, rather than gezeirot. And the minhag (not gezeira by any stretch of the imagination) was made by local rabbis for local conditions and local situations. Conditions and situations change. I realize that the reason we differentiate between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan law is because there's a meforash commandment of bal tosif. But we can learn out from that on some level that we shouldn't be jumbling up gezeirot and takkanot and cheramim and minhagim and siyagim and treating them like they're all the same. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:43:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 20:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58ee56f4-ffb7-2f3d-6cf8-93f18c2d7746@zahav.net.il> See my post a week ago in which I cited Rav Yoel Ben Nun and Rav Yosef Rimon as both taking the position that we need to ban flour substitutes and relax on kitniyot. Ben On 4/4/2017 3:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals > and bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:13:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:23:37PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer : makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as : kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. : : To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and : bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. In this era of packaged foods and heksheirim, the whole minhag makes no sense. People aren't deciding on their own whether quinoa is qitniyos. Or whether some sack contains pure peas with no wheat from the bottom of the silo. Or would eat a porridge based on a guess about whether it was pea or oatmeal. (The fact that I get my *unflavored* gourmet whole-leaf teas without a KLP symbol -- something little different than buying any [other] vegetable -- makes my wife nervous.) The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:58:06AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no : authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our : predecessors made... Well, they lacked that authority too. This is minhag, not gezeira. And the notion that we should be bery mimetic and work with what our ancestors actually did rather than what their rationale would imply in our context works even better with minhagim than with gezeiros. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:01:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman In-Reply-To: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> References: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170404180132.GB8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : There is a shiur about this at : http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz So, I am listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on YUTorah at this link. He opens by saying that the afiqoman (epikomion) must be before chatzos, and very likely the 4th cup too. So, kol hamarbeh means adding to the END of the seder, not having a longer Maggid that will push past chatzos. (Eg tzeis is 8:12pm in NY, as MyZmanim computes it -- 36 min as degrees, and chatzos is 12:56. So, we're talking Qadeish to the end of Hallel in 4 hr 44 min. Unhitting pause...) The Avnei Neizer (R Avrohom Bornsztain, the first Sochatchover Rebbe, descendant of both the Ramah and the Shach) argues that if you are finishing by chatzos to fulfil R Gamliel's shitah, then you could eat other foods after chatzos. And if you are not eating the rest of the night, that's because you're worried that if the mitzvah is indeed alkl night (unlike RG), ein maftirin achar hapesach would also be all night. So, the AN suggests that a moment before chatzos, eat a piece of matzah al tenai that if the halakhah is like Rabban Gamliel, it will be your afiqoman. Then, don't eat the minute or two until chatzos -- for R' Gamliel's en maftirin. Then, go back to eating (as long as you finish before alos), concluding with another afiqoman, also al tenai -- thus fulfilling the other ein maftirin. (BTW, note that the seder in the hagadah that went until zeman qeri'as Shema didn't include Rabban Gamliel.) R Meir Arik in Kol Torah uses this to answer a problematic Rashbam (Pesachim 121). The Rashbam says you're allowed to bring qorbanos todah or nedavah on erev Pesach. But you're not allowed to bring a qorban where you are mema'et the zeman akhilah, and the zeman akhilah for these qorbanos is until the morning. So how could you bring them on a day where ein maftirin achar hapesach will limit the time in which they could be eaten? But according to the Avnei Neizer, you can fulfill ein maftirin for both shitos and only limit eating for a moment before chatzos, by eating that 2nd afiqoman at the last possible time. However, there is a lot of opposition to the AN's chiddush. RALebowitz says there are 6 questions, but he's running out of time. 1- The Baal haMaor and the Ran's explanation for why ein maftirin would work with the AN. But the Ramban says the problem was that having so many people needing to eat their kezayis qorban pesach bein hachomos before chatzos, there was a worry that people would eat early, when still famished. (Which is assur derabbanan, gezeirah maybe they'll break bones. The question of why ein maftirin wouldn't then be a gezeira al hagezeira was not raised in the shiur.) Which means that even if the zeman for the qorban is until chatzos, if people could still plan a late dinner, they could rely on that and still eat their pesach while very hungry. 2- RMF (IM OC vol 5, pg 123) brings several objections. One basic one: even the AN says he never saw anyone do this before. RMF found it tamuha to rely on a sevara be'alma to change so many generations of mimeticism. (An argument that touches on some hot topics today.) 3- RMF adds that one needs to prove that the zman akhilah and the zeman ta'am are the same. Maybe the chiyuv of having the taste in your mouth happens to run longer? 4- The Chasam Sofer writes against doing a mitzvah mitoras safeiq. Similar to Rabbeinu Yonah's (on Berakhos) explanation for why an asham talui is more expensive than a chatas. Because we need to correct the "I probably didn't do anything wrong" attitude. If you never know when you're fulfilling the mitzvah, kavah will be lacking. RALebowitz then gives eidus from R Wolf that R Willig finishes his 4th kos right before chatzos. And timing then becomes a central theme during the seder. R' Avraham Pam said on many occations that we have to be aware of those who spent all that time making the seder. (Typically the wives and mothers.) Sometimes we spend so much time on Magid, that we then rush through the beautiful se'udah they made to get to the last kos on time. RAP thought that this bein adam lachaveiro issue is sufficient to justify relying on the Avnei Neizer. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 12:21:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 21:21:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <496ab467-1c33-a721-97d2-48512539e648@zahav.net.il> Rav Rimon's Hagaddah specifies that the minhag is to pour the wine/grape juice of the ba'al habayit alone. He also notes that there are those who don't follow the custom. In the footnotes, he cites that when people put water in their wine, it wasn't derech cheirut for the home owner to do it himself. Today, that isn't the case and it is common for everyone to pour his own wine/grape juice. He also cites the AHS' opposition. Ben On 4/4/2017 5:11 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? > > The ArtScroll Haggadah says (in the instructions for Kiddush), "The > participants fill each others' cups", without mentioning any minhagim > to the contrary. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:21:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:21:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Fungibility of Mitzvos Message-ID: <20170404182125.GD8762@aishdas.org> As y'all know, I'm obsessed with this topic. The notion of metaphysical causality that interferes with "you get what you deserve / need" bothers me. So I appreciated RNSlifkin finding these sources. http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2017/04/can-you-do-mitzvos-to-benefit-others.html Tir'u baTov! -Micha Can You Do Mitzvos To Benefit Others? April 03, 2017 Can you do mitzvos in such a way that the merit for them will benefit other people? Can you designate them to receive the reward for your mitzvah in their mitzvah bank account, such that they receive more Divine favor? A friend of mine recently forwarded to me a request on behalf of someone who is tragically unwell. The community was requested to pray for his recovery, which is certainly a time-honored Jewish response. But there was also a request to do mitzvos on his behalf, as a merit for God to heal him. My friend wanted to know if there was any classical Jewish basis for this. In my essay "What Can One Do For Someone Who Has Passed Away?" I noted that classically, one's mitzvos are only a credit to those people who had a formative influence on you. One's mitzvos cannot help the souls of other people. Rashba cites a responsum from Rav Sherira Gaon on this: "A person cannot merit someone else with reward; his elevation and greatness and pleasure from the radiance of the Divine Presence is only in accordance with his deeds." (Rashba, Responsa, Vol. 7 #539) Maharam Alashkar cites Rav Hai Gaon who firmly rejects the notion that one can transfer the reward of a mitzvah to another person and explains why this is impossible: "These concepts are nonsense and one should not rely upon them. How can one entertain the notion that the reward of good deeds performed by one person should go to another person? Surely the verse states, 'The righteousness of a righteous person is on him,' (Ezek. 18:20) and likewise it states, 'And the wickedness of a wicked person is upon him.' Just as nobody can be punished on account of somebody else's sin, so too nobody can merit the reward of someone else. How could one think that the reward for mitzvos is something that a person can carry around with him, such that he can transfer it to another person?" (Maharam Alashkar, Responsa #101) The same view is found explicitly and implicitly in other sources, as I noted in my essay. There is simply no mechanism to transfer the reward for one's own mitzvos to other people. It seems that only very recent mystical-based sources claim otherwise. Now, I don't see any reason why there should be any difference if the person that one is trying to help is deceased or alive. Nor do I know of any source in classical rabbinic literature that one can do a mitzvah as a merit to help someone that is sick. Prayer, yes. And Tehillim are also a form of prayer (though it may depend upon which Tehillim are being recited). But I know of no classical source that one can honor one's parents or learn Torah or send away a mother bird as a merit for somebody else. (The most common example of people attempting to do this may be the custom of women to separate challah on behalf of a sick person. Here too, though, it appears that the classical basis of this is not that the mitzvah of separating challah is crediting the sick person, but rather that the person separating the challah thereby has a special time of power/inspiration, which makes their prayer more powerful.) If I'm wrong in any of the above, I'll be glad to see sources showing otherwise. But so far, I have found that while people are shocked when one challenges the notion that you can learn Torah on behalf of someone who is sick, nobody has yet actually come up with any classical sources demonstrating otherwise. Furthermore, if this indeed was a part of classical Judaism, we would certainly expect it to have prominent mention in the writings of Chazal and the Rishonim. We appear to have another situation of something widespread that is believed to be an integral and classical part of Judaism, and yet is actually a modern innovation that has no basis in classical Judaism whatsoever. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:33:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:33:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> References: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we > start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system > will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. > > Mehila, but aren't you being rather Chicken Little (or is your tongue somewhere in the direction of your cheek?) We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other minhagim that people are so set against any change? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 12:22:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 19:22:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot Message-ID: > The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we > start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system will > collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and many modern oils RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and cottonseed oil and this is being expanded by many I don't see this as destroying a Mimetic tradition the reason to include canola oil is that it is similar to Kitniyot even though it or even corn oil did not exist at the time of the generation So the question is why extend the minhagim to canola oil when the problem of the confusion doesn't exist but we don't extend it to non chametz cereal or breadstick where the possibility of mistakes is greater As previously mentioned rsza was against these chametz look a like products as are several contemporary rabbis OTOH the outside is nachman in lecithin in candies where there are many reasons to be making and they are making in chametz looking and tasting products where many are machmir From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 13:15:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170404201511.GI8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:33:22PM +0300, Simon Montagu wrote: : We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha : hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other : minhagim that people are so set against any change? Sorry if this will sound like circular reasoning, but it isn't because of the time lag: Minhagim that are *currently* treated very seriously can't be broken *going forward* as readliy simply because of the psychological / experiential impact of bending or breaking something that is so vehemently held. Since my argument is about mimetics, halakhah-as-culture, you can't necessarily get a textual / theory-based answer. On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 07:22:32PM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote: : We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them : My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and : many modern oils RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and : cottonseed oil and this is being expanded by many .. Well, RMF didn't actively permit peanut oil as much as report that back in Litta, peanuts were commonly consumed on Pesach. According to R/Dr Bannet, within my lifetime peanut oil was THE go-to oil for Pesach. But that's Litta. Minhag Litta didn't expand qitniyos to legumes found in the New World, after the original minhag formed. (Although they did take on avoiding New World grain -- maize / corn.) Minhag Litta was also lenient on mei qitniyos, and a far broader range of the northern half of Eastern Europe (I don't know what Yekkes hold) were lenient on shemes qitniyos in particular. Yes, by my minhagim, there are two reasons not to need a special formula for KLP Coke. If we could get anyone to give a hekhsher to certify there is nothing "worse" than mei New World qitniyos in it. But other parts of Europe went by reasoning, and did have stringencies including liquids and oils. That's their minhag, and it always was their minhag. Which gets me to my point: It's not really that any rav is expanding minhagim. It's that the heksher industry is going to be cost efficient. Heksheirim that say something is okay for 2/3 of their audience don't survive. Causing a lest-common-denominator approach to the spread of minhagim. Like trying to find reliable non-glatt meat in the US; the larger hekhsheirim don't even try. And so, as more move into the area whose minhagim exclude using peanut oil on Pesach, it becomes harder to find KLP certified peanut oil, and all too quickly people forget what was once the norm. I think that framing it as pesaqim and machloqes is imprecise. It's more like watching the evolution of new minhagim as our new communities from mixtures of the old ones. Not necessarily in directions we would like, but at least that's the framework in question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:11:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:11:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/17 15:22, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them We have no more authority to limit them than to eliminate them altogether. > My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and > many modern oils What people do has no relation to what they have the right to do. > RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and cottonseed oil RMF (almost alone) holds that the original gezera was on particular species, and peanuts were never included. The machlokes about cottonseed oil is precisely about whether it is a kind of kitnis or not. > the reason to include canola oil is that it is similar to Kitniyot > even though it or even corn oil did not exist at the time of the > generation Whether the oil existed then is lechol hade'os irrelevant. If the species is included in the ban then all forms are included. RMF however would presumably say that since rapeseed was not an edible species at the time, it was not included. Most acharonim, who hold that the ban was on the whole category, would presumably include it. > So the question is why extend the minhagim to canola oil when the problem > of the confusion doesn't exist but we don't extend it to non chametz cereal > or breadstick where the possibility of mistakes is greater Once again, because no individual rav or group of rabbanim have the authority to permit what is already forbidden, or to forbid for the entire people what is currently permitted. > As previously mentioned rsza was against these chametz look a like products That he was against something doesn't make it assur. > as are several contemporary rabbis OTOH the outside is nachman in lecithin > in candies where there are many reasons to be making and they are making in > chametz looking and tasting products where many are machmir But what authority do they have for this? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:33:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 17:33:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman In-Reply-To: References: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <0A.54.10233.A4114E85@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:01 PM 4/4/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via >Avodah wrote: >: There is a shiur about this at >: http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz > >So, I am listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on YUTorah at this link. >R' Avraham Pam said on many occations that we have to be aware of >those who spent all that time making the seder. (Typically the wives >and mothers.) Sometimes we spend so much time on Magid, that we then >rush through the beautiful se'udah they made to get to the last kos on >time. RAP thought that this bein adam lachaveiro issue is sufficient to >justify relying on the Avnei Neizer. Rav Schwab in his shiur on the seder (to be found in Rav Schwab on Prayer) suggests eating very little during the Seder besides the required amounts of Matzah and Moror, so that one will have room and appetite for the Afikoman and not have to "force" oneself to eat it. I do not know what Rebbetzen Schwab prepared for the Seder meal, but I assume it was not an elaborate meal based on what she knew Rav Schwab would eat. I know that R. Miller would not allow his children or grandchildren to read from the sheets that they came home with from Yeshiva. He told them to save it for later, probably the next day. And since I mentioned all of the material that the kids come home with from school, let me say that IMO the schools "spoil" the seder. To me it is clear from the Gemara in Pesachim that the children are not supposed to be "primed" with all sorts of knowledge about the Seder. The things we do are supposed to be new to them so that they will ask questions. My children when they were young and my younger grandchildren now know enough to conduct the Seder themselves! There is nothing new for them. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:59:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:59:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah Message-ID: I understand that one cannot use Egg Matza for the mitzva of Achilas Matza, but I'm not sure exactly why. I'm aware of two different reasons, and they seem mutually exclusive. 1) The Torah requires that this mitzva be done with "lechem oni" - poor bread, plain and lacking the richness that it would have if it were made with eggs, juice, oil, or the like. 2) Matza must be something that could have become chometz, but was baked before chimutz could occur. According to those who hold that flour and pure mei peiros will not ever become chometz, "matza ashira" isn't really halachic matza at all. I suspect that I am conflating various shitos, and that according to any individual shita, one reason or the other will apply, but not both. Can someone help me out? Thanks! Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:27:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:27:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I understand it, the purpose of reading the brachos from a card is to make it clear that one is not reading them from the Torah. I believe that's the reason for turning one's head to the side, haven't seen that as the reason for using a card. And that's only according to the opinion that the oleh leaves the Sefer Torah open while making the brachos. The opinion that the Sefer Torah should be closed is for the same reason if memory serves, and then of course no card would be needed at all. So I presume the reason for the card is simply for people who need it. Given that the whole reason for having a designated baal koreh in the first place was to save the embarassment of those who can't read their own aliya, I'm bemused by the permission for someone to decide they'd like to read their own aliya. Unless you say that a well known talmid chacham, or a guest of honour, would not embarrass the other olim by reading his aliya since he's known as a scholar. It does seem that avoiding the chashash of embarrassment was more important to chazal than to many contemporary kehillos. Maybe it needs some chizuk. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 23:41:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 06:41:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot Message-ID: And so, as more move into the area whose minhagim exclude using peanut oil on Pesach, it becomes harder to find KLP certified peanut oil, and all too quickly people forget what was once the norm. Which is a difference between Israel and USA Israel with a large sefardi community has top level hasgacha on kiniyot products also many candies now list that they contain lecithin so that the consumer can decide rather than the hasgacha deciding -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 20:45:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 23:45:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/17 17:27, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > Given that the whole reason for having a designated baal koreh in the > first place was to save the embarassment of those who can't read their > own aliya, I'm bemused by the permission for someone to decide they'd > like to read their own aliya. Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone wants to do his own, why not? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 21:53:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:53:50 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Are Mitzvos Fungible Message-ID: Obviously, and in spite of all the stories of people selling their Olam Haba it is a nonsense - good and evil deeds cannot be redeemed or transferred by a financial transaction or any agreement HOWEVER if anyone is inspired to do a good [or evil] deed or desist doing an evil [or good] deed because of another persons influence clearly that influencing person is rewarded accordingly and so when we learn Torah or do any other other Mitzvah and we are inspired to do it because of an institution or a person be they in Olam HaEmes or in this world a Zechis accrues for that person Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 21:18:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:18:03 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru - We have no authority to decree new gezeros Message-ID: Although it has been said on these hallowed pages Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru - We have no authority to decree new gezeros yet many felt that the new stainless steel Shechitah knives were forbidden machicne Matza was forbidden Ben PeKuAh is forbidden they're even arguing that soft Matza is forbidden for Ashkenazim etc. But it is Kula Chada Gezeira Thus newly discovered foods are Kitniyos And whatever the truth is we are V lucky that potato was not included and not reversed remember when peanuts were KLP? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 03:01:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:01:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pate de Foie Gras Message-ID: <20170405100107.GA16249@aishdas.org> Daf Yomi learners just learned BB 73b. It looks to me like the gemara is condemning, although on an aggadic level, the preparation of pate de foi gras. Since I can't quote the gemara, here's R' Steinzaltz's commentary (from : And Rabba bar bar Hana said: Once we were traveling in the desert and we saw these geese whose wings were sloping because they were so fat, and streams of oil flowed beneath them. I said to them: Shall we have a portion of you in the World-to-Come? One raised a wing, and one raised a leg, [signaling an affirmative response]. When I came before Rabbi Elazar, he said to me: The Jewish people will [eventually] be held accountable for [the suffering] of [the geese. Since the Jews do not repent, the geese are forced to continue to grow fat as they wait to be given to the Jewish people as a reward.] Rashbam ("litein aleihem es hadin"): For in their sins, they delay mashiach. They, those geese, have tza'ar ba'alei chaim because of their fat. Apparently even the messianic se'udah is insufficient grounds to justify torturing geese for their fat. Also implied is that the sin of making the geese suffer in their obesity is not a sin so great at to itself holding up the mashiach's arrival. Otherwise, R' Elazar would be describing a vicious cycle. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 03:51:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:51:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on > kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU > gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be > prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily > be mixed up with chametz. > > It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if > no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the > same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. I am both surprised and confused, by this post and almost all the ones that followed. It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and gebroks. Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right? So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate gebroks. I am not surprised that amei haaretz like myself have trouble understanding the definitions of kitniyos. But one thing is for sure: That our rabanim ought to understand that kitniyos and gebroks are two different things. Some might respond that today's "farfel, bread sticks etc" are being made not of matza meal but of potato and tapioca. I don't see that as relevant. *ANY* definition of kitniyos has to be one that doesn't include matza meal. And if matza meal is excluded, then you can't include potatoes merely because they are so useful. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 05:20:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:20:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <50BEA150-B533-4159-AFEB-ADE8B18EB7E1@sibson.com> > Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone wants to do his own, why not? > > -- Synagogue practices in particular are a very sensitive area, at least according to rabbi Soloveutchik. THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 08:56:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:56:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170405155630.GA29273@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:45:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any : given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, : it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone : wants to do his own, why not? Since when does logic have to do with emotions? Your line of reasoning would work for robots, not people. If everyone else is leining their own aliyah that day, someone who can't may still be embarassed and decline taking an aliyah with the ba'al qeri'ah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 05:57:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 08:57:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Tefillin on Chol Moed Message-ID: R Samuel Svarc wrote on Areivim >This, as it turns out, is a minority view. Not all Ashkenazim hold >that way, nor do Sefardim, nor a nice junk of the Litvishe wing. From http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/tefillinONmoed.htm The Aruch Hashulchan notes that "recently" a practice among some Ashkenazic Jews has developed to refrain from wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. He is referring to the practice of Chassidim, which was also the practice at the famed Volozhiner Yeshiva (as recorded by the Rav, Shiurim L'zeicher Aba Mori Zal p.119) And from http://dinonline.org/2014/04/07/tefillin-on-chol-hamoed-pesach/ The Rema adds that the Ashkenaz custom is to wear Tefillin and recite a berachah, but because of the sensitivity of the topic the berachah should be recited quietly. Later authorities espouse the compromise noted by the Tur, meaning that Tefillin are worn but the berachah is not recited (see Taz 31:2; Mishnah Berurah 31:8). YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 09:29:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:29:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170405162920.GB19562@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 06:51:14AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and : gebroks. I think the conversation works better as is. Gebrochts is a minhag to avoid the possible manufacture of real chameitz from any flour that happened to stay dry when the matzah was made. Qitniyos is a minhag or multiple minhagim to avoid things that either: 1- are stored in the same silos as with chameitz, in which case it's much like gebrochts in function. Or 2- are used in a manner similar to chameitz, and people might eat chameitz thinking it's pea porridge or mustard seed or whatnot. And these could indeed be divergant minhagim, where different explanations became primary drivers in different areas, leading to difference in how practice evolved. But explanation #2 does open the door for the original question. Pretzels made from oatmeal make it possible for someone to accidentally eat real chameitz pretzels. And if your ancestral version of qitniyos includes growing it to include new items that make the same mistake possible, eg corn, then why not all these gebrochts or potato / potato starch products -- not because they're gebrochts (if they are), but because reason #2 applies. : So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever : arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they : were rejected by communities that ate gebroks. No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) This really is a recent development. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 07:48:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:48:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Fungibility of Mitzvos In-Reply-To: References: <002801d2ae0d$a752e040$f5f8a0c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: R? Micha Berger quoted R? Natan Slifkin: <<< I have found that while people are shocked when one challenges the notion that you can learn Torah on behalf of someone who is sick, nobody has yet actually come up with any classical sources demonstrating otherwise. >>> I?d like to suggest a very slight difference between two scenarios: Suppose I say, ?Hashem, I am going to learn some Torah now, and I?d like the s?char for this mitzvah to go to Ploni, instead of to me.? That seems to be the situation that RNS is talking about. But suppose I say, ?Hashem, I am going to learn some Torah now, and I?d like *MY* s?char for this mitzvah to be that You heal Ploni, who is currently ill?, or ?? that You elevate Ploni to a higher level in Gan Eden?, or something similar. My point is that if there is no mechanism to transfer s?char from one person to another, perhaps we can still request that the s?char should take a particular form, and it would result in the same effect. I?m pretty sure that there *are* sources for requesting that the s?char should take a certain form. More accurately, I recall cases where one requests that his *onesh* should take a particular form, such as if it has been decreed that one should lose a certain amount of money, it should occur in tiny amounts over a long time, or some other similar request. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 08:52:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:52:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos HaGadol Message-ID: It is not easy to explain the origin of the Hagadol which is applied to this coming Shabbos. In the Haftorah, the prophet Malachi speaks of a Yom Hashem Hagadol which according to various customs is to be read when the Sabbath before Pesach happens to be Erev Pesach. And yet the term Hagadol as applied to the Sabbath before Passover has been accepted by all whether or not it falls on Erev Pesach. The Midrash offers additional insight as to why this Shabbos is termed Hagadol and tells us something most of us have learned that on the Shabbos preceding the 14th of Nissan (when the Pascal lamb was to be brought as an offering), the Egyptian masters entered into the homes of the Jews and noticed that each family had a sheep tied to its bedposts. The Egyptians asked: ?What are you doing with our sheep?!? The Jews replied: ?We are going to slaughter it as an offering to our God.? The Egyptian masters gritted their teeth in exasperation and walked out. This is another basis for the Shabbos preceding Pesach to be called the ?Great Shabbos.? It is the Shabbos that the Jewish people experienced a miracle ? they were not killed by their masters because of their subordination to the Will of the Almighty and they were not deterred by concern for their personal safety. THAT was ?greatness? and they were, indeed, truly ?great.? It is also interesting that every Shabbos symbolizes complete freedom ? freedom from technology and the mundane. Pesach typifies freedom and redemption. The parallel to Shabbos is profound. May this Shabbos be the ?GREATEST!? "The price of greatness is responsibility.? Winston Churchill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 14:25:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:25:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a5b4365-260b-ab41-7882-0043d896073e@zahav.net.il> On 4/5/2017 12:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone > who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from > gebroks, right? Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can get today which is no different than cake flour? [Email #2. -micha] On 4/4/2017 8:33 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and > halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all > other minhagim that people are so set against any change? If this one is different it is because people have set out to take down this minhag. Whereas something like changing from an Ashkenazi white with black stripes tallit to a more Sefardi all white one wouldn't be such a big deal because no one is making an issue out of it. In my community there is a back lash against the kitni-chumrot so I see it changing, somewhat. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 01:32:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:32:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Food in the desert questions Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: "In the mishkan, a mincha offering was brought. other offerings too. Some : required flour and oil. Where did they come from? " I just saw a Tosafos in Menachos 45b that discusses the question of flour in the midbar. Tosafos quotes Rashi as saying that they did not make the shtei halechem in the midbar because all they had was man (so they had no flour). Tosafos disagrees and says that they bought flour from merchants (based on the Gemara Yoma 75b). I would assume that Tosafos would say the same thing about oil. The Rambam in the Peirush Hamishnayos (Menachos 4:4) agrees with Rashi that they had no flour in the midbar. So to answer your question according to Rashi and the Rambam they had no flour and therefore did not bring anything flour based. According to Tpsafos they bought flour from merchants in the midbar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 22:03:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Meisner via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 01:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > I understand that one cannot use Egg Matza for the mitzva of Achilas > Matza, but I'm not sure exactly why. I'm aware of two different reasons, > and they seem mutually exclusive. > > 1) The Torah requires that this mitzva be done with "lechem oni"... > 2) Matza must be something that could have become chometz, but was baked > before chimutz could occur. According to those who hold that flour and pure > mei peiros will not ever become chometz, "matza ashira" isn't really > halachic matza at all. If matzah is baked with mei peiros and a kol she-hu of water, it would not be lechem oni but would be halachically matzah. Josh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 04:16:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:16:49 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller asked: "It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and gebroks. Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right? So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate gebroks." There is no question that this is a new problem, even 50 years ago no one made things out of matzo meal or potato starch that looked almost exactly like the equivalent chometz item. There has been an explosion of "imitation" chometz products over the last 20 years that look and even taste like chometz. This is more a spirit of the law issue. One of the reasons given for not eating kitniyos is that since kitniyos look like and/or can make things that look like chometz we are afraid that people will confuse them with chometz and come to eat chometz. This concern certainly applies much more to these modern products. If I can get kosher l'pesach cereal that looks exactly like chometz cereal there is certainly a risk of confusion. No one is saying that these things are kitniyos, what they are saying that in the spirit of kitniyos these should be prohibited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 05:06:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those measures should be. I wrote: : So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? : Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 : years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate : gebroks. and R' Micha Berger responded: > No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks > that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) > This really is a recent development. Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my mother made at home? I'm sorry, but I can't buy that. It is true that today's factory kitchens allow an amazing variety of technologies and abilities, including products that are almost indistinguishable from regular bread. But I maintain that this does NOT translate to an increased chance that someone will mix flour and water in their home kitchen, precisely because the factory and home are so far apart - both geographically and sociologically. If someone is enticed by the quality of a store-bought breadstick or pizza slice, I cannot imagine that they would attempt to duplicate it at home nowadays without a recipe. Seeing a breaded chicken cutlet at one's neighbor's home *IS* something that you might duplicate in your own home, and there is great danger there. But I just don't see that happening with factory-made goods. Anyone who is awed by the quality will read the box to figure out how they managed such a feat, and they will immediately see the potato and tapioca listed. (But I am willing to listen to other arguments.) My suspicion is that the anti-potato sentiments may have originated in the non-gebroks sectors. Pesach pizza and pancakes are very new to them, and I suppose I can understand their concern. But among those who have been eating gebroks for generations, I just don't understand why these new products bother them. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 03:35:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:35:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah Message-ID: R' Joshua Meisner wrote: > If matzah is baked with mei peiros and a kol she-hu of water, > it would not be lechem oni but would be halachically matzah. That's true. Theoretically, if one would bake it fast enough, before it becomes chometz, it would be real matza. But because of the mei peiros, it isn't plain matza, but it is "rich" matza - matza ashira, and thus disqualified from Mitzvas Achilas Matza. But as far as I know, no one makes such matza, because (there is a fear that) the combination of both water and mei peiros will allow the dough to become chometz much faster than usual. That's not the case with the stuff on the shelves that's labeled "Egg Matza" or "Matza Ashira" - This has no water at all, and its dough can never become chometz. If so, then it seems to me that the term "Matza Ashira" is a misnomer. It isn't matza at all, because it was incapable of becoming chometz. A better term for it might be "Matza-style squares" (which is the term that the industry has chosen for the potato and tapioca stuff). I suspect that at some point in history, some educator felt that the logic of "the fruit juice makes it rich bread" was more easily accepted by the masses, and the logic of "it can't be chometz and therefore it isn't matza" was too difficult for them. And from that point onwards, it was the go-to explanation, despite the technical shortcomings. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 05:28:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat Message-ID: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I've been thinking (pun intended) about staam daat" . (I have in mind "whatever HKB"H wants me to have in mind without actually knowing what that is [e.g., to be yotzeih the chazan's bracha]). Firstly what is the source of the concept. Secondly, Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal says works, that's what I want to think/occur). [relatrd to daat makneh and koneh issues] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:07:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:07:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru Message-ID: We all assume we can't have new gezerot. Is this really true? At least according to some opinions bicycles and umbrellas are allowed on shabbat. According to RSZA electricity (without a heat or fire) is really allowed on shabbat and certainly yomtov. Years ago many held that electricity was allowed on yomtov. Today we have things like fitbit watches which many feel are allowed on shabbat. Yet in practice the poskim prohibit all these things. Other things are prohbited in davening because it is a slippery slope etc. In essence these are all new gezerot perhaps without the nomenclature -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:21:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:21:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:06:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos : understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect : people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is : acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those : measures should be. Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change a minhag. And if we were talking about gezeiros, then we'd need a Sanhedrin or universal consensus to create one. ("Universal consensus", eg RSZA on electricity.) But we would also need that level authority to modify or repeal one. So there too there is a high barrier to change. So in either case, while I could appreciate R' Aviner's reasoning, I don't know if I would be comfortable applying it lemaaseh. :> No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks :> that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) :> This really is a recent development. : Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in : the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my : mother made at home? While, really I'm suggesting that an environment where -- even a bagel or a loaf of bread -- could be a gebrochts or potato starch replacement poses bigger problems than we faced 50 years ago. Because a person can pick up anything and mistake it for a KLP alternative. Much like one of the reasons given for qitniyos. The same was not true when the only KLP pancakes were rare and homemade. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:41:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:41:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Working on Chol Moed Message-ID: <1491493270335.3143@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If I don't work on Chol Hamoed my paycheck will be much smaller. Is this a davar behaved (irreparable loss)? Am I permitted to go to work on Chol Hamoed? A. A loss of profit is generally not considered a davar ha'avud. As such one cannot automatically assume that it is permissible to work on Chol Hamoed. Nonetheless there are situations where davar ha'avud would apply. For example, if a person will use up vacation days by not working during Chol Hamoed, and there is a preference to take vacation at a more convenient time, this may be considered a davar ha'avud. (See Shmiras Shabbos Kihilchoso, vol. 2, chapter 67, footnote 47.) Furthermore, if a person is struggling financially, and not earning a salary on Chol Hamoed would be stressful, this may be treated as a davar ha'avud. Nonetheless these leniencies are not ideal, and Rav Belsky, zt"l stressed that it is preferable to not work on Chol Hamoed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 09:44:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:44:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat In-Reply-To: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <958e2160-18d0-985e-70d4-9c571dea3a3f@sero.name> On 06/04/17 08:28, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Secondly, Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., > I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal says > works, that?s what I want to think/occur). Isn't that *exactly* what we do when we write in a shtar that we stipulate to having made whichever kind of kinyan is most effective ("be'ofan hayoser mo`il")? We don't know which of the various kinyanim we should be doing so we stipulate that whichever one it is, we did it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 10:01:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 20:01:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/6/2017 6:07 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We all assume we can't have new gezerot. Is this really true? ... > In essence these are all new gezerot perhaps without the nomenclature The nomenclature is vital. As I said in my previous email, we don't blur the distinctions between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan, and we don't blur the distinctions between gezeirot, takkanot, chramim, siyagim, minhagim, etc. Yes, it's forbidden to eat chicken parmesan. And it's forbidden to eat a pork chop. There's no wiggle room. Both are forbidden. So to someone on the outside, those prohibitions might look like the same thing, "perhaps without the nomenclature". But the nomenclature matters, because there are different rules for the two. Just as there are different rules for the various "add-ons". Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:49:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:49:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7c4f2947-d6c6-62b2-40fd-a9b977d026f4@starways.net> > Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy > in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes > that my mother made at home? Matza meal pancakes, which I grew up with as well, are nothing at all like regular pancakes. The difference is clear and obvious. Ditto for cakes. We used to have sponge cake at Pesach. And we thought of it as a Pesach cake. It wasn't something we had all year. I don't have a problem with fake treyf. So I don't really have a huge problem with fake chametz. But to pretend that there's no difference between what we used to have in the 60s, 70s, etc, and today is just silly. The difference is enormous. And while I don't have a huge problem with fake chametz, I see another distinction between fake chametz and fake treyf. You can't ever eat bacon. So making fake bacon is reasonable. But fake chametz? Really? We can't make it a week without waffles and pizza and pretzels? [Email #2. -micha] On 4/6/2017 6:21 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be > mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very > overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change > a minhag. WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be determinative. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 10:54:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:54:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:03:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept : of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be : determinative. Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei For that matter, the topic here is qitniyos -- which is itself a minhag avos, not halakhah. It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the accepted ruling in practice. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 13:59:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:59:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> I am confused by the term mimetic. I understand it in the sense of tradition, We are discussing various situations that didn't exist years ago, My parents didnt use Canola oil because it was not available but they did use cottonseed oil. What is my mimetic custom for lechitin? When I grew up we had mainly macaroon cookies. Any cakes even with matza meal tasted and looked different than chametz items. No one I knew used CI shiurim. In EY on the radio I still hear about the necessity of using CI shiurim at least lechatchila. I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. I recently heard a shiur from R. Aviner attacking much of these chumrot and R. Lior also has many kulot and these are considered right wing DL rabbis. As I stated before one difference between EY and the US is the existence of a large charedi sefardi community, This gives rise to kitniyot products with top level hasgachot. The easy availability of soft matzaot etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 12:10:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:10:26 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder Message-ID: is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a korban pesach? i think we all agree that the matzot to make a korech were soft matzot [and presumably mashiach will rule that's the way we should all be making them ]. if the zaytim were like larger then , would the sandwich have been the size of a big mac? or half a pizza? kiddush would have started the meal . then some form of maggid [ 3 hrs long? would the korban be edible that many hours later?] . so people washed and then what? hamotzi on 3 matzos? but the mitzva matza was to eat the korech no? so the rest of the meal was not matza followed by marror, but rather that of korech. so then the chiyuv-matza was the afikoman matza? or people would have chazon ish'ed it up twice---at the matza they washed on and again on korech? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 07:46:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:46:29 +0000 (WET DST) Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Apr 6, 2017 11:03:15 am Message-ID: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> > > ... This is another basis for the Shabbos preceding Pesach to be > called the "Great Shabbos." > No, it is not. Haggadol is not an adjective modifying Shabbath, because Shabbath is feminine. No one who speaks Hebrew uses masculine adjectives to modify Shabbath, ever (pedantic footnote: except in the fixed expression "Shabbath shalom umvorakh", which is said by people who do speak Hebrew, but which for other reasons is clearly an idiomatic expression that does not follow the rules of grammar, unless you want to call it a mistake, which is also fine with me). It is the same reason why we know that Lshon Hara` and `Eyn Hara` are not nouns modified by adjectives, because lashon and `ayin are feminine nouns. No one who speaks Hebrew would ever use the masculine adjective ra` to modify the feminine nouns lashon or `ayin. They are nouns modified by other nouns, and so is Shabbath Haggadol. (Whether lshon hara` and `eyn hara` are the correct pronunciation turns on whether the smikhuth forms in Rabbinic Hebrew are the same as the smikhuth forms in Biblical and modern Hebrew, a question that is irrelevant to the current discussion. They are unquestionably smikhuth forms, however they should be pronounced.) This alone is not sufficient reason to reject your translation "The Great Shabbos", because languages do not have to be translated literally and word-for-word. I do not reject the translation "the holy tongue" for "lshon haqqodesh", even though "lshon haqqodesh" literally means "the tongue of holiness", because languages do not have to be translated literally. If you want to translate "lshon haqqodesh" as "the holy tongue", fine. But you cannot do that with "Shabbath Haggadol", because we do not say Shabbath Haggodel, or Shabbath Haggdula, we say "Shabbath Haggadol", and gadol is an adjective, albeit a masculine one. As for what it does mean, well, if you want to say that Hagadol is a kinuy for God ("the Great One"), I think that is far-fetched, but I won't post an article publicly saying that you are wrong. It is clear to me that we say Shabbath Hagadol for the same reason that we say Shabbath Xazon or Shabbath Naxamu or Shabbath Shuva. You may disagree. But what you cannot plausibly say is that it means "the great Shabbath". Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:24:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:24:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matzah Meat (was Kitnios In-Reply-To: <728a7944561447f0984b79952cedf5a5@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <728a7944561447f0984b79952cedf5a5@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <86.ED.07959.212B6E85@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:03 PM 4/6/2017, Ben Waxman wrote: >On 4/5/2017 12:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone > > who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from > > gebroks, right? > >Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for >matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can >get today which is no different than cake flour? I must admit that I have no idea what you are referring to when you write about "roughly ground matza meal." Is this what is called cake meal? If so, it is good for making many things. See for example http://tinyurl.com/n6yo95b Also, do a google search for cake meal recipes, and you will see how many recipes come up I use "regular" matza meal to make matzah balls and they come out fine. See http://tinyurl.com/kl5tljs for a recipe for matza balls that calls for matza meal. I have never seen shmura cake meal. Has anyone? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 13:30:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:30:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 4/6/2017 8:54 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:03:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: >: WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept >: of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be >: determinative. > Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel > Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei > > It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering > cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the > accepted ruling in practice. I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:48:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:48:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170406214806.GH26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:30:40PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : >It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering : >cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the : >accepted ruling in practice. : : I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi : is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that : we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea : that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible. You are only discussing the absolutes, the case where the halakhah isn't known, and that where it is, but common practice differs. But in the part I left above, I described the gray area. There are cases where the logic for one position is more compelling than the other, but not muchrach. In fact, this is more common than a case where two rishonim or noted acharonim disagree and one opinion is found to be outright wrong. Between the brilliance of the people involved and the "peer review" as to which ideas reach us, it is very rare for us to find a true incontrovertable mistake, and even harder to know if we really did, or if it is our own assessment that's in error. In that situation, where we have to choose between multiple viable shitos, there are a number of things a poseiq would weigh. Different schools of pesaq may give each different weights. This kind of comparison of apples and oranges requires real shiqul hadaas, and is why pesaq is an art, not an algorithm. This is my usual list of categories of factors that go into pesaq. 1- Textualiam 1a- Logicalness of the rationale 1b- Authority of those who back each postion: majority, expertise (eg the Rambam and Rosh carry more weight than some other rishonim) 2- Mimeticism 3- Aggadic concerns -- whether it's chassidim not wearing tefillin on ch"m or some of RSRH's innovations. My point in #2 is that there are many times that we continue following what we do because it has a sound textual basis -- even though some other shitah may have a stronger such basis. And again, this is minhag, not halakhah. The whole topic of qitniyos rests on mimeticism, not formal halachic reasoning. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] P.O.P. Paradox Of Pesach Message-ID: <5204F12E-00B5-47B0-92DD-2D93AB3E7C87@cox.net> A great ambivalence is to be found in the symbolism of the Seder. On one hand, the white kitel is a manifestation of joy and purity, and on the other hand, it is also the shroud of death. An egg is a token of mourning, but at the Seder it recalls the korban chagigah, the additional sacrifice brought to assure joy on Pesach. The matzah is the bread of affliction as well as the food of freedom baked in haste as our forefathers rushed out of Egypt. The very word individual which refers to a single person ends with DUAL. Pesach brings out the duality of man but through the unity of the family, we are able to live with cognitive dissonance, paradox and conflict. ?We may have different points of arguments from perspectives of belief, faith and religion. But we must not hate each other. We are one human family.? ? Lailah Gifty Akita, (Think Great: Be Great!) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:04:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:04:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406220429.GK26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:59:51PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be :> mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very :> overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change :> a minhag. : I am confused by the term mimetic. I understand it in the sense of : tradition, Mimetic is from the shoresh mime, to copy. (Like a mimeograph.) Mimeticism is Judaism as culture. Things like absorbing that "Shabbos is coming" feeling of the erev Shabbos Jew. The pious Jew of today may be able to work himself up emotionally on Yom Kippur, the mimetic Jew of 100 years ago was simply terrified, without such work. (Both kinds of religiosity have their pros and cons.) Mimeticism evolves because culture evolves. Textualism is also tradition. But it's the formal tradition passed off from rebbe to talmid. RYBS's dialog down the ages that he watched gather around his father's table, or later, in his own shiur room. So the mimetic-textualist axis is not quite the same as the tradition-ideology one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:07:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:07:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> References: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> Message-ID: <20170406220711.GL26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 02:46:29PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote: : Haggadol is not an adjective modifying Shabbath, because Shabbath is : feminine. No one who speaks Hebrew uses masculine adjectives to : modify Shabbath, ever (pedantic footnote: except in the fixed : expression "Shabbath shalom umvorakh", which is said by people who : do speak Hebrew, but which for other reasons is clearly an idiomatic : expression that does not follow the rules of grammar, unless you want : to call it a mistake, which is also fine with me). What about Shabbos morning, and "veyanuchu vo"? The previous night it was "vahh". I agree with your thesis, I am more trying to get from you what the masculine noun "vo" refers to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:27:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav Message-ID: Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik heh under my understanding and also be milera. Is my understanding of the word incorrect? Kol tuv and Chag Kasher v'Sameach to all, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 00:29:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:29:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot Message-ID: from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) BTW the sefer contains 3 sections ; main, dvar halacha and orchot halacha. I am assuming that all 3 are from RSZA or notes of students. I will do my best in the translation but have added some of the notes in Hebrew RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who determines this minhag?) He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat. He adda that PERHAPS there is a reason to prohibit potato flour (serach kitniyot - based on chiddishin of RSZA to Pesachim). Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be prohibited (ie even according to those that eat gebrochs) (yesh ladun behem - Pesachim 40b - Rashi that when people are "mezalzel one should be machmir) In the notes that this was what RSZA said in shiurim and when asked a question responded that one should follow the family minhag. Nevetheless he remarked several times that cakes with matzah flour that look like chametz cakes that he didn't understand the heter when we go to lengths to avoid things that might be confused with chametz -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 23:27:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 06:27:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Afikoman_-_=93Stealing=93_and_Other_Rel?= =?windows-1252?q?ated_Minhagim?= Message-ID: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> Please the article at http://seforim.blogspot.com/2017/04/afikoman-stealing-and-other-related.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 20:28:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:28:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: > ... Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., > I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal > says works, that?s what I want to think/occur). [related to daat > makneh and koneh issues] I think Mishne Berura 649:15 might be exactly what you're looking for. I am paraphrasing him, and he was paraphrasing the Magen Avraham and Pri Megadim. But basically, the point is: >>> Suppose it is the first day of Sukkos, and you want to use someone else's lulav, but you can't, because on the first day you need to own it yourself. So l'chatchila, the best option is make it explicit that you want to acquire his lulav in a "matana al m'nas l'hachzir" (gift on condition of returning) manner. >>> But b'dieved, if you borrowed it in a "stam" manner so that you could be yotzay with it, then we presume that he gave it to you intending to do it in whatever manner would allow you to be yotzay, namely, "matana al m'nas l'hachzir". >>> However, if you explicitly used the word "borrow" rather than "gift", then you would not be yotzay. Also, if the lulav's owner is unaware that a borrowed lulav is pasul, it would not work then either. (End of Mishne Brura.) Here's my commentary: There are two requirements for "stam daas" to help us here. The first is that the conversation must be vague, because if it were explicit we would not be able to assign a meaning to the words. But the second requirement is very relevant to RJR's question: The lulav's owner has to be aware that a borrowed lulav is pasul. If the owner does have that awareness, then we say that his stam daas was to grant ownership to you. But if the lulav's owner is not aware of this halacha, then his stam daas is to *lend* the lulav, which would not be valid. We see from this that "stam daas" is not a magic wand that can be applied conveniently to any vague comment. Rather, it is applied with a lot of care and understand of what the person's likely intention really was. Please read the MB yourself and see what he means. Even better, check out the MA and PM that the MB was summarizing (because I did not go into that much depth. Maybe over Shabbos.) [Press Pause button... Okay, continue...] I have now reread RJR's post, and I noticed that while the MB ruled how the halacha views these two people and the lulav, RJR's post is much more "me"-oriented. He asks about the case where > I have in mind ?whatever HKB?H wants me to have in mind > without actually knowing what that is ..." It seems to me that this is an explicit vagueness. If "stam daas" works where outsiders are trying to figure out what Ploni probably meant, it should certainly work where Ploni himself is being deliberately vague. I never studied Logic to the depth that R' Micha and other have, but even I can see a serious flaw in the above paragraph. In the MB's case of the lulav, the owner had *something* in mind, and we are presuming to know what it was. But in RJR's case, the individual made an effort have nothing in mind at all, and I can easily understand someone who says that this simply won't work. I would suggest this as a practical solution: One should never say simply, "I have in mind whatever Hashem wants me to have in mind," because that is essentially admitting that he really has nothing in mind. Rather, one should use an explicit tenai: "If Hashem wants me to have A in mind, then I do have A in mind; but if He wants me to have B in mind, then I do have B in mind." Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#m_3151624698786785420_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:24:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav Message-ID: > Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH > translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". > Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik > heh under my understanding and also be milera. Upon reviewing the pshat in the word "bushala", it is possible that my understanding was incorrect and the structure would be similar to "yochLUha" where the translation of the suffix in both cases is "it" as opposed to "its" and thus not requiring a mapik heh. Shabbat Shalom, HT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:25:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:25:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67447a90-4764-0dce-4f82-b0f11d5c55af@sero.name> On 06/04/17 18:27, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: > Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH > translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". > > Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik > heh under my understanding and also be milera. It's a verb, not a noun. If it were written as you would have it it would be a noun, presumably meaning "its cooking", but then it would be "bishulah". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 08:46:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:46:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170407154652.GD32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:27:30PM -0400, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: : Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH : translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". : : Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik : heh under my understanding and also be milera. That would make it a posessed noun, "if its cooking was in a copper vessel". RSRH is treating is as a verb. In more contemporary American English, "if it had been cooked in a copper vessel". :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:47:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Afikoman_-_=E2=80=9CStealing=E2=80=9C_and_Othe?= =?utf-8?q?r_Related_Minhagim?= In-Reply-To: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> References: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <0a933758-f6de-9e33-4fd0-33f89b9dc517@sero.name> > http://seforim.blogspot.com/2017/04/afikoman-stealing-and-other-related.html My father gives presents to all those children who *don't* steal. He also explains that if the hidden matzah is stolen he will not pay any ransom for it but will simply use a different matzah. Thus the purpose of the minhag is preserved but the bad chinuch is avoided. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 08:44:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:44:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:10:26PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a korban : pesach? I assume koreikh was the norm. Not that Hillel argued they were necessary and no one else made wraps, but that everyone made a wrap, which is why a machloqes could arise as to whether one is yotzei if not. : i think we all agree that the matzot to make a korech were soft matzot [and : presumably mashiach will rule that's the way we should all be making them ]. One could be yotzei koreikh just putting a tiny lump of meat on a cracker. Not difficult. OTOH, we seem to have proven in numerous years that until the acharonic period, softa matzos were the norm in every community. (Ashkenazim too; see the Rama.) : if the zaytim were like larger then, would the sandwich have been the size : of a big mac? or half a pizza? But they were smaller, so no problem. Another perrennial is whether the growth of the kezayis is halachically binding even after archeology proved the historical assumptions wrong. : kiddush would have started the meal... And Ha Lachma Anya would have been 4 days before, as you can only invite people to join the chaburah BEFORE the sheep is set aside. For that matter, I'm convinced Ha Lachma Anya is not part of Maggid. Maggid ought to begin with questions, so let's assume it does. HLA is an explanation of Yachatz. And then, once we fact out qwhat it's like to have to ration our lachma anya, we express empathy for the dirtzrikh and dichpin. So perhaps Yachatz too would be before picking the sheep. . then some form of maggid [ 3 hrs : long? would the korban be edible that many hours later?]. Sure! How quickly does meat go bad where you live? It looks like there is a fundamental machloqes about the seider. Notice that Rabban Gamliel wasn't present at R' Aqiva's seider in Benei Beraq. OTOH, in the Tosefta at the end of Pesachim Rabban Gamliel hosts big seider in Lod, where they spent the whole night "osqin behilkhos haPesach". (This Tosefta goes with "ein maftirin achar haPesach afiqoman". A whole answer-to-the-chakham vibe here.) Notice that at R' Aqiva's seider "vehayu mesaperim beytzi'as mitzrayim". R' Aqiva held that a seider is all about the story. R' Gamliel -- the mitzvos. Most of Maggid we do R' Aqiva style: 1- We follow R' Yehudah, and tell the story of physical redemption. Avadim Hayinu. 2- Then (after an intermission in which we explain why we're doing multiple versions -- 4 banim, etc...) we follow Rav, and tell the story of spiritual redemption. Betechilah ovedei AZ. 3- And we tell the story using Vidui Biqurim and other texts. 4- Then, at the very end, we make sure to do the least necessary to be yotzei according to Rabban Gamliel. So it would seem we basically hold like R' Aqiva, that the main role of the foods is as aids to the story-telling. But Rabban Gamliel would have Maggid as /during/ the other mitzvos of the seider. We discuss the foods. : washed and then what? hamotzi on 3 matzos? but the mitzva matza was to : eat the korech no? so the rest of the meal was not matza followed by : marror, but rather that of korech. so then the chiyuv-matza was the : afikoman matza? or people would have chazon ish'ed it up twice---at the : matza they washed on and again on korech? The afiqoman was the sheep, all matzos umorerim. Before that was the chagiga, re'iyah and shulchan oreikh. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:48:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Meisner via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:48:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:10 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a > korban pesach? The Rambam in Ch. 8 of Hil. Chametz uMatzah provides a step-by-step description of the seder that includes the eating of the Korban Pesach, which is probably a good start. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 09:32:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:32:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4167b94e-52b7-16a4-0069-0697990750d6@sero.name> On 07/04/17 11:44, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And Ha Lachma Anya would have been 4 days before, as you can only invite > people to join the chaburah BEFORE the sheep is set aside. Not true. One can join or leave a chavurah right up to the moment of shechitah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 09:58:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 17:58:36 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Surely either we'd pasken like Hillel, and eat the full portion of Pesach, Matza and Maror in one sandwich, or else we wouldn't, and there'd be no Korech at all? On 7 April 2017 at 16:44, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > One could be yotzei koreikh just putting a tiny lump of meat on a > cracker. Not difficult. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 10:15:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:15:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170407171523.GI32239@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 05:58:36PM +0100, Allan Engel wrote: : Surely either we'd pasken like Hillel, and eat the full portion of Pesach, : Matza and Maror in one sandwich, or else we wouldn't, and there'd be no : Korech at all? I assume everyone ate koreikh. It's most reasonable to assume that a machloqes over an annual practice kept by everyone is theoretical, not pragmatic. Not that one person is saying what a significant number of people are doing is pasul / assur. For similar reasons, I assume that until the rishonim, people considered both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam tefillin to be kosher. Otherwise, how were both styles in existence and common use since the days of the Chashmonaim until some 1,300 years later when rishonim started voicing preferences? Note my use of the phrase, "I assume". Li mistaber, I have no strong arguments for it. Back to our topic... I figure everyone ate the matzah, marror and lamb in a wrap. Otherwise, how did Hillel come around and argue that what everyone was doing was pasul? And why would it stay with Hillel, wouldn't he have the Sanhedrin vote on it? Rather, the machloqes was whether one was yotzei if they did the weird thing and eat them separately. If this was a rare event, multiple opinions could persist without resolutions. Now when it came time to commemorate, rather than fulfill the mitzvah.... Matzah we have to eat separately from maror, because without the pesach, there may be a problem with our fulfilling the mitzvah of eating matzah without it being the only tast in the mouth. And then there's the question of what are we commemorating -- eating all three in one meal, and the wrap aspect was not a critical facet that needs commemoration, or are we commemorating a wrap? So, we do both. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 10:28:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel In-Reply-To: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> References: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:05:30PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : My son who lives in EY told me that Ashkenazim have to very careful : about the products that they purchase for Pesach, since many products : that are certified for Pesach contain kitnios. The item below reinforces : this. ... : Eretz Yisrael: Strauss Cottage Cheese Contains Kitnios : : April 3, 2017- from the Arutz 7 : : : "Badatz Mehadrin, the hashgacha of Rabbi Avraham Rubin Shlita, alerts... I was wondering about this. Qitniyos is batel berov. Ah, you may say: but they're intentionally mixing in the qitniyos, there is no bitul! So here's my question: If a Sepharadi makes cottage cheese containing qitniyos, he isn't really having Ashkenazim in particular in mind. And for him the qitniyos are mutar. By parallel, a non-Jew mixing 1:61 basar bechalav for his own use or for a primarily non-Jewish customer base isn't bitul lkhat-chilah, as a permitted person's intent doesn't qualify as lekhat-chilah. So, does this Sepharadi man mixing qitniyos in run afowl of the problem of bitul lekhat-chilah? Why can't one argue that as long as the qitniyos is a mi'ut of the cottage cheese, and as long as it's not against the mixer's own minhag or that of the main bulk of people for whom he is mixing, the food is permissible for Ashkenazim too? And does it have to be both the mixer's own minhag AND that of most of the people the cottage cheese if for? After all, this is minhag, not pesaq. It's not like an Ashkenazi holds a Saphradi ought to be holding like us too. What if an Ashkenazi was doing the mixing on a product where most of the target customer base is Sepharadi? (Now, add to that mei qitniyos, and whether corn should have been added to the minhag, the observation that it is primarily NOT made for Ashkenazi Jews, and ask the same thing about Coca Cola.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 15:48:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: <<< I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. >>> Is this only in the DL community? If so, can anyone suggest why this would be so? I can this of two very different possibilities: One is negative, that there is some sort of jealousy to the sefardim, or taavah for the many products that are available. The other is positive, that this is simply a natural development of how minhagim change over the centuries when communities mix. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 13:42:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 22:42:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel In-Reply-To: <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> References: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <43acd44d-c45c-b481-7dfb-2671547565a7@zahav.net.il> This is part of the backlash. People want the labels to read "contains kitniyot", not "for ochlei kitniyot only". Ben On 4/7/2017 7:28 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Qitniyos is batel berov. > > Ah, you may say: but they're intentionally mixing in the qitniyos, there > is no bitul! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 10:44:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:44:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58E92189.9030803@zahav.net.il> [Part 2, a mid-post detour. -mb] And as long as I am writing, a comment on the next posting in the Digest 48. Matza meal is the coarse version and is used for making latkes and kneidlach. Cake meal is the fine ground version for making cakes. Both were on the market and used by my mother in the US some 70- 80 years ago. And R' Micha mentioned a week or so ago that R/Dr Bannet pointed out that in my youth, peanut oil had the most machmir heksher of all Pesach oils. Three comments: It is true that chasidim used only peanut oil made by a Shomer mitzvot Jew. I am neither a R nor a Dr, and my family name ends with two t's. PKvS. David Bannett From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 10:44:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:44:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58E92189.9030803@zahav.net.il> [RCD tried to sneak multiple topics into the same email. For the sake of threading, I split it and fixed the subject lines. -micha] Without commenting on the meaning of Shabbat Hagadol, I'd like to comment on the "fact" that Shabbat is feminine and one would have to say Shabbat Hag'dola. The Rambam in Hilkhot Shabbat 30:2 says Shhabat Hagadol. I then looked in the Bar Ilan Shu"t and found that there are a dozen other sources for a male Shabbat. [End of part 1. Now, part 3. -mb] And then R' Micha on the vayanuchu va, vo and vam in the tefila: There were three nuschaot. One said Shabbat and va, Another said yom haShabbat and vo and the third said Shabbatot and vam. PKvS. David Bannett From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 20:22:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2017 05:22:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If the issue was jealousy of sefardim, people would want to drop the minhag entirely. There is that, but only on the fringe. These chumrot seem like a false imposition, something someone invented. You can only hear "when I was a kid, we ate X, Y, Z" or "I went to a shiur and the rav said X, Y, Z are muttar" so many times before asking yourself "so why don't we eat X, Y, Z"? And yes, intermarriage is a huge factor. On 4/8/2017 12:48 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I can this of two very different possibilities: One is negative, that > there is some sort of jealousy to the sefardim, or taavah for the many > products that are available. The other is positive, that this is > simply a natural development of how minhagim change over the centuries > when communities mix. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:00:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:00:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) > ... > He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak > was never accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat. > He adds that PERHAPS there is a reason to prohibit potato flour > (serach kitniyot - based on chiddishin of RSZA to Pesachim). > Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be > prohibited (ie even according to those that eat gebrochs) ... To me, it seems contradictory to allow gebroks yet forbid matza meal cake. Yet it certainly seems that this is how RSZA held. I think I'm going to have to retract most of my recent posts. Or add least append a big "tzorech iyun" to them. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:22:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimetics [was:kitnoyot] Message-ID: > Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be > mimetically defined, by definition, .... [--RMB] WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be determinative. Lisa >>>>> "Shema beni mussar avicha, VE'AL TITOSH TORAS IMECHA." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:19:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <23551cea-98c2-5446-2323-d0fb7e82cc09@starways.net> On 4/8/2017 1:48 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Eli Turkel wrote: > > <<< I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been > a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. >>> > > Is this only in the DL community? If so, can anyone suggest why this > would be so? I think it's because the DL community is the community that is (a) committed to the Torah and (b) not stuck in fear mode. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 01:16:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 11:16:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller asked why in the dati leumi community there is a backlash against kitniyos? I think there are a number of reasons for this: 1. Theological - The Dati Leumi community views the establishment of the State of Israel as a significant theological event, the beginning of the Geula. They view the state as having significance. Therefore, they view the Jewish people as much more of an organic whole and want to eliminate things that separate the Jewish people into groups. Kitniyos very much does that. There is no question that whan Moshiach comes the division between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no machlokes. The Charedi world on the other hand believes that we are still fully in Galus and nothing has changed. 2. The Dati Leumi community isw much less segragated between sefardim and Ashkenazim. There are no ashkenazi or sefardi yeshivas and there is quite a bit of "intermarriage". If your daughter marries a Sefardi do you suddently not go to her for Pesach because she eats kitniyos? 3. People realize the hypocrisy of not eating kitniyos while eating kosgher l'pesach pretzels. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:31:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:31:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Why can't one argue that as long as the qitniyos is a mi'ut of > the cottage cheese, and as long as it's not against the mixer's > own minhag or that of the main bulk of people for whom he is > mixing, the food is permissible for Ashkenazim too? > > ... What if an Ashkenazi was doing the mixing on a product where > most of the target customer base is Sepharadi? I would like to focus on the words "target customer base". We have to distinguish the manufacturer's customer base from the hashgacha's customer base. The two might be identical for a small brand that markets only to frum neighborhoods, but not for an industry giant like Strauss. We can presume that the manufacturer and their target customer base is mostly not makpid about kitniyos. Therefore, the manufacturer is doing nothing wrong by putting kitniyos into the product, and once they have done so, it is acceptable even for Ashkenazim, exactly as RMB suggests. But the hashgacha cannot put their certification on it. The target customer base of this hashgacha seems to be people who *are* makpid on kitniyos. (If they're not the majority of the hashgacha's clientele, they are at least a very significant minority.) And as such, the hashgacha has accepted the responsibility to act in place of their clientele at the factory. This turns it into a "bittul lechatchila" situation, and the hashgacha cannot grant an official okay to such products without an accompanying warning, which is exactly what they seem to have done. > (Now, add to that mei qitniyos, and whether corn should have > been added to the minhag, the observation that it is primarily > NOT made for Ashkenazi Jews, and ask the same thing about Coca > Cola.) Not just Coca Cola. Weren't we discussing chocolate bars a few weeks ago? Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 23:42:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 02:42:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman Message-ID: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> I tend to agree with the negative aspect of stealing the Afikoman. Very similarly, I feel the minhag to get so drunk on Purim so that you can?t distinguish between blessed be Mordecai and cursed be Haman is a very bad minhag and more offensive than stealing the afikoman. You are encouraging people to get drunk and that also has caused many problems in recent times. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:02:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:02:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman In-Reply-To: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> References: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 02:42:40AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : I tend to agree with the negative aspect of stealing the Afikoman. : Very similarly, I feel the minhag to get so drunk on Purim so that : you can?t distinguish between blessed be Mordecai and cursed be Haman : is a very bad minhag and more offensive than stealing the afikoman. Yeah, I don't see how teaching kids to steal the afiqoman is going to weaken their knowledge that it's wrong to steal. Should kids playing baseball not steal home? Just because the rule of the game is called "stealing"? But there is backlash against the drunk-on-Purim minhag too. The OU and RCA each put out something like annually. Hatzola puts out warnings. There are black-n-white wearing yeshivos that clamped down on their kids getting drunk when doing their Purim fundraising. And there has been backlash to the backlash, by people who value minhag. Really, the treatment of the two has been pretty parallel. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:19:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman In-Reply-To: <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> References: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <621677e8-92b7-ca89-7197-201a3af3f7e6@sero.name> On 09/04/17 09:02, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Yeah, I don't see how teaching kids to steal the afiqoman is going > to weaken their knowledge that it's wrong to steal. Should kids > playing baseball not steal home? Just because the rule of the game > is called "stealing"? That's a different sense of the word: "4. to move or convey stealthily". As in "with cat-like tread upon our prey we steal". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:48:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:48:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > There is no question that when Moshiach comes the division > between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The > Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no > machlokes. This is news to me. There is no machlokes here to be paskened. Everyone agrees that the halacha allows even rice to Ashkenazim. It is all minhag. Even if the Sanhendrin would want to, I don't know where they'd get the authority to do away with minhagim. On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim! > The Dati Leumi community is much less segregated between > sefardim and Ashkenazim. There are no ashkenazi or sefardi > yeshivas and there is quite a bit of "intermarriage". If your > daughter marries a Sefardi do you suddently not go to her for > Pesach because she eats kitniyos? That depends on your posek. By my memory, many poskim, including among the DL, hold that one can eat from the keilim, but to avoid actual kitniyos. And many other shitos in both directions. > People realize the hypocrisy of not eating kitniyos while > eating kosher l'pesach pretzels. I was arguing strenuously against this until a few hours ago, when I was reminded that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach held this way too. Perhaps I have overdosed on inoculations of matza meal cake and matza meal pancakes, and I cannot see myself ever sharing this view. But having seen RSZA's words, I cannot claim that it is only the little people who say this - it's the big guns too. And I would be indebted to any listmembers who would quote other gedolim on this topic. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 15:47:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 08:47:40 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyos - Why do today's Poskim argue with the Mishneh Berurah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can anyone show some Halachic source that argues with the Mishneh Berurah who Paskens that Foods containing LESS THAN 50% Kitniyos that is at the same time not visually discernible Although its taste is certainly discernible, is Muttar during Pesach? Is a Rov permitted to refuse to identify a Kosher product as Kosher (or worse, declare a product not Kosher) because of other considerations? See this article http://www.kosherveyosher.com/chocolate-pesach-lecithin-1001.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 01:45:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:45:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] order of the seder Message-ID: < See "leil haPesach be-taludum shel chachamim" (Hebrew) by David Henshkr who has a detailed discussion -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 01:47:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:47:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Matzah meal Message-ID: <> In Israel it is readily available in many supermarkets -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 02:04:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:04:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism Message-ID: <> Doesn't answer my question of how mimeticism deals with new situations. Sticking to kitniyot by patents used cottenseed oil but knew nothing about Canola oil or Lecitisthin <> Let me use this to sound off. I have a major problem with textualiism. In some circles it means studying a sugya and coming to a conclusion without any regard to the outside world. In regard to shiurim the Noda Yehuda has a question. One doesn't suddenly change minhagim because of a question. In recent years this doubling of shiurim has become popular because of CI. First there is evidence that CI himself did not use his own shiur. It is well known that some descendants of the CC don't use his kiddush cup because it is not shiur CI. However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. Even a slightly smaller shiur would hit various walls making it impossible to walk around while various testimonies make it smaller. There is now a new exhibition of a virtual 3D reality of walking around the bet hamikdash. It is based on aerial photographs of the current Temple mount and supplemented by details in the Mishna and archaeology using the topography of the land. Theis construction places the holy har habayit on the currently raised portion of the Temple mount. This yields an amah of about 38cm (CI=57, CN=44-48) Other proofs included the length of the Siloam tunnel which is documents in amot and can be measured. One of the strongest proofs is based on the meitzah of the cohen gadol which could not possibly hold the shiur of CI (note that if his hands were bigger this would redefine the amah). As to changes over the generations olive pits from the Bar Chocba era are the same size as today. In spite of a preponderous evidence that the shiur of CI is way too large almost all seforim in Israel give the amount of matzah to eat and wine to drink based on CI (at least lechatchila). This is textualism at the extreme in contrast to common sense -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 03:15:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "I have an opportunity to kill the terrorist..." Message-ID: <20170410101557.GA14700@aishdas.org> Anyone want to try this one, with meqoros? RSE raises two issues: killing a neutralized terrorist, and (I guess) dina demalkhusa on the topic. Chag Kasher veSameaich (belashon "lo zu af zu"), -micha The Jewish Press Tzfat Chief Rabbi Was Asked in Real Time whether to Kill Ramming Terrorist By David Israel -- 11 Nisan 5777 -- April 7, 2017 http://www.jewishpress.com/news/jewish-news/tzfat-chief-rabbi-was-asked-in-real-time-whether-to-kill-ramming-terrorist/2017/04/07/ Chief Rabbi of Tzfat Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, who is not known for particularly leftwing sympathies (he encourages his flock to refuse Arab renters, for instance), on Thursday night told a class he was teaching that one of his students had phoned him from the scene of the ramming attack that killed an IDF soldier. The student posed a halachic inquiry: "He told me, I see my buddy here lying down dead," Rabbi Eliyahu recalled, adding that his student had asked, "I have an opportunity to kill the terrorist - should I kill him or not?" Advertisement Around 10 AM, Thursday, an Arab terrorist rammed his vehicle into two IDF soldiers waiting at a hitchhiking post on Rt. 60, outside Ofra in Judea and Samaria. Sgt. Elhai Teharlev HY"D, 20, was killed, and the other soldier was injured. The terrorist was arrested by security forces. Rabbi Eliyahu said that his response was that "this terrorist deserves to die. However, unfortunately, the laws in this country are not well constructed, and so there is no legal way to do to him what needs to be done." "I told him that had he been able to do it while the attack was on it would have been possible, but we were after the event, unfortunately." Advertisement From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 03:39:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed Message-ID: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ > Let me run an idea by you guys... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha > 2. Melacha is forbidden on chol hamoed > 3. One of the permits for doing melacha is for tzorech hamoed, but in this > case, if possible you should do the melacha before the chag > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. > 5. If you find yourself on chol hamoed without pre-torn toilet paper, you > can tear it, however preferably not on the lines. > Am I crazy? :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 04:54:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:54:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> References: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2017 1:40 PM, "Micha Berger via Avodah" wrote... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha > 2. Melacha is forbidden on chol hamoed > 3. One of the permits for doing melacha is for tzorech hamoed, but in this > case, if possible you should do the melacha before the chag > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. > 5. If you find yourself on chol hamoed without pre-torn toilet paper, you > can tear it, however preferably not on the lines. > Am I crazy? Not at all. Please see Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa perek 66 footnote 78. RSZA was machmir for himself, though the author suggests that nowdays it would be unnecessary. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 06:39:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:39:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12e4046f8d104931a3a60fafe99b3947@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > There is no question that when Moshiach comes the division > between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The > Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no > machlokes. This is news to me. There is no machlokes here to be paskened. Everyone agrees that the halacha allows even rice to Ashkenazim. It is all minhag. Even if the Sanhendrin would want to, I don't know where they'd get the authority to do away with minhagim. On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim! --------------------------------------- Aiui there is some debate as to how much practice was/will be standardized-some believe (IIRC R'HS) that the shevet Sanhedrin set local practice and few issues went to great sanhedrin for standardization. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 06:41:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:41:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170410134127.GB29583@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:04:31PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> Mimeticism evolves because culture evolves. : Doesn't answer my question of how mimeticism deals with new situations. It answers your question by implying there is no answer. There is no rule for how common practice will evolve. Rules are textual. But the truth is, halakhah requires both. Not every evolution of a minhag is valid. That way lies Catholic Israel. It has to pass muster against the sources and sevara. :-)|,|ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 07:54:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Misc interesting Halacha questions from R Shlomo Miller shlitah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <035201d2b20a$5ef3d1a0$1cdb74e0$@com> Misc interesting Halacha questions from R Shlomo Miller shlitah http://baisdovyosef.com/rabbi-past-questions/ Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlitah for a printout of all the Q&As (100 pgs) https://www.dropbox.com/s/70y971r0ct2l7x8/RS%20miller%20bartfeld%20questions .doc?dl=0 or email me offline mcohen at touchlogic.com GYT, mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 12 12:45:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:45:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz Message-ID: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy A rav gave over some quick halachot and cited the Shulhan Aruch that if one finds chameitz in one's home, you cover it (if you find it on shabbat/yom tov) and later burn it, or burn it right away (cholo moed). I asked, if one sold one's chameitz, how can you burn it? It now belongs to the non-jew. This rav (and second rav) said that the sale only includes the chameitz that you specify. If you don't have a piece of chameitz in mind, you didn't sell it. OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz, everything in all of his properties. It makes no mention of what you have in mind. If a contract say "ALL" it means all, n'est pas? So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 12 21:09:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:09:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taanis Bechoros - Women? Message-ID: My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros. So I read her Mishne Berurah 470:4, which gives the reason as because there are no halachos in which female firstborns have any such kedusha. That seemed to satisfy her, but it didn't satisfy me. After all, if a boy is his father's first but not his mother's first, then he has no kedusha which would require Pidyon Haben. Aruch Hashulchan 470:2 gives that same logic, but explains that although the father's first doesn't get a Pidyon Haben, he *does* have special halachos about inheritance, and Aruch Hashulchan 470:3 says the same thing regarding a boy who was born after a miscarriage, or a firstborn Kohen, or a firstborn Levi. My question is: So what? Why is the special status of "firstborn for inheritance" more relevant than "would've been killed in Mitzrayim"? (Please note that there is another case that I'm *not* asking about, namely, where none of the people at home was a technical bechor, then whoever was oldest was subject to Makas Bechoros. Since that could vary depending on who was home in any particular year, I can easily understand why it never got included in the minhag.) Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 13 13:24:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 23:24:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefirot Ha`omer Message-ID: Every year I would like to get deeper into the combinations of sefirot (or middot) that appear in siddurim with the counting of the Omer, and every year I get lost and confused. For example, what is the difference between hesed shebigevura and gevura shebehesed? If tiferet is a synthesis of hesed and gevura, how does it differ from either of the above? And so on and so on. There seem to be a thousand books and websites that explain the sefirot and their combinations in modern terms, but I haven't found any that quote or even cite primary sources. Where might one look for such sources? Mo`adim lesimha! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 13 22:56:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:56:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim!" Given the illogic of the minhag of kitniyos I think not. Why would they impose a din that makes no sense in today's world. With regards to visiting children R' AKiva Miler wrote: "That depends on your posek. By my memory, many poskim, including among the DL, hold that one can eat from the keilim, but to avoid actual kitniyos. And many other shitos in both directions." I was saying that facetiously. WADR you missed the forest for the trees. Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child and can't eat all the food. You are looking at this from a pure halachic perspceticve but in truth, there is a non-halachic sociologcal perspective here that needs to be addressed as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 14 01:12:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 11:12:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefirot Ha`omer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71537556-72e6-e4ec-3ea1-61c0f913fb9b@starways.net> Lama li kra? It seems pretty clear on the face of it. Hesed she'b'Gevura means that you're doing Hesed by means of Gevura. Your intended result is Hesed. The way you're achieving that Hesed is by an act of Gevura. So let's take R' Aryeh Kaplan's understanding of the two Middot, where Hesed means going above and beyond what is required, and Gevura is restraining yourself, and here are a couple of examples. You're at the grocery store, and there's one box of Wacky Macs left on the shelf. You see a mother with a bunch of her kids coming down the aisle, and the kids are beginning for Wacky Macs. So you don't take it. You're limiting yourself in order to do something nice (but not required) for the mother. That's Hesed she'b'Gevura. You're at the grocery store, and you've taken the last box of Wacky Macs. You know you shouldn't eat it, because it's all starch and fat, but you can't help it. You're standing at the checkout line, and there's a mother behind you whose kids are giving her a hard time because they wanted Wacky Macs, but the store is out. So you decide that this will help you keep your diet, and you offer the mother the box of Wacky Macs. You're doing something nice (but not required) for the mother in order to limit yourself. That's Gevura she'b'Hesed. It's a thin line, sometimes. Figuring out what the actual action (or inaction) is and what the purpose is. Means and ends. As far as Tiferet, while you can see it as a synthesis of Hesed and Gevura, which is nice if you like the thesis-antithesis-synthesis paradigm, it's really the point of balance between them. Where you aren't refraining and you aren't overdoing. Another term for Tiferet is Tzedek. Meaning doing what you're supposed to do, or what you're allowed to do: no more and no less. I think that one of the reasons there aren't books that cite primary sources about this is simply because there aren't any. There are primary sources about what the meaning of each of the Sefirot mean, but the combination should be fairly clear. That said, I know it isn't. When I was a camper as a kid, we had discussion groups about whether we were "Jewish Americans" or "American Jews". I was 12 the first time we did it, and it was a mess. The next time, I think I was 14 or 15, and I already realized what the problem was, although the counselor leading the discussion didn't. It's a matter of definitions. If you look at it in terms of language, one of those words is the noun, and the other is the adjective. The noun is what you *are*. The adjective just modifies it. So "American Jew" is putting being Jewish first, and "Jewish American" is putting being American first. But a lot of the other kids (and the counselor) were looking at it from the point of view of which *word* came first in the phrase. And theoretically, I suppose, you could interpret X she'b'Y in the opposite way from what I've described above, but I'm not sure there's a real nafka mina, because we cover all the combinations. It just seems to me that the first week, we deal with the concept of *doing* Hesed, with all 7 possible intents, since these 7 Sefirot are fundamentally Sefirot of action (and interaction), as opposed to the first three, which are Sefirot of mind. But can you say that the first week, we talk about the concept of *intending* Hesed, with all 7 possible methods? I suppose. It's not the way I look at it, but absent primary sources to determine which way is right, I suppose it's possible. Shabbat Shalom and Moadim L'Simcha, Lisa On 4/13/2017 11:24 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > Every year I would like to get deeper into the combinations of sefirot > (or middot) that appear in siddurim with the counting of the Omer, and > every year I get lost and confused. For example, what is the > difference between hesed shebigevura and gevura shebehesed? If tiferet > is a synthesis of hesed and gevura, how does it differ from either of > the above? And so on and so on. > > There seem to be a thousand books and websites that explain the > sefirot and their combinations in modern terms, but I haven't found > any that quote or even cite primary sources. Where might one look for > such sources? > > Mo`adim lesimha! > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 14 06:40:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:40:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <491b0760-73a4-cf76-550a-2c2dfb57aeb3@sero.name> On 14/04/17 01:56, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > I was saying that facetiously. WADR you missed the forest for the trees. > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child and > can't eat all the food. If you think that's a problem now, wait till Moshiach comes and you have parents visiting their daughter who married a Cohen. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 11:52:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 20:52:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8fe0a1db-6349-9011-e2d4-ea78a89684eb@zahav.net.il> I've said this before but it bares repeating. I was married to someone with multiple food allergies. Cooking even at home was always a challenge. Going out to eat at someone else's house and giving them the list of what yes, what no made that it even harder. Whenever we had guests, we always asked about food allergies, kashrut requirements, and preferences. Compared to allergies, kashrut stuff was kid's play. More than that, I learned that it is perfectly OK to have food on the table that not everyone can eat. Any vegetarian who came over expecting to be able to eat everything was disappointed. Not being able to eat rice and having to settle for the five other dishes doesn't even make it on my radar. Thinking that one should be able to eat everything is a sense of entitlement that I don't accept. Ben On 4/14/2017 7:56 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child > and can't eat all the food. > > You are looking at this from a pure halachic perspceticve but in > truth, there is a non-halachic sociologcal perspective here that needs > to be addressed as well. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 18:36:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:36:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > Given the illogic of the minhag of kitniyos ... ... > Why would they impose a din that makes no sense in today's world. I could easily argue that avoidance of poultry and milk "makes no sense in today's world." I'd like to hear whether other people think that din to be logical or illogical. (One is a minhag, and the other is d'rabbanan, but that's a side issue. My question is whether one is less logical than the other.) Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 18:22:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:22:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini Message-ID: One of the main areas this portion deals with is kashruth. There is an overriding concept in the laws of kashruth that the characteristics of what we eat somehow have a great influence on the way we behave. We do not want to associate ourselves with cruelty, therefore we are forbidden to eat cruel animals, and in this case certain fowl. Among the fowl that are listed as being non kosher is the chasidah, the white stork. You may ask what cruel character trait does the stork possess. Rashi mentions that the reason it is called a "chasidah" is because it does chesed with its friends regarding the food it finds. On the surface this seems strange. If the stork acts kindly with its food, why is it disqualified as being kosher? A beautiful explanation to this difficulty has been given by the Chidushei Harim, a Chassidic 19th century Talmudic scholar, in which he explains the nature of the stork. He says that the fact the stork only shows its kindness with its friends defines its cruelty. A fowl who is not in the circle of the stork's good buddies is excluded from getting any help from the stork in finding food. In other words, the stork is very selective in its kindness. This type of kindness is misleading. We, as Jews, are commanded to help our foes. If we come across someone we dislike intensely who needs help, we are commanded to help. The stork, on the other hand, helps only his friends. It is this character trait of differentiating between close friends and others when it comes to providing food that makes the stork non-kosher. Chesed means reaching out altruistically, with love and generosity to all. The process of maturing involves developing our sense of caring for others. This is crucial for spiritual health. The Talmud likens someone who doesn't give to others as the "walking dead.? A non-giving soul is malnourished and withered. It is only through unconditional love that our successful future will be built. In the words of King David (Psalm 89:3): Olam chesed yibaneh - "the world is built on kindness.? May we live to see this kindness and care infused in all our lives. Kindness is the language the deaf can hear and the blind can see. Mark Twain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 12:40:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:40:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: <042313fe1c2b495fbe8f8efad437f69d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <042313fe1c2b495fbe8f8efad437f69d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: I was reminded of this question this evening. Our shul is nominally nusach Sefard. However if someone (like moi) does daven Ashkenaz, the gabbi is OK, but insists on things like: Saying Shir Ha'ma'lot in Maariv Saying Keter during Mussaf Ben On 3/30/2017 2:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Visiting a shul questions-actual practices and sources appreciated: > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:45:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:45:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ff40b88-0f88-fb08-9c92-10e44bbdfc3d@zahav.net.il> A bit of perspective here: this is the Orthodox version of a first world problem. 100 years ago how many Ashkenazim and Sefardim even met, much less intermarried or lived in the same neighborhoods? At most, this is a bit of growing pain. Ben On 4/14/2017 7:56 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child > and can't eat all the food. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:34:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:34:27 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: How do we determine when the dough is baked to the point where it can no longer become Chamets? when there are no Chutim NimShaChim When the Matza is torn apart there are no doughy threads stretching between the two pieces. These days this test is not available because so little water is added to the flour that there is no opportunity for the chemical reaction that activates the gluten and even when the Matza, or the batch of dough is torn BEFORE it is put into the oven there are NO Chutim NimShaChim [this is noted by the Chazon Ish] So if one suggests that there is a possibility that some flour within [but not on the surface of] the Matza which is protected from the heat of the oven and does not become baked [as once it is baked, flour can not become Chamets] then the Chashash that this flour might become Chamets if it becomes wet pales into insignificance and is completely eclipsed by the much greater risk that the middle part of the Matza which may not have been baked may actually be Chamets [Gamur] The fact that it is now now dry means nothing that is simply dehydrated dough AKA Chamets, maybe Chamets Nukshe Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:40:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:40:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed Message-ID: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ > Let me run an idea by you guys... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha....... > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. >>>>> It seems to me you are no more obligated to tear toilet paper for the whole week than you are to do all your cooking for the whole week before the yom tov. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:49:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:49:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taanis Bechoros - Women? Message-ID: <63e57.57f1ef36.46246de8@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros. << Akiva Miller >>>>> That's a pretty obscure medrash. It is seemingly contradicted by the Torah itself, which specifies that a pidyon haben is required for a firstborn boy because the firstborn boys were spared makas bechoros in Egypt. Nothing about a pidyon habas. On the other hand, according to Sefer HaToda'ah (Book of Our Heritage), "There are different customs associated with this fast. Some say that every firstborn, male or female, whether from the father or from the mother, must fast on that day. If there is no firstborn, then the oldest in the house must fast.....However others say that only firstborn males need to fast and this is the generally accepted custom." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 21:50:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Martin Brody via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:50:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Fast of the First Born. Message-ID: Akiva Miller posted "My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros etc." Maybe because the fast has nothing to do with the 10th plague at all? They should be celebrating, not fasting! Fasting is for repentance. More likely the Sin of the Golden Calf, when the firstborn lost their priestly status. On the 14th the first born have to watch the Aaronite priests slaughtering the Pascal offering instead of them. Cheers Martin Brody From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 20:55:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:55:38 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen son in law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: when Moshiach comes parents will seek a cohen for a son in law because it's a great investment, they can feed their son in law and his family with their tithes. It's like having the Bechor reinstated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 06:28:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:28:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is > impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har > habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. > ... > This construction places the holy har habayit on the currently > raised portion of the Temple mount. This yields an amah of about > 38cm (CI=57, CN=44-48) > Other proofs included the length of the Siloam tunnel which is > documents in amot and can be measured. ... I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction as well. The minimum shiur for a mikveh is 3 cubic amos, as this is the size that a typical person could fit into. Who among us could fit into a space 38x38x114 cm? (15x15x45 inches)? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 06:41:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:41:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > If you think that's a problem now, wait till Moshiach comes and > you have parents visiting their daughter who married a Cohen. Indeed! And I think an even more common case will be a husband (regardless of shevet) who wants (or needs) to eat taharos, but his wife is nidah. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:28:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:28:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170416212823.GC13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 09:28:13AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Eli Turkel wrote: : > However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is : > impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har : > habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. I pointed out that we know length of the water tunnel in meters and rounded to two digits precision amos. In contrast, the current Har haBayis platform post-dates Hadrian y"sh lobbing off the top of the mountain and dumping it into the valley between the kotel and the current Moslem and Jewish Quarters. So we really only have part of one wall to go on. The floor can't possibly date back to either BHMQ. But that doesn't mean the shiur is impossible. The shiur may indeed be at odds with historical interpretations of the halakhah. Even perhaps by accident. But would that necessarily mean it's not binding? In either case, the CI's ammah is textual. RCNaeh's ammah is a textualist's attempt to formalize a precise number that is basicallhy consistent with the praactice of the Yishuv haYashan. Mimeticism-driven. RAM himself replied: : I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction as well. : The minimum shiur for a mikveh is 3 cubic amos, as this is the size : that a typical person could fit into. Who among us could fit into a : space 38x38x114 cm? (15x15x45 inches)? According to http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13993-stature , in 1906, the average Jewish man was about 162cm high. Let's make his miqvah 165 x 31 x 31 cm. Same volume of water. A maximum belt size of something like 97 cm (39") would fit. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:49:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 10:29:56AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) ... : RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who : determines this minhag?) Well, if it's mimetic, you just watch what people do. And if so, RSZA's statement is descriptive, not descriptive. As in: Lemaaseh, people are nohagim not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach. : He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never : accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason than the one given. ... : Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be prohibited (ie : even according to those that eat gebrochs) (yesh ladun behem - Pesachim 40b : - Rashi that when people are "mezalzel one should be machmir) Who is being mezalzel on chameitz? If he saying that because some people are questioning qitniyos, we should strengthen qitniyos, then what does that have to do with foods not already under that umbrella? And even among those who question the minhag's sanity, is there really a major zilzul going on among Ashkenazim doing less and less to avoid qitniyios? On the contrary, as your translation opens, avoiding shemen qitniyos has spread well beyond the communities that originally had that minhag, to the extent that it's being applied to foods that in the past weren't on the list of qitniyos! The questioning is a counter-reaction to the growth of the minhag. Who is being mezalzel? : In the notes that this was what RSZA said in shiurim and when asked a : question responded that one should follow the family minhag... Ascerting mimeticism over his own textualism. Sevara aside, minhag is whatever is the accepted practice. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:30:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:30:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach - Lecithin does not render chocolate non-KLP for Ashkenasim In-Reply-To: References: <0b78331e-194b-c586-6de0-fc623959e4e3@sero.name> <32449da1-df34-d5e8-7170-a2c8676adf0e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170416213032.GD13509@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 07:25:10AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 2) The prohibition of being m'vateil an issur applies to the super : corporations that run the milk industry? This is a case where buying Chalav Yisrael, which is de rigeur in Zev's Chabad community, would be more problematic. After all, something done for CY milk is being done for Jews. Something done for stam OUD milk would not be. :-)||ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:38:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Poisoning in Halacha In-Reply-To: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> References: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170416213850.GE13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 10:16:10PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: : Tonight my chevrusa and I learned the sugya in Bava Kamma 47b of one who : puts poison in front of his friend's animal. A brief synopsis and : application of the sugya is at : http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/infected: ... : It struck us that it follows that if one poisons another human being by, : say, placing cyanide in his tea, which the victim then drinks and dies, : the poisoner is exempt from capitol punishment. It would seem that such : a manner of murder falls into the category of the Rambam's ruling in : Hilchos Rotze'ach u'Shemiras Nefesh 3:10: It might be similarly true, but I don't know if "it follows". After all, gerama in Choshein Mishpat has a more limited definition than in hilkhos Shabbos. So, it didn't have to be true that the same definitions of gerama and garmi apply in dinei mamunus as in dinei nefashos. Lemaaseh, they are consistent. I would ask the Y-mi-style question: How is retzichah more similar to mamon than it is to Shabbos? :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:10:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:10:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> References: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> Message-ID: <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 2:40am EDT, RnTK wrote: :> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook :> https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ :> Let me run an idea by you guys... :> 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha....... :> 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the :> beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. : It seems to me you are no more obligated to tear toilet paper for the whole : week than you are to do all your cooking for the whole week before the yom : tov. Actually, the heter is that the food tastes better when made closer to eating time. But if one is talking about food that would taste as good if made days ahead (including the logistical limitations of storage), one is actually supposed to be cooking it before YT. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 15:44:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:44:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> References: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> On 16/04/17 17:49, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never > : accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... > > But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod > bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason > than the one given. again, no he doesn't. We just went through this last week. He never proposed it, even as a hava amina, and never gives a reason against it. He merely reports, as a matter of fact and completely without comment for or against it, that he heard that in Germany they forbid potatoes because over there they make flour from them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 15:36:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:36:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> References: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8d50d8fe-f514-fdbf-c460-9971ad347ed9@sero.name> On 16/04/17 17:10, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Actually, the heter is that the food tastes better when made closer to > eating time. But if one is talking about food that would taste as good > if made days ahead (including the logistical limitations of storage), > one is actually supposed to be cooking it before YT. But not before chol hamoed. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 20:00:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:00:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> References: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170419030020.GA29092@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 06:44:54PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 16/04/17 17:49, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >: He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never : >: accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... : >But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod : >bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason : >than the one given. : : again, no he doesn't. We just went through this last week... And given the relatice abilities of RSZA and you to read the Chayei Adam, you're obviously mistaken. : never proposed it, even as a hava amina... He reports the existence of such a minhag, and recommends against its adoption. Close enough. You're setting yourself up as a baal pelugta of RSZA by splitting hairs to crration a distinction without a difference? Really? -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 19:56:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:56:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Isru Chag Message-ID: <68F6CB3B-3D32-4BF0-A68E-3AD77FD7EE69@cox.net> The gematria for Isru Chag is 278, the same gematria for l'machar found in Bamidbar, Ch.11, vs.18. This is in the Sidra, Beha?a'lotcha, where God has Moshe establish a Sanhedrin because Moshe complained that he could not carry on alone. God says to Moshe: "To the people you shall say, 'Prepare yourselves for tomorrow and you shall eat meat..." There is an interesting tie here. The day after a festival is the "morrow" and even though the holiday is over, we must always be preparing ourselves. (Also, in counting the omer, we are preparing ourselves for the climax of our faith in 50 days). A good Isru chag to all. ri ?By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.? Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 21:06:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:06:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: R' Meir G. Rabi explained his logic: > if one suggests that > there is a possibility that > some flour > within [but not on the surface of] the Matza > which is protected from the heat of the oven > and does not become baked > [as once it is baked, flour can not become Chamets] > then the Chashash that this flour > might become Chamets if it becomes wet > pales into insignificance > and is completely eclipsed by the much greater risk > that the middle part of the Matza > which may not have been baked > may actually be Chamets [Gamur] I do not follow this logic. He is comparing two distinctly different risks. For simplicity, I'd like to call one risk "insufficiently kneaded" and the other one "insufficiently baked". "Insufficiently kneaded" means that there might be some flour in the middle of the matza that never got wet and is still plain raw flour, and that if it gets wet it will become chometz. "Insufficiently baked" means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not get baked, and it is already chometz. And RMGR feels that the second of these is a "much greater risk". I don't know where he gets the statistics to say that "insufficiently kneaded" is a small risk (his words are "pales into insignificance"), and that "insufficiently baked" is a "much greater risk". Personally, my opinion is that *IF* one checks his matzos to be sure that they are uniformly thin, *AND* checks to be sure that they have none of the kefulos or other problems that halacha warns us about, then he can be confident that no part of the matza was insufficiently baked, and they are NOT chometz. Thus, there are steps that the consumer can take to minimize the risk that his matzos were insufficiently baked. In contrast, I don't know of any way that the consumer can check the matzos to verify that they were kneaded well enough; who knows if there might be a few particles of flour that never got wet? I guess the consumer has to rely on the manufacturer and hechsher to insure that they are doing a good enough job of kneading the dough. Anyway, my main point is that these two risks are distinct from each other. I don't see any logical connection between them. From the way he worded the subject line, it sounds like RMGR is making a "kal vachomer", that if one is worried about one of the risks, then he must certainly worry about the other one, but I don't see that. (In fact, I can't even figure out which risk he feels leads to the other.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 13:17:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:17:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: I am moving this to Avodah. >From: Ben Waxman via Areivim >To: Simon Montagu via Areivim , areivim > >Why is this even an issue? Meaning, why is it such an issue that people >with a different minhag are davening together*? Or is the issue that >both sides feel that the other is doing an aveira**? > >*Sefardim and Ashkenazim wrap their teffilin differently. That factoid >doesn't stop anyone from praying together. >** Which brings up other issues. >Ben My understanding is that people who wear Tefillen during Cho Moed are not supposed to wear them in a minyan where the custom is that no one wears Tefillen. I know that in a couple of shuls near me they are makpid that those who wear Tefillen and those who do not do wear them do not daven together until after the kedusha of shachris when Tefillen are taken off. In the Kivasikin minyan that I normally daven with, those who were Tefillen are upstairs in what is normally the ladies section. After Kedusha of Shachris, those upstairs join those downstairs for a Hallel. I have been told that in the Agudah in Baltimore those who wear Tefillen are on one side of the mechitza and those who don't are on the other side until after kedusha of shachris. So, apparently there is a problem with having a mix of Tefillen wearers and non-wearers during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 14:17:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:17:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:17:21PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : So, apparently there is a problem with having a mix of Tefillen : wearers and non-wearers during Chol Moed. Lo sisgodedu. The pasuq behind the whole notion of minhag hamaqom altogether. Eg see MB 31 s"q 8. The AhS OC 31:4 is okay with minyanim that are mixed between wearers and non-wearers. Nowadays, when the concept of minhag hamaqom is so weak and has so little to do with our sence of belonging, I think the psychology is the opposite as that assumed by those who apply lo sisgodedu. Having two minyanim is more divided, and certainly if it ends up an argument about which part of the minyan is behind the mechitzah. Look how in Israel, many minyanim ignore the halakhos of having a set nusach for the beis kenesses and just let each chazan use his own minhag avos! And this enables a single minyan to function in spite of diversity; a variety of Jews from different cultures able to daven together! Tir'u baTov! -Micha (PS: "wfb" summarized a nice list of sources about whether they should be worn from R Jacob Katz's article in Halakhah veQabbalah at .) -- Micha Berger Today is the 8th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed for another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 14:41:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:41:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Why would tefillin be any different to the various different practises about who does and doesn't wear a tallis? I have never heard of a non-tallis-wearing post-bar-mitzva boy being banished behind the mechitza at a yekkishe shul, or vice versa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 01:20:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:20:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> I didn't understand the question. My daughter married a sefardi and they eat kitniyot. I was by them for seder and everything served was without kiniyot. BTW I not aware of any shitah that there is a problem with keilim used for kitniyot. BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given modern communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a problem but there might be technological answers to that also. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 01:38:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:38:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kiniyot Message-ID: <<: RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who : determines this minhag?) Well, if it's mimetic, you just watch what people do. And if so, RSZA's statement is descriptive, not descriptive. As in: Lemaaseh, people are nohagim not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach. ... Sevara aside, minhag is whatever is the accepted practice. >> The question is "whose minhag". RSZA is stating what he saw. In my area of New York everyone used cottenseed oil. I recently saw a discussion of women saying kaddish. After a lengthy discussion the author concludes that the minhag is for women not to say kaddish. Well in almost all the shuls in my town women do say kaddish. I understand that even the Rama in SA in quoting minhag means Polish (Krakow) minhag and many other existing minhagim in Russia, or Italy were ignored. Similar things in the Sefardi communities. There are several cases that ROY opposes Morrocan customs as being against (sefardi) halacha but are heatedly defended by Moroccan rabbis. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 05:15:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:15:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Look how in Israel, many minyanim ignore the halakhos of having a set nusach for the beis kenesses and just let each chazan use his own minhag avos! And this enables a single minyan to function in spite of diversity; a variety of Jews from different cultures able to daven together! ---------------------------------- Which gets to the heart of the matter - some see diversity of Minhag as lchatchila (all the shvatim had their own Sanhedrin/practice) while others see it as a result of galut. IMHO this debate will continue ad biat hagoel (may it be very soon) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 05:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41e2d260-e360-8e8e-4d15-6f524b655121@sero.name> On 20/04/17 04:20, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make > sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given > modern communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush > hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a problem but there might be > technological answers to that also. The simplest method of getting word of kiddush hachodesh to the whole world on Shabbos/Yomtov is to have a goy send a tweet, which every Jewish house or shul could be set up beforehand to receive. Amira lenochri is of course midrabbanan, so the Sanhedrin can authorise an exception. But there's an even better solution: Kidush hachodesh (as opposed to notifying people about it) is docheh Shabbos/Yomtov. Eidim can be positioned in advance in places guaranteed to have no cloud cover and a good view of the moon (perhaps Ramon Crater?), and they can then drive to Yerushalayim, arriving in plenty of time to testify as soon as the beit din opens in the morning. They could even be positioned on desert mountaintops in chu"l, and fly in. Thus we could guarantee in advance that Elul will never again have a 30th day, and everyone could rely on that without actually being notified on the day. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 09:38:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:38:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:20:04AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make sense I : vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given modern : communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush : hachodesh instantaneously.... I would like to suggest a different angle on YT Sheini. It's not so much that Chazal were afraid of the same problems might arise in bayis shelishi. After all, the language in the gemara isn't the usual that we find with (eg) chadash on Nisan 16 or other taqanos to avoid that kind of problem. I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh ought to be al pi re'iyah. It is that important to remember that the progression is "meqadesh Yisrael vehazmanim", that people sanctify time, rather than the times imposing themselves on people. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 10:13:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:13:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> On 21/04/17 12:38, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I would like to suggest a different angle on YT Sheini. > > It's not so much that Chazal were afraid of the same problems might > arise in bayis shelishi. After all, the language in the gemara isn't > the usual that we find with (eg) chadash on Nisan 16 or other taqanos > to avoid that kind of problem. The language is "sometimes the kingdom will decree a decree"; therefore in an era when -- according to all opinions -- we will never again be subject to hostile kingdoms, it would seem no longer relevant. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 10:45:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:45:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:13:27PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The language is "sometimes the kingdom will decree a decree"; : therefore in an era when -- according to all opinions -- we will : never again be subject to hostile kingdoms, it would seem no longer : relevant. The language of the azhara to keep the minhag talks about zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah. Rashi ad loc says that the said gezeira would be against studying Torah, the community would lose the sod ha'ibbur and mess up their version of the calculation. But that's not the cause for keeping the minhag going. Because that rationale has nothing to do with where the messengers could arrive on time back when we needed them. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 11:23:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:23:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:58:36PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: :> The language of the azhara to keep the minhag talks about zimnin degazru :> hamalkhus gezeirah. :> Rashi ad loc says that the said gezeira would be against studying Torah, :> the community would lose the sod ha'ibbur and mess up their version of :> the calculation. :> But that's not the cause for keeping the minhag going. : The letter explicitly says that *was* the reason. You don't address my claim, just deny it. What the gemara says the letter read was: Hizharu beminhag avoseikhem! Zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah, ve'asi le'ilqalqulei. This is a motive given for "hizharu". (The letter expliticly says so.) Yes, it could mean that it's the motive for the minhag, which is so strong that that justifies not only keeping it going, but being warned But, given that the potential oppression does not justify the format of the minhag, this explanation must be for the caution alone. :> Because that :> rationale has nothing to do with where the messengers could arrive on :> time back when we needed them. : Those places never had a minhag of two days, so Chazal weren't going : to institute one now. Why not? If the problem is the unreliability of a computed calendar that is done once for centuries ahead without a Sanhedrin, this is new to those in Israel too! I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. Then they add, that one shouldn't say it's not /that/ important, because there is a pragmatic benefit as well. (In any case, Chazal were instituting a derabbanan based on a pre-existing minhag. I don't think you intended to imply that the "one" being instituted now was a minhag.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 11:42:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> On 21/04/17 14:23, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > What the gemara says the letter read was: > Hizharu beminhag avoseikhem! > Zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah, ve'asi le'ilqalqulei. > > This is a motive given for "hizharu". (The letter expliticly says > so.) > > Yes, it could mean that it's the motive for the minhag, which is so > strong that that justifies not only keeping it going, but being warned > But, given that the potential oppression does not justify the format > of the minhag, this explanation must be for the caution alone. No, it's not the reason for the minhag in the first place; we know what that was, and it no longer applies. That's why they wrote to the Sanhedrin asking whether they should abandon it. Hizharu means don't abandon it, keep it going anyway, and the reason for doing so is Zimnin degazru. > : Those places never had a minhag of two days, so Chazal weren't going > : to institute one now. > > Why not? Because that would be an innovation and Zimnin degazru is not enough reason to do so. But it *is* enough reason to continue an already existing practise that has just become obsolete. It takes a lot more to justify changing existing practise than it does to continue it. > I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that > qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices > from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. But there's no hint of this, and the letter explicitly says otherwise. > (In any case, Chazal were instituting a derabbanan based on a pre-existing > minhag. Yes, exactly. It's a din derabanan that behaves *as if* it were a mere minhag, because that's what the rabbanan said it should do. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 12:26:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:26:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421192640.GA20001@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 02:42:49PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : No, it's not the reason for the minhag in the first place; we know : what that was, and it no longer applies. That's why they wrote to : the Sanhedrin asking whether they should abandon it. Hizharu means : don't abandon it, keep it going anyway, and the reason for doing so : is Zimnin degazru. No, hizharu means "be careful", not "keep it going anyway". This is NOT "kevar qiblu avoseikhem aleihem. Shene'emar 'Shemi beni musar avikha, ve'al titosh toras imekha.'" (Pesachim 50b) ... : >I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that : >qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices : >from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. : : But there's no hint of this, and the letter explicitly says otherwise. Again, only once you mistranslate what it means lehazhir. This "explicitly" is not only far from explicit, it's not even there! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 13:37:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:37:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer > make sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside > Israel. Given modern communications, the whole world would know > the time of kiddush hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a > problem but there might be technological answers to that also. Shavuos mochiach. Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. If you can discover all of them, and explain all of them, and explain how Shavuos fits, *then* we can discuss "gezerot that no longer make sense". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 14:21:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:21:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> On 4/21/2017 7:38 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole > taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh > ought to be al pi re'iyah. That's a real possibility. In addition, I suggest that halakha is intended to be feasible without any technology. Just imagine changing something this fundamental to rely on an electronic network that will inevitably be subject to attack by EMPs at some point. I don't think it would be responsible. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 10:35:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 20:35:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole > taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh > ought to be al pi re'iyah. > It is that important to remember that the progression is "meqadesh > Yisrael vehazmanim", that people sanctify time, rather than the times > imposing themselves on people. Even more so once a Sanhredin is reconstituted and there is qiddush hachodesh ougal pi re'iyah.there is no use for YT sheni From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 19:18:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:18:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170423021813.GC19870@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:21:23AM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : That's a real possibility. In addition, I suggest that halakha is : intended to be feasible without any technology. Just imagine : changing something this fundamental to rely on an electronic network : that will inevitably be subject to attack by EMPs at some point. I : don't think it would be responsible. While I get your basic point... What EMPs? Even by Shemu'el's rather prosaic version of the messianic era, ein bein olam hazeh liyamos hamoshiach ela shib'ud malkhius bilvad. Gut Voch! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 00:03:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 03:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: <59924.64874017.462dabd2@aol.com> [1] From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" >> My understanding is that people who wear Tefillen during Cho Moed are not supposed to wear them in a minyan where the custom is that no one wears Tefillen. I know that in a couple of shuls near me they are makpid that those who wear Tefillen and those who do not do wear them do not daven together until after the kedusha of shachris when Tefillen are taken off. << YL [2] From: Allan Engel via Avodah >> Why would tefillin be any different to the various different practises about who does and doesn't wear a tallis? I have never heard of a non-tallis-wearing post-bar-mitzva boy being banished behind the mechitza at a yekkishe shul, or vice versa. << >>>> The difference between the tallis-or-not issue and the tefillin-or-not issue is that the former is in the realm of minhag while the latter is in the realm of halacha. People are not so makpid about differing minhagim in the same shul, but differing piskei halacha in the same shul -- that is much more serious. When you have some men wearing tefillin and others not wearing tefillin in the same minyan on chol hamoed, the presence of each subset implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 00:14:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 10:14:12 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> Hard to imagine that all communication would be lost for 15 days. It certainly is less likely than some problem with lighting fires between mountains. Remember that originally the "entire" galut knew the correct date of Pesach and Succot and so there was only one day of yomtov. Only when there was a deliberate attempt to mislead was the system changed. Also interesting is that there is no discussion of communities beyond Bavel. What was done in Alexandria and Rome? In any case even if locally they kept 2 days it was widespread. BTW I assume it took months to reach Rome. If there was a community in Spain (sefarad) it was even longer. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 12:34:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:34:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tazria Message-ID: <60DB8D20-7368-440D-830C-67A3C69835DD@cox.net> Rabbi Zelig Pliskin, in his book ?Love Your Neighbor,? quotes a hilarious true story about Lashon Hora. Someone asked a cerain woman if she wished to borrow a copy of ?Guard Your Tongue? to study the laws of lashon hora. Her response was: ?I don?t need it. I never speak lashon hora. But my husband really needs it. He always speaks lashon hora." We all know about lashon hora and how speaking ill of others is rather a poor reflection of ourselves. However, taken to another level, it was the S?fat Emes who said that it also can refer to having failed to speak lashon tov. This brings to mind the poignant story of a man weeping uncontrollably at the grave of his young wife. When the rabbi tried to console him by saying how good he was to her, he replied: ?Oh, rabbi, how I loved her so much and once I almost told her.? We have friends who take the time and effort to say nice things, and it would even be nicer if more of us did that. You never know the ripple effect a good word can have. ri After receiving another notice from school about bad behavior, a frustrated father sat to explain to his child the source of each one of the gray hairs in his once black beard. ?This one is from the last time the principal called about your misbehavior. This one is from the time you were mean to your sister. This one is from the time you broke our neighbor?s window,? etc., etc. The father looked at his child for a response to his appeal for better behavior, to which the child calmly replied: ?Oh, now it makes sense why Zaide has such a white beard!? Speech is the mirror of the soul Publilius Syrus, Latin Writer 85BCE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 11:47:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 18:47:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 256 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 25 15:03:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 22:03:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> "When you have some men wearing tefillin and others not wearing tefillin in the same minyan on chol hamoed, the presence of each subset implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment." Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people conscientiously following their family customs and davening together nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. Just a thought from a different perspective. Joseph Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 05:02:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:02:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "Shavuos mochiach. Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. If you can discover all of them, and explain all of them, and explain how Shavuos fits, *then* we can discuss "gezerot that no longer make sense"." The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 04:52:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:52:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Metzorah "LEPERS DO CHANGE THEIR SPOTS" Message-ID: On this, the Shabbos preceding Yom Haatzmaut, we read the Haftarah containing the following verse referring to the four lepers: ?And they said to one another: ?We are not doing the right thing; today is a day of good tidings and yet, we remain silent! If we wait until the light of dawn (until it?s too late), we will be adjudged as sinners; now come, let us go and report to the king?s palace.? Second Kings 7:9 It is fascinating that in our own times, this verse contains a challenging message. It is remarkable how the events of modern Israel ran parallel to the the story told in this Biblical chapter. The Arab armies besieging the Jewish community in Israel, their panic and sudden flight, the great deliverance which followed, and the birth of the State of Israel ? do we not see the hand of Providence in all these events? In one respect we are deeply worried. The lepers of the Haftarah possessed the moral obligation to proclaim the miracle. ?We are not doing the right thing. This is a day of good tidings and it is not proper that we should be quiet about it.? Many of us today (outcasts of yesterday) have still not risen to the moral height of recognizing that a miracle has transpired before our very eyes and therefore our duty to proclaim the greatness of the day! Let us, therefore, proclaim it to our children and to the world. Let us, with a firm belief in the future of Israel, do everything possible to assure its existence, strengthen its foundations, and thus look forward to the day of good tidings, the day of Israel?s total and quintessential Independence! rw John Adams: "I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations? They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews.? John F. Kennedy: "Israel was not created in order to disappear ? Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 13:29:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:03:43PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: :> implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This :> makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look :> bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. : Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly : perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people : conscientiously following their family customs and davening together : nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out : of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that : anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. I think we've lost sight of the original topic. Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. When I was a kid, we tefillin-wearers davened Shacharis in the basement, joining the rest of the shteibl only for the latter part of davening. We are therefore starting with data, the pesaq, and trying to figure out what that means aggadically. Not just blindly guessing about how things look in heaven. If things are as you portray it, the original question is stronger -- what you said doesn't resolve anything. BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos as self-identifications. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 15th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in Fax: (270) 514-1507 harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 14:42:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 21:42:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com>, <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> Lost sight of original topic? If that were a valid criticism we'd hear it at least once if not more in every issue. As to substance. I've been davening in shuls on chol haMoed for more than 50 years and every shul I've davened in, all Modern Orthodox led by rabbis who were well respected talmedei chachamim, had men with and without teffilin davening in one minyan together, sitting next to each other without problems or, I'm pretty sure, thinking of transgressors. That's MY data which I would hope is as valid as shteibl data. And that's what my response to my good friend Toby was trying to deal with. I wasn't the one to raise the perspective of Heaven but I found Toby's thoughtful comment refreshingly interesting and, as always, articulate, so I thought about it a bit and responded. I thought that what we do here on A/A. Joseph Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 26, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:03:43PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: > :> implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This > :> makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look > :> bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. > > : Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly > : perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people > : conscientiously following their family customs and davening together > : nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out > : of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that > : anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. > > I think we've lost sight of the original topic. > > Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in > a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises > evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. > > When I was a kid, we tefillin-wearers davened Shacharis in the basement, > joining the rest of the shteibl only for the latter part of davening. > > We are therefore starting with data, the pesaq, and trying to figure > out what that means aggadically. > > Not just blindly guessing about how things look in heaven. If things > are as you portray it, the original question is stronger -- what you > said doesn't resolve anything. > > BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are indeed > motivated by a consciencous following of family customs and the > perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. And how much > is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification with Litvaks or > Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than identification with the > Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos as self-identifications. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Today is the 15th day, which is > micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. > http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in > Fax: (270) 514-1507 harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 16:11:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:11:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:42:41PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : As to substance. I've been davening in shuls on chol haMoed for more : than 50 years and every shul I've davened in, all Modern Orthodox led : by rabbis who were well respected talmedei chachamim, had men with and : without teffilin davening in one minyan together, sitting next to each : other without problems or, I'm pretty sure, thinking of transgressors. : : That's MY data which I would hope is as valid as shteibl data. And : that's what my response to my good friend Toby was trying to deal with. Those are both anecdotes. (BTW, it was a pretty MO shteibl. We had more professors and other PhDs than you can shake a stick at. R/Dr SZ Leiman, R/Dr David Berger, Rs/Drs Steiner, Rs/Drs Sachat, progessors of Asronomy, Physics (R/Dr Herbert Goldstein, likely author of you physics textbook), Topology...) What is data is that the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed between tefillin wearers and not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 18:24:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:24:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com>, <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB wrote: "What is data is that the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed between tefillin wearers and not." Here's some "data" from R. Chaim (Howard) Jachter: "Nevertheless, in many North American congregations on Chol Hamoed, some wear Tefillin and others do not wear Tefillin in one Minyan. Are all these congregations disregarding the Mishna Berura and the Aruch Hashulchan? One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent authorities. The Gemara (ibid.) states that the coexistence of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad ? two distinct communities maintaining disparate practices in one community ? does not violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 1:158 and 159) notes that in this country Jews have gathered from the various sections of Europe and continue the Halachic practices of their former communities. Subsequent generations continue the practices of their parents. Rav Moshe asserts that American Jewry constitutes ?a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad? and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. The Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan addressed a situation in Europe, which radically differs from the situation in North America, as explained by Rav Moshe. However, it appears that one violates Lo Titgodedu if he wears Tefillin in public in Israel on Chol Hamoed." Joseph Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 22:54:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 01:24:46AM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent : authorities. ... Rav Moshe asserts : that American Jewry constitutes "a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad" : and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) : writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single : community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does : not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of : Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. : The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed... So, that answers the OP. Next question.. How long are we /supposed/ to continue being 2 BD be'ir echad, following the minhagim of our ancestral communities, rather than invoking lo sisgodedu and combining into communal minhagim in our current communities? EY is nearly there WRT tefillin on ch"m, with only a few holdouts like KAJ. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 04:29:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> , <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <36AE5716-00CB-4838-A9CE-5321370B72B4@tenzerlunin.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 27, 2017, at 1:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > > Next question.. How long are we /supposed/ to continue being 2 BD be'ir > echad, following the minhagim of our ancestral communities, rather > than invoking lo sisgodedu and combining into communal minhagim in our > current communities? Considering modern mobility, the world has been made so much smaller that I think the idea of strong communal minhagim imposed on all members of the community may be a thing of the past but not of the future. Joseph From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 16:48:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:48:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. ...<< Akiva Miller >>>>> I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 11:15:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent Message-ID: <20B9894A-31AD-494D-8049-66C38175C660@cox.net> It has been taught that a man must recite 100 b?rachot daily. There are different explanations why 100 and the following are a few: Rabbi Mayer said: a person is obligated to recite 100 Brachos each day. In the Jerusalem Talmud we learned: it was taught in the name of Rabbi Mayer; there is no Jew who does not fulfill one hundred Mitzvos each day, as it was written: Now Israel, what does G-d your G-d ask of you? Do not read the verse as providing for the word: ?what? (Mah); instead read it as including the word: ?one hundred? (Mai?Eh). King David established the practice of reciting one hundred Brachos each day. When the residents of Jerusalem informed him that one hundred Jews were dying everyday, he established this requirement. It appears that the practice was forgotten until our Sages at the time of the Mishna and at the time of the Gemara re-established it. There is an additional hint to the need to recite 100 blessings each day from the Prophets as it is written, Micah, Chapter 6, Verse 8: What does G-d ask of you (Hebrew: mimcha). Mimcha in Gematria is 100. There is also a hint to the need to recite 100 blessings from Scriptures as it is written in Psalms, Chapter 128 Verse 4: Behold, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the Lord (the Hebrew words: Ki Kain appear in the verse. The letters in those words total 100 in Gematria). I?d like to proffer another explanation. In most tests you take in school, a perfect score is 100 or an A+. Hence, when reciting a hundred brachot a day, we come as close to perfection as possible. ?If sin becomes an abomination to you, you will have a hundred percent victory over it.? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 17:35:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:35:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> References: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> Message-ID: <1210e77c-beca-a075-ee6d-2fb9df2cafe8@sero.name> On 27/04/17 19:48, via Avodah wrote: > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the > mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman matan toraseinu. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 18:13:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:13:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> On Areivim we were discussing how some activity could be labeled yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. Along the way I wrote that it couldn't be because the enviroment includes gender mixing. I concluded: : Arayos isn't yeihareig ve'al ya'avor until it's : actual relations. I'm not even sure that yeihareig ve'al ya'avor would : apply to bi'ah with a willing penuyah (who is not a niddah). Two people asked me off list to look at Sanhedrin 75a. In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he could speak to her; at least through a fence. According to either R' Yaaqov bar Idi or R Shemu'el bar Nachmeini, she was even a penuyah. (Peligi bah... chad amar...) But one could learn from that gemara that it would NOT be yeihareig ve'al ya'avor: Bishloma according to the man da'amar she was an eishes ish, shapir. But according to the MdA she was penuyah -- mah kulei hai? Two answers: R' Papa says because it's a pegam mishpachah, R' Acha berei deR' Iqa says "kedei shelo yehu benos Yisrael perutzos ba'arayos". So what's the exchange saying? That it is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor because of the consequent peritzus? Or that bishloma an eishes ish would be YvAY, but a penyah, who isn't, why wouldn't the guy be allowed to speak to her? As I said on Areivim "I am not even sure" which, because the gemara could be taken either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:03:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:03:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: R' Micha Berger concluded: > BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are > indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs > and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. > And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification > with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than > identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos > as self-identifications. That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the MB and AhS were on. By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? Do we really want to accuse the MB and AhS of that? I think there is another way we can look at this whole topic. Let's ask what makes Chol Hamoed Tefillin so unusual. Why is this case different than so many others? Someone else asked why there isn't any enforced uniformity regarding unmarried men wearing a tallis in shul. Why is that different? How about the differing ways of avoiding simcha during sefira? One person will make a wedding during the last week of Nisan, and another person FROM THE SAME SHUL will make a wedding after Lag Baomer. Not only is this tolerated, but the entire shul is allowed to attend both weddings! Why don't we insist that the whole town should go one way or the other, like with the tefillin? Sometimes I feel that our perspective on these issues is so very different than what prevailed in the unified kehilos of yesteryear, that we cannot ever hope to understand it. I think the confusion comes from try to impose one perspective on a differing situation. Perhaps we ought to "agree to disagree". Specifically: *WE* get strength from our diversity; *THEY* got strength from their uniformity. I personally worry about the misfits in those cultures, and the losses they suffered. But perhaps their leaders accepted that as an acceptable price for the chizuk that came to the larger group. We have been trained to be unwilling to accept such a price, and we fight for every single individual. But that too has a price, and we are often unable or unwilling to admit it. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:12:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:12:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement > in the mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. Yes, there is a disagreement over whether the Torah was given on 6 Sivan or on 7 Sivan. And there are lots of cute vertlach about whether Shavuos is about *Matan* Torah, or *Kabalas* HaTorah (and whether or not they happened on the same day). But the bottom line is the the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after Pesach. If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty about Shavuos. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:52:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:52:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025454.YQWS32620.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in >a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises >evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. There's something about this that I've never understood. Suppose a person is having a stomach problem -- isn't he supposed to refrain from wearing tefillin? So, in a shul, a guy is not wearing tefillin -- how do we even know what his reason is? (In fact, I think I recall hearing that R Moshe himself didn't wear tefillin many times towards the end of his life for this reason). So, of all the things regarding lo sisgadedu -- why tefillin? Why not all the other things that daveners wear differently? (E.g., different minhagim via-a-vis wearing a tallis before marriage?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:54:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:54:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Rabbi Mayer said: a person is obligated to recite 100 Brachos each >day. In the Jerusalem Talmud we >learned: it was taught in the name of Rabbi Mayer; there is no Jew >who does not fulfill one hundred >Mitzvos each day, as it was written: Now Israel, what does G-d your >G-d ask of you? Do not read the >verse as providing for the word: ?what? (Mah); instead read it as >including the word: ?one hundred? >(Mai?Eh). IIRC, there's a fun Ba'al HaTurim on this pasek: If you add the alef into the pasuk -- not only does it turn the word into "100" -- but the pasuk will then have 100 letters in it. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:58:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:58:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> > > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the > > mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. Indeed. Machlokes over whether it was Sivan 6 or 7. OTOH, the 50th day could also have fallen on Sivan 5, no? >The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed >calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman >matan toraseinu. Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? (I'm not being snarky -- it's a genuine question) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 21:45:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:45:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170428044535.GC2155@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:58:07PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" : when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? The explanation I like (eg from Maadanei Yom Tov) is that "zeman matan Toraseinu" is not a date in Sivan, but a number of days after Yetzias Mitzrayim or of the omer. Your question is based on the idea that "zeman" is a time on the calendar, not a point in a process (be it redemption or of omer). The MYT I mentioned earlier explains why Matan Torah was on the 7th whereas our Zeman Matan Toraseinu is on the 6th: He (the Tosafos Yom Tov?) notes that omer is both tisperu 50 yom and sheva shabasos temimos. It is 50 days or 7 x 7 = 49 days? So, uusually we think 49 days of omer, Shavuos is the 50th. The MYT says that 49 days of omer and the first day of Pesach is the 0th. Zeman Matan Toraseinu is thus after 50 days of process. For our Pesach, that's day 1 of Pesach + 49 omer, yeilding Sivan 6th. The first Pesach, though, Yetzi'as Mitzrayim was at midnight. So the first full day, usable as day 0, was the 16th of Nissan. Shifting everying off one day, so that process from physical ge'ulah to matan Torah ended on 7 Sivan. But whether you like that vertl or not, the idea that would answer your question is just that "zeman" is not necessarily a date; just as Shabbos is a time based on interval, not date. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:33:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:33:49 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <40e6067e-a5cf-689b-619a-908d5249a8a8@zahav.net.il> When was that prayer written, before or after the calendar was set? Ben On 4/28/2017 4:58 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" > when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 02:33:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:33:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the Exodus. Lisa On 4/28/2017 5:58 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed >> calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman >> matan toraseinu. > > Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" > when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:18:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:18:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428061804.GA19887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : "Insufficiently kneaded" means that there might be some flour in the : middle of the matza that never got wet and is still plain raw flour, : and that if it gets wet it will become chometz. "Insufficiently baked" : means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not : get baked, and it is already chometz. And RMGR feels that the second : of these is a "much greater risk". But... If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently kneeded, would any of the dry flour that went through the oven be still capable of becoming chaneitz if wet? If the dough is now too baked to rise any further, wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be to toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5, which discvusses things not to do because "shelma lo qulhu yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is that possible? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:22:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. Lo zakhisi lehavin. All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty. Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays being of the form of an uncertainty. But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain about the date. What am I missing in the CS's sevara? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 22:03:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:03:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite Message-ID: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> I signed up for something called Carbonite, which uploads everything on your computer to the Cloud where it might be possible to retrieve it all if your computer dies or is stolen. The thing is, either I have way too much on my computer or my computer is way too old and slow, but anyway, Carbonite started uploading on Sunday afternoon and now, Thursday night, it is STILL uploading. It continuously shows what progress it has made, and it is showing me that it has uploaded 43% of my computer. I am no math whiz but I can figure out that if it took from Sunday to Thursday to upload 43% it is not going to reach 100% before Shabbos. I asked the Carbonite tech person what happens if you turn off your computer in the middle, and he said Carbonite will just continue where it left off when you turn your computer back on. Interestingly we had a test case on Monday when my neighborhood lost power for six hours. When the power came back on, Carbonite did NOT resume where it had left off. Instead, I had to call Carbonite and ended up being on the phone for an hour while they told me to do this and that and then they did whatever and finally got Carbonite to resume its weary work. So here is my question for the learned chevra here on Avodah: Can I just leave my computer on all Shabbos, in another room with the door closed where I won't see it and it won't fashtair my Shabbos, and let Carbonite keep running and running? (It looks like it will take a whole nother week to finish.) Or should I sell my laptop to a goy and buy it back after Shabbos? (That was a joke, for those of you in Rio Linda.) Should I turn it off and resign myself to talking to tech support again for another hour to get it working again after Shabbos? Oy, siz shver tsu zein a Yid! Is leaving a laptop on all Shabbos with Carbonite uploading more like [A] leaving your lights, fridge and air conditioning on all Shabbos or [B] leaving a TV or radio on -- dubiously muttar, definitely not Shabbosdik or [C] making your eved Canaani work for you all day Shabbos -- a no-no or [D] giving your clothes to the Greek dressmaker to fix and telling her you need them some time next week, and if she for her own convenience decides to do the work on Shabbos, that's copacetic? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 06:44:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:44:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite In-Reply-To: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> References: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:03 AM, [Rn Toby Katz] wrote: > I signed up for something called Carbonite... > Can I just leave my computer on all Shabbos, in another room with the door > closed where I won't see it and it won't fashtair my Shabbos, and let > Carbonite keep running and running? (It looks like it will take a whole > nother week to finish.) ... What tzurus. I use crash plan. They each have their share of grief. I leave my computer on 24x7 except 2 day yomtov. I turn off the monitor and make sure the keyboard and mouse are secure before Shabbat. Why is it any different than leaving on the A/C? Back in the day, people would set the vcr to record a show over shabbat. That was a bit more dubious but was done. Good Shabbos From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 04:02:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:02:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org>, <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From: Micha Berger Sent: 27 April 2017 13:13 ... > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he > could speak to her; at least through a fence... > Bishloma according to the man da'amar she was an eishes ish, > shapir. > But according to the MdA she was penuyah -- mah kulei hai? ... > So what's the exchange saying? That it is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor > because of the consequent peritzus? Or that bishloma an eishes ish > would be YvAY, but a penyah, who isn't, why wouldn't the guy be > allowed to speak to her? Of note, that gemara is brought in Rambam Yesodei HaTorah in the context of acheiving cure for illness through hana'as issur. Meaning that it's not a halacha of gilui arayos per se, rather hana'as issur. He paskens it's assur even with a pnuya so that bnos yisrael won't be hefker. No mention of pgam mishpacha. (Parenthetically this seems to be an din of yeihareig v'al ya'avor midrabannon (so that bnos yisrael etc..). Any other such cases? I'd assumed YvAY is always d'oirasa, almost by definition) The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought. There is no suggestion that conversation in any normal situation is an issur hana'a per se, so therefore is not assur, certainly not Yeihareig V'al Yaavor. Therefore can't see how this gemara would be relevant to the army issue any more than the familiar dinim of r'eiyas einayim, kirva l'arayos etc which are no less relevant in the workplace and on the street. [Email #2. -micha] On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua. Nonetheless the whole gemara is still only relevant to a case of clear hana'as issur. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 07:57:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:57:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite In-Reply-To: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> References: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> Message-ID: <247ffd82-32aa-3bf1-c6ef-36c008a1a4a3@sero.name> On 28/04/17 01:03, via Avodah wrote: > Is leaving a laptop on all Shabbos with Carbonite uploading more like > [A] leaving your lights, fridge and air conditioning on all Shabbos > or [B] leaving a TV or radio on -- dubiously muttar, definitely not > Shabbosdik or [C] making your eved Canaani work for you all day Shabbos > -- a no-no or [D] giving your clothes to the Greek dressmaker to fix and > telling her you need them some time next week, and if she for her own > convenience decides to do the work on Shabbos, that's copacetic? It's A, shevisas keilim, which is a machlokes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. The halacha of course follows Beis Hillel, that we are not commanded on shevisas keiliim, so it's completely OK. The problem with B is hashma`as kol, which is a species of mar'is ho`ayin; passersby will hear the sound of work being done in your home and will suspect you, if not of actual chilul shabbos, then at least of amira lenochri. It is muttar if there are no Jews within a techum shabbos. C is of course completely out, mid'oraisa, even if the eved sets his own schedule. Avadim are obligated to keep Shabbos. D is amira lenochri, which is completely muttar mid'oraisa, but the chachamim forbade it lest you come to do melacha yourself. Thus it's muttar if the decision to do the work on Shabbos rather than during the week is completely up to the nochri. BTW you don't need to leave it to sometime next week; you can ask to have it ready when the shop opens on Sunday morning, and it's up to the cleaner whether to do it on Shabbos or to stay up all night motzei shabbos to get it done. It's only assur if there are literally not enough weekday hours between now and when you want it, so that the nochri *must* do some of it on Shabbos. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 07:27:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:27:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:14 PM 4/27/2017, R. Micha Berger wrote: >EY is nearly there WRT tefillin on ch"m, with only a few holdouts >like KAJ. This statement does not seem to be correct. See http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x Note the following from there. Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau?er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. and (I do not know what all of the ? stand for.) Here are a few names, a sampling of some past gedolim who wore tefillin on chol hamoed IN ERETZ YISROEL (either betzinoh or otherwise) ? Moreinu HaRav Schach, Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, Rav Michel Feinstein (eidem of the Brisker Rav), Pressburger Rav, and Rav Duschinsky, ????. The ???? ????? was in Eretz Yisroel. In his siddur Shaarei Shomayim, he has tefillin on chol hamoed. Rav Moshe Feinstein ???? writes in a teshuvoh that he knows of thousands of bnei Torah who put on tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel. ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????, ????? of Edah Charedis was heard also taking the position that someone whose minhog is to put on tefillin on chol hamoed cannot just suddenly drop it totally in Eretz Yisroel. The above and previous post is based on what I heard about this inyan ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????, ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????. I think there is an Oberlander minyan in Yerushlayim where they wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed as well, if I recall correctly. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 08:03:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:03:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7af7f734-f777-e833-2997-5d8daf3057af@sero.name> On 28/04/17 02:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos > : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not > : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day > : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a > : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most > : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But > : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the > : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. > Lo zakhisi lehavin. > > All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a > taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty. > > Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the > uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays > being of the form of an uncertainty. > > But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was > like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain > about the date. I think what he means is that even in their days, when most YT Sheni were safek d'oraisa, the 2nd day of Shavuos was a vadai d'rabanan pretending to be a safek d'oraisa. Nowadays that describes *all* YT Sheni (except the 2nd day of RH, which is a vadai d'rabanan not pretending to be anything else, because even in their days this was occasionally the case). So his explanation is merely historical, that what we have is not a new situation, because they had it on Shavuos. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 08:27:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:27:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is > the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the > case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which > we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the > Exodus. Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th day but on the 51st. So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the pseudo-Julian anniversary. Therefore I assume they did *not* say ZMT. In fact I assume they didn't say it even when it *did* fall on the 6th, since that was just a coincidence. Only when it was set to fall on the 6th every year did it take on a new nature as ZMT. This is all, however, on the assumption that we hold like the opinion that yetzias mitzrayim was on a Thursday. This is the basis of the entire sugya in Perek R Akiva Omer that we all know. But right at the end of that sugya, at the top of 88a a new source is suddenly cited, the Seder Olam, that YM was on a Friday, and the gemara seems to say "Aha! Forget everything we said till now, trying to reconcile the Rabbanan's opinion, now everything is simple: the Seder Olam follows the Rabbanan, YM was on a Friday, and MT was 50 days later on the 6th of Sivan, and the sources we've been working with, that say YM was on a Thursday, follow R Yossi, who says MT was on the 7th. So for years I've wondered why it is that we seem to ignore this source and continue to maintain that YM was on Thursday, even though it means accepting the strained explanations the gemara comes up with to reconcile them before it found the Seder Olam. If the SO was enough for the gemara to overthrow its earlier discussion, why isn't it enough for us? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 11:16:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:16:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: <24769a.1d3ee4d4.4634e11b@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> But the bottom line is the the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after Pesach. If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty about Shavuos. << Akiva Miller >>>> In the days when they kept two days Pesach because they didn't know when Rosh Chodesh had been, perhaps you can say that by the time Shavuos rolled around, the messengers had arrived to tell them when Rosh Chodesh Nissan (and therefore when Pesach) had been so by then they knew for sure when Shavuos was. But of course we still keep two days of Pesach until now, as we've been discussing, despite the fact that we no longer have a safeik about the date. So your statement, "If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty" is not really true or maybe is true but not relevant. After all, didn't you start counting Sefira on your [second] Seder Night? Was that not a stira -- counting sefira at the seder? After all, we're supposed to start counting "mimacharas haShabbos" -- the day AFTER yom tov, i.e., the first day of chol hamo'ed. So "fifty days after Pesach" turns out itself to be a slightly slippery concept. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 12:07:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:07:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent In-Reply-To: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> References: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Message-ID: I heard this from the late R Hershel Fogelman, of Worcester MA: The passuk says "ha'elef lecha Shelomo, umasayim lenotrim es piryo". What does this mean? The Gemara (Chulin 87a) says that the opportunity to say a bracha is worth ten golden coins. So we owe You, Melech Shehashalom Shelo, 1000 coins. But on Shabbos we are short 200. Who makes up these 200? Those who keep it with fruit. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 03:17:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 20:17:11 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: "Insufficiently baked" means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not get baked and it is already chometz. RMGR feels that this is a "much greater risk" than the risk of Gebrochts. I hope the following clarifies my argument that G is an utterly fake concern IF one is Choshesh that the baking has NOT reached the central part of the Matza as are Choshesh all those who do not eat G [bcs if it is properly baked then even if some flour remains bcs the dough was insufficiently kneaded that flour which has been baked CANNOT become Chamets] The problem is once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash that the central part of the Matza is not fully baked then never mind the problem of flour which will BECOME Chamets when it gets wet and given time WE HAVE A MUCH GREATER PROBLEM according to the Gebrochts-nicks argument we ALREADY HAVE CHAMETS in the Matza since the dough that is insufficiently baked is ALREADY Chamets -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 19:44:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:44:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently > kneaded, would any of the dry flour that went through > the oven be still capable of becoming chameitz if wet? > If the dough is now too baked to rise any further, > wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be > too toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5, > which discusses things not to do because "shema lo qulhu > yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is > that possible? What's the shiur of "qulhu yafeh"? Maybe roasting flour is more time-consuming than baking matzah? You want to say they're the same, but who knows? If we had a better handle on these things, our Pesach breakfasts could be farina or oatmeal made with chalita, but we have forgotten how to do that correctly. I have a friend who has been a Home Economics teacher at the local public high school for about 40 years. She likes to point out how different baking is from cooking. Cooking, she says, is about flavors, and you can put just about anything you like into a pot, cook it for a while, and it will be okay. "But baking is all about chemistry." You have to get the right ingredients in the right proportions at the right temperatures for the right time, or it will be a disaster. This distinction doesn't show up in Hilchos Shabbos, but it certainly does in Chometz UMatzah. Timing is key. I have no idea what the poskim say about varied situations of "shema lo qulhu yafeh", but it is very easy for me to imagine that if there is some dry flour inside the matza dough, the matza could be adequately baked while that flour is still not yet roasted enough to prevent later chimutz. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 04:10:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 21:10:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe Message-ID: R Micha points out RaMBaM does record the Halacha that we may not cook in water during Pesach toasted grains nor the flour ground from them because Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe perhaps they were not fully toasted and they may become Chamets one assumes this is because over-toasting the Camel grains ruins the taste and it was therefore far more likely that they were under-toasted than over-toasted Furthermore there is no test to apply to toasted grains as there is to baked Matza Matza is tested for being baked by tearing it apart and ensuring there are no doughy threads stretching between the torn pieces -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 19:17:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Acharei Mot Message-ID: Acharei Mot is the only Torah portion with the word ?death? in its title. The two words together are captivating: ACHAREI mot. In other words, we should be focusing on ?Acharei,? AFTER death. As depressing, difficult and mysterious as death is, we must not dwell on it. We must go on with our lives ?Acharei" AFTER. Life is eternal, and love is immortal, and death is only a horizon; and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight. Rossiter Worthington Raymond (April 27, 1840 in Cincinnati, Ohio ? December 31, 1918 in Brooklyn, New York) He was an American mining engineer, legal scholar and author. At his memorial, the President of Lehigh University described him as "one of the most remarkable cases of versatility that our country has ever seen?sailor, soldier, engineer, lawyer, orator, editor, poet, novelist, story-teller, biblical critic, theologian, teacher, chess-player?he was superior in each capacity. What he did, he always did well." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 20:58:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 05:58:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <77074713-e49c-4af3-1f69-39b611caa0e0@zahav.net.il> Read further down on the page: Your exceptions prove the rule. Sorry you are unfamiliar with minhagei eretz yisrael. They are esentially minhagei Hagra, brought here by the famous ?prushim? clan, and these minhagim have been accepted throughout Israel, with some exceptions.In Yerushalayim , they are accepted almost uniformly. The Tukotchinsky Luach for minhagim of the davening is a reflection of this and it is accepted by almost all. True, here and there, as your friend noted, there is a minyan that puts on tefillin. To each his own. But there are thousands of minyanim that don?t, and many of them do not hesitate to unceremoniously throw anyone out that dares put them on, even in the corner or in another room. I have seen this myself. Rav Schach?s custom, and certainly the Erlauer Rebbe indicate that the general custom is not to put on tefillin. None of the yeshivas, including Rav Schach?s yeshiva, adopted his minhag.None of the chassidim here do either except the relatively small numbered Erlauer. Ben On 4/28/2017 4:27 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > This statement does not seem to be correct. See http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x > > Note the following from there. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 20:53:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:53:56 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I had asked whether people had a view on the halachic propriety or otherwise of using a sous-vide machine over Shabbos and received no response. The sous-vide is a method of cooking which one might call very slow cooking. Bags with the food (e.g. meat) are places in a bucket or the like, and the machine is placed inside the bucket together with water which covers the plastic bag(s). It can take a really cheap cut of meat and make it tender and delicious. It?s buttons can be covered if someone is worried about Shehiya, I think the issue is Harmono. It can?t be both. One thing I noticed is that nobody seems to fiddle or touch the bags until the ?given time period?, and then one just pulls the plastic bags out. One can pre-program to turn the machine off, or it can continue keeping the water at the set temperature. There are various scenarios. Where the food is ready on Friday night. Where another bag of the food has a different texture is left till lunchtime on shabbos Where the meat is Mamash Raw (let alone not Maachol Ben Drusoi) on Erev Shabbos but will be good on Shabbos Where the concept of Mitztamek Veyofe Lo has nothing to do with Mitztamek, but rather a quantitative improvement that is still possible without it shrivelling The final issue is whether you say that since it might have had another 12 hours cooking and the temperature does not rise, that the meat is of a different VARIETY as opposed to quality. For example cooked versus roasted steak. Either way, here is a link to the only Tshuva I know of on this issue. I?m interested in reactions. There is a touch of Choddosh Ossur Min HaTorah from Rav Asher Weiss, but in the main, I can?t think of a reason why it?s not Hatmono. Disclaimer: I have not reviewed Hatmono for many years, and started to in dribs and drabs with the Aruch HaShulchan. This is the link to the Tshuva http://preview.tinyurl.com/kvxswnp or http://tinyurl.com/kvxswnp I spoke to Mori V?Rabbi Rav Schachter about it, and interchanged with his son Rabbi Shay, but they haven?t managed to show him the device and he won?t pasken until he has seen it (of course). "It is only the anticipation of redemption that preserves Judaism in Exile, while Judaism in the Land of Israel is the redemption itself." ______________________ Rabbi A.I. Hacohen Kook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 06:34:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:34:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >: The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos >: Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not >: differentiate between holidays... > All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaint[y]... > But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was > like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain > about the date. The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about second day of Yom Tov apply. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 09:48:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:48:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170430164805.GA11800@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 04:34:17PM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: : The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made : b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about second day of : Yom Tov apply. I know. That's my question. He says YT sheini of Shavuos was mishum lo pelug. So, if it's really lo pelug, then how/why would it be different in form than YT Sheini Sukkos, Shemini Atzeres or Pesach (x 2)? If it's lo pelug, then the usual qulos of pretending we're dealing with the old-time safeiq should apply -- or else, there is a pelug. No? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 09:57:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:57:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:02:29AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he : > could speak to her; at least through a fence... ... : The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone : who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as : issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought. ... : [Email #2. -micha] : : On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar : pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned : with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as : arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua. Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy for letting his taavos get so worked up. I see a slight conflict in your answers. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 11:05:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:05:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From AudioRoundup at Torah Musings: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/864540/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-sous-vide-cooking-for-shabbos-(and-through-shabbos)/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-From The Rabbi?s Desk ? Sous Vide Cooking For Shabbos (and Through Shabbos) Sous vide cooking (another thing we?ve lived without but now sounds like it will be the next sushi). If you do it for, or over Shabbat, is there an issue of hatmana or shehiya? FWIW the hashkafa at the end of R?Asher Weiss?s tshuva is well worth thinking about ? we seem to live in an age where any sacrifice is difficult. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 13:50:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> , <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I didn't think I was giving two answers, just clarifying further. So, let's work through it again. I must admit I have looked at neither Rishonim (except Rambam) nor achronim. But here goes: The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of YaVY. The gemara then says that this works fine for an eishes ish, The first question should be why that's obvious? Since when is conversation with an eishes ish YvAY? We answered that by saying, al pi Rambam, that the point of the gemara is to clarify how far we apply YvAY to hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation carries the din YvAY. That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. However, the bottom line for our original reason for analysing this gemara remains that it's not part of the cheshbon governing any standard interactions in which any ben Torah might participate, as it only applies to someone sick enough to have inevitable sexual hana'a from a conversation. R Micha's two correspondents can feel free to challange that whether off or on list. BW Ben Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy for letting his taavos get so worked up. I see a slight conflict in your answers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:22:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:45:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy : ... : OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the : rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very : clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz.... : : So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? I think the "out" is the clause "sheyeish lanu ba'alus alava". So, chameitz that you didn't have baalus on, but was delivered on Pesach wouldn't be included. (And would be a davar shelo ba le'olam, even if you did try to include it.) No, that doesn't cover things you owned since before Pesach and were unware "delo chazisei" that you only found on Pesach. OTOH, wasn't that stuff already mevutal anyway? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:30:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430173012.GB27111@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are :> indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs :> and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. :> And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification :> with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than :> identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos :> as self-identifications. : That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the : MB and AhS were on. : By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they : putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, : ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on : identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? ... I don't see how they are. If someone says there should be a single pesaq for a location and the shul could be consistent is talking about unity. Not about whether our community's minhagim are better or worse than those of another community -- they aren't present to suggest we're comparing. I was contrasting two different motives for breaking that unity: The first archetype is the one who does so because he takes more self-identity from his Litvisher (eg) ancestry than in being in part of the observant community, or Jewish community in general. The second is the one who is motivated by the logic of the pesaq or the hashkafah payoff. Such as someone who is "into" qabbalah for whom "qotzeitz bintiyos" means something and motivates not feeling happy in tefillin on ch"m. I was suggesting that lo sisgodedu only rules out the first motivation, not the second. But the acharon who promotes everyone following one practice isn't a question of whether their motivation is more important than lo sisgodedu to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:30:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430173012.GB27111@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are :> indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs :> and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. :> And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification :> with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than :> identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos :> as self-identifications. : That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the : MB and AhS were on. : By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they : putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, : ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on : identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? ... I don't see how they are. If someone says there should be a single pesaq for a location and the shul could be consistent is talking about unity. Not about whether our community's minhagim are better or worse than those of another community -- they aren't present to suggest we're comparing. I was contrasting two different motives for breaking that unity: The first archetype is the one who does so because he takes more self-identity from his Litvisher (eg) ancestry than in being in part of the observant community, or Jewish community in general. The second is the one who is motivated by the logic of the pesaq or the hashkafah payoff. Such as someone who is "into" qabbalah for whom "qotzeitz bintiyos" means something and motivates not feeling happy in tefillin on ch"m. I was suggesting that lo sisgodedu only rules out the first motivation, not the second. But the acharon who promotes everyone following one practice isn't a question of whether their motivation is more important than lo sisgodedu to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:08:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:08:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430170851.GD19139@aishdas.org> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 08:17:11PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The problem is : once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash : that the central part of the Matza : is not fully baked : then never mind the problem of flour : which will BECOME Chamets : when it gets wet ... Again, if gebrochts were about the middle not being baked, it would be worries about chameitz whether or not the matzah later gets in contact with water. It's about flour that didn't become kneaded. As the SA haRav states, the Besht ate gebrochts because in his day the 1 mil timer was stopped for kneading. We came up with this chumerah of trying to fit everything, including the kneading in the time limit. Which caused us to start rushing the kneading. (Yet, the Alter Rebbe of Lub lauded this new chumerah, despite it coming with new risks.) And so he justified chassidim of his generation following a new hanhagah that the Besht did not. (We discuss this teshuvah annually.) The question I asked is based on the fact that toasted flour doesn't become chameitz. And by simple physics, we expect that if dough, a huge lump, can bake through, then of course we would have completed the toasting of the same chemicals present in fine powder form, like any dry unkneaded flour within the dough. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 17:49:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 10:49:28 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <384BCE1C-0255-4CD6-9547-033963F2DA9C@gmail.com> Rich, Joel wrote: > > > From AudioRoundup at Torah Musings: > http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/864540/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-sous-vide-cooking-for-shabbos-(and-through-shabbos)/ > Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-From The Rabbi?s Desk ? Sous Vide Cooking For Shabbos (and Through Shabbos) > Sous vide cooking (another thing we?ve lived without but now sounds like it will be the next sushi). If you do it for, or over Shabbat, is there an issue of hatmana or shehiya? > > > FWIW the hashkafa at the end of R?Asher Weiss?s tshuva is well worth thinking about ? we seem to live in an age where any sacrifice is difficult. > > KT > Joel Rich R Joel, yes indeed. I got the Tshuva from R Aryeh :-) The other question is why does Halacha entail sacrifice. IF it's halachically sound it may be a hiddur! I know we have it on Tuesdays and everyone loves it. It is a superior form of cooking. If it's NOT Hatmono then why (if one has the implement) would one not use it. I find that a Hungarian Posek approach in general. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 17:34:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:34:13 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on Monday besides Hallel on tues Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 08:39:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 08:39:29 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> References: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <138374BA-01AB-4BF3-8554-304B33684B81@gmail.com> Young Israel century city holds both kulot. No tachanun Monday. Hallel Tues. Curious how most chul shuls do it. .I expect most follow israel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 09:51:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 18:51:40 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/1/2017 2:34 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on > Monday besides Hallel on tues Mine didn't and that was my experience in other shuls as well. The Tfilion app doesn't have Tachanun (but does have an added chapter of Tehillim for the fallen). Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 06:15:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:15:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> On Monday, May 1, 2017 6:02 AM, saul newman wrote: > Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on > Monday besides Hallel on tues Rav Ahron considered Hey Iyar to be Yom Ha'atzmaut and the day that Hallel (without a Bracha) is said and Tachanun is not said -- regardless of when Israel celebrates it (for whatever reason it may be delayed). I (and Yeshivas Brisk) did not say Tachanun at Mincha yesterday (Erev Yom Tov) nor today at Shacharis... nor will I say it at Mincha. I will say it tomorrow. HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 10:23:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:23:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Last year, in http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n055.shtml#10 , RHM gave R' Aharon Soloveitchik's shitah. Much like this year, although last iteration he added: One can review the Halachic sources RAS used in his book 'Logic of the heart, Logic of the Mind'. I responded in the post right below it, quoting RGS, http://www.torahmusings.com/technology-halakhic-change-yom-ha-atzmaut , who in turn was commenting on R/Dr Aaron Levin of Flatbush's evolving practice: In America, where the celebrations can be more easily controlled to avoid the desecration of Shabbos, many authorities did not recognize the change of date, among them Rav Ahron Soloveichik and Rav Hershel Schachter. They insisted that people recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar -- the day of the miracle of the declaration of the State of Israel -- regardless of when Israelis celebrate the day. Rav Aaron Levine's son, Rav Efraim Levine, told me that his father had to change his position on this question over time. Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a community to determine its own date to celebrate. To which I added: RAS might have decided similarly or not had he lived to see the day when the primary intercontinental communication was the telephone, not the aerogram. We can't know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 11:59:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 20:59:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: For Hebrew readers, Rav Yoni Rosensweig sums up Rav Rabinovitch's position on the matter: https://www.facebook.com/yonirosensweig/posts/1761639697197955 Bottom line: Moving Yom Aztmaout doesn't entirely remove the uniqueness of the day. While he does state that the rabbinate holds that one skips Tachanun only on the day Yom Aztmaout is celebrated, RYR doesn't accept that psak. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 12:35:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 15:35:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> On a lighter, more aggadic note, my father suggested that the existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to minimize chilul Shabbos is the very thing a Religious Zionist would be celebrating on Yom haAtzmaaut. Which reminds me of something Rav Dovid Lifshitz said about Yom haAtzma'ut. Rebbe said that Atzma'ut is something special, and certainly worth celebrating. But for now YhA is only half a holiday. We established the atzma'ut of Yisrael, but are still missing its etzem. To rephrase into my father's words: It is worthwhile to celebrate the existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to minimize chilul Shabbos, but what we pray for is the existence of a country that wouldn't have to! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 14:42:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 23:42:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the reading is pushed off until Sunday. Ben On 5/1/2017 9:35 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > It is worthwhile to celebrate the > existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to > minimize chilul Shabbos, but what we pray for is the existence of a > country that wouldn't have to! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 17:38:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 20:38:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:42:18PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the : reading is pushed off until Sunday. Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 22:29:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 07:29:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> Message-ID: 1) It is part of a package deal, the first part of which can fall on Shabbat. 2) When we go back to setting the month based on witnesses, it could fall on Shabbat. Ben On 5/2/2017 2:38 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. > > -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 23:12:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 09:12:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:42:18PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: > : It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the > : reading is pushed off until Sunday. > > Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. > 5 Iyyar certainly can fall out on Shabbat, and as it happens it doe so in exactly the same years when there is Shushan Purim Meshulash: Adar has 29 days and Nisan 30, so from 15 Adar to 5 Iyyar is 29 + 30 - 10 = 49 days or exactly 7 weeks. In other words, Shushan Purim and Yom Ha`Atzmaut (when not postponed or advanced) are always on the same day of the week. This last happened nine years ago in 5768 and will happen again in 5781 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 21:39:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 14:39:34 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Looking Jewish Message-ID: Gemara AZara 58a - R Yochanan b Arza and R Yosiy b Nehuroi, were drinking wine - they requested someone nearby to fix their drinks. After he fulfilled their request they realised he was not Jewish. May they drink the wine, is the Gemara's Q. But how could they make such a mistake? And how might the wine be permitted? the Gemarah 58b explains it was clear to the G that the Sages were Jewish, it was also clear that he thought that they knew he was not Jewish, and it was also clear that he as a non-J knew that if he handled the wine, they wold not be permitted to drink it So he thought - they MUST be drinking mead [which he may handle and mix for them] so even though he was actually handling wine, thinking it was mead, he would not make his usual pagan worship and so it did not become disqualified. So here is the tough part HE was CERTAIN they knew he was not J [that's why he was certain that they were drinking mead and not wine] however the truth was they DID IN FACT THINK he was J [and that is why they did invite him to fix their wine drinks] could this happen today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 04:48:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 07:48:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Ha'atzmaut Message-ID: <3866CC37-90C9-4337-8257-616B6EB01940@cox.net> The story is told of the Chafetz Chayim, zt"l, that he asked one of his visitors who had come from a great distance, "How are you?? which in Yiddish is, "Vos makhst du," literally, "What do you do?" So in answer to this inquiry, the visitor replied, "Thank God, I have a thriving business, I have no financial problems, I have a beautiful home with a swimming pool,? etc. etc. The Chafetz Chayim repeated, "Vos makhst du?" and the visitor, a bit confused as to why the question was repeated, gave the same reply. So for the third time, the same question was asked of the visitor, at which point the visitor looked at the saint and he said: ?I don?t understand why you asked me three times 'How I am.? I told you that thank God, I have a thriving business, a lot of money, a beautiful home, etc.? The Chafetz Chayim replied: ?You don?t understand. You told me what GOD is doing for YOU, but I asked, 'What are YOU doing?' I therefore repeat: 'Vos makhst du?'" How does this apply to Israel Independence Day? We know what Israel has done for US. The question remains: What are we doing for Israel, and what are we doing for each other? May we become ?Independent" enough to help others who "depend" on us. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 11:50:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Avram Sacks via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 13:50:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Cong Or Torah in Skokie said tachanun at shacharit, but not at mincha on erev Yom Ha-Atzmaut. On YhA, at ma'ariv we added additional tehillim at the end of davening, as found in the Koren siddur for Yom HaAtzmaut. At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. Kol tuv, Avi Avram Sacks From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 13:16:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 16:16:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Looking Jewish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170502201609.GB17585@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:39:34PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Gemara AZara 58a ... : the Gemarah 58b explains ... : So he thought - they MUST be drinking mead : [which he may handle and mix for them] : so even though he was actually handling wine, : thinking it was mead, he would not make his usual pagan worship : and so it did not become disqualified. ... : could this happen today? Their wine was this thick syrup that required dilution (mezigas hakos) to be drinkable. They also often had to add spices and/or honey to make it palatable. Inomlin / yinomlin (spelled with a leading alef or yud, depending on girsa; Shabbos 20:2, AZ 30a) was wine mixed with honey and pepper (Shabbos 140a). So, if the grapes were particularly sour, and more honey was added, perhaps it wasn't that easy to determine that it was wine (enomlin) and not meade. A problem 2 millenia of vintners eliminated through breeding better grapes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 14:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 17:20:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5908F811.8040504@aishdas.org> Beautiful sentiments, to be sure, but 100% emotional and 0% halachic. Was there live music on 6 Iyar? KT, YGB On 5/2/2017 2:50 PM, Avram Sacks via Avodah wrote: > Cong Or Torah in Skokie said tachanun at shacharit, but not at mincha > on erev Yom Ha-Atzmaut. On YhA, at ma'ariv we added additional > tehillim at the end of davening, as found in the Koren siddur for Yom > HaAtzmaut. At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel > (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and > ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it > is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet > observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in > Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added > that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about > those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA > on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 15:17:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 18:17:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akrasia and Ritual Message-ID: <20170502221754.GA25834@aishdas.org> Akrasia is a classical Greek term for why we so often don't do what we believe. In more mesoretic terms -- the problem of akrasia is the question of "what is the yeitzer hara?" In http://www.thebookoflife.org/akrasia-or-why-we-dont-do-what-we-believe there is an interesting piece on how ritual helps solve akrasia. It might help one's qabbalas ol mitzvos: ... There are two central solutions to akrasia, located in two unexpected quarters: in art and in ritual. The real purpose of art... (Fans of RAYK or Dr Nathan Birnbaum might want to read the part I'm skipping here.) Ritual is the second defence we have against akrasia. By ritual, one means the structured, often highly seductive or aesthetic, repetition of a thought or an action, with a view to making it at once convincing and habitual. Ritual rejects the notion that it can ever be sufficient to teach anything important once - an optimistic delusion which the modern education system has been fatefully marked by. Once might be enough to get us to admit an idea is right, but it won't be anything like enough to convince us it should be acted upon. Our brains are leaky, and under-pressure of any kind, they will readily revert to customary patterns of thought and feeling. Ritual trains our cognitive muscles, it makes a sequence of appointments in our diaries to refresh our acquaintance with our most important ideas. Our current culture tends to see ritual mainly as an antiquated infringement of individual freedom, a bossy command to turn our thoughts in particular directions at specific times. But the defenders of ritual would see it another way: we aren't being told to think of something we don't agree with, we are being returned with grace to what we always believed in at heart. We are being tugged by a collective force back to a more loyal and authentic version of ourselves. The greatest human institutions to have tried to address the problem of akrasia have been religions. Religions have wanted to do something much more serious than simply promote abstract ideas, they have wanted to get people to behave in line with those ideas, a very different thing. They didn't just want people to think kindness or forgiveness were nice (which generally we do already); they wanted us to be kind or forgiving most days of the year. That meant inventing a host of ingenious mechanisms for mobilising the will, which is why across much of the world, the finest art and buildings, the most seductive music, the most impressive and moving rituals have all been religious. Religion is a vast machine for addressing the problem of akrasia. This has presented a big conundrum for a more secular era. Bad secularisation has lumped religious superstition and religion's anti-akrasia strategies together. It has rejected both the supernatural ideas of the faiths and their wiser attitudes to the motivational roles of art and ritual. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 21:48:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 06:48:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0a07acaa-4c79-5eb5-b387-1887573b3cd1@zahav.net.il> There is an oversimplification here, that the issue is the secular. Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed off even if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash. Getting the country ready for these days means hundreds, thousands of people have to be in place. This includes soldiers, policemen, etc who are 100% dati. Holding these events on a date that would force these people to work on Shabbat is simply a non-starter and everyone understands that point. I have to add the following: My dream is that people will come to understand how wrong it is to make people (including dati'im) work on Shabbat when Lag B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate steps. Ben On 5/2/2017 8:50 PM, Avram Sacks wrote: > He added that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 21:30:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 21:30:06 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] nidche Message-ID: since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on thurs, does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded this way already in the 50's? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 06:38:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 16:38:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:30 AM, saul newman via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on thurs, > does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded this way > already in the 50's? > To be precise, they are only nidche if Pesah starts on Tuesday, like this year. If it starts on Shabbat or Sunday they are brought forward to Wednesday & Thursday. If my memory is accurate, the bringing forward has always been in practice, but the postponement from Sunday-Monday to Monday-Tuesday was introduced later, within the last 10 or 20 years. When I was first in Israel in the 1980s, YHA was still sometimes observed on a Monday. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 06:06:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 09:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> On 5/3/2017 12:30 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on > thurs, does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded > this way already in the 50's? It was instituted during the tenure of Rabbis Amar and Metzger. [Email #2. -micha] On 5/3/2017 12:48 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > There is an oversimplification here, that the issue is the secular. > Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed off even > if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash... > I have to add the following: My dream is that people will come to > understand how wrong it is to make people (including dati'im) work on > Shabbat when Lag B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate > steps. That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to 5 Iyar. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 14:34:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 17:34:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5a7c4dde-aeda-0d6e-0a6f-3824d06a66da@sero.name> On 03/05/17 09:06, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is > no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- > certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically > viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to > 5 Iyar. Why can't a religious holiday be defined by the day of the week, like Shabbos Hagodol and Behab? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 16:28:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 19:28:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: R' Micha Berger reposted from elsewhere: > Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this > subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on > the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his > position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, > Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut > celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with > perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a > community to determine its own date to celebrate. Why should telecommunications affect the day that my community says Hallel? Should we all start reading Megilas Esther on 15 Adar? R' Ben Waxman wrote: > Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed > off even if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash. Maybe not as unique as it seems. Isn't there a gezera against Motzaei Shabbos weddings for exactly this same reason - because of the likelihood that the preparations would begin on Shabbos? RBW also wrote: > My dream is that people will come to understand how wrong it > is to make people (including dati'im) work on Shabbat when Lag > B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate steps. Amen!! Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 20:43:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 05:43:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: Someone pointed out to me off line that the reading is on Friday, Al HaNissim on Shabbat, and Seuda/Matanot is on Sunday. Ben On 5/1/2017 11:42 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the reading > is pushed off until Sunday. > > Ben > > \ > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 21:26:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 14:26:20 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: <26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com> Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can never fall on a Thursday. Under the current arrangements, it cannot fall on a Monday, so those who fast on BeHaB and also wish to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzma?ut no longer need to be concerned. In Hilchot Yom Ha-Atzma?ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim (ed Nahum Rakover, 1973), there is an article by Rabbi Meir Kaplan which discusses what to do when the two did coincide. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 21:29:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 07:29:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Avram Sacks via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel > (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and > ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it > is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet > observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in > Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added > that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about > those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA > on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. ?Since the issue here is tachanun, hallel and suspending sefira restrictions, I fail to follow his logic. We are being asked to not say tachanun on the same day as the not-yet-observant?, on 6th Iyar. But why the 6th any more than the 5th. We should say hallel on the 6th, the same day as the not-yet-observant. Hardly. Sefira restrictions are suspended on the 6th like the not-yet-observant? If the entire sentiment is when we should have ceremonies to mark the significance of the State, you could that any day, or every day, as often as you like. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 22:11:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:11:39 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Nidche In-Reply-To: 26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com References: 26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: <8ff4cb3fb9929c8cf4af49714131daf8@mail.gmail.com> I wrote in haste. Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can fall on a Friday (as it does next year), in which case it is brought forward a day. David Havin *From:* David Havin [mailto:djhavin at djhavin.com] *Sent:* Thursday, 4 May 2017 2:26 PM *To:* Avodah *Subject:* Nidche Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can never fall on a Thursday. Under the current arrangements, it cannot fall on a Monday, so those who fast on BeHaB and also wish to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzma?ut no longer need to be concerned. In Hilchot Yom Ha-Atzma?ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim (ed Nahum Rakover, 1973), there is an article by Rabbi Meir Kaplan which discusses what to do when the two did coincide. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 07:53:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 10:53:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [From an Areivim discussion of how to be safe from house fires on Friday night.... -micha] On 03/05/17 18:26, Akiva Miller via Areivim wrote: > When eating the evening seudah elsewhere than where you're sleeping, > consider lighting at the seudah location, so that they won't be > unattended. My mitzvah is to light my own home, not someone else's. I know women have the custom of saying a bracha when lighting in someone else's home, but I'm not sure on what basis they do so. It seems to me they're not fulfilling their own mitzvah but rather helping their hostess with her mitzvah, just like helping someone else with his bedikas chametz. In that case (as opposed to doing the whole thing as his agent) one is supposed to hear his bracha, not make ones own, so why is this different? Thus it seems to me that this falls into the category of minhagei nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked, but the women have their own traditions and are not asking. But I don't see a basis for men, who don't have those traditions, to follow them. Yes, we are required to follow "toras imecha", but it seems to me that this means those things that women have traditionally taught their sons, not those that they have traditionally only taught their daughters. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 08:52:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:52:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <54B1C0DF-2CD4-49B5-92A0-AC29B878E3F2@sibson.com> The psak I receive many years ago is that you light where you sleep. One concern was to make sure the candles would run long enough so they were still burning when you came home so you could get benefit from them Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 13:50:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 20:50:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Tatoo Taboo and Permanent Make-Up Too Message-ID: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/ken8l8y There is a widespread myth, especially among secular American Jews, that a Jew with a tattoo may not be buried in a Jewish cemetery[1]. This prevalent belief, whose origin possibly lies with Jewish Bubbies wanting to ensure that their grandchildren did not stray too far from the proper path, is truly nothing more than a common misconception with absolutely no basis in Jewish law. Jewish burial is not dependent on whether or not one violated Torah law, and tattooing is no different in this matter than any other Biblical prohibition. Please see the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 15:13:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 18:13:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Tatoo Taboo and Permanent Make-Up Too In-Reply-To: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> References: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <72ddedb9-4172-c476-3fe6-acbb37a1e577@sero.name> > Jewish burial is not dependent on whether or not one violated Torah law, There are cemeteries, or sections within them, where only observant Jews can be buried, in line with the halacha that one may not bury a rasha next to a tzadik. But a person who qualified for burial there would not be rejected for having a tattoo, since it would be assumed that he had long ago repented. (The sin is *getting* the tattoo, not *having* it; once it's been done there's no obligation to remove it.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 20:54:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 21:54:36 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> On May 3, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is > no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- > certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically > viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to > 5 Iyar. My gut is with you on this. But then we do need to at least address the precedent of Purim. We don?t say Hallel, but we say a bracha on the Megillah. And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid chillul Shabbos. Now there are some important differences. For one thing, Purim seemed to be a concern of ignorance, not secularity. But it does seem to establish the precedent that it can be done. Whether it should be done is a different question. Following the precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off until Sunday, but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. Yom HaZikaron could be pushed earlier. ? Daniel Israel Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center of Santa Fe, President daniel at kolberamah.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 21:00:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 22:00:22 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> On Apr 30, 2017, at 11:22 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:45:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy > : OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the > : rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very > : clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz.... > : > : So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? > > I think the "out" is the clause "sheyeish lanu ba'alus alava". So, > chameitz that you didn't have baalus on, but was delivered on Pesach > wouldn't be included. (And would be a davar shelo ba le'olam, even if > you did try to include it.) I have been bothered by this same question for many years, and mentioned to my Rav over Pesach. It was his impression that contracts in EY more commonly did not use loshen including unmarked/unknown chametz. I think that is common in the US. I suggested that it is motivated by a desire to protect against the case of accidentally consuming chometz sh?evar alav haPesach where the person completely lost track and by the time he ate it, he didn?t remember he sold it. But it does seem that burning it would depend on how the contract was written. And I would take it a step further and point out that if it was sold, there is a serious geneivah issue. > No, that doesn't cover things you owned since before Pesach and were > unware "delo chazisei" that you only found on Pesach. > > OTOH, wasn't that stuff already mevutal anyway? Can I burn something that was hefker without acquiring it? If I declare something hefker (I?m not sure the legal implication of batel), and then I burn it, wouldn?t that imply I?m koneh it? Which makes things much worse. ? Daniel Israel Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center of Santa Fe, President daniel at kolberamah.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:08:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:08:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: On 04/05/17 23:54, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > . And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid chillul > Shabbos. The megillah only goes back, never forward. > Following the precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off > until Sunday, but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. The precedent of Purim is to pull it back to Friday *or Thursday*. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:40:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:40:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: 5 Iyar can also be on Shabbos (as it will in 2021), and its commemoration is pushed back two days, to Thursday. Nonetheless, that Thursday can never be a part of BeHaB, since the fasts begin on the Monday after the first Shabbos following Rosh Chodesh Iyar, and the preceding Shabbos is either the 28th or 29th of Nissan. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 6 12:32:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 21:32:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <04a24079-f3e7-a7e9-d195-3dac00552ebe@zahav.net.il> Yom HaZikaron and Yom Azmaut are an inseparable pair. There have been call to break the connection (to make it easier for the bereaved families to celebrate YA) but so far no one is willing to do so. Ben On 5/5/2017 5:54 AM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > Yom HaZikaron could be pushed earlier. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 21:20:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 00:20:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> On 5/4/2017 11:54 PM, Daniel Israel wrote: > On May 3, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: >> That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is >> no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- >> certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically >> viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to >> 5 Iyar. > My gut is with you on this. But then we do need to at least address > the precedent of Purim. We don?t say Hallel, but we say a bracha on > the Megillah. And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid > chillul Shabbos.... > Whether it should be done is a different question. Following the > precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off until Sunday, > but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. Yom HaZikaron could > be pushed earlier. On Purim Meshulash, the Al HaNisim remains on Shabbos, and the Megillah with the bracha is relocated to the day everyone else is celebrating. Moreover, there is no clash between simcha on 16 Adar and some pre-existing minhag to diminish simcha. Those are some of the differences. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:01:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 18:01:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: Discussion of chametz ?received? during Pesach can be listened to here: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/877269/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-girls-scout-cookies/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -From The Rabbi's Desk - Girls Scout Cookies KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 6 22:53:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 07 May 2017 07:53:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives today, certainly not in any practical manner. More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber). Ben On 5/5/2017 6:20 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > On Purim Meshulash, the Al HaNisim remains on Shabbos, and the Megillah > with the bracha is relocated to the day everyone else is celebrating. > Moreover, there is no clash between simcha on 16 Adar and some > pre-existing minhag to diminish simcha. Those are some of the differences. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 07:26:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 10:26:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Haircuts when Lag Baomer is on Sunday Message-ID: Rama 493:2 writes: "When [Lag Baomer] falls on Sunday, the practice is [nohagin] to get haircuts on Friday l'kavod Shabbos." What makes this Friday different from all other Fridays of sefira? If Kavod Shabbos is ample justification to get a haircut on Omer 31 (which is in the aveilus days by all reckonings), then it ought to justify a haircut on Omer 24 (the previous Friday) also, shouldn't it? But I have never heard of anyone allowing a haircut on Omer 24 simply because it is Erev Shabbos, so there must be an additional factor at work. For many years, I presumed the logic to be as follows: If a person would need a haircut on Friday Omer 31, or on Friday Omer 24, and fail to get that haircut, then he has failed to do Kavod Shabbos, but he did it by inaction. He did it in a "shev v'al taaseh" manner, and it is quite common for halacha to suspend an Aseh with a Shev V'Al Taaseh. (Compare skipping this haircut to skipping Shofar on Shabbos.) HOWEVER - If a person would go out of his way ("kum v'aseh") and actually get a haircut on Sunday, that is intolerable. To have been disheveled on Shabbos (even if justifiably), and then suddenly be all fancied up the very next day, that is an insult to Shabbos, and we cannot allow Shabbos to be insulted in that manner. So when the Rama writes that we allow the haircuts "for kavod Shabbos", what he actually means is that we allow the haircuts "to avoid insulting Shabbos." And this is what makes this weekend of Sefiras Haomer different from all the others: On the other Sundays of Sefira, no one is getting a haircut anyway, so the whole question doesn't exist. But in this year, on this particular weekend, we do have this problem. The Rabbis *could* have chosen to protect the kavod of Shabbos by forbidding us to get haircuts when Lag Baomer is on Sunday, but instead they chose to protect the kavod of Shabbos by allowing us to get haircuts when Omer 31 is on Friday. Or so I thought for many years. But I have questions on this logic. According to what I have written, getting a haircut on Sunday is a bad idea - no matter what time of year it is. Yet I don't recall ever hearing anyone advise against it. In particular, when this situation of a Sunday Lag Baomer occurs, I have often hear people cite this Rama as granting permission to get their haircut on Friday. But in actuality, shouldn't it be less of a permission, and more of a *recommendation*? When a person asks the question, shouldn't the answer be, "Yes, you can get the haircut on Friday, and that's even better than waiting for Sunday." But I have not heard anyone suggest this. That's about as far as I was going to write, but then I went to the seforim to make sure I understood the Rama correctly. Indeed, his phrasing, "nohagin to get haircuts on Friday l'kavod Shabbos", could easily be understood to mean DAVKA on Friday rather than Sunday. But although it *could* be understood that way, I don't remember anyone actually doing do. And then I came across Kaf Hachayim 493:33, who writes that the Levush held differently than the Rama in this situation: > The Levush writes that if the 33rd is on a Sunday when the > non-Jews are not barbering because of their holiday, *that's* > when you can get a haircut on Friday. Meaning that in a place > where you *can* get a haircut on Sunday, then you should *not* > get the haircut on Friday. But from the words of the Rama, who > writes "l'kavod Shabbos", he means to allow it in any case. > And Elya Raba #9 writes the same thing about this Levush, that > the Rama allows it l'kavod Shabbos in either case. To rephrase: If one has a choice between getting his haircut on Friday or Sunday, then the Levush gives precedence to the minhagim of aveilus during Sefira, and requires us to wait until Sunday for the haircut, and *not* get the haircut on Friday Omer 31. The idea of suddenly showing up with a haircut on Sunday does not (seem to) bother the Levush, and this is totally consistent with the lack of anyone ever being told to avoid Sunday haircuts the rest of the year. But the Kaf Hachayim (with support from Elya Raba) rejects the approach of the Levush. He seems to accept the word of the Rama, plain and simple, that we can get haircuts on Friday Omer 31 because it is l'kavod Shabbos. And, according to Rama, this applies whether the barbershops are open on Sunday or not. Even if one has the option of waiting until Lag Baomer, he can "violate" the aveilus of Sefira on Omer 31, because the haircut is l'kavod Shabbos. This leaves me stuck with my original question: If Kavod Shabbos is ample justification to get a haircut on Omer 31, then it ought to justify a haircut on Omer 24 also, shouldn't it? Obviously no, but why? with many thanks in advance for your thoughts, Akiva Miller PS: The Levush is not totally machmir; he does allow leniency, but only in the case of where Lag Baomer is on Sunday, AND the barbers are closed on that day. Only in such a case does he allow a haircut on Omer 31. I have to wonder why he would allow that exception, rather than disallowing it entirely. Here's my guess: The Levush was aware of poskim who allowed haircuts on Friday Omer 31, but he felt this to be an improper violation of the aveilus, and paskened that people should wait for Sunday Lag Baomer. But if the barbers would be closed, that means people would have to wait another two weeks for their haircuts, in which case he allowed the leniency. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 03:46:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 13:46:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: No, I'm pretty sure it was the 50th day. The first day after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the first day of the Omer. The 49th day after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the 49th day of the Omer. Shavuot is thus the 50th day after our leaving Egypt. On 4/28/2017 6:27 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >> I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is >> the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the >> case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which >> we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the >> Exodus. > > Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th > day but on the 51st. So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th > of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the > pseudo-Julian anniversary. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 06:38:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 09:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: On 07/05/17 06:46, Lisa Liel wrote: > No, I'm pretty sure it was the 50th day. The first day after our > leaving Egypt corresponds to the first day of the Omer. The 49th day > after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the 49th day of the Omer. > Shavuot is thus the 50th day after our leaving Egypt. Everyone seems to assume we left on a Thursday. The first day after we left was a Friday, so the 49th day was a Thursday. Mattan Torah was definitely on a Shabbat, thus the 51st day. There's no way out of that, unless we adopt the Seder Olam's view that the gemara suddenly springs on us at the end of the sugya that we left on a Friday. Then it all works perfectly, and as I read the gemara that seems to be the conclusion, but I've never seen any later source even deal with this view; everyone who mentions the day of the week on which we left Egypt takes for granted (as the gemara did for most of the sugya) that it was a Thursday. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 03:51:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 06:51:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minhagei Nashim Message-ID: In a thread about Ner Shabbos, R' Zev Sero wrote: > Thus it seems to me that this falls into the category of minhagei > nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked, > but the women have their own traditions and are not asking. But I > don't see a basis for men, who don't have those traditions, to > follow them. Yes, we are required to follow "toras imecha", but > it seems to me that this means those things that women have > traditionally taught their sons, not those that they have > traditionally only taught their daughters. That's an interesting way to classify things. I suppose it makes sense in the context of Ner Shabbos, which a mother would certainly teach to her daughters, but probably not to her sons. In this system, I suppose she would also teach Kitchen Kashrus only to her daughters, but Brachos to all her kids equally. Please consider the following scenario. I suppose it could happen even today, but it might be easier to imagine if you place it during the many centuries when there was no schooling for girls... A wife is preparing some food for dinner. She notices something unusual. Maybe it has something to do with meat and dairy, or maybe it has something to do with the just-shechted chicken she's kashering. Anyway, she concludes - based on what her mother (and both grandmothers and all her aunts) taught her - it's not a problem. Her husband happens to walk in, sees the same thing, and points out that it is a very clear black-and-white halacha that this food is assur. One could say that this sort of thing happens very rarely, because the men tend to stay out of the kitchen. But if you ask me, that only proves that the couple is unaware of the problem. It probably happened quite often, but no one noticed because the husband wasn't around. How could this *not* be a frequent occurrence? The men are busy learning, and the information never reaches the women. I concede that if a woman is unsure, she will ask, and some halachos will filter over to her side. But if she is *not* unsure, she could be blissfully unaware that her imahos have had a tradition for many generations, and it differs from the tradition that her husband got from generations of avos and teachers. And if this sort of thing can happen in Hilchos Kashrus, how much more often might it occur in Hilchos Nida? You may notice that I am taking pains to tell this story without prejudice as to which side is the truer halacha. Just because the women weren't in yeshiva, that does not prove them to be in error. All it proves is that there's been no opportunity for shakla v'tarya. Neither side can be discredited until they've carefully debated the issues. So who is right? As I wrote, these questions have been bothering me for years. But someone said that "Emunah is not when you have the answers; it's being able to live with the questions. " I got that chizuk from R' Haym Soloveitchik in his now-classic "Rupture and Reconstruction", which is all about these opposing chains of tradition, the mimetic and the textual. (The full text is on-line at www.lookstein.org. Just google the title.) He writes in footnote 18 there: > The traditional kitchen provides the best example of the > neutralizing effect of tradition, especially since the mimetic > tradition continued there long after it was lost in most other > areas of Jewish life. Were the average housewife (bale-boste) > informed that her manner of running the kitchen was contrary to > the Shulhan Arukh, her reaction would have been a dismissive > "Nonsense!" She would have been confronted with the alternative, > either that she, her mother and grandmother had, for decades, > been feeding their families non-kosher food [treifes] or that the > Code was wrong or, put more delicately, someone's understanding > of that text was wrong. As the former was inconceivable, the > latter was clearly the case. This, of course, might pose problems > for scholars, however, that was their problem not hers. Neither > could she be prevailed on to alter her ways, nor would an > experienced rabbi even try. There is an old saying among scholars > "A yidishe bale-boste takes instruction from her mother only". Somehow, these chains do find a way to work together. But I must be clear: I am NOT talking about a machlokes haposkim, where the wife was taught one thing and the husband was taught something else. In that case, there is much common ground, and they (or their rav) can go to the sources to figure out what the couple should do. I'm talking about a much more fundamental problem, where generations have passed on different traditions, without anyone ever realizing that there was a mismatch. (I'd like to close by pointing out that I am neither asking anything new in this post, nor am I trying to answer anything. But RZS mentioned a "category of minhagei nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked", and I simply wanted to expound on that category.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 09:43:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 12:43:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: In Avodah Digest 35:53 on Apr 19, R' Micha Berger wrote: > The AhS OC 31:4 is okay with minyanim that are mixed between > wearers and non-wearers. That's not what I see in the last line there: "In a single beis medrash, don't have some doing this and some doing that, because of Lo Tisgodedu." In Avodah Digest 35:55 on Apr 26, he seems to have corrected that: > ... the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed > between tefillin wearers and not. [You seem to have missed http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol35/v35n055.shtml#07 I didn't correct myself; I was forced to reread the AhS by RHK's post. -micha] This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. IF I understand that AhS correctly, he says that if there is only one Beis Din in town, then everyone must follow it, so Lo Tisgodedu doesn't apply. And if there is more than one Beis Din in town, then everyone can follow their own beis din, so again, Lo Tisgodedu does not apply. So when DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be factionalized like that. That is the AhS's explanation of why each town should be united and follow one set of days for the aveilus of Sefira: The question is totally minhag, and not under the jurisdiction of the local posek. It is a minhag of the people, and the people should get together and be united in one practice. The AhS doesn't mention it in that siman, but this explanation does help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 consistent with 493:8? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 8 05:32:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 15:32:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The relevance of the middle perakim of Bava Basra today Message-ID: Perakim 4-7 of Bava Basra (which Daf Yomi has been learning) deal with the sale of various things, what is included and what is not. The common denominator seems to be that these are seemingly solely based on the accepted business practice during the time of Chazal and what people expect to get when they consumate a deal. There are few to no Torah based sources for any of these. Here is a general outline of the perakim. Perek 4 - Hamocher es habayis discusses what is sold when you sell real property (houses, bathhouses, courtyards, fields, etc.) and what is not, for example when you sell a house the Mishna states that you include teh door but not the key Perek 5 - Hamocher es hasefina discusses the sale of movable objects, again detailing what is included in the sale and what is not (boats, wagons, animals, etc.) Perek 6 - Hamocher peiros lachaveiro discusses the sale of agricultural products. It details how much spoilage/wastage there can be in grain and wine etc. It also discusses selling land to build things on it like a house, graves, how much land is given, what access etc. Perek 7 - Deals with sales of real property how exact do the dimensions need to be. Given the above, are these at all relevant today? A house buyer in 2017 clearly has very different expectations as to what he is buying in comparison to the times of Chazal as does someone buying wine, a field, a boat, etc. The same goes for all of these categories. Since the mishnayos seem to be based solely on accepted business practice and have are not based on pesukim can we simply ignore these today? Am I missing something here? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 8 10:47:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 13:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The relevance of the middle perakim of Bava Basra today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170508174705.GA2335@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:32:57PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Perakim 4-7 of Bava Basra (which Daf Yomi has been learning) deal with the : sale of various things, what is included and what is not. The common : denominator seems to be that these are seemingly solely based on the : accepted business practice during the time of Chazal and what people expect : to get when they consumate a deal... : Given the above, are these at all relevant today? ... First reaction: They would be relevant to a poseiq trying to learn how to determine which of today's expectations have halachic import. It would require doing the saqme kind of mapping of market norms to law that chazal did, so the poseiq could learn from example. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 9 05:44:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 08:44:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor Message-ID: <4667BA80-CCF4-42D3-833D-99611C34F822@cox.net> ?And you shall count unto you from the morrow after the day of rest from the day that you bring the omer of the wave-offering; seven complete weeks shall there be.? (Vayikra 23:15) The Rambam included the counting of the Omer as Mitzvah 161 in his Sefer Hamitzvot. Those Rishonim who disagree, do count it as a mitzvah d?rabbanan and therefore, when we conclude the counting each night we pray: ?May the merciful One bring back to us the Temple service to its place speedily in our days, Amen, selah.? So the question has been asked why we do not say a ?sheheheyanu? when we first count the Omer on the second night of Pesach. The Rashba answers that according to most Rishonim who disagree with the Rambam, the counting is connected intricately with ktzirat ha?omer, harvesting the omer, ha?va-at ha?omer, the bringing of the omer and hakravat ha?omer, the offering of the omer as a sacrifice (Vayikra 23:10&16). So since these mitzvot are obviously inapplicable today it pains us to remember what we are missing when we count the omer. Therefore, the rabbis say, we pronounce no sheheheyanu which is said only when we experience joy. When I started counting my blessings, my whole life turned around. Willie Nelson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 06:33:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 09:33:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kedoshim Message-ID: It was brought to my attention that I hadn?t sent out a commentary on Parashas Kedoshim. Here is a belated d?var. ?In the presence of an old person you shall rise and you shall honor the presence of a sage and you shall revere your God ? I am Hashem.? (Vayikra 19:32) This verse is so rich with interpretation. According to Rashi, following one view in Kidudushin 32b, the two halves of the pasuk explain each other, i.e., the mitzvah is to rise and honor a sage who is both elderly and learned. Others hold that these are two separate mitzvot: to rise for anyone over the age of 70 and to rise for a learned righteous man, even if he is below the age of 70. The halacha follows the latter view, the rationale being that anyone can reach the age of 70 but it takes blood, sweat and tears to achieve scholarship and righteousness. I recall as a youngster being in awe when everyone in the beis medrash would stop what they were doing and a hush fell over the crowd as everyone rose immediately as soon as the Rosh Yeshiva entered the hall. There comes to mind the famous saying in Makkoth 22b: ?How foolish are those people who stand up when the Torah is carried by, but do not stand up when a scholar walks by,? indicating that greater than a piece of parchment upon which the Torah is written, is a human being who has put his whole life into learning and struggling in order to acquire a knowledge of Torah, and who in his personal life is a living embodiment of what the Torah teaches and represents. Along similar lines is the custom in some hassidic circles to kiss the hand of a talmid chochom upon first seeing him in the same manner as kissing the Torah when it passes by. The one thing we must never forget is the basic issue involved. It is not the mere person that is the center of the commandment; it is the ?v?yorayso mey-Elohechoh, Ani HaShem that is here involved. In rising before and granting honor to the talmid chochom, we affirm our profound belief in the Torah of God. Who sows virtue reaps honor. Leonardo da Vinci -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 13:24:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 16:24:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety Message-ID: In Avodah V35n60, RJR responded to RZS, who had responded to RAMiller: >>> When eating the evening seudah elsewhere than where you're sleeping, consider lighting at the seudah location, so that they won't be unattended. <<< >> My mitzvah is to light my own home, not someone else's. << > The psak I receive many years ago is that you light where you sleep. One concern was to make sure the candles would run long enough so they were still burning when you came home so you could get benefit from them < As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*); and as I learned as a kid every Pesach that my family was at a hotel (because my parents didn't have Pesach cooking utensils, dishes, etc. in their apartment), everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 14:55:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 21:55:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As RJR implies, I thought the key component of neiros Shabbos was enjoying their light (in contradistinction to neiros Chanukah); and as I learned as a kid every Pesach that my family was at a hotel (because my parents didn't have Pesach cooking utensils, dishes, etc. in their apartment), everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... All the best from Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA _______________________________________________ Except if they were incandescent bulbs in the individual hotel rooms. In that case I was taught that the women make a bracha on the bulbs in their room Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 04:54:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:54:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Lo Taamod Message-ID: Rav Asher Weiss discusses in parshat Vayeitzeih on lo taamod al dam reiacha that one would have to give up all his assets to save a single life if he is the only one who can do it. However, "it's pashut" that if others can also do it, that he doesn't have to give up all his assets. Why is it so pashut if others refuse? (i.e. why isn't it a joint and several liability?) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 04:55:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:55:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Local Government Message-ID: Anyone have any sources on how local government, if any, functioned in times of Tanach? Was there any besides the court system? What was the role of the nesiim of the shvatim? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 12:02:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:02:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App Message-ID: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Someone mentioned tahorapp.com on-line, so I took a look at their web site. To quote: > Keeping Tradition & > Keeping Your Privacy > Rabbinically Approved! Anonymously send pictures of your Taharas > Hamishpacha questions to a Rav right from your own home. Receive answers > quickly and privately. Download Tahor App For Free! I then thought of "The Dress" , a picture of a black-and-blue dress that floated around the internet that many of us perceived as white-and-gold. So, given that people guess at the background lighting when they see a picture and then subconsciously correct for it (see explanation on wikipedia page), how could a rav rely on a Tahor App image? So, I filled out their contact form with something to that effect, and a short discussion followed. They replied: : Color Precision: : Thank you for your inquiry, : To clarify (as this seems not to be clear): : "Tahor" is meant to serve as a halachically approved "filter" for a : majority of Shailos (many of which are straightforward and simple to : determine). It is meant to allow those who may not have access to a rov, or : who may not feel comfortable going to a rov, to have an option, when : halachically viable, to send in their sample anonymously. : What this app is not: : This app IS NOT meant to be an umbrella replacement for the process of : showing questionable bedikah cloths to Rabbonim. Rabbonim were all able to : pasken correctly because of our advanced white balance technology and : Rabbinic measurement capabilities. The cloths which are borderline or : questionable, will be told to show the actual cloth to a Rabbi. : It is obviously preferable to take the cloth directly to the Rabbi when : possible, but many many women are not doing it! This will allow them to : keep Taharat Hamishpachah and get accurate answers. I felt I was getting a barely touched form letter, so I paraphrased my original question: } But given that the human eye will misinterpret colors when the lighting } differs between the camera and the person looking at the picture, how } can you know the results are accurate? After all, the differences in } perception of the colors of The Dress is far far greater han that between } a tamei brown and a tahor one. And their reply: : Shalom, : Yes, this is true. : This is why the Rabbis will only answer questions through the app which are : clearly one or the other. : An example of this would be if a stain on underwear is less than a gris. : The Rabbi can with complete accurately declare this Pure/Impure. : If the Rabbi feels that it is not so clear, he will tell the user to go to : a Rav. I am letting it drop there, because I am not going to argue anyone into wondering whether or not his pet project works. But I myself am still wondering.... Given how pronounced optical illusions can be when it comes to color and how subtle many determinations are, can a rav even know when the question is "clearly one way or the other" rather than only seeming obvious? I saw the dress in a catalog, so I know I am getting it wrong when I look at the infamous picture. And yet, it's suprising. If it weren't for people reporting a different color set, I would have considered white-and-gold "clearly" right. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 30th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation Fax: (270) 514-1507 result in holding back from others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 12:57:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: See the following timeline: http://crownheights.info/jewish-news/575460 http://crownheights.info/chabad-news/575513 http://crownheights.info/communal-matters/575546 http://crownheights.info/chabad-news/575559 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 07:33:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 10:33:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> There is a definite dearth of rabbis on the site. I am somewhat conflicted on this. OTOH, the nuances of coloring will be distorted by many displays - perhaps all displays. OTOH, perhaps women who otherwise would not ask she'eilos would use this service. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 08:37:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:37:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App Message-ID: <11c7f4.7c2a7fc4.464730a1@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org Someone mentioned tahorapp.com on-line, so I took a look at their web site. To quote: > Keeping Tradition & > Keeping Your Privacy > Rabbinically Approved! Anonymously send pictures of your Taharas > Hamishpacha questions to a Rav right from your own home. Receive answers > quickly and privately. Download Tahor App For Free! I then thought of "The Dress" , a picture of a black-and-blue dress that floated around the internet that many of us perceived as white-and-gold...... .....So, given that people guess at the background lighting when they see a picture and then subconsciously correct for it (see explanation on wikipedia page), how could a rav rely on a Tahor App image? -- Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>>> According to wiki the human eye can distinguish about ten million different colors. Other sources say "only" seven million. (Not relevant here but interesting: Some birds, some fish, some reptiles, even some insects, like bees, can see colors we can't see.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision A computer screen can display about 33,000 different colors -- only a small fraction of the number of shades in nature that the human eye can see. http://www.rit-mcsl.org/fairchild/WhyIsColor/Questions/4-6.html The takeaway -- to my mind -- is that the tahor app probably can't be relied on. The rav needs to see the actual color, not on a screen. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 08:36:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:36:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:33am EDT, R Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: : I am somewhat conflicted on this. OTOH, the nuances of coloring will : be distorted by many displays - perhaps all displays. OTOH, perhaps : women who otherwise would not ask she'eilos would use this service. Because of "The Dress" I am worried that "perhaps all displays" really understates the possibility of getting a color wrong. While the problem you raise is real. I would still recommend yoatzos as a better solution. Still, there are women who still wouldn't go to antoher woman, or who live in an area with no one to ask. RnTK wrote: : According to wiki the human eye can distinguish about ten million different : colors. Other sources say "only" seven million. ... : A computer screen can display about 33,000 different colors... : small fraction of the number of shades in nature that the human eye can see. ... : The takeaway -- to my mind -- is that the tahor app probably can't be : relied on. The rav needs to see the actual color, not on a screen. I think the problem I raised can lead to more profound misassessments. The precision of color displays will blur the edges. And the rabbis behind Tahor App say that it's only for more clear cases. What had me concerned is that that perception is based on more context colors and lighting specifics than the phone's camera may capture. Thus "the dress", which is explained, amongst other startling optical illusions involving color perception here . It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in different lighting than it was taken. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 09:33:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 12:33:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 517 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 11:53:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 14:53:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:33:14PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote: : The 33rd day of the Omer is a minor holiday commemorating a break in : the plague. The common translation of askaria is some kind of lung disease. However, the only explanation of the gemara that predates the late acharonim is R' Achai Gaon's -- that the word is sicarii. Meaning, they were killed by Roman dagger- or shortsword-men. Tying the deaths of the omer to the Bar Kokhva rebellion. (The sicarii of the events of Tish'ah beAv were Jewish dagger bearers. Same word, different people.) If I may add, which emphasizes the connection to shelo nahagu kavod zeh lazeh. The galus was started by sin'as chinam; it couldn't be ended by people who still hadn't mastered showing another kavod. (A scary thought about our own hopes...) : This day is observed as a day of rejoicing because on this day, the : students of Rabbi Akiva did not die. Actually, it's not a day of mourning because they didn't die. It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. Or perhaps it's the day Rashbi left the cave the 2nd time, or.... For Litvaks, Yekkes, and other communities, Lag baOmer as a holiday is a new thing. Also, as per other iterations, Lag baOmer at Meron appears to have originally been Shemu'el haNavi's yahrzeit (Mag beOmer? Yom Y-m) at Nabi Samwel, and only moved when Arabs going to Nabi Samwel (from Tzefat) dangerous. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 12:42:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 15:42:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/05/17 11:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while > convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in > different lighting than it was taken. But isn't that explicitly taken care of by the instruction to the user to take the photo only in direct sunlight, and by the instruction to the rav to look at it only on a specific monitor at a specific brightness? However reliable or unreliable the technology is, at least *that* concern has been addressed, hasn't it? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 13:01:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 16:01:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> References: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/05/17 14:53, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined > communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- > find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) > writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then > a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping > the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. No typo is necessary. What could "yom simchas Rashbi" mean if not his yortzeit, which he explicitly instructed his talmidim to celebrate as if it were his yom hillula? That's where the whole concept of celebrating yortzeits rather than mourning on them comes from, as well as the concept of referring to them as "wedding days". > Also, as per other iterations, Lag baOmer at Meron appears to have > originally been Shemu'el haNavi's yahrzeit (Mag beOmer? Yom Y-m) at Nabi > Samwel, and only moved when Arabs going to Nabi Samwel (from Tzefat) > dangerous. This paragraph got garbled enough that if I didn't already know what you meant I could not have figured it out. But it's my understanding that it wasn't danger from Arab marauders that put an end to the pilgrimages to Shmuel Hanavi (from all over EY) but rather a government decree barring Jews from the site. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 14:49:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:49:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: References: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512214922.GB4067@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 04:01:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined :> communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- :> find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) :> writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then :> a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping :> the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. : No typo is necessary. It happened. Necessity isn't at issue. We know what the older version was, and there used to be a ches there. "Shemeis" is simply not what RCV wrote. : What could "yom simchas Rashbi" mean if not : his yortzeit, which he explicitly instructed his talmidim to : celebrate as if it were his yom hillula? Well, isb't that what I said in the last sentence quoted? But it's only the most likely (in my opinion) possibility, and not -- as you are taking for granterd -- the only one. To continue from where you chopped off that text: > Or perhaps it's the day Rashbi left the cave the 2nd time, or.... Simcha, in the sence that seeing the man carry two hadasim for besamim -- zekhor veshamor -- yasiv da'ataihu. His simchah learning with his son-in-law, R' Pinchas b Ya'ir. "Ashrekha shera'isi bekakh..." Shabbos 33b-34a give you plenty of reason to believe he was joyous, and wanted to share that joy with the qehillah. Or maybe R Aqiva started teaching his 5 new students in earnest the very day the massacre or plague stopped. And therefore Lag baOmer is the day Rashbi started learning qabbalah. Or maybe... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 18:04:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 11:04:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The rabbi is shocked He realises After pesach is concluded That one of the contracts he's supposed to sell to the G Was not sold to the G If ownership According to Halacha Is determined by believing one is in control And when that control Is lost There's YiUsh Then this Chamets Had no owner During Pesach This Chamets For all intents and purposes During Pesach Has no owner. And Chamets can be Muttar Even if owned by a Y If it's abandoned For the duration of Pesach That's the Halacha Re the Mapoles The shed collapse On a crate of whiskey It's buried under at least 3 Tefachim It's Muttar after Pesach And it seems Even without Bittul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 14:33:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:33:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512213304.GA4067@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 03:42:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 12/05/17 11:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while : >convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in : >different lighting than it was taken. : : But isn't that explicitly taken care of by the instruction to the : user to take the photo only in direct sunlight, and by the : instruction to the rav to look at it only on a specific monitor at a : specific brightness? ... My wife and I saw The Dress for the first time together, and reported different results. in that picture it is obvious it was taken on a sunny day. And we both saw it in the same lighting. So, I don't think it sufficiently takes care of the problem. Maybe if the distributed a color sheet that must be included in the picture in proximity to the kesem, and the rabbinic side of the software corrects the colors displayed based on knowing what the sheet should look like. If the woman prints the color chart herself, you widen the uncertainty. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 14:23:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 23:23:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I have also been in touch with them (the programmer and one of the rabbis). I haven't come to a final conclusion, but my impression so far is: (1) The people on this project are y'rei Shamayim who take what they are doing seriously and have worked very hard for a long time on developing something that will be reliable (2) It is definitely not as good as seeing a mareh in real life (3) It is not good enough for borderline or difficult-to-pasken cases, and when difficult marot are submitted the rabbis will tell them that they need to be evaluated in person (4) They have had quite good results testing this app with easier cases (and most marot that women ask about are easier cases), which is why they have the confidence to release it (5) There are clear instructions on photographing the mareh in sunlight (6) This is only available for iphone - and deliberately so. They have the camera and white balance technology to give a good enough image, and because everyone is using the same type of phone and operating system, there is more control. Developing an android version will be significantly more challenging. If asked, I think I would cautiously tell women that IF they have no way to get the mareh evaluated in person (they do not live near any qualified Rav or yoetzet, or they are traveling), and they have an iphone and carefully follow the instructions, this seems to be reliable. I have worked online with Rav Auman for a long time, and while I haven't actually met him in person, I do trust him to know what he is doing. I'm still checking into it. If any of you have iphones (like most Israelis, I have an android) and have installed the app, I would be very interested in hearing feedback. Thank you! Shavua tov, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 19:10:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 22:10:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Music on the night of Lag B'Omer Message-ID: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> It seems quite common that people have bonfires with music on the evening of Lag B'Omer. I haven't found a compelling reason for this custom - even those who are meikil like the Rama to lift the Aveilus on Lag B'Omer don't do so until the day, I thought, as miktzas hayom k'kulo. Does anyone have an explanation for this? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 21:20:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 00:20:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Music on the night of Lag B'Omer In-Reply-To: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> References: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <112dafa9-5b8f-9e78-8b3e-2c0fcd51e25b@sero.name> On 13/05/17 22:10, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > It seems quite common that people have bonfires with music on the > evening of Lag B?Omer. I haven?t found a compelling reason for this > custom ? even those who are meikil like the Rama to lift the Aveilus on > Lag B?Omer don?t do so until the day, I thought, as miktzas hayom > k?kulo. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Yes. If one is merely noting the end of aveilus, then it starts in the morning, tachanun (or Tzidkas'cha) is said at the previous mincha, and bichlal it's not a celebration, any more than one celebrates when getting up from shiva. I've never heard of people singing and dancing and playing music on such an occasion, even if it's permitted. But if one is celebrating Rashbi's yom hillula then it's a full holiday, an occasion for song and dance and music, and of course it starts at night, with no tachanun at the previous mincha. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 12:11:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:11:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin Message-ID: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 12:27:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:27:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin In-Reply-To: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> References: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170515192700.GA20468@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:11:29PM -0400, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? MB 40:3 says that's the universal minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 14:49:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 17:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped Tefillin Message-ID: <5F399CEB-B043-4AB8-A067-A8E1495829DF@cox.net> Saul Newman wrote: Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? To the best of my knowledge, YES. However, I also recall that one could give extra tzedaka in lieu of fasting. rw From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 16 19:26:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 22:26:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World" Message-ID: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> This Torah portion sets forth the blessings that are seen in this world in response to our deeds. It then continues with the Tochacha, words of admonition, "If you will not listen to Me and will not perform all of these commandments?" Interestingly, there are seven series of seven punishments each. God warns us throughout the portion that He will punish us in "seven ways for your seven sins. We are now counting seven days a week for seven weeks; the Torah has just recently given the laws for Shemita ? seventh year the land lies fallow and seven periods of seven years, we celebrate the Jubilee year. What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the diatonic scale, seven continents, etc. We wind the T'fillin straps around our forearm seven times. We sit shiva for seven days. At the wedding we chant 7 blessings (sheva b'rachos) and the wedding is followed by seven days of celebration. Even the Torah begins with seven -- the First verse has seven words also containing a total of twenty-eight letters which is seven times four. Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion. When we say "Baruch Hashem" we are praising God for something that is hopefully whole and complete. The acronym for Baruch Hashem (Beis, Hay) also equals 7. Finally, the patriarchs and matriarchs total seven: Avraham, Yitzchok, Ya?akov, Sarah, Rivka, Rochel, Leah. (Please don?t write me to say your phone number has seven digits or the rainbow has 7 colors or that there are seven letters in the Roman numeral system or that nitrogen has the atomic number of 7 or that there were 7 dwarfs with Snow White). :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 05:31:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 12:31:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality, Message-ID: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> See below concerning a frequently discussed issue: Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today, especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:30:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:30:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World" In-Reply-To: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> References: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170518143027.GB13698@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:26:19PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven : represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the : diatonic scale, seven continents... Although the diatonic scale and the division of the colors in the spectrum to fit the numbers 7 are human inventions. They say more about what 7 means to humans -- even without revalation -- than anything inherent. ... : Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion... As does the word. Without niqud, the letters /sb`/ could be read as "seven" or "satiated". (Or swear... go figure that out.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:18:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:18:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170518171844.GD26698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh : Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on : Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives : today, certainly not in any practical manner. A tighter comparison... The minhag as recorded in the SA clearly ran into Lag baOmer -- and ending mourning with the usual miqtzas hayom kekulo. Then the hilula deRashbi turned Lag baOmer into a holiday, and this new holiday overrode the older minhagim of aveilus. What's good for one new holiday ought to be good for another (YhA, where this conversation began), no? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:24:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:24:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:24:41PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was : enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*)... As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel YT") but it's "neir Chanukah". Their kids wouldn't forget. : everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get : enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel : dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... Fire hazard is safeiq piquach nefesh, and ein danin es ha'efshar mishe'i efshar. However, wouldn't the alternative been lighting in the dinig hall, near one's table? The point is to eat by neir shel YT, not to sleep by them! And in this case (combining the above with what RJR wrote), shouldn't they have provided incandescent lamps for each table? (Not that there were small bulbs of other sorts when we were growing up.) Wouldn't it be easier to justify making a berakhah on turning the light on than on lighting in a third room or a table off to the side of the dining room dozens of yards from where you are eating? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:35:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:35:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality, In-Reply-To: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170518143502.GC13698@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:31:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why : there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters : of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the : masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as : all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak : halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would : contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today, : especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.] Not sure what this means. There are halakhos about triage. About how much tzedaqah to give and how to prioritize them. There are a lot of halakhos about morality. I fail to see how this isn't circular. The open moral questions RYBS is referring to are those too situational for every possible situation to be addressed with its own pesaq. Ar the Ramban puts it on "ve'asisa hayashar vehatov". If "morality" is being used in a sense to limit it to those quetions that did not get halachic resolution, isn't he just saying the interpersonal questions that didn't get a pesaq didn't get a pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:46:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:46:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170518144626.GD13698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei : Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events : of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber). It seems (but is not muchrach) from the AhS 394:1-3 . As I wrote (in part) in 2010 . The AhS distinguishes between a global minhag from the Geonic period not to marry and a later minhag bemedinos ha'eilu. He attaches the minhag of 1-33 (and including miqtzas yayom kekulo) to when the talmidei R' Aqiva died (s' 4-5) and the minhag of the last days to "minhag shelanu" (s' 5), localizing the last days to the descendent of those who fled the Crusaders east. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:14:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 11:04:32AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : If ownership : According to Halacha : Is determined by believing one is in control : And when that control : Is lost : There's YiUsh : Then this Chamets : Had no owner : During Pesach But if this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as -- it would be open and shut. I think ba'alus (as opposed to ownership) is defined by having the legal responsibility for something, and only as a consequence about having control or a right to use it. Which would explain why qinyan, a mechanism for eatablishing shelichus or shibud, is more thought of as a means of establishing baalus. Because baalus is also primarily on the hischayvus side. And so, it has as a consequence actual legal right of control, rather than depending on belief that one is in control. Which is why a ganav needs yi'ush plus shinui. Yi'ush, loss of belief of having control, is NOT enough to end ba'alus. But that's ba'alus. We don't have ba'alus over chameitz on Pesach. For example, an avaryan who dies on Pesach while violating bal yeira'eh bal yeimatzeih (BYBY) does not leave that chameitz to his sons. BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs from choshein mishpat, and is not baalus. ... : And Chamets can be Muttar : Even if owned by a Y : If it's abandoned : For the duration of Pesach ... : And it seems : Even without Bittul. ... The mishnah on Pesachim 31b says that if it's buried so deep a dog cannot dig it up, it is a form of bi'ur. R' Chisda in the opening gemara says it needs bitul. But in any case, the question is whether this is destruction. The gemara likens it to bi'ur. Not about a loss of ownership. Which would create a whole different question, as Tosafos (Pesachim 4b "mideOraisa") understand relinquishing ownership to be the very definition of bitul. (The majority opinion -- Rashi "bibitul be'alma", Ritva, Ran, and the Rambam 2:2 -- say it's a form of bi'ur.) Rashi and the Ran say the need for bitul after a mapolah fell on one's chameitz is derabbnan, a gezeira in case it gets unburied. But while buried, it's kebi'ur. The Samaq (#98) says the need for bitul is de'oraisa. And the MA holds that the Semaq would require buried chameitz not was not batul to be dug up and burnt on Pesach. The Mekhilta (on Shemos 12:19, see #2 ) says that chameitz owned by a nakhri which is in a Jew's reshus or a Jew's chameitz are excluded from BYBY by the pasuq's extra word "beveteikhem". "Af al pi shehu birshuso". The Mekhilta is making a split between reshus and BYBY. And it could be we are discussing three different concepts of "ownership", with reshus and baalu being different from each other as well. There is also a whole sugya about buried issurei han'ah on Temurah 33b-34a (starting at the mishnah) that I would need to understand better with rishonim and posqim to really comment in full. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:38:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:38:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> References: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 18/05/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel > YT") but it's "neir Chanukah" In L's case, "neir shel shabbos kodesh", but "neir chanukah". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 13:53:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 21:53:30 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? Message-ID: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> A thought just struck me, and I wondered if this chimed with anybody. The Rambam says (Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 halacha 13): ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????. Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. The Tur says the same except that he has Torah shebichtav and Torah sheba'al peh around the other way (Tur Yoreh Deah Hilchot Talmud Torah siman 246): ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??"? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???"? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? The Sages said all who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking with Torah shebichtav but with Torah shebaal peh he should not teach her ab initio, but if he taught her it is not as though he taught her Tiflut The Beis Yosef says it is a scribal error in the Tur, and should be the same way as the Rambam, and that is how he has the statement in the Shulchan Aruch, and the Taz agrees, pointing to Hakel. The Prisha notes that the Beis Yosef says that it is a scribal error but adds: ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??"? In any event there is to give a small reason for this version in the books of the Tur, since with all of them it is written and published so, because there is a greater loss when Torah shebichtav is brought out as words of nonsense than with Torah shebal peh. However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil Siman 199, the Maharil writes: ?????? ????? ???"? ??????' ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?"? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ? - ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?????' ???? ???? ?? ??? ????' ?? ???????, ??? ??' ??"?? ?"?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????, ??"? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????, ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??'? ???? ???? ??????, ??? ??? ????? ????? ... ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???, ???? ?"? ????? ?????, And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut as it says in perek notlev and we learn it from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, when wisdom enters so does cunning since when wisdom enters the heart of a person there also enters into it cunning and according to the explanation of Rashi because of this she will do things privately, and if so we are concerned that she will come to damage since their knowledge is light and even though it is considered a mitzvah eit l?asot lashem so that one should not drown out the reward by loss and all the more so where there is not a mitzvah ... And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by way of tradition from outside, And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous generations: ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like it says ?ask your father and he shall tell you? and in this it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their upright fathers. But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in the form of the Mishna? That the Torah sheba'al peh was passed from father to son by oral transmission (albeit that at one point schools were instated for those lacking fathers who could teach them)? And on the other hand doesn't the Rosh (ie father of the Tur) famously say that today one fulfils the mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah by writing other seforim in Hilkhot Sefer Torah, chap. 1 as is brought by the Tur and Shulhan Arukh in Yoreh De'ah 270:2? So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al peh - as the vast majority of the details are sourced in Torah sheba'al peh, and if they were only to be taught what is in Torah shebichtav, they would all turn into Karaites! And indeed that women were, as the Chofetz Chaim suggests, taught in the home with the tradition handed over by their fathers in the same way as Torah sheba'al peh has always been learnt all the way back to Moshe Rabbanu. While if you understand Torah shebichtav as including mishna and gemora and rishonim, all so long as they have been written down, then one could indeed understand that as being a possible practical distinction - ie not to teach women to read and write and understand what is in the written seforim? Now perhaps one might say that if the Rambam had poskened like Rav Elazar in Gitten 60b as understood by Rashi, that Torahshebichtav is the majority and Torah sheba'al peh is the minority, because he includes in Torah shebichtav anything that is learnt out of the Torah by way of midrash or gezera shava etc, then it might be possible to understand that by and large women could both learn to do the mitzvot incumbent on them and simultaneously avoid Torah sheba'al peh, but he doesn't, as in his introduction the Mishna he categorises Torah Sheba'al peh into five categories, and is clearly in this poskening like Rav Yochanan. So how, according to the Rambam, did women know what to do if they were never taught Torah sheba'al peh, even ba'al peh, remembering that it is the Rema's addition to the Shulchan Aruch in the name of the Smag (actually Smak) via the Agur that adds in the halacha that women need to learn all the mitzvot that are relevant to them? Is not the Tur's version actually the one that makes more logical sense - especially if you explain Hakel as per the gemora in Chagiga that the women came to listen (ie hear it orally, without looking at the text)? Not that this would seem to explain Rabi Eliezer himself, as Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna in Sotah 21a - objected to women learning that sometimes drinking the Sotah water would not result in immediate death, and in the Yerushalmi, Sotah perek 3 daf 19 column 1 halacha 4 he objected to telling a woman why there are three different types of deaths listed vis a vis the chet haegel when there was only one sin - both of which pieces of learning were, at least in his day, definitely Torah sheba'al peh. So given that the Rambam poskened like Rabbi Eliezer, he would have needed, if a distinction was to be made, have to phrase it the way he did. But maybe what the Tur was saying is that, Rabbi Eliezer or no, the Rambam's solution is not workable, and given the way the gemora explains Rabbi Eliezer's limud from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, and that already in his day that kind of learning was found in Torah shebichtav, the whole thing can be made workable by turning it the other way around? Has anybody seen this suggested anywhere? Any thoughts? Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 15:56:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 08:56:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> References: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 19 May 2017 3:15 am, "Micha Berger" wrote: >: If ownership >: According to Halacha >: Is determined by believing one is in control >: And when that control >: Is lost >: There's YiUsh >: Then this Chamets >: Had no owner >: During Pesach > If this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as I don't understand. Please explain. One who is unaware of the loss of his wallet, believes he is still in control. We Pasken that he remains the owner. Famous story, woman lost her money at a trade fair, was found and taken to the Rov. Although there was no question that it was the money she had lost, there was no way to Pasken that it had to be returned to her. YiUsh. Until Reb Y ? explained that she was never the owner and her state of mind was not relevant. It was her husband's money and he, being unaware it was lost, still firmly believed he was in control. YSheLoMiDaAs suggesting that since he'd be in a different state of mind, if he knew the facts, in other words YSheLoMiDaAs, is still a Sevara that recognises and circulates around the principle that ownership depends upon ones state of mind. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 09:16:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 12:16:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts Message-ID: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Two Faces of Love Twice a day the Jew gives expression to one of the most potent forces in social life ? LOVE. In the morning we plead for ahavah rabbah, abundance of love, for in the morning we want love to expand and grow throughout the day. In the evening, however, when darkness descends upon us, we pray again for love, but not in quantitative terms. Instead we plead for ahavat olam ? enduring and eternal love. In the dark night love does not grow; it deepens. Two Philosophies of LIfe Sarah advised her husband to cast out Ishmael, when she saw he was ?Miitzachaik? and she feared he would be an evil influence on his brother ?Yitzchok.? Interestingly, both ?Miitzachaik? and ?Yitzchok? have a common root, meaning to laugh or to play. What is the disparity? The difference is compelling: ?Mitzachaik? is in the present tense and ?Yitzchok? is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael?s philosophy of life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future. Conversely, she saw that Yitzchok?s philosophy of life was to live life spiritually, delaying immediate gratification and living his life in a way that would provide genuine happiness and enjoyment in the future. The future depends on what we do in the present. Mahatma Gandhi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 11:14:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 14:14:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes Message-ID: <20170519181429.GA31873@aishdas.org> >From this week's emailing from The Halachah Center / Beis haVaad leInyanei Mishpat . There are a number of halachic discussions about e-cig use -- whether kashrus concerns apply, health issues, but then they close with this interesting (to me) more aggadic point. Note found interesting was that R' Yosef Greenwald assumes that venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem isn't about preserving life, but preserving one's ability to pull the ol mitzvos. (That sounds weird, but an animal "pulls a yoke", no?) Which includes preserving life. And thus includes intoxication and other mind- or mood-altering chemicals that could hamper one's ability to function. I could have seen argiong for each as separate values, but... Holy Smokes! A Halachic Discussion Regarding E-Cigarettes Are e-cigarettes problematic from a halachic standpoint? By: Rav Yosef Greenwald ... The Health Concerns of E-cigarettes ... 1. Are E-Cigarettes Any Better than Cigarettes? ... 2. Derech Eretz and a Life of Meaning Let us conclude with one more point about the general imperative to protect our health and its relevance to this case. Although as mentioned there is an injunction to safeguard our health based on v'nishmartem, we also have an assurance of shomer pesaim Hashem, that Hashem will protect those who engage in normal activities, as Rav Moshe explained, which is based on the Gemara (Yevamos 12b and elsewhere).[10] Consequently, eating greasy french fries, doughnuts, and the like, may not be the healthiest thing to do. However, doing so would not violate a halachic prohibition, as eating these foods is considered in the realm of normal behavior (like smoking used to be), and we can apply shomer pesa'im Hashem. There have recently been some questions asked about the kashrus on medical marijuana, due to the possibility that the recreational use of marijuana may be normalized soon. However, before discussing the kashrus questions, one must ask whether it is acceptable to consume marijuana. It would seem to be in the same category as significant alcohol consumption. Leaving aside any possible physical damage caused from overdosing, there is no specific halacha that forbids one from getting drunk, aside from being careful not to miss the proper time for Tefilla, and not issuing halachic rulings while in an inebriated state.[11] Nevertheless, it should be obvious that this is wrong, based on what could be called the "fifth section of the Shulchan Aruch," using common sense in living one's life. Clearly, Hashem does not want a person to waste away their life in a state in which one cannot serve Hashem properly. Rather, one should live life as an intelligent, sober person. One who overdoses on alcohol, or engages in mind-altering or mood- altering by ingesting marijuana, is taking away the ability to function as a normal person. This falls under the category of derech eretz, proper conduct, which precedes the observance of halacha. In other words, even if one does not directly violate the Shulchan Aruch, one must live in a manner in which the Torah and halacha can be fulfilled. To return to e-cigarettes, this notion of living healthy is an important reason why, even if it is concluded that they are 100% kosher even without certification, a non-smoker should not start using such a product. In the merit of being able to curb one's physical temptations, hopefully we as a people can merit to reaching great spiritual heights, and achieve the closeness to Hashem that He, and we, so desire. ... [11] Both of these issues are discussed in the Gemara (Eiruvin 64a) and are cited in the Shulchan Aruch. ... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 12:08:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:08:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Does Orthodox Commitment Provide What is Needed for Good Character? Message-ID: <20170519190815.GA24683@aishdas.org> From http://jewishethicalwisdom.com/does-orthodox-commitment-provide-what-is-needed-for-good-character Critical reading for anyone interested in what AishDas stands for. Jewish Ethical Wisdom Blog Does Orthodox Commitment Provide What is Needed for Good Character? Posted on April 6, 2017 Posted By: Anthony Knopf Does Orthodox commitment provide what is needed for good character? Not yet, I answer in this article. ... Rashei peraqim: Introduction Feeling and Thinking Ethically - Not Always a Matter of Halakha Exclusive Focus on Halakha Distracts from and Attenuates Moral Sensitivity More is Required :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 12:19:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:19:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts In-Reply-To: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> References: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170519191925.GA30260@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:16:28PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The difference is compelling: "Mitzachaik" is in the present tense and : "Yitzchok" is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael's philosophy of : life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as : much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future. However, "Yishmael", the name, is also in future tense, and later in his life, "Yitzchaq metzacheiq es Rivqah ishto" (26:8) -- in the present tense. And while "Yishmael's" name is about listening, not tzechoq, is not listening MORE fundamental to a healthy relationship? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 02:14:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 19:14:00 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah at the Age of 12 Message-ID: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> My maternal grandfather, who lived in Lithuania until his late teens, told me on a number of occasions that he celebrated his bar mitzvah when he was 12 years old, as his father had died and he was considered to be an orphan. Some years ago I recalled this and decided to learn more about the custom, but each of the rabbis I asked had never heard of it. Recently, however, I was re-reading A Tzadik in Our Time: The Life of Reb Aryeh Levin and, at page 95, he recounts that he attended a bar mitzvah of an orphan in Jerusalem on his 12th birthday. Does anyone know anything of this custom? David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 13:39:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:39:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs > from choshein mishpat, and is not baalus. We can see a connection between BYBY and "responsibility" by the situation of a shomer. Even in a situation where a shomer is absolutely not the owner or baal in any sense of the term, he will still violate BYBY if he is responsible for the chometz that he is watching. (I don't know which side of the discussion this supports, but it seems very relevant to *some* side, so I figured I'd mention it.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 19:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'midbar Message-ID: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> Israel?s brithplace was b?midbar ? in the wilderness. It has been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced the monotheistic faith. Man is always in need of fulfillment and his promised land is far away. He is always on the road to the actualization of his dreams, seeking better things and yearning for a fuller, fulfilling life. The wilderness is the symbol of man searching for his destination. It is told that a Chassidic Rebbe, impatient at the sad, mad state of the world (sound familiar?) and overcome with longing for the happiness of mankind, prayed to God: ?If Thou cannot redeem Thy people Israel, then at least redeem mankind!? May we reach the promised land in our lifetime! rw ?Ay me! sad hours seem long.? William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 19:00:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:00:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "Krias Moshe Leynen"? Message-ID: <7c27ddbf-5df2-526c-c8bd-dbfd5a94b96e@sero.name> Has anyone heard of such a thing? I came across it in a Munkatcher publication. If it were buried in a block of text I'd take it for a typo for "Krias Sh'ma Leynen", referring to the children who come on the vach nacht to say Krias Sh'ma for the baby. But it's in a prominent position where I think surely someone would have noticed such a blatant typo and corrected it before it went to print, so my current working theory is that it's some minhag that neither I nor anyone I've asked so far have heard of. So I'm throwing it to the wider Avodah community; does anyone know what this is? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 23:08:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 02:08:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah at the Age of 12 In-Reply-To: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> References: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 20/05/17 05:14, David Havin via Avodah wrote: > My maternal grandfather, who lived in Lithuania until his late teens, > told me on a number of occasions that he celebrated his bar mitzvah when > he was 12 years old, as his father had died and he was considered to be > an orphan. > > Some years ago I recalled this and decided to learn more about the > custom, but each of the rabbis I asked had never heard of it. Recently, > however, I was re-reading A Tzadik in Our Time: The Life of Reb Aryeh > Levin and, at page 95, he recounts that he attended a bar mitzvah of an > orphan in Jerusalem on his 12^th birthday. > > Does anyone know anything of this custom? There is, of course, no such custom of becoming a bar mitzvah early. But it was a common custom that a child with no father would begin putting on tefillin a full year before his bar mitzvah, rather than a few weeks or months as is the usual custom. See Aruch Hashulchan 37:4, who says this is "murgal befi hahamon", but he knows of no reason for it, and disapproves of it. See: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=374&pgnum=295 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 14:40:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 17:40:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts In-Reply-To: References: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Message-ID: <2B3DC5BF-D4C8-4C0D-A9B0-01AE8A89E41E@cox.net> > "Yishmael", the name, is also in future tense ...which means "he WILL hear or listen" which fits in with his personality and character. Presently he doesn't listen and does what he pleases. When he gets old, he will then listen. > And while "Yishmael's" name is about listening, not tzechoq, is not > listening MORE fundamental to a healthy relationship? A healthy relationship is fundamental with many elements: one of which is certainly listening NOW, not in the future. Can you imagine telling your child to do something and he says I'll do it in the future. He isn't even listening because as you point out "He WILL listen -- a lot of good that does for the present. And psychologists will tell you that a healthy relationship must have laughter and humor which can only increase the health of a relationship. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 22 07:47:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 10:47:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag Baomer in pre WWII Mir Yeshiva in Europe In-Reply-To: <1494871334409.64146@stevens.edu> References: <1494871334409.64146@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170522144737.GB29499@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:02:36PM +0000, Prof Yitzchak Levine posted on Areivim: : Please see http://mrlitvak.blogspot.com/ I can understand a desire to reaffirm the authentic Litvisher derkeh. But meanwhile, we have more learning than at any time in Litta's history, and kids are still uninspiring and fleeing in horrendous numbers. How often do people mention the RBSO? How much do we discuss or base decisions on the kelalim gedolim baTorah (cf RBW's recent review of RJB's The Great Principle of the Torah -- ve'ahvta lerei'akha kamokha, de'alakh sani, eileh toledos ha'adam, shema Yisrael, tzadiq be'emunaso yichyeh, etc...)? So, Lag baOmer may not be more than cheap sentimentality. But even if I were to agree this was true, I would still argue that we are in desperate need of sentimentality -- and will settle for the cheap kind rather than letting the pursuit of perfection become excuses for less emotional expression. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 10:54:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:54:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? Message-ID: We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that are on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv is al pi din. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 12:38:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:38:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Added textual mar'eh meqomos alongside the links. -micha] On 23/05/17 13:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would > like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. > Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that > are on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv > is al pi din. These would seem to be dispositive: [Rambam, Hilkhos Shekheinim 10:11:] http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/c310.htm#11 [SA CM 155:26:] https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9F_%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9A_%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9F_%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98_%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%9B%D7%95 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 13:35:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 16:35:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170523203556.GC10104@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 08:54:41PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would : like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. : Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that are : on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv is al pi : din. Related question, really came up last week. Someone had a tree that neighbors were complaining about, that it looked like it was dying and might fall on the neighbor's roof. On a windy day recently it actually snapped -- but not falling on the roof, instead the tree brought down the power lines. A number of people on the block lost food before power was restored and other expenses were incurred. Is the owner of the tree liable al pi din? What if the neighbor hadn't warned him, so that we cannot know if the owner was aware of an issue or not? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 42nd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliability crucial for universal brotherhood? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 13:37:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:37:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'Note found interesting was that R' Yosef Greenwald assumes that venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem isn't about preserving life, but preserving one's ability to pull the ol mitzvos. (That sounds weird, but an animal "pulls a yoke", no?) Which includes preserving life. And thus includes intoxication and other mind- or mood-altering chemicals that could hamper one's ability to function.' The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it either as far as I recall. So that leaves us fairly free to guess what it means, I suppose. I'd assumed it means preserving health, inasmuch as nefesh usually refers to life force, and we wouldn't need it to refer to preserving life itself, since that's covered by a) prohibition of suicide and b) al taamod al dam reyecha. And preserving health would presumably be in order to keep mitzvos the better, no? And I think an animal bears a yoke and pulls a plough. Lashon Hakodesh is always 'nosei ol'. Which corresponds better to bear than pull. So we carry/bear the ol mitzvos I think. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 14:25:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 07:25:01 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away - Mashkon Pikadon Message-ID: In Siman 440 chametz foods owned by a G in the care of a Yid (a ?shomer? / guardian) Siman 441 chametz foods owned by a G left in the care of a Yid as a ?mashkon? (lit. collateral) for guarantee of a loan from the Yid Pesachim 5b Two pesukim Shmos 13:7 ?Chametz shall not be seen to you and leaven shall not be seen to you in all your borders.? You may not see your own (i.e. keep in your possession), but you may see that of others (i.e. non-Jews)? Shmos 12:19 ?For a seven-day period leaven shall not be found in your homes.? a Yid may not accept Chamets deposits from non-Jews.? there appears to be an inconsistency Gemara Pesachim 5b If a Yid may see Chamets of non-Jews why does the Beraisa prohibit the chametz deposit of a non-Jew? It depends upon whether the Y has (monetary) responsibility for the Chametz, When a Y accepts monetary responsibility for the chametz he is considered to be owner to the extent that he is Over BYBY Mishnah Berura discusses whether the Y can sell the ?pikadon?. concludes yes If the Y has no monetary responsibility (i.e. for loss, theft or negligence) it may be kept in his house during Pesach but to ensure it is not mistakenly eaten must close it in a room The ?shomer? who assumes monetary liability becomes a part-owner therefore, a Jew's chametz with a non-Jewish ?shomer? does not absolve the Y he is Over BYBY A visiting non-Jew who brings his own chametz into the home of a Jew need not ask the non-Jew to remove the chametz and may even invite him into his home and eat the chametz right at his table provided the Y does not eat together with the G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 13:42:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:42:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim Message-ID: > > > > I am not expressing an opinion here on the permissibility of maharats, or > of women's ordination. I merely wish to express my respect for those on > both sides of this important question, and my hope that the dispute will > remain on the level of a machloket l'shem shamayim and that ultimately all > of us will benefit from this challenging and passionate conversation. > > ---------------------- Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilana. I have found that discussions about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven ... and of not having a recognized posek to support their halachic position. The discussions rarely focus on the relevant halachic issues. It's nice to hear someone who is willing to respect the other side...and recognize that the discussion is a machlokes l'sheim shamayim. -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 17:37:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 20:37:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170525003710.GA22308@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:42pm EDT, R Michael Feldstein wrote: : Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilana. I have found that discussions : about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because : those who support : shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven ... and : of not having : a recognized posek to support their halachic position. The discussions : rarely focus on : the relevant halachic issues. A discussion on Avodah can focus exclusively on the relevant halachic issues. A decision of what to do in practice has to include deferring to the position that actually is backed by recognized posqim. And one side's unwillingness to ask the question on this level itself becomes a relevant halachic issue. However, the following is true anyway: : It's nice to hear someone who is willing to respect the other side...and : recognize that : the discussion is a machlokes l'sheim shamayim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 20:03:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 05:03:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly accused of being agenda driven. Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. Ben On 5/24/2017 10:42 PM, Michael Feldstein via Areivim wrote: > I have found that discussions > about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support > shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 04:57:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 11:57:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> On 5/24/2017 10:42 PM, Michael Feldstein via Areivim wrote: > I have found that discussions > about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support > shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven _______________________________________________ Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:28:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:28:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? Message-ID: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:30:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:30:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shoftim-Mesorah Chain Message-ID: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&st=&pgnum=484 Fascinating article on the mesorah chain-were the shoftim really part of it ?(doesn't deal with broader question of why we don't see Sanhedrin in Nach). KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:46:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 10:46:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shoftim-Mesorah Chain In-Reply-To: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170525144620.GA16912@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:30:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&st=&pgnum=484 : Fascinating article on the mesorah chain-were the shoftim really part of it ?(doesn't deal with broader question of why we don't see Sanhedrin in Nach). Is this the right link? The article appears to be about the revalation of Tanakh "Dargot haNevu'ah baTorah, Nevi'im uKhtuvim", starting with Devarim vs the other 4 chumashim, then Navi vs Kesuvim. By R Moshe Menachem haKohein Shapira. I think you mean an earlier article, MEsoret haTSBP beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah Neustadt. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252pgnum=474 Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:26:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:26:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minhagei Nashim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526012654.GA29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 06:51:56AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I am NOT talking about a machlokes haposkim, where the wife was taught one : thing and the husband was taught something else. In that case, there is : much common ground, and they (or their rav) can go to the sources to figure : out what the couple should do. I'm talking about a much more fundamental : problem, where generations have passed on different traditions, without : anyone ever realizing that there was a mismatch. Is this really a problem? I highly recommend learning AhS. One of the things you get to watch is how much this conflict drives the dialectic of halakhah. Unlike the clean-room approach to halachic theory one gets from lomdus. You get a sense of how much acceptance of a practice in the field drives how much willingness to accept or draft a dachuq theory to explain how it could be justified in theory. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:43:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:43:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'midbar In-Reply-To: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> References: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170526014307.GC29809@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:37:34PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has : been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced : the monotheistic faith... But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged during the Exodus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:39:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526013946.GB29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, : and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying : observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes : when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ... : [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is : outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be : factionalized like that. .... : help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, : despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it : is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to : the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply : to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. : I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 : consistent with 493:8? Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag, as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin on ch"m either. It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the local court(s) or inherited. Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag side of the AhS's chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 20:53:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 23:53:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes Message-ID: R' Ben Bradley wrote: > The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is > that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui > which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in > fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha > nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it > either as far as I recall. This surprised me so much that I looked it up. Here's what I found: These words are from Devarim 4:15. The only comment of the Torah Temimah is: "This is brought and explained above, in the pasuk Ushmor Nafsh'cha (#9)." So I look at Devarim 4:9, and the Torah Temimah quotes a lengthy story from Brachos 32b, which references both pesukim (4:9 and 4:15). The comments of the Torah Temimah that I found particularly relevant to RBB's comment are found in the second and third paragraphs in Torah Temimah #16, and I will quote them here: > The Maharsha writes here, "This pasuk is about forgetting > the Torah, and these pesukim have nothing at all to do with > a person protecting his own nefesh from danger." According > to him, the tzadik of that story said what he said to the > government official merely to get out of the situation, > because the pasuk is really not about Shmiras Haguf. Further, > the fact that it is a common saying, for people to quote the > pasuk V'nishmartem Me'od L'nafshoseichem for any physical > danger - according to the Maharsha that's a mistake. > > But isn't it the explicit opinion of the Rambam, who wrote > in Rotzeach 11:4, "It is a Mitzvas Aseh to remove any > michshol which could be a Sakanas Nefashos, and to be very > very careful about it, as it is said, 'Hishamer L'cha, > Ushmor Nafsh'cha Me'od.'" So it is explicit that the language > of these pesukim *is* about protecting one's body. At first glance, this seems to go against what RBB wrote. BUT: Even according to the Rambam as cited by the Torah Temimah, it seems to me that the most one can say is that Ushmor Nafsh'cha (Devarim 4:9) talks about physical danger; we don't necessarily know that about V'nishmartem (Devarim 4:15), and it is not clear to me why the Torah Temimah closes that paragraph referring to "THESE pesukim" (hapesukim ha-ayleh). Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 03:18:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 13:18:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Bmidbar Message-ID: Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has : been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced : the monotheistic faith... But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged during the Exodus >> However, the avot were shepherds and it has been suggested that being alone with the flock and nature helped them perceive monotheism. BTW I am now reading The exodus you almost passed over by Rabbi Fohrman who demonstrates that the debate between Moshe and Pharoh and the 10 plagues all revolve about monotheism versus polytheism -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:39:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526013946.GB29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, : and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying : observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes : when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ... : [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is : outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be : factionalized like that. .... : help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, : despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it : is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to : the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply : to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. : I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 : consistent with 493:8? Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag, as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin on ch"m either. It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the local court(s) or inherited. Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag side of the AhS's chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 19:22:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 22:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government Message-ID: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> There is a popular theory that the positive description of the gov't found repeatedly found in the AhS is self-censorship and an attempt to make sure his works make it through the government censorship and approval process. But there are times he goes far beyond this, complimenting them in ways no censor would have expected, never mind demanded. For example EhE 42:51, the discussion of marrying in front of witnesses \who are pesulei eidus deOraisa -- eg converts away from Judaism. Rashi has a case of an anoos who got married with other anoosim, and they all returned. Rashi ruled that she needs a gett, because maybe they had hirhurei teshuvah and at that moment were valid eidim. Then he adds Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed. They would never force someone to convert. Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah, we don't have to be chosheish for it. So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus? In terms of timing, the first booklets of EhE started coming out in 1905. (After YD, which came out 1897-1905.) He stopped sometime during or before 1908, his petirah; but he could have written this well before 1905 -- I only know the publishing date. 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other things. Which then led to a new Russioan Constitution, a multi-party system, the Imperial Duma... and 11 years later, the Soviets. So, it's hard to believe he meant it, but it's hard to believe he would risk empty flattery with those stakes! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 04:50:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 07:50:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> On 25/05/17 22:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Then he adds > Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu > shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed. > They would never force someone to convert. He goes on far longer than that. So long that no reader could possibly miss his meaning. > Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he > continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's > converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah, > we don't have to be chosheish for it. > > So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he > suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO > obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up > to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus? This was a period when some publishers of siddurim felt it necessary to print "avinu malkeinu ein lanu melech bashamayim ela ata". He may very well have feared that including a practical psak about anoosim would arouse the censor's ire, especially since the censors were themselves mostly meshumodim. > 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which > was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other > things. Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would have been obvious to him too. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 07:57:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other :> things. : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would : have been obvious to him too. I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation audience. Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his contemporary readers. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 08:33:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 11:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2dc5d4d3-0686-0f3a-9692-24d0aa39595b@sero.name> On 26/05/17 10:57, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which > :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other > :> things. > > : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see > : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which > : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would > : have been obvious to him too. > > I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in > his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation > audience. candlesticks? I think you meant gelecther. But there's no false psak, just a false description of the metzius, which is so over the top that nobody could miss it. > Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining > qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting > them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his > contemporary readers. How could he possibly know what future conditions might be? Any reference in any sefer to "our times" has to be understood as about the author's times, not the reader's. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 07:53:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:53:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly : accused of being agenda driven. : : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response. Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality. Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a non-halachic agenda by making it look holy. (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:57:32AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post : modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all : agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid) But there are limits to eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. When in a halachic debate, one should be limiting oneself to the various answers that are objectively right. Thus presuming there is an objectively right, while still not being absolutist about it. And if we assimilated too much postmodernism to be able to see where eilu va'eilu ends (tapers off), we should be leaning on posqim who can. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 09:54:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 12:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Tvunah] St. Petersberg White Night Zmanim Message-ID: <20170526165420.GA22041@aishdas.org> >From the web site of R' Asher Weiss's pesaqim . I was told that they had a similar problem in the summer in Telzh. Motza"sh was havdalah, melaveh malkah, night seder, shacharis kevasikin, sleep. Tvunah in English Beit Midrash for Birurei Halachah Binyan Zion Under the Leadership of Maran HaRav Asher Weiss Shlita White Night Zmanim Questions: 1. During White Nights here in St. Petersburg we end Shabbat at midnight (2:00). This is also the time of alot ashahar. Accordingly, there is no opportunity to say a blessing on the candle and eat Seudat melawe malka. Question: Is it possible to rely on the opinion of rabbi Ovadiya Yoseph that alot ashahar is 72 dakot zmaniet before dawn, and accordingly there is a certain night after Chatzot for Bracha on the candle and melawe malka? 2. Can we finish fasts of 17 of Tamuz and the 9th of Av after tzet kahovim according Gaon (0:03 and 23:03)? Answers: 1. Since it is already the beginning of the light of the new day and hence Alot Hashachar, the bracha on the candle for havdala should not be said. However since it is still a few hours before Netz Hachama [sunrise] one could be lenient to eat Melave Malka. In fact, with regards to Melave Malka one could be lenient and eat before Chatzos, as long as 72 minutes have passed since shkiya [even though with regards to Melacha one should be machmir until Chatzos]. 2. With regards to ending Rabbinic Fasts, one could rely on the zman of Tzais Hakochavim according to Rabeinu Tam [according to the Pri Megadim that it is a set time in all places], waiting 72 minutes after shkiya. [Hebrew meqoros ubi'urim elided.] :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 45th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Malchus: What is the beauty of Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity (on all levels of relationship)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 27 12:11:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 22:11:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> On 5/26/2017 5:53 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly > : accused of being agenda driven. > : > : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. > > I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat > believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their > halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response. > > Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda > to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have > a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality. People keep using that word, "feminist". I don't think that's what feminism means. This is egalitarianism, which may overlap with feminism in some areas, but is a different ideology. And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to reality. That would imply that halakha comes first and responds to reality. I think that in the vast majority of cases, and if you want, I'll give you ample examples from the writings of JOFA/YCT people, it is a sense that egalitarianism is a moral imperative. That the egalitarian worldview is quite simply the *only* moral worldview, and that to the extent that halakha comforms to that worldview, it is a moral system, and to the extent that it does not, it is not. > Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means > of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a > non-halachic agenda by making it look holy. It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality that predates this entire debate. When the egalitarians want to try and read their ideology back into Jewish history, they often do so with things like Rashi's daughters laying tefillin, a fiction which is accepted as fact by Conservative and Reform Jews, but has absolutely no historical basis. There is a legitimate argument to be made that those on the side of tradition are afraid of change. But not that they are *only* afraid of change. Casual change of halakhic norms has caused enormous damage in recent history, and wariness or even fear of such things is both rational and reasonable. Again, there may even be something admirable about trying to equalize the two sides the way you're doing here, but it doesn't match the reality. One has only to listen to the types of arguments that are used by the two sides to see that they are operating on the basis of vastly different paradigms, where one *starts* with the Torah and one *starts* with egalitarianism. > (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about > fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" > a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos > that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, > etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or > resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and > general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha. The words of the Ramchal and Rabbenu Bachya are not as rigorously chosen as those in the halakhic areas of the Torah, and are far more easily "adapted" to foreign ideologies. I don't say that they are unimportant, but let's not let the tail wag the dog here. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 27 20:44:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 23:44:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: To quickly review an old question: If Rus and Orpah converted at the *beginning* of the story, then how could Naami send Orpah back to her people? But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews? Some answer this question suggesting that there was a sort of "conditional" conversion at the beginning, and while Rus later affirmed her conversion to be sincere, it was revealed that Orpah's was never valid to begin with. I have never understood this answer, because of the ten years that elapsed from the supposed conversion until it was retroactively nullified. (By analogy, suppose (chalila) that Jared and Ivanka would split up, and Ivanka would claim that she was only putting on a show all along. Who would believe her? Those who currently accept her geirus as valid, would anyone accept such a bitul of it?) Today I came across a different approach to the question. Like any other area of halacha, hilchos geirus has its share of halachic disputes. For example, which parts of the process require a beis din; perhaps a beis din is needed only l'chatchila, or is it me'akev? Or: If the conversion candidate admits that he/she has mixed motivations (such as being interested in a Jewish spouse, but also sincerely l'shem Shamayim), is this acceptable or is it posul even b'dieved? Pick either of those questions, or make up another one of your own. Let's say that both Orpah and Rus converted at the beginning of the story. Let's also say that everyone was up-front and sincere about whatever they claimed their motivations to be, such that no one was surprised ten years later. In other words, there was no disagreement about the facts of the situation. But there WAS a machlokes among the poskim of the time, about the halacha to apply to that situation. Machlon, Kilyon, Rus and Boaz all held like the poskim who said that the conversion was a valid one, at least b'dieved. But Naami held like the poskim who ruled it to be invalid, even b'dieved. Thus, Machlon and Kilyon were able to marry these women in good conscience. For ten years Naami held Orpah and Rus to be non-Jewish, but there wasn't much she could do about it, because their husbands held that they *were* Jewish. When the husbands died, Naami finally had the opportunity to express the view of her poskim. Orpah accepted Naami's advice (for whatever reason), but Rus was committed to continuing her new religion (for whatever reason). At this point, perhaps Rus had a second geirus to keep her mother-in-law happy, or maybe not. Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to speak of. A possible hole in my suggestion appears in pasuk 2:20, where Naami explicitly admits that Boaz is one of "OUR" relatives, and one of "OUR" redeemers. This would not make sense if Naami rejected the validity of the original conversion. However, this occurs AFTER pasuk 2:11, in which Boaz tells Rus (I am paraphrasing): "I know your whole story. Don't worry. I hold your geirus to be valid, and I hold you you be a relative." In the final analysis, Naami goes along. Maybe she decides to accept Boaz's shitah l'halacha, or maybe she merely goes along as a practical matter, given the fait accompli that both Boaz and Rus hold that way. Have I left any loose ends here? Previous approaches have focused on uncertainties of intention. This approach says that everything that happened in Moav was clear, and the only gray part was a machlokes haposkim, but we know which shitah was followed by each character of the story. I invite all comments. advTHANKSance Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 09:16:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 12:16:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0789e301-2374-0dd3-0f9e-8befc1c1052c@sero.name> On 27/05/17 23:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was > valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to > speak of. There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. What is the point of this mitzvah? It's to pay off his obligations and redeem his good name; Ruth -- whether Jewish or not -- was also his obligation, and had to be redeemed. Thus Boaz need not have believed that the initial conversion -- if there was one -- had been valid. But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:51:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:51:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Rut converted when Naomi tried to send her back, while Oprah chose not to convert. Ben On 5/28/2017 5:44 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without > Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 10:50:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 17:50:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> >From last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should always follow the local custom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:16:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:16:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mezonos After Kiddush Message-ID: <1495995457275.89387@stevens.edu> >From Friday's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. Must Kiddush be followed by a meal with bread, or is it sufficient to make Kiddush and then eat mezonos? A. There is a halacha that Kiddush may only be recited at the place of one's meal. This requirement is known as Kiddush b'makom se'udah (Pesachim 101a). If one does not eat a se'udah after Kiddush or recites Kiddush in a location other than where he eats the meal, he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of Kiddush and must make Kiddush again when and where he eats. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch (OC 273:5) quote the Ge'onim who hold that one can fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush without actually eating a full meal at the time and place that he makes Kiddush. Rather, a person can consume a mere ke'zayis of bread or even drink an additional revi'is of wine as his Kiddush-time "meal" to fulfill the requirement of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. The Magen Avraham (273:11) and Aruch Ha-Shulchan (273:8) explain that, according to the Ge'onim, one can eat Mezonos food (e.g. cookies, pastry, or cake), after Kiddush to satisfy the rule of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. This view has become widely accepted, and many poskim permit partaking of Mezonos foods after Kiddush but ideally advise against satisfying the mitzvah by merely drinking an additional revi'is of wine (see MB 273:25). Some halachic authorities, including the Chasam Sofer, as quoted by Rav Moshe Shternbuch, shlita (Teshuvos V'Hanhogos 5:80), have ruled that if one makes Kiddush and then eats Mezonos foods, he must make Kiddush again later at his actual se'udah. This was also the opinion of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l. In the next Halacha Yomis we will discuss whether cheesecake is a proper pastry for one to fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. For more on this topic please read Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer's excellent article "Eating Dairy on Shavuos" featured in the 5777 - 2017 Shavuos Consumer Daf HaKashrus. After eating pungent, strong-tasting cheese one should wait before eating meat, the same amount of time that one waits between meat and milk, regardless of the cheese's age. The following chart shows which cheeses require waiting: Aged Cheese List - Kosher -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:59:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:59:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros Message-ID: <1495998054786.63765@stevens.edu> I received the following response to my earlier email about this topic Sadly, you will always find 1 or 2 people in every shul who "sit" while the entire tzibbur stands. This strikes me as downright arrogant, and IMHO is done more to make a "statement" than to follow a minhag that might be prevalent in some communities. C'mon; if 100 or 200 people are standing, should someone stick out and sit because that's the way he was taught.....? To this I replied Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. And in light of this, may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed. I bet this never occurred to you. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:15:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:15:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> References: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> Message-ID: Some people look at this as purely a matter of minhag, and so criticize those who do not follow the local minhag, calling them arrogant. Well, the Rambam thought this was an issue of an incorrect hashqafa, and worth ignoring any minhag started in ignorance. Part of the problem with modern Jews is that everything to them is an issue of minhag. They do not understand that sometimes there are really important hashqafa issues from teh Torah involved. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels at ou.org ________________________________ From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 1:50 PM To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? >From last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should always follow the local custom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:34:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:34:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to : reality... It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem. ... : It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as : being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality : that predates this entire debate... True, as I wrote : >(My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about : >fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" : >a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos : >that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, : >etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or : >resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and : >general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) >From this perspective, those who are in favor of change are advocating a definition of Torah that includes only black-letter law. ... : It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of : Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha... Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that halakhah must conform to and the law itself. Not "primacy over halakhah", but a voice in resolving between two positions when black-letter law could be drafted to support either. It may only get a quieter voice, it still must have its say. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:16:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 16:16:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the rituals above the menshlichkeit. There's a story I've heard many times. This version comes from Rav Frand at https://torah.org/torah-portion/ravfrand-5755-naso/ > At the eulogy of R. Yaakov Kaminetzsky, zt"l, one speaker > related the following: There was a nun in Monsey, New York > who complained about the way the Jewish population related > to her: Everyone used to walk right past her... The "correct" > people ignored her, and the "super correct" people spat. This > nun then related that there was, however, one old Jew with a > white beard that used to say "Good Morning" every single day. > (That Jew was R. Yaakov.) That?s Kiddush Hashem and "looking > the other way" is Chillul Hashem. Such stories are NOT hard to find. The "frum" newspapers and magazines and parsha sheets are full of them. I don't know why so few people greeted that nun pleasantly. I hope that it changed when that story started to get around. If I write any more, I'll get even more depressed than currently. Suffice it so say that the only reason I'm posting this at all, is to clarify the point that I think RMB was trying to make, and to agree with it. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:52:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:52:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as kedoshim tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in the sense of being like aggadeta. Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos would be incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give the value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan pesukim and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos. Most often that's implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the gemara of value based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the expense of what looks otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular dracheha darchei noam is cited. I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic. Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not operate in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how the value system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We ignore meta-halachic pesukim at our peril. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:18:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:18:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Ben Waxman wrote: > I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their > very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, pages 48-52. R' Zev Sero wrote: > There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the > mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. > But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than > being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why > put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether > it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only > applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk > literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging > such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves. Good question, especially since my post explicitly allowed for "an unknown machlokes". The problem is that the machlokes would have to be one where Machlon, Kilyon, Ruth, and Boaz all held that Ruth's marriage was valid, with only Naami holding it to be not valid. My understanding is that Avoda Zara 36b allows for the *possibility* that it is muttar *d'Oraisa* to marry an Avoda Zara woman who is not from The Seven Nations. And Ruth, being from Moav, was *not* from those seven. But at the very most, that gemara would allow (on a d'Oraisa level) sexual relations, and even doing so "derech chasnus" - as a marriage. It does NOT go so far as to consider Ruth as part of the extended family such that Boaz would have any responsibility to her. I would want a source for that. Granted that there might be some "unknown machlokes" which would consider Ruth to be part of Boaz's family, even if she did not convert at the beginning of the story. But I think such a suggestion would be venturing into fantasyland. Here's why: Even if it is mutar d'Oraisa for a Jewish man to publicly marry an Avoda Zara woman (who isn't from the Seven Nations), the children from such a marriage would not be Jewish, and that's d'Oraisa. In other words, even if the marriage is legitimate, the children are not part of the man's family. And if the children are not part of his family, then kal vachomer, Boaz is certainly not part of his family. So unless you can show a valid source that Boaz held (or even *might* have held) by patrilineal descent, then I can't see RZS's suggestion as reasonable. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 15:07:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:07:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: "And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying, 'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them: May HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers 6:22-26] The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins between man and his fellow man. Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his or her face towards the offender. So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is equally important. Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 15:27:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: <4EECF03B-E505-4324-B37E-96A99F67F0A9@cox.net> "And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying, 'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them: May HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers 6:22-26] The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins between man and his fellow man. Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his or her face towards the offender. So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is equally important. Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 16:14:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 19:14:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170528231426.GD6467@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:16:38PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : : > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of : > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without : > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot : > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... : : I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and : more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly : does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But : for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the : rituals above the menshlichkeit. : This is why I wrote that the hashkafah is necessary in order to observe halakhos like qedoshim tihyu. But I realized the language problem, which is why when I replied to Lisa I used the idiom "black-letter halakhah", to refer to the kind of laws that can be codified in the SA. Which isn't only ritual. Eg the limits of ona'as mamon is black-letter halakhah. One of the saddest things about the writings of the CC (other than the MB) is that they represent the realization that shemiras halashon and ahavad chessed were going to continue to get short shrift unless someone made black-letter halakhah out of them. When in reality, HQBH would be "Happier" -- I am guessing, of course -- if we would do things things simply because ve'ahavta lerei'akha kamokha. At the Alter of Slabodka put it: I don't love mtself because there is a mitzvah to do so. So too, the mitzvah is to develop of love of others, and therefore all these things would come naturally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:31:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 14:31:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: It seems to me that the opponents of ordination of women are hiding behind conflation of terms. What is first needed is an understanding of what ordination is in this day and age. The plain meaning of the Shulchan Aruch YD 242:14 is that it is permission from a teacher to a student to instruct in issur v'heter. it is perhaps more instructive to go through the process step by step and see where those who object have a problem. 1. women learn the subject matter 2. the teacher thinks they are capable 3. if the teacher dies, according to SA YD 242:14, nothing further is needed 4. the teacher gives the student permission(to avoid transgressing on the prohibition of moreh l'fnei rabo) So, if there is a problem, which step is the problem and why? is it that a teacher cant give a women permission to be mora l'fnei raba? what is the source for that? Essentially what we use the term semicha today is a teacher giving the student immunity from transgressing a particular prohibition. If the issue is that of a woman giving hora'ah, then it is necessary to establish exactly what that is in this day and age. Is it just 'mareh mekomot'? is it more formal hora'ah? we should keep in mind that R. Schachter, in defining terms for converts, writes that hora'ah in issur v'heter is NOT serarah, and that according to some opinions, judging dinei mamanot is not serarah. Furthermore, he writes of a difference of opinion whether semicha is a din in dayanus, or a din in hora'ah. So, if semicha is a din in dayanus, and not hora'ah, then there is no reason to bring the restrictions from dayanus over to hora'ah. and, if semicha is a din in hora'ah, then the restrictions on dayyanus don't apply to semicha. I would add that the entire basis for the claim that women cant get semicha starts with the restriction on women being witnesses, then that being extended to judges, and then being extended again to semicha. It is not necessarily a given that these extensions should be made. We should note that there are a number of others who are prohibited from being witnesses- those who lend with interest, deaf, blind, etc. The internet reports that there are those who were deaf that recieved orthodox semicha. I dont have any information on semicha for the blind. However, it does not appear that the OU has taken a position on these, nor has anyone accused the deaf and the blind who are seeking semicha of being heretics nor have they been threatened with being kicked out of Orthodoxy. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 17:00:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:00:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529000002.GA17436@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:01:37AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Areivim wrote: : 'that a pesaq is by definition someone eligable to be a dayan,' : Which surely most community rabbis are not, since most have yoreh yoreh but not yadin yadin. 1- Eligable, not qualified. 2- Who said one has to have Yadin Yadin to serve as a dayan? Yes, to judge fiscal matters, we need someone who knows CM, but for someone to decide questions of YD? On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:21:20PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Areivim wrote: : I was thinking along very similar lines. In which case, the main : (only?) difference between the yoetzet and the community rabbi is that : the rabbi's job also includes "masculine" roles like leadership, while : teaching and paskening are neutral and shared. As I wrote in every other iteratrion of this question, there is a difference between teaching halakhah pesuqah and applying shiqul hada'as. Someone who follows a rav's pesaq is obeying lo sasur, and therefore did the right thing even if the rabbi's shiqul hada'as was faulty. Any hypothetical qorban chatos would be the rabbi's. If the person is not among those covered by mikol asher yorukha, then the qorban chatas is yours for listening to her, not the Maharat's. On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 02:31:52PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that the opponents of ordination of women are hiding : behind conflation of terms. What is first needed is an understanding of : what ordination is in this day and age. The plain meaning of the Shulchan : Aruch YD 242:14 is that it is permission from a teacher to a student to : instruct in issur v'heter... I cwould use the word "hora'ah" rather than the misleading "instruct". One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in the same town as one's rebbe. ... : 3. if the teacher dies, according to SA YD 242:14, nothing further : is needed : 4. the teacher gives the student permission(to avoid transgressing on : the prohibition of moreh l'fnei rabo) I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. IOW, we have no indication that when the Rama says that if the rebbe was niftar, nothing else is needed that he is talking about anything more than needed to satisfy kavod harav ONLY. IOW, one of these two criteria is necessary, but -- even assuming competency is a given -- are they sufficient? Semchiah could well be hetero hora'ah plus. Both R/Prof Saul Lieberman and RHS argued they are not. And so it appears from Taosafos. And since we have no indication that the Rama is disagreeing with Torafos... For that matter, since the form "yoreh yoreh" is peeled off of the formula for ordaining a member of sanhderin -- "Yoreh? Yoreh! Yadin? Yadin! Yatir bekhoros? Yatir bechoros!" -- there is sme connection to dayanus as per Tosafos implied in the traditional ordination text itself. ... : I would add that the entire basis for the claim that women cant get : semicha starts with the restriction on women being witnesses, then that : being extended to judges, and then being extended again to semicha. : It is not necessarily a given that these extensions should be made. We : should note that there are a number of others who are prohibited : from being witnesses- those who lend with interest, deaf, blind, etc. : The internet reports that there are those who were deaf that recieved : orthodox semicha... Deaf? To you mean cheireish, a caegory we rule refers to the uneducable and thus does not mean today's deaf mutes? Blind? Chalitzah has a special gezeiras hakasuv, "l'einei", specifically because a blind man is allowed to serve as a dayan. (And as RHS points out, geirim can be dayanim for other geirim, so we see their disqualification to serve in most courts is not athat they are outside of lo sosuru, but another issue.) But I do not think those who lend with interest are kosher rabbanim. Refardless of social ills which may cause that din to be largely ignored in practice. Our discussion here should not be about whether you or I agree with the OU's priorities, but whether the shitah they are supporting in the particular question at hand is well-founded in principle. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 16:53:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 19:53:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg cited a story with an apparent contradiction, and resolved the contradiction this way: > Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between > man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can > show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But > when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His > face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his > or her face towards the offender. > > So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the > Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately > towards other human beings is equally important. It seems to me that although religious or ritual behavior is important, Rebbe Yossi HaKohen is teaching us that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is EVEN MORE important. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 17:18:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:18:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 07:53:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that although religious or ritual behavior is : important, Rebbe Yossi HaKohen is teaching us that behaving : appropriately towards other human beings is EVEN MORE important. Look at the list of holidays in parashas Emor. 23:21-22 describe Shavuos. Look which mitzvos are associated with Shavuos. Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which mitzvos are listed specifically? Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice of Shavu'os reading. To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani. We really need a flavor of O that takes Hillel's "de'ealh sani", or R' Ariva's or Ben Azzai's kelalim gedolim, or for that matter the oft-quoted medrash "derekh eretz qodma ... leTorah" as one's actual first principle for life. And not just a platitude for the early grades, a truism repeated unthinkingly to get nods during the rabbi's sermon. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:11:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:11:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Someone who follows a rav's pesaq is obeying lo sasur, and > therefore did the right thing even if the rabbi's shiqul > hada'as was faulty. Any hypothetical qorban chatos would be > the rabbi's. If the person is not among those covered by > mikol asher yorukha, then the qorban chatas is yours for > listening to her, not the Maharat's. L'halacha, I totally agree. L'maaseh, it is critical to determine who is a "rav" and who isn't. That is, who is "covered by mikol asher yorukha" and who isn't. It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these teachers, because, after all, *Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! > I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. > IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that > anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. I agree that YD 242 is about kavod harav. And if the rav is niftar, then that permission is no longer necessary, but that's not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about who is covered by mikol asher yorukha. So why wouldn't the semicha place a musmach into that category? In other words: Suppose a certain person *is* in that category, and then gives semicha "yoreh yoreh" to another individual. Doesn't the semicha announce to the world that the second individual is now covered by mikol asher yorukha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:15:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 05:15:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> If "black letter law" is the criteria, then issues like womens Megila readings and women dancing with a Sefer Torah disappear. All the opposition because these practices are not "Torat Sabba" doesn't even begin if all we do is ask "Muttar? Yes? Fine". Ben On 5/28/2017 9:34 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of > : Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha... > > Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black > letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that > halakhah must conform to and the law itself. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:20:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 05:15:03AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : If "black letter law" is the criteria, then issues like womens : Megila readings and women dancing with a Sefer Torah disappear. All : the opposition because these practices are not "Torat Sabba" doesn't : even begin if all we do is ask "Muttar? Yes? Fine". I am totally at lost as to your intent. Megillah reading or dancing with a sefer Torah are reducible to black-letter law. In contrast to, for example, deciding how to triage my tzedaqah donations. Wehther that reduction can be done within vanilla halachic process or by appeal to metahalakhah, or by appeal to the general "feel" of halakhah -- like the Rambam's "li nir'eh" -- is a different question. But either way, the question exists. So, what do you mean? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:06:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:06:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat/R. Micha Message-ID: R. Micha, thanks for the response. so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah. And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't necessarily apply to anything else. But the OU authors claim that some of YD 242 is based on classic semicha, and therefore all the restrictions of classic semicha should apply. But that makes no sense of you are claiming that YD 242 ONLY applies to the teacher/student relationship. So your own argument works against your claim. There is not a single hint that anything else about classic semicha applies to what we currently call semicha. (Incidentally I wonder when the first claim of more extensive connections were made, and why, if there is such a close connection, we dont mandate that semicha be done only in Israel, and all the other attributes of classic semicha, it seems that the ONLY aspect of classic semicha that is being brought forward is the prohibition on women). You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much against that possibility. It states: ??????? ???????????? ??????????? ????????? ??????, ?????? ??????????? ???? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ????? ??????????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ???????????, ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????????. ????? ??????????? ?????, ????????? ?????????????? ??????, ????????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????????.(???''? ?????? ??''? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ?' ?????? ????????). ?????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ???????????, ???? ???????????? ???????, ?????? ??????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????, ??? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????. (???''? ?????? ??' ?' ?????''? ??' ?''? ???''?). ?????? ????????? ???????????(?????????? ???''? ?????''?). ?????????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????????, ????? ??? ????????? ?????, ???? ????????? ???? ?????????? ???????, ???? ?''?. ?????? ?''? ?????????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???????????? ????????, ????? ??? ???? ??????????? ??????????? ????????????? ????????????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????, ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????????? ????????. specifically, semicha IN THIS TIME, so that people know that....he has permission. So if his teacher died, there is no need for semicha. The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general" It is very forced to claim that there is more here. You basically have to read things into it that are not there. I am not sure if you are claiming that women cant have semicha? or that they cannot be moreh hora'ah. because it seems very clear here that those who can be moreh hora'ah can get semicha b'zman hazeh..And there is a long list of poskim who agree that women can be moreh hora'ah. Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable. And also, that even though the Talmud specifically states that someone in a particular category cant be a judge or witness, when the understanding of that person's abilities changes, there is potential for them to be witnesses and/or judges- essentially in some cases, where the understanding of the Talmud was at variance with what we know now, the restrictions on some categories is not fixed. If I am reading correctly, R. Herschel Schachter in b'din ger dan et chavero (available at YUTorah August 2002), seems to state that hora'ah in issur v'heter is NOT a issue of serarah. and, according to some opinions, being a dayan for dinei mamanot is similarly not an issue of serarah. Perhaps more to the point, In 'Kuntrus HaSemicha"(published in eretz hatzvi and it seems to be the basis for a talk given at an RCA convention- the talk is available at YUTorah(1985) Smicha in the talmud and today), if I understand correctly, R. Soloveitchik made a distinction as to whether Smicha was a din in dayanus or in Hora'ah. It would seem that such a distinction would indicate that restrictions on dayyanus via semicha do not automatically apply to hora'ah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 00:14:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:14:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 5/28/2017 10:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >: And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to >: reality... > It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are > other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem. I'm not sure that the views of Avodah's LW are the point. To the extent that they argue in favor of those with "other, less defensible, ideologies", it's reasonable to argue against those "other, less defensible, ideologies". And I would be willing to supply examples of where members of Avodah's LW do appear to see it that way, but I suspect such examples would be bounced as "adding more fire than light to the discussion". On 5/28/2017 11:52 PM, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of > Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' > I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as > kedoshim tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in > the sense of being like aggadeta. I don't see that. They are halakhic in the sense that they are commandments. > Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos would be > incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give the > value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are > part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan > pesukim and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos. Most > often that's implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the > gemara of value based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the > expense of what looks otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular > dracheha darchei noam is cited. There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what can be done today. When members of the left claim that brachot should be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old. > I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic. > Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not > operate in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how > the value system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We > ignore meta-halachic pesukim at our peril. The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum". If you mean that the system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to respectfully disagree. The ethics must themselves come from within our own cultural framework, based on our own traditions. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:32:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:32:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:11:37PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least : equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, : because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has : not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself : included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these : teachers, because, after all, *Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! I do not think the typical yo'etzet is qualified under mikol asher yrukha regardless of how capable she is. The term only applies to be elegable to recieve full semichah -- if the chain hadn't been lost, or could be restored. THat's the thesis of what I'm pushing here; that even the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services. And, since this seems ot be turning into a full reprise, even though we should all know the other's position by now, my third problem is with egalitarianism in-and-of itself. It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah. By justifying finding worth in this way, we are indeed teaching girls their traditional role is inferior and they can't reach equality. Rather than trying to find equal meaningfullness without egalitarianism. Second, the fact that we can't reach full eqalirianism implies something about the anature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely consistent with our religion. It should mean that we should really think through our even wanting to make halakhah more egalitarian, and how to balance that with the clear message of laws like davar shebiqdushah, talmud Torah, esrog, sukkah, shofar... Again: 1- Who can pasqen 2- Who was shul designed to serve 3- Trying to accomodate agalitarianism is both strategically and in terms of values, a bad idea. Notice the absense of the word "serarah". Trying to minimize or eliminate the role of serarah in our conversation won't do much to sway me, as it has little to do with my arguments to begin with. Now, back to R/Dr Stadlan's email: :> I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. :> IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that :> anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. : I agree that YD 242 is about kavod harav. And if the rav is niftar, : then that permission is no longer necessary, but that's not what the : discussion is about. The discussion is about who is covered by mikol : asher yorukha. So why wouldn't the semicha place a musmach into that : category? It could or couldn't -- I believe couldn't. (Following R/Prof Lieberman and RHS.) But SA 242 can't be cited on the topic either way, since the se'if is not on topic for our discussion. R/Dr N Stadlan brought it as the defintion of the role of semichah, so I wanted to dismiss taking this siman that way.` "Mikol asher yorukha" is written in the context of dayanim. The only reason why we say it applies to today's musmachim, despite the lesser kind of semichah and the lack of sanhedrin is that "yoreh yoreh" is framed as a splinter of dayanus (which is where the phrase "yoreh yoreh" comes from) and that they are appointed to act as the surrogate of the last (so far) sanhedrin. None of which pro forma can be applied to women. Only someone who could be a dayan, if the situation were such that they could become qualified and real semichah were available can serve as their fill-in. On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:06:06PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah. : And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't : necessarily apply to anything else. But the OU authors claim that some of : YD 242 is based on classic semicha... They note that the Rama in 4-5 is drawing from the Mahariq, and then explain that the Mahariq tells you he is basing his conclusion on the idea that what's true for classic semichah should be true for our current Yoreh-Yoreh (YY). They also cite the AhS 242:30, who assumes that only those eligable for classic semichah can be ordained YY. Those are the ony two mentions of siman 242 in the paper, neither of which refer to the se'ifim you did. And what you are attributing to the OU is actually the Mahariq and the Ah -- a source and an interpreter (who is for us a source in his own right) of the SA -- not their own take. : You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly : where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much : against that possibility. It states: ... : The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the : ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general" YD 242:14 isn't trying to define semichah. It's in a siman about kevod harav, not a siman about semichah. You are nit-picking in the wording about se'ifim that are only tangentially related, and ignoring the Rama's stated source. I disagree with how you read the se'if, since his "only" would be about kevod harav, not "semichah is only". But really that's tangential. Your read of the Rama contradicts one of the sources he names. ... : Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be : witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable... I do? Where do I say that? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 22:01:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 01:01:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the entire aliya in which the dibros appear. For those who feel the dibros merit standing, they are indeed standing. For those who feel that the dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria of the dibros begins. Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since their end is always the end of the aliya. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:04:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 23:04:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/05/17 15:18, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Ben Waxman wrote: >> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their >> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. > > Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that > Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent > introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, > pages 48-52. Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation that has such "gedolim". > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the >> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. > > It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it > something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus > and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus > then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. On the contrary. If it were a matter of yibum then it would depend on whether there was an original marriage. But then why would it be connected to redeeming the field? It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations would not be settled. Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz agreed with them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 00:10:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:10:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/28/2017 10:18 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Ben Waxman wrote: >> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their >> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. > Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that > Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." Yes, but the dor in question was one where "each man did what was right in his own eyes". So their being gedolei hador doesn't mean they were any better than, say, Yiftach. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:23:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:23:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation : that has such "gedolim". According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah Neustadt , this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam. Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim". But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el... If this is the Rambam's intent, it would fit a number of gemaros which refer to various shofetim as amei ha'aretz. See the article. OTOH, Tosafos's treatment of the question of how Devorah could serve as shofetes presumes the role includes being a dayan in the halachic sense (and then explains why Devorah is neither role model nor eis-la'asos exception), rather than only the serarah question of her being a civil leader. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:17:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:17:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29/05/17 01:01, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his > minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not > to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two > different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the > entire aliya in which the dibros appear. For those who feel the dibros > merit standing, they are indeed standing. For those who feel that the > dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up > specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria > of the dibros begins. Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since > their end is always the end of the aliya. Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. (Personally I stand for the whole leining so it's not an issue for me, but this is what I've seen.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:33:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:33:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <10c1c9ed-6b4e-cb90-8297-cdeb5a507e94@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <13c3a1e0-26da-f70b-7b13-b80c95bf5d1d@zahav.net.il> <58F44DE5-8AE0-4CF7-BC79-7048F752624D@sibson.com> <10c1c9ed-6b4e-cb90-8297-cdeb5a507e94@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: > Ok let's accept your presumption-Who that has the authority to determine which changes are with in the halachic system and which aren't. Can I say libi omer li if I have smicha and that's good enough? If not , how do you draw the line? ------------------------ I can't say that I can draw a clear line. Certainly someone who passes a 2 year smicha program (a change, BTW) shouldn't be doing this type of thing. It seems that change doesn't require unanimous agreement and very possibly it can be done even if the greatest rabbis disagree. My example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher. Ben ----------------------- Yup, as said, the wheel is still in spin with regard to this and the other current thread Maharat/smicha. Now "everyone knows" it was obvious that Chassidus would be accepted and Conservative not (see Kahnemaan Tversky on how we all do this) Anyone who thinks these or those are simply matters of black letter law discussions (hat tip R'Micha) IMHO is fooling themselves. Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 06:09:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 09:09:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in > the same town as one's rebbe. If the shiur-giver is very careful to merely read and explain the QSA, then I'd agree with you. But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require require semicha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 06:12:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 13:12:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] (no subject) Message-ID: "Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. And in light of this, may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed." Do you also sit for the musaf amidah on Rosh Hashana and Ne'ilah on Yom Kippur? And since there are those who cannot and do not stand for those because of physical infirmities, would you suggest that everyone sit for those teffilot so as not to embarrass the ones who truly must sit? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 09:41:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros Message-ID: <33c01f.93b651f.465da93b@aol.com> From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. YL >>>>>> I want to thank RYL for the reminder we all need -- myself very much included -- not to be too quick to assume we know other people's motives. Sitting during the reading of Aseres Hadibros may indeed be an indication not of arrogance but of arthritis. Let us be kind to one another, even in our thoughts. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 07:26:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 29/05/17 08:23, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation > : that has such "gedolim". > > According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP > beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah > Neustadt, > this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam. > > Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim > of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim". > > But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers > of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past > that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el... I actually had that article in mind, but was not taking Rashi's side. Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel Bedoro". So even if Machlon & Kilyon were considered "gedolei hador" that wouldn't seem to be sufficient reason to assume that they acted properly, even in the sense that they had an opinion which is one of the shiv'im panim and followed it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 09:46:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:46:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum," or you call it something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. Akiva Miller >>>>>> There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events in Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 13:01:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 20:01:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <92dae2a6-a1ea-f563-f350-cddd9a9fbade@starways.net> References: , <92dae2a6-a1ea-f563-f350-cddd9a9fbade@starways.net> Message-ID: 'There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what can be done today. When members of the left claim that brachot should be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old.' No argument there at all. The point was really to buttress the truism that halacha and Torah are not synonymous. Halacha works within the larger structure of Torah and is guided by principle and values. Your point that this idea is mangled and misused throughout heterodoxy is well taken though. I was not suggesting that someone can pick a favourite value, decide that it doesn't shtim with a particular halacha and proceed to mangle the halacha into submission. Not for a moment. 'The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum". If you mean that the system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to respectfully disagree. The ethics must themselves come from within our own cultural framework, based on our own traditions'. Again, agree 100%. Don't think I suggested otherwise. I'm a neo-Hirschian after all. What I was taking issue with was your contention that it is 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' That's true for the heterodox tendency to sidestep halacha (or worse) due to what they consider to be ethical issues. But it doesn't take into account the centrality of of values in the whole system of Torah, including underlying TSBP. Just for example, Pirkei Avos is not halachic but it's vital and has implications for halacha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 12:38:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:38:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> References: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> Message-ID: <2ba3e007-8860-37d6-2941-c41f1aac13bf@sero.name> On 29/05/17 12:46, RTK wrote: > There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events > in Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no > mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was. 1. How could anyone hold there was a mitzvah of yibum, when the Torah explicitly limits it to brothers? 2. If he held as a matter of halacha that Boaz was wrong, then he should have insisted on redeeming the field without marrying Ruth. The fact that on being informed of this requirement he backed out of the whole deal shows that he acknowledged Boaz's point. Therefore that point was not about yibum but about mitzvas geulah. Boaz pointed out that Machlon had an obligation to Ruth, and so long as it remained outstanding the mitzvah to discharge his obligations would remain unfulfilled. Ploni agreed, and since he could not do that he waived his rights. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 12:51:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:51:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel : Bedoro". The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah". Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so? Yes, it's dachuq. But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include the generation's gedolim. I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology, but that doesn't mean I share it. However, given Chabad's linking HQBH medaber mirokh gerono shel Moshe to Moshe bedoro keShmuel bedoro to yield the notion that every generation has a Yechidah Kelalis, a single tzadiq who is uniquely that generation's person in that role, I would think the notion that Yiftach as that person but not one of the baton-passers of mesorah to be even harder to fathom than within my own hashkafah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 13:25:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:25:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <46edbb0e-6394-3e98-a574-f1c53410f0bf@sero.name> On 29/05/17 15:51, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the > : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the > : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel > : Bedoro". > > The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing > Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah". Yes, precisely. And yet he was the "gadol hador". > Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our > obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring > whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so? > > Yes, it's dachuq. > > But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but > not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm > not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include > the generation's gedolim. Your unstated but clear assumption is that "gedolei hador" means "gedolei *hatorah* shebador". I am challenging that assumption. I am saying that when Machlon & Kilyon are described as "gedolei hador" it does not mean that they were talmidei chachamim, any more than it means that when Yiftach is described as "kishmuel bedoro". It just means they were the generation's leaders, and thus if they did wrong everyone else would follow their lead. Meanwhile Pinchas was still the gadol hatorah. Remember, "Yiftach bedoro" is an explicit gemara, so the Rambam can't dispute it. So how can this machlokes between Rashi & the Rambam, that the article posits, exist? This is how. The Rambam accepts Yiftach bedoro, that Yiftach was indeed the "gadol hador", but that is irrelevant to his topic; he is listing who passed the Torah down from that generation to the next, and that was not Yiftach but Pinechas. > I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I > think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology, Wow. Just wow. No, it has nothing to do with Chabad *or* theology. It's an explicit pasuk and gemara. Yiftach was the one and only gadol hador, because the pasuk says so, and he had the same authority as Shmuel because the gemara says so. But one wouldn't ask him a shayla about "an egg in kutach". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:03:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing. Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R. Micha's interpretation: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/ Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to understand the Rama, but one of them is: " The first and simplest view, drawing the logical conclusion from the above depiction of semikhah and adopted by Rama in both the Darkhei Moshe and Shulh?an Arukh, concludes that anyone is eligible to receive semikhah when their teacher certifies they have acquired requisite knowledge and licenses them to issue halakhic rulings. The scope of this license may be limited to certain areas of law (depending on the studentVs actual knowledge and qualifications) and may be granted to one who is ineligible to receive Mosaic ordination that was present in Talmudic times. As such, basic contemporary semikhah is based on oneVs knowledge and competence to answer questions of law". the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have sources to rely upon. I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong with semicha for women. The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 05:08:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 08:08:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am going to revise and restate my original post, which got sidetracked onto issues of marriage to a non-Jewess, and of the role of a "redeemer", which I confess to knowing very little about. But it is very clear to anyone who has looked at it (again, pages 48-52 of ArtScroll's Ruth is an excellent summary) many of Chazal were uncomfortable with the possibility that Machlon and Kilyon would marry women who had not been converted at all. At the same same, they are also very uncomfortable with Naami telling women who *had* converted that they should leave. Some have tried to resolve this by suggesting some sort of "tentative" conversion, but I cannot imagine that we'd allow such a conversion to be cancelled after ten long years. Instead, my solution is that there was a genuine halachic machlokes involved, such that Machlon and Kilyon held the conversion to be valid (at least on some minimal b'dieved level), while Ruth held it to be totally invalid. This simple approach answers all the problems listed above. (It also allows you to think whatever you like about the level of Machlon's and kilyon's gadlus.) I will leave it as an open question whether Ruth reconverted to satisfy Naami's shita, or whether Naami resigned herself to accepting the first geirus. I also retract all my comments about Boaz, as they will turn on topics that I am woefully ignorant about. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:32:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 17:32:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging > Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an > obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he > owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations > would not be settled. > Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages > were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz > agreed with them. I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a related question which is probably simpler: What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then there was no kiddushin. I'll repeat that: Even if it is mutar to marry a woman AZ-nik (not from the Seven Nations) that marriage is one of convenience, maybe even love, but not of kiddushin, and I'm not aware of any halachic obligations that the husband has toward such a wife. I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have towards the husband himself, and we see in pasuk 4:4, that Ploni Almoni was willing to buy the field from Naami in order to meet those obligations to Elimelech. But in 4:5, Boaz pointed out that buying it from Naami would be insufficient. He'd have to buy it from both Naami and Ruth, at which point Ploni declined and Boaz himself accepted the responsibility. My question is: *What* responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid? (I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so, then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech left. Why did they wait ten years?) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:51:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 23:51:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > RMB: the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. > All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and possibly the latter. > > RMB: Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of > shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use > to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi > in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services. > On the one hand, I completely agree with you. One of the things I love about Orthodox Judaism is the all-women spaces - women's shiurim and batei midrash and tehillim groups and ladies' auxiliaries and all-girls schools. I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have comfortable space for women as well. I understand that the "men's club" gets to run the tefillot and be the gabbaim and the ba'alei tefillah and ba'alei korei and rabbi - and that losing that space would not be good for men. But I hope that having an ezrat nashim open for all tefillot (during the week, Shabbat mincha) would not ruin the mens' club atmosphere. Does having a woman give the drasha go too far in this regard? I think it depends on the community. > > > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah.... > Second, > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about > the > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely > consistent with our religion.... > Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. I think you have presented some compelling reasons for declining to endorse or promote the institution of maharats. I see no reason for maharats to be universally accepted. However, I believe that the maharats personally, and the communities they serve, remain clearly within the Orthodox community. We can disagree strongly with another Orthodox sector's practices (Hallel on Yom Ha'Atzma'ut comes to mind) without declaring them out-of-bounds. Finally, a perspective from Israel. Women rabbis/maharats are a particularly contentious issue in the US, because (a) it is similar to changes made by the Conservative and Reform movements, (b) a very common career path for American male rabbis is the shul rabbinate, which is particularly problematic for women, and (c) it seems to have perhaps been instituted in a manner designed to provoke controversy. In Israel, Conservative and Reform are a small minority with little influence. Most male rabbis work in education, writing/translating/publishing, or computer programming - all perfectly acceptable careers for learned women. Full-time shul rabbis are almost unheard of. And I can think of three or four respected, mainstream, dati leumi institutions that are essentially giving women the equivalent of smicha, without a lot of fanfare. Some people think this is great, some people think this is awful, and many people have not really noticed - but there isn't a big brouhaha and questioning of Orthodox credentials. Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it seems to be shaping up as the latter. Chag sameach, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 03:10:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 06:10:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170530101006.GA10791@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have : sources to rely upon... Again, the Rama cites the Mahariq... So, so rule leniently is to read the Rama and ignore his source. : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the : specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. Well, in the case of Maharat in particular, the big bold print in the middle of the certificate reads "heter hora'ah larabbim". http://www.jta.org/2013/06/17/default/what-does-an-orthodox-ordination-certificate-look-like Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 49th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 7 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 goal of perfect unity? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 04:51:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 06:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R Micha. You did not answer my question. When you and/orthe OU panel use the word semicha when you forbid it to women, what exactly does it mean? Heter hora'ah? Something more? Something different? Clarity please. Thank you Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 07:27:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shavuos (Lifeline) Message-ID: <448A28D9-D7AC-47C4-807C-08E3C10A0318@cox.net> The Rabbis tell us the Book of Ruth teaches neither of things that are permitted or forbidden. Why then is it part of Holy Scriptures? Because its subject matter is gemilus chassodim. Along the same line, three times a day we recite ?God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob.? However, we conclude the blessing ?mogen Avraham? ? only with Abraham. Why? In explanation, a Chassidic Rabbi explains that each of the patriarchs symbolizes one of the three essentials as articulated in Pirkei Avos 1:2). Jacob represents Torah; Isaac, Avodah; and Abraham, gemilus chassodim. Though all three principles are vital, kindness is sufficient to stabilize the world (how we need it now more than ever!). An interest in the performance of good deeds was the quality that marked Abraham ? a quality which can be a shield and support to us even when other qualities in our nature are weak ? hence, MOGEN AVRAHAM. Ruth was no ordinary convert. Her name gives us a clue to her essence. In Hebrew, Ruth's name is comprised of the letters reish, vav, tav, which add up to a numerical value of 606. As all human beings have an obligation to observe the seven Noachide commandments ? so called because they were given after the flood ? as did Ruth upon her birth as a Moabite. Add those seven commandments to the value of her name and you get 613, the number of commandments in the Torah. The essence of Ruth, her driving life force was the discovery and acceptance of the 606 commandments she was missing. Another lovely aspect is the meaning of the name "Ruth." In Hebrew the name is probably a contraction of re'ut, ' friendship,' which admirably summarizes her nature. The meaning in English is also very apropos: ? Compassion or pity for another ? Sorrow or misery about one's own misdeeds or flaws. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 15:46:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 01:46:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Naso In-Reply-To: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> References: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos > 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which > mitzvos are listed specifically? > > Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice > of Shavu'os reading. > > To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms > of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of > observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani. > Barukh shekkivanti. I made exactly this comparison in a Tikkun Leil Shavuot this time last year, and a parallel observation in a shi`ur last Shabbat: when the Zohar needs an example of how Basar veDam can make a hit`aruta dil'tata which will cause a hit`aruta dele`ela and kickstart the process of atzilut shefa from the upper to lower worlds, it typically says something like "hoshiv ani al shulhanecha". Because for Hazal, the Torah is above all Torat Hesed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 06:06:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:06:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. ---------------------------------------------------- Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the debate on black letter law? KT Joel Rich (full disclosure-kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-not everything that is permitted to you should be done) THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 07:22:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:22:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Probably the best and most succinct historical analogy I've seen for this question. Ben On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > > Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women > rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the > vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it > seems to be shaping up as the latter. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 13:59:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:59:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation. Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. How can this be? Dare we imagine that he did such things unauthorizedly? Certainly he must have had/received some sort of Heter Hora'ah. If so, then when and how did he get it - and without getting semicha at the same time? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 10:22:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] matched soldier and praying for them In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014801d2d969$41c5c800$c5515800$@com> A while ago on Avodah, a well known (chareidi) Baal machshava was quoted as disagreeing strongly with the concept of matching frum people with a nonfrum soldier in order to pray for them. "we have no brotherhood with secular Israelis" Recently, I posted to Avodah a link to a collection of 1400 short tshuvot from HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlitah (of Toronto) On the above topic, he writes there.. #600 Pray As They Go Q. There are two organizations here in Eretz Yisroel, one called; Elef LaMateh, and the other; The Shmirah Project. Basically, their intent is to match Israeli soldiers with Avreichim and bochurim learning. Each Avreich and Bochur who volunteers, receives the name of a specific soldier (his name and his mother's name) that he takes responsibility to daven for and learn specially for so that in the merit of the tefillos and learning, that soldier will merit to return home alive and well. (Is this a good idea) A. HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is a great mitzvah to pray, learn Torah and accomplish mitzvos for the benefit of all our brethren B'nay Yisroel in times of peril and need, especially for those who put their life in harm's way to save and protect others. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 00:39:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:39:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should be identical for each community and each generation? - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 20:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: . I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start farming? I suppose it was pretty desolate after a ten-year famine, but did she even try? She must have at least gone there to see the place, if for no other reason than to be sure that no squatters took over while she was gone. Without making sure of such things, how could she even hope that anyone (even a goel) would buy it? Maybe she expected to get a better profit from Boaz than she'd get from farming it herself, but maybe there are other answers? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 20:05:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:05:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the distinction? When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on this. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 02:14:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (ADE via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:14:59 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are still being machshiv some pesukim over others. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk > *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:32:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:32:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <510d4fd4-6c91-fb85-0c23-f6cdfa7ffcbf@sero.name> On 02/06/17 05:14, ADE wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one >> pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this >> reason. > Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are > still being machshiv some pesukim over others. There is no requirement to treat all pesukim exactly the same. One is entitled to stand or sit during KhT as one wishes, and has no obligation to choose one policy and stick to it. The problem is only with standing up for special pesukim, such as Shma or the 10D. Since there's nothing special about the pasuk before the 10D, there's no problem with deciding to stand for it. And when the special pesukim come along one is already standing, so one has no obligation to sit down. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 18:46:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:46:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> In our personal religious commitments there are those among us scrupulous in performance of the ceremonial mitzvot but at the same time displaying reckless disregard of our elementary duties towards our fellowman. Halacha embraces human life in its totality. One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social trait from our behavior! A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 08:31:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:31:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought In-Reply-To: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> References: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170602153131.GA15356@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made : a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study : of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social : trait from our behavior! Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, among the aphorisms of his listed in R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 21:28:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:28:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4dd6e4f1-2d00-a274-ace0-e5d2a803039a@sero.name> On 01/06/17 23:05, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I only see four instances of "Ruth Hamoaviah", three in ch 2, and only one in ch 4, in Boaz's description of the situation to Tov. Since his purpose was to scare him off, it made sense to mention her origin, so Tov would be reluctant to risk his future. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:20:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:20:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/2/2017 6:05 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I can't cite a source for it, but I remember once reading that Ruth HaMoaviah was intended to praise her, since she gave up her position in Moav to join us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:31:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:31:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Actually if the land had lied fallow for 10 years, it should be in good shape. Granted it needs weeding but the soil should be good. It only requires a relatively small amount of rain for grass to grow and re-invigorate the soil. Maybe she was too old to work the land and figured that a sale would provide her with enough money to live out the rest of her days in dignity? Ben On 6/2/2017 5:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 00:04:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 09:04:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? They came back on Pesach, at the beginning of the barley harvest. Nothing was growing on their land, presumably. Planting is after Sukkot, at the beginning of the rainy season. If they planted, it would be a full year until they could harvest the first barley. As we see from Megillat Rut, the barley then had to dry and wasn't threshed or winnowed until after the wheat harvest (early summer?). When they come back, they have nothing. They need to eat. And two women alone will not be able to do all the work of planting and cultivating in the fall. They would need money to hire workers and probably buy or rent an animal to help with plowing. And to buy seed. They didn't have the capital to go back into farming, or the means to support themselves until the first crop. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 21:17:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:17:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <272b8698-d5c1-55a1-560b-2bc6d0c39b74@sero.name> On 01/06/17 23:01, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? It seems to me that finding a buyer for the property was not at all important to her, and in fact she had shown no interest in doing so until she saw how she could use it to get Boaz to marry Ruth. It was Boaz who spun the story out for Tov in order to scare him off; first he drew him in with the prospect of an easy transaction for Naomi's portion of the field, but then he threw in the Ruth monkey wrench. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:18:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:18:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/2/2017 6:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the > halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I > think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: > > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? In the set of priorities that we had back then, the principle of yerusha was more important than simple economics. As I understand it. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:21:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:21:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22efff8f-5ee7-d47e-8701-b1541a7a8e41@zahav.net.il> And of course the irony is even greater in that many yeshiva rabbis will tell their guys to go to a community rav because they, the yeshiva rabbis, don't deal with shailas. Ben On 5/29/2017 4:11 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least > equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, > because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has > not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself > included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these > teachers, because, after all,*Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:16:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:16:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> On 6/1/2017 10:39 AM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly > egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the > experiences of women and couples and families and communities to > affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian > direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. > > RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument > is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically > permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically > forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without > asking whether HKB?H prefers it? > > Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should > be identical for each community and each generation? > I'm not sure that's the question. The problem is, as I see it, that when one adopts an external -ism as an ideal, and try and "move in a somewhat more -ism-friendly direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted", they're essentially saying that their motivating principle is that -ism. That halakha isn't the motivating principle, but merely bookends. Limits to how far they can push the -ism that's important. It's the difference between a static principle and a dynamic one. What you're describing has egalitarianism as the dynamic force, and halakha as a static one. A fossil. And there's no way to maintain that worldview for long without starting to chafe against the static limits. At which point, people put their shoulders into it and *push* those limits a little bit further. And then a little further than that. And they feel frustrated by those limits. That's probably the biggest problem. It turns halakha into shackles and frustration. And you only have to read articles written by certain YCT teachers and grads to see the hostility that comes out of that. Yes, there are people who can manage to walk the tightrope and not fall into that kind of frustration, but they are few in number, and not representative of the "movement", as such. And many of them, in my observed experience, eventually fall off. Permit me to illustrate this mindset with something that just happened *as* I was writing this. My 17 year old daughter was reading a comic book from the early 1990s. In the comic, the hero (Superboy) is 16, but all of the women he dates are in their 20s. Today, we call that statuatory rape, and have little to no tolerance for it. But if you recall the early 90s, that idea was rather new, and while the writers of the comic gave lip service to the idea, even having characters laughingly calling Superboy "jailbait", it wasn't nearly as taboo as it is today, at least when the younger person was male. But my daughter is livid about it. Appalled. And she isn't able to imagine a world in which that was the way people thought. Similarly, people immersed in the egalitarian ethos so prevelent in the Western world today cannot *imagine* a world where that isn't the universally accepted ideal, except for barbaric and backwards societies. It's a given that egalitarianism is the more advanced worldview. The more civilized worldview. That to the extent that a worldview is less egalitarian, it is less civilized. More backwards. So now consider what it means to say, "I want to be as egalitarian as possible, within the bounds of halakha". It means "I want to be as civilized as possible, within the bounds of the less civilized and more backwards system of halakha." How can that help but breed disrespect, discomfort, and eventually contempt for halakha? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:50:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:50:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> Message-ID: > > LL: The problem is, as I see it, that when one adopts an external -ism as > an ideal, and try and "move in a somewhat more -ism-friendly direction > WITHIN what is halachically permitted", they're essentially saying that > their motivating principle is that -ism. That halakha isn't the motivating > principle, but merely bookends. Limits to how far they can push the -ism > that's important...... > > Similarly, people immersed in the egalitarian ethos so prevelent in the > Western world today cannot *imagine* a world where that isn't the > universally accepted ideal, except for barbaric and backwards societies. > It's a given that egalitarianism is the more advanced worldview. The more > civilized worldview. That to the extent that a worldview is less > egalitarian, it is less civilized. More backwards. > > So now consider what it means to say, "I want to be as egalitarian as > possible, within the bounds of halakha". It means "I want to be as > civilized as possible, within the bounds of the less civilized and more > backwards system of halakha." How can that help but breed disrespect, > discomfort, and eventually contempt for halakha? Yes, if one defines one's ideology and worldview primarily as feminist, one is going to struggle with halacha. Some people struggle and still maintain Orthodox practice. Some become "halachic egalitarian." But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah live in an increasingly egalitarian society. Even women who would never dream of making a women's zimmun (range of psak on this goes from obligatory to optional to assur) have their own credit cards and vote in elections and choose whom they want to marry. Halachic psak does not exist in a vacuum; it applies to a particular metziut in a particular time and place. I can certainly see room to argue that the institution of maharat is an example of an attempt to "push" halacha to evolve artificially to conform to feminism. But to some extent, increased involvement of women teaching and learning all areas of Torah, at all levels, is a natural halachic development in response to changing reality. Each posek will draw his own line as to what is a positive development (maharats? yoatzot? Rebbetzin Heller?), and what needs to be reined in. Halacha is dynamic. (This is true even if the Conservative movement also says it!) Obviously, there are boundaries, but there is also plenty of room for different opinions, and for development over generations. I am not advocating always choosing the most feminist interpretation possible within the bounds of what is mutar. I am pointing out that increasingly egalitarian psak within halacha reflects the reality in which we live. Shabbat Shalom, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 10:00:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Martin Brody via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:00:09 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat etc. Message-ID: "R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation" Did the Chazon Ish have semicha?.I think not -- Martin Brody -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 11:35:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:35:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <960df966-7387-baf7-202b-5a6624127fed@sero.name> On 30/05/17 16:59, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura > did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the > ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite > involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send them to the rav. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 11:46:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:46:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37d489e2-09cc-d836-f973-74d1b831ec0a@sero.name> On 29/05/17 17:32, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging >> Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an >> obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he >> owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations >> would not be settled. >> Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages >> were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz >> agreed with them. > I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to > respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too > complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a > related question which is probably simpler: > > What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then > there was no kiddushin. I don't see how this matters. Machlon was shacked up with this woman for ten years, and left her high and dry. She was now in Beit Lechem living in poverty, and everyone who saw her would say "there's Machlon's widow, poor thing". Thus seeing her settled was an unsettled obligation that Machlon had left behind, so taking care of it was part of the goel's duty, just like paying off his credit cards and returning his library books, so that nobody should be left with a claim against his memory. > I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's > relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have > towards the husband himself [...] My question is: *What* > responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might > be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid? Yes, the goel's duty is to his relative, not to the relative's creditors. But that duty *is* to discharge the relative's obligations, which he is himself unable to discharge, whether because of poverty (as in the Torah's example) or death (as here). Neither Tov nor Boaz owed anything to Ruth, but Machlon did. > (I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the > family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we > want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be > paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so, > then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech > left. Why did they wait ten years?) Redeem it from whom? At that point it still belonged to Elimelech. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 12:55:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 15:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170602195535.GA7359@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 09:09:10AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this : other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that : question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require : require semicha? Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also not an open question that requires decision-making rather than just reporting the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:51:26PM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: : > the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore : > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. : All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to : offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not : sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and : possibly the latter. I am missing something. My assertion was that "the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur" for the same reason that she could never give hora'ah as a dayan either. I wasn't denying the reality that there are women who know enough for their knowledge not to be a barrier to their pasqening. ... : I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the : other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have : comfortable space for women as well... I think there should be comfortable space for women too, and that it makes sense for it to be in the same building. Our topic was women rabbis. My first point was my belief that the Mahariq holds like Tosafos, the Rama like the Mahariq, and therefore we cannot ordain a poseqes. In this, my 2nd point, I was arguing that since shul and minyan as Anshei Kenses haGadolah invented them are men's spaces, we shouldn't want women speaking from the pulpit or otherwise making it a co-ed experience, a second element of the rabbi's job. : > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for : > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be : > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah.... : > Second, : > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about : > the : > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely : > consistent with our religion.... : : Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that : is highly egalitarian... And this was my third point. That the notion doesn't fit the gestalt built of numerous halakhos. I don't think our living in a world where opportunity is increasingly egalitarian changes that. The disjoin poses a challenge, not a license. : And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the : experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect : religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction : WITHIN what is halachically permitted. I tried to explain why that can't happen. You're not moving into a setting of greater equality; you are aiming women toward hitting a glass cieling. The implied message of "as much egalitarianism as allowed" is that it's the role traditionally given to men that is meaningful, and women can't fully take on that role. To my mind the long-term outcome, once there is little room for further innovation left, will be worse that trying to find different but equally valuable roles. Aside from the "minor" problem that that message about male roles is simply sheqer. On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 01:06:28PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that : as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted : (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by : r'mb's black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether : HKB"H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all : or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the : debate on black letter law? I don't think that's fair. We all learn in the early grades that derekh eretz qodmah laTorah, but we'll talk about frum theives, but not frum shellfish eaters. Our culture's focus on those mitzvos and dinim that can be reduced to black-letter is a problem we need to work on, and not a given to be leveraged further. On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:50:32AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: : But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah : live in an increasingly egalitarian society... Egalitarianism as metzi'us, the fact that gender roles are progressively becoming more similar, is different than eqalitarinism as a value -- the notion that they should. At the very least, halakhah is telling us there are a number of greater values that override egalitarianism. I argued that some of them actually impact who enters the rabbinate. But really the burden of proof lies in the other direction: It is change that needs justification. One has to prove that whatever those conflicting values are -- and I guess this would require identifying them -- they are not issues that impact the desirability of ordaining women. So, to get less abstract, here's an example. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting : R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing. : Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid : muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R. : Micha's interpretation: : http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/ But lemaaseh he wrote a letter against ordaning women that held up JTS changing policy until after R/PSL's passing. has a complete translation by Rabbi Wayne Allen. The issue isn't how RGS read the letter, but the letter itself. And I understood your father-in-law differently than your (and your wife's, judging from her choice of subject line) take. He writes: Professor Lieberman might have been opposed to any clerical role for women. Nevertheless, he only cited the classical sources that indicate that only men may be dayyanim or even serve on a bet din as laymen (hedyotim). Since Yeshivat Maharat is careful to remain within the bounds of Halakhah by not ordaining women to roles that are proscribed by Halakhah, Professor Liebermans responsum does not apply to the yeshivah or to any of its graduates. So he agrees with RGS that R/PSL was opposed to orgaining women as rabbi. After all, most of the letter is about what we mean today by "Yoreh Yoreh", and how it's NOT dayanus. It was about admitting women to JTS's semichah program, to "being called by the title 'rav'", not "dayan". It would seem that minus the political pressures within JTS, R/PSL's letter would at most permit "Rabbah uManhigah". Your FIL writes that R/PSL only cites sources about dayanus, not that his point was only about dayanus. And as we saw, there is a connection made between who can become a dayan and who can give hora'ah. His only mention of the political dynamics at JTS at the time is to explain his own position -- why he was against ordaining women when he was among those starting UTJ, but is in favor of Yeshivat Maharat. His letter to your wife does not speak of this issue in terms of his rebbe's position. For that matter, his description of R/PSL's lack of proving his point WRT non-dayan rabbanim reads as explaining why his own position was justified despite R/PSL's letter, rather than justified by that letter. He doesn't say RGS is wrong, he says it's "beside the point". : Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and : Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to : understand the Rama, but one of them is: But the burden or proof is on the innovator. You can't simply say your read is possible -- and given the aforementioned citation of the Mahariq, I don't see how this se'if can be, you would have a self-contradictory siman. But in any case, you have to prove your read is the Rama's intent; saying "it's possible" is not enough to justify a mimetic rupture. ... : the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have : sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have : sources to rely upon. I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and : Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong : with semicha for women. "Rather than nitpicking"? How do we learn a sugyah without nitpicking? In any case, you jumped from "could be read as someone to rely upon" to "someone to rely upon". : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the : specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. Sorry I made you wait long enough that you felt a need to re-ask this question. Semichah today may well be a heter hora'ah, but that doesn't mean that it's the only barrier to hora'ah. And if one's rebbe passed away, there is no need for heter hora'ah -- and yet still other barriers could exist. Tosafos, and the Mahariq cited by the Rama link the authority for hora'ah with being eligable to gain the qualifications and become a dayan. That's a barrier to hora'ah even if someone's rebbe wrote them a "qlaf" or passed away. We would have to find another shitah about hora'ah, show it's not dekhuyah -- and given we're talking about an opionion that disputes 3 pillars of Ashkenazi pesaq (if I include the Rama's se'if 4), for someone of Ashekazi background, that's a tough row to hoe. And then there are my other two problems.... Both of which would also reflect on Rabbah uManhigah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 3 20:23:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 23:23:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . Is semicha required for hora'ah? To illustrate the possibility that it is *not* required, I wrote: > Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura > did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the > ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite > involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. R' Zev Sero responded: > Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, > and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send > them to the rav. And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression of his personal opinion. Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"? I had written that a non-semicha person could give a shiur in Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, provided that he is careful to merely read and explain the text, but ... ... > But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this > other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that > question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require > require semicha? R' Micha Berger responded: > Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also > not an open question that requires decision-making rather than > just reporting the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community. "Black-letter halacha" is often not as black as we might think. Who gets to decide which shita is the dominant one? If the community has a recognized rav who issued a ruling on this exact question, then I can quote that. But in the great majority of cases, there are two or more shitos, and I have no idea which is "dominant". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 3 22:51:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 07:51:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c3c1e25-04b7-878e-d93b-d6b5edc10a0f@zahav.net.il> My intent, or my desire, is to reduce the number of issues on which we decide to break Torah community into even more pieces. If these issues are meta halachic, or have a bad feeling, then let's take the argument between the RWMO and LWMO down a notch or two. Let's lower the tones. For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi community consider to be kefira. If so, than kal v'chomer many of the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in getting hung up on multiple non-issues. Ben On 5/29/2017 4:20 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I am totally at lost as to your intent. Megillah reading or dancing with > a sefer Torah are reducible to black-letter law. In contrast to, for > example, deciding how to triage my tzedaqah donations. > > Wehther that reduction can be done within vanilla halachic process or > by appeal to metahalakhah, or by appeal to the general "feel" of halakhah > -- like the Rambam's "li nir'eh" -- is a different question. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 04:36:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 07:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a0d51cd-f693-b8a0-f2bd-a23a15a3e44a@sero.name> On 03/06/17 23:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > >> Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, >> and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send >> them to the rav. > And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to > find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim > wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us > which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other > expression of his personal opinion. > > Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"? AIUI no, it is not. Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a specific shayla for a specific person. Writing books does not involve any shikul hada`as, it merely involves setting down the halacha as one understands it, including, if applicable, the range of options available to a moreh hora'ah when applying his shikul hada`as. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 09:40:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 12:40:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170604164052.GA8050@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 11:23:05PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to : find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim : wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us : which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other : expression of his personal opinion. Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone know what has been said in the years since the standardization of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh. I argued that the difference between the AhS and the MB was not that one was a mimeticist and the other a textualist, but that the AhS was out to justify accepted pesaq, and the other is a collection of texts, a tool for the poseiq -- not pesaq. The personal opinion is just that, advice, not hora'ah. Or, other assumed you need to dismiss the MB's self-description as reflecting the CC's anavah, and not to be taken at face value. But then one has to explain the numerous stories of the CC personally not following the MB's conclusion -- the size of his becher, his tzitzis were tucked in, he supported the building a a community eiruv, etc... (Something is broken on my blog right now. It may take a 3-4 refreshes before getting anything but the AishDas "page not found" page.) In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable. And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving R Ploni answering questions. (The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the model.) This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads -- or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her rebbe's license? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 08:48:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:48:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you understand the OU panel as defining it. Otherwise you are just using a nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning. The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here: http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah ). There was a period when leaders did not have semicha, The Tzitz Eliezer points out that Sephardim for a long time did not have semichah, yet communities had religious leaders. So one does not need semikhah to be a communal religious leader(in keeping with the Rama in 242:14). Furthermore, R. Lichtenstein points out(Leaves of Faith vol 2 293) "originally a samukh would pronounce a decision that was binding by don't of his authoritative fiat. ...Now, he essentially serves as a reference guide, providing reliable information about what the tradition and its sources, properly understood and interpreted, state; but it is they, rather than he, that bind authoritatively." (quoted in the name of the Rav, in the name of his father, Rav Moshe.) Furthermore, as R. Lichtenstein points out, the Rambam viewed that Smikhah applied to hora'at issur v'heter as well as din. However, as R. Schachter himself points out, (see Kuntrus Ha semicha in Eretz Hatzvi chap 32) the other Rishonim hold that Semichah is a Halacha in beit din, NOT Hora'ah. AND, there are lots of authorities who clearly state that women can give Hora'ah. So you really need to define exactly what you mean by Semicha and how you are using it So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that apply to beit din. That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist. The semikhah for that type included wearing a specific garment, only being given in Israel, and according to most(but not all), prohibited to women. According to most Rishonim, that category did not apply to Hora'ah, just beit din. And, R. Lichtenstein illustrates that there is a clear and gaping difference in authority. There have been many years and many communities where leaders did not have any formal semikhah. But obviously there was some sort of Hora'ah going on. So it is clear that Hora'ah doesn't require semikhah, unless you want to argue that they were doing it all illegitimately. granting a degree of ordination was re-established(perhaps in response to universities, perhaps other reasons, see "The Emergence of the Professional rabbi in Ashkenzic Jewry by Bernard Rosensweig in Tradition, especially references in note 6) and the word Semikhah was used(although not always and not always exclusively). But you are arguing that somehow someway the restrictions from ancient Semikhah still apply- well, actually you are only arguing that the restrictions on women still apply, you have conveniently neglected to argue for the restriction of semikhah to Eretz Yisrael, for the wearing of special clothing, and all the other restrictions that were in place on ancient Semikhah. I have not had a chance to see the Maharik inside. But just because he applies halachot of relationships between teacher and student doesn't seem to be a reason to generalize that everything that applied to ancient Semikhah applies to today's neo-semikhah. That logically makes no sense. Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus tradition trope. It is a false dichotomy. First of all, as R. Shalom Carmy wrote, the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism. More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of our Masoretic values has changed over time. We don't value slavery or polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more. And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah. Furthermore, our Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a women. L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 07:40:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:40:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is becoming increasingly clear to me that I need a very basic lesson in the concepts of "redemption" and a "redeemer's" responsibilities. In my experience, we find two different sorts of redemption in Judaism. (I was going to write "in Halacha", but it seems that Boaz's actions were more sociological and ethnic than halachically mandatory.) One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and "redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many others. The other sort of kedusha has nothing to do with kedusha, but rather ownership of land. If I'm not mistaken, we find this in Shmitta, Yovel, and ordinary land sales in a walled city (and maybe elsewhere too?). In these cases, land has been sold outright, but under certain circumstances, the original owner has a right to buy it back from the new owner. AFTER WRITING THE ABOVE, I remembered another sort of redemption, that of the Goel Hadam. That seems irrelevant, because even though Naomi is now destitute, and her husband and sons are dead, no murder was committed. I also found yet another kind of Goel, described in Vayikra 25:47-54: If a person became poor and sold himself, then close relatives are obligated to redeem him and purchase his freedom. Although Naomi and Ruth did not reach that level (slavery), I can easily imagine that a social sort of redemption would require Tov or Boaz to help them out. I would call this "tzedaka" (not geula) but I suppose this might be the origin of the rule that one's primary obligation in tzedaka is to relatives. Many thanks to all who wrote to me (both on- and off-list), who put so much effort into helping me learn this subject. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 03:01:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:01:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= Message-ID: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a commentary how do you read it? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 02:59:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 09:59:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] support? Message-ID: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah restrictions are generally not observed (e.g., hello includes a social hug between the sexes), although Reuvain is meticulous in his observance of them. He is in his office in a conference with two colleagues when Miriam, the wife of a third tier social friend, also well past childbearing age, comes to the office door and says with a tear in her eye, "Reuvain, I hate to do this to you." Reuvain quickly asks his colleagues to excuse them, and Miriam blurts out, "David (her husband) just passed away," and she begins to slump, crying. Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to comfort her and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not make any request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but she did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion of the community which did not presume a social negiah restriction. Was Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, what should he have done? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:23:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 15:23:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:01:10AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a : commentary how do you read it? I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq venimtza qal" were written out. That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:43:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 22:43:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?va=E2=80=99v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <30b106b1-2a2d-f8dd-e692-4af1979063c9@starways.net> v'doke On 6/4/2017 1:01 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a > commentary how do you read it? > Kt > Joel rich > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:33:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 15:33:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] support? In-Reply-To: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170604193342.GA24739@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 09:59:23AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a : Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah : restrictions are generally not observed... A real maaseh shahayah, which would liely garner the same thoughts. One day, around 10am, the woman sitting in the cubicle next to mine gets a call on her cell, and after a few moments had her screaming and crying. It was the Salvation Army, where her son volunteered and lived. He didn't wake up that morning. Another co worker of ours, a yehivish guy who grew up in Israel but lives in Lakewood, got us a conference room, dialed some phone calls for her -- the coronor's office and the like. He was clearly cfrom communities in which persumed social negi'ah restrictions are fully observed. But when our co worker broke down in a fresh round of crying, he put his arm around her. I think to do anything else is to be a tzadiq shoteh. But I never asked a she'eilah; that was just my gut reaction at the time. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:01:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 23:01:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Noam, It's not a "trope". While there can be situations in which egalitarianism vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them. Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not. It seems a poor argument, as well. I don't believe there is anyone who, without the impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical concepts of justice demand that we ordain women." Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Distinctions are one of the hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and non-Jews or men and women. We have never viewed having different roles as indicating superiority and inferiority. That judgment is foreign to our tradition. Foreign to halakha. Foreign to the Torah. Please note that I'm not talking about whether, given the assumption that having different roles conveys inferiority, one could argue in favor of equalizing roles in the name of justice. I am talking about that assumption itself. It is an assumption that comes from egalitarianism, and cannot be found in Jewish tradition, which is not subject to Brown v Board of Education. Different does *not* necessarily mean unequal in Judaism. Polygamy was never a "value". To Mormons, perhaps. Not to us. It was simply something permitted. Slavery is out of the question purely on dina d'malchuta dina grounds. Were that not the case, we might still engage in it. We certainly haven't changed the halakha pertaining to either kind of avdut (K'naani or Ivri). You say that modern values have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in our Mesorah. Can I ask where the need for such a re-evaluation comes from? It was my understanding that we value all of our Mesorah, and do not sift through it, deciding what parts of it we value and what parts we do not. Also, please note that I have specifically referred to egalitarianism, and *not* to feminism. I don't believe that feminism requires egalitarianism, and the moves by the left to try and force Orthodox Judaism into an egalitarian framework have nothing to do with the basic idea that women are fully competent adult human beings, which is what feminism was originally about. On 6/4/2017 6:48 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus > tradition trope. It is a false dichotomy. First of all, as R. Shalom > Carmy wrote, the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to > Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism. > More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of > our Masoretic values has changed over time. We don't value slavery or > polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more. > And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for > us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah. Furthermore, our > Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna > in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a > women. L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:53:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:53:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . I wrote that the Mishneh Berurah, despite a lack of semicha, > frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the > ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression > of his personal opinion. R' Micha Berger responded: > Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed > this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone > know what has been said in the years since the standardization > of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh. Yes, he does self-describe as a summary and teaching/learning tool. But he does *not* specifically disclaim being a posek for halacha l'maaseh. The Igros Moshe and many other recent seforim do that, but I do not see it in the Mishneh Berurah. As an example, let's open to the very first page. He writes in MB 1:2 (near the end) about Netilas Yadayim upon waking in the morning: "Some say that for this, the entire house is considered like four amos. But (4) do not rely on this except in a shaas hadchak." Let's analyze that: He cites an unnamed lenient opinion, and clearly tells us not to rely on it. Note 4 leads us to his own Shaar Hatziun, where he gives his source, the Shaarei Teshuva. The Shaarei Teshuva, fortunately, is printed on this same page, and I direct your attention to the last four lines of #2, where the lenient opinion is named as being the Rashba. It is not clear to me whether the psak to *not* rely on that Rashba comes from the Shvus Yaakov, or whether it is from the Shaarei Teshuva himself. But either way, it is clear to me that the Mishne Berurah is taking sides, and IS PASKENING TO US that we should be machmir unless it is a shaas hadchak. > In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in > every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, > which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise > unreachable. Then we need to figure out what *is* required for hora'ah. Because it seems clear to me that the Chofetz Chaim felt that he met the criteria, and (perhaps more importantly) Klal Yisrael agreed. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:58:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 19:58:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2F566ED7-C27E-4141-9BAA-E81C69F30CE1@sibson.com> > > I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq > venimtza qal" were written out. > > That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. > > HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" > -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. ------------ I had always been taught the latter. The bar Ilan data base uses the former. I suppose one could rationalize one person's try and it will seem easy is another's it's a bit of a stretch. Then again Kuf lamed could be kal lhavin or kasheh li. :-) Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 15:56:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 17:56:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > It's not a "trope". While there can be situations in which egalitarianism > vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them. > Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to > the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not. It seems a poor > argument, as well. I don't believe there is anyone who, without the > impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical > concepts of justice demand that we ordain women." > Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Distinctions are one of the > hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and > non-Jews or men and women. We have never viewed having different roles as > indicating superiority and inferiority. That judgment is foreign to our > tradition. Foreign to halakha. Foreign to the Torah. Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" It isn't an issue of being like men, it is an issue of fairness and justice. Regarding 'modern values' and Mesorah. please read Rabbi Walter Wurzburger, regarded as one of R. Soloveitchik's most prominent students here: http://download.yutorah.org/TUJ/TU1_Wurtzburger.pdf Since chazal owned slaves and the Gemara didn't outlaw them, obviously owning slaves was not seen as odious as it is now. I doubt that current rabbis have the same positive view of slavery as you do. in fact, one published author does not. see R. Gamliel Shmalo here: http://download.yutorah.org/2013/1053/798326.pdf Similar to polygamy, I doubt that any current rabbinical authority thinks that polygamy should be instituted(except in the very rare situations of heter me'ah rabbonim when in practicality there is only one wife) Many authorities, including Rav Lichtenstein, R. Nachum Rabinovitch(and see R. Wurzburger's article for citations to classic authorities of the past) and others state clearly that encountering 'modern values' helps us figure out which how to better balance the values already in our Masorah. And, as I pointed out, our Masorah has already moved towards egalitarianism, as demonstrated that most MO poskim don't hold by the Mishna in Horiyyot. And who was denying that there are different roles? no one denies that there are different roles for the genders. But Halacha should be the determinant of what those differences are. Not someone saying, "well, there have to be differences, and I am going to tell you what those differences should be." If there are no good Halakhic arguments against women's ordination(and there aren't), then claiming that there should be different roles for different genders is not a coherent argument. Basically you could use the same argument for everything and anything, since there is no Halachic basis for it. You could say that women shouldn't ride bikes because gender roles have to be different. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:47:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <6736acd1-ba2d-c1bc-1762-d8e55bb8e473@sero.name> On 04/06/17 06:01, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a > commentary how do you read it? Vest du velen kvetchen, kadoches vest du vissen On 04/06/17 15:23, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. > HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" > -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. Or "vedayeq vetimtza qashe" -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 20:38:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 23:38:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605033858.JVPC32620.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a >specific shayla for a specific person. I guess the question is: is that related to semicha? Note the following (by Joel B. Wolowelsky, from that Tradition issue last year that focused on women's leadership issues) The standards of the semikha might vary from yeshiva to yeshiva even though the text of the klaf certificate is generally the same. I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters of grave import. Very few rabbis are viewed as posekim, and their authority surely does not rest on any formal semikha they were awarded at an early stage in their professional career. Most rabbis even most pulpit rabbis are relied upon to relate what the accepted halakha is, not what it should be. They are not assumed to be posekim. Rabbi Menachem Penner, Dean of RIETS, recently made this clear when he stated that: not all individuals given the title of rabbi are entitled to serve as decisors of Jewish law... Following the halakhic opinion of a scholar or rabbi who is not recognized as a posek would represent a fundamental breach in the mesorah of the establishment of normative halakha... Musmakhim of RIETS, along with all learned individuals, are entitled to their personal opinions on halakhc matters and the halakhic system as it functions today and may publicize their views as opinions that are not halakhically binding. If this is true of musmakhim of RIETS, who have completed many serious and demanding years of study, all the more so for the myriads of rabbis who earned their semikha by simply sitting for a less-demanding final exam after self-study or learning in a beit midrash up until their wedding, at which time they received semikha. We should quickly note that this is not intended to imply a diminution of the value of semikha. Rather it reflects an unprecedented expansion of Torah study in our community. Which raises the obvious question: if so many men have semicha that shouldn't engage in hora'ah, what's the problem of having a woman in a similar position? [Email #2.] Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that in Israel, this doesn't seem to be so much of an issue. May I recommend an utterly fascinating article on this: A VIEW FROM THE OTHER SIDE By Rachel Levmore, Ph.D. - Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 05:42:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 12:42:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" ----------------------------------------------------- As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question (chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", on what basis are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" I'd say the debaters on this issue would be well served to read J Haidt's The Righteous Mind https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj_nMSM3abUAhUG7CYKHRfcAJgQFghZMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Frighteousmind.com%2F&usg=AFQjCNH2OB9Ny75lbVswde2ndpkNKXvilQ&sig2=hBXRmEu1I6x-J0radUdXqA to better understand why they aren't convincing each other KT Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 12:00:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lo Taamod In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605190033.GD3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:54:06AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Asher Weiss discusses in parshat Vayeitzeih on lo taamod al : dam reiacha that one would have to give up all his assets to save a : single life if he is the only one who can do it. However, "it's pashut" : that if others can also do it, that he doesn't have to give up all his : assets. Why is it so pashut if others refuse? (i.e. why isn't it a joint : and several liability?) I am not sure halakhah has the concept. The nearest I can think of is a zeh vezeh goreim, such as if a shor tam pushes another ox into a third party's bor bereshus harabbim. SA CM 410:32 rules that the baal habor must pay 3/4. Hezeq by a shor tam need only be reimbered 50%. So, the owner of the shor tam only has to pay 50% of his half of the guilt -- 25%. The baal habor therefore would cause the loss of the other 75%, so he has to reimberse it. But there is a machloqes about what happens when one of the two doesn't have the money -- does the other have to pick up the difference, or not? If not, then wouldn't that mean halakhah doesn't have a notion of joint and several liability?" But even if he does have to pay what the other can't... One may still be choleiq between someone who did something that incurs a fine and a chiyuv to spend money. It's not really a "liability". And this is beyond the usual limits of a chiyuv.... If there are others who can save the guy, RAW says I'm not chayav to spend all my money, but what about spending up to a chomesh, like for any other chiyuv? Maybe even if there is joint and several liability, it stops at 1/5 rather than 100%. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 12:33:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:33:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? In-Reply-To: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim : b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman : shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? The SA says "yekhavein lehispalel besha'ah shehatzibur mispallelim". Your question is why the Rama -- or is the Semag, I couldn't find the citation -- doesn't mention minchah. I think the MB s"q 31-32 *implies* that the emphasis is on Shacharis and Maariv since the solar landmarks vary the most, and therefore the minyan is more likely to have their own idiosyncratic time -- late Shacharis or early Maariv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The waste of time is the most extravagant micha at aishdas.org of all expense. http://www.aishdas.org -Theophrastus Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 11:49:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:49:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170605184905.GC3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 10:00:22PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : Can I burn something that was hefker without acquiring it? If I declare : something hefker (I'm not sure the legal implication of batel), and then I : burn it, wouldn't that imply I'm koneh it? Which makes things much worse. We might argue whether bitul chameitz means something other than hefqer. But even if it does, how can a formula that ends "vehefqer ke'afrah de'ar'a" not render it *also* hefqer? I am not sure what kind of qinyan burning would be. (Shinui? but shinui to something worthless is back to not having anything shaveh perutah to own.) Taking from hefqer means there is no maqneh, does that mean there is no qoneh? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 11:37:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:37:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a : conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of : YaVY... Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because there is no actual issur la'avor. : Since when is conversation : hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes : the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation : carries the din YvAY. I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from hirhurim. And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA: : That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, : causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of : hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and : certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? : : The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya : due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the downward character spiral. Tie'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:13:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? In-Reply-To: <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> References: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5424769a-057e-b1d6-87b8-130dad06850d@sero.name> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > : S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim > : b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman > : shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? It seems to me that "shacharit v'arvit" here may not mean the tefillot but the times: they should daven each morning and evening when they know the minyan in the city is davening. The city minyan presumably does mincha and maariv together in one evening session, so that's what individuals should do. This is so especially if this is from the Smag, and we know from Rashi and Tosfos Brachos 2a that the minhag in France at that time was to daven maariv immediately after mincha, while it was still daylight. We also know from elsewhere that minhag Ashkenaz at a later time was similarly to go straight from the Kaddish Tiskabel after Mincha to Vehu Rachum and Borchu, with no Aleinu or Shir Hamaalos/kaddish (or Ledavid in Elul) in between. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:55:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:55:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:40:56AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and : "redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually : to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many : others.... I think that bringing up pidyon and temurah just cloud the issue. IMinsufficientlyHO, it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that strikes me as a progression): - the go'el hadam - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) - and of people (ibid v 48) - the end of galus To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on its nachalah. But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first -- "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why there are different words in lh"q. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 14:06:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:06:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605210617.GB23709@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 03:18:13PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that : Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent : introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, : pages 48-52. Which ties to the other thread about how we're to view Yiftach or Shimshon -- baalei mesorah or amei ha'aretz? It's possible that at the nadir points in the days of shofetim, being the gadol hador didn't rule out also having fundamental flaws. : R' Zev Sero wrote: :> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the :> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. : It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it : something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus : and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus : then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. If it was some general Semitic notion of ge'ulah, then perhaps being common-law spouses in a 7 Mitzvos b' Noach sense would be enough to trigger ge'ulah, even if yibum would require real qiddushin. After all, the basis for ge'ulah was likely that the woman came to depend on the family for her support, and it would be wrong to let her down. Which is true of a Moaviah intermarrying into a Jewish family, even if the marriage only seemed real to her. I am also reminded of the Rambam IB 13, discussed hear repeatedly ad nauseum. Shimshon's and Shelomo's wives were p[resumed Jewish until their actions showed that they not only had ulterior motive, they lacked a true motive (qabbalas ol mitzvos) altogether. Geirei `arayos all are in that boat -- if we think they were mequbalos al mitzvos along with wanting to convert to marry, we presume they're kosher Jews but suspect and watch whether behavior matches presumption. Rus would be in a similar situation, no? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 14:55:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:55:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> References: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4674ee8c-5f5e-c740-051a-00191c18b4fb@sero.name> On 05/06/17 16:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > IMinsufficientlyHO, it pays to just stick to trying to find a common > theme to all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that > strikes me as a progression): > > [...] > > - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's not an > actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) Where is the word found in this context? My position is that the use in Megilath Ruth is an instance of the next meaning. > - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) - and of people (ibid v 48) This one. AIUI the underlying theme of this mitzvah is discharging ones own obligations, or those of a relative who is unable to do so himself. When one has sold the family patrimony, one must buy it back so that people will no longer look at one as someone who had to do that. If one can't, then whoever in the family can afford to do so must buy it back, to clear ones name. Included in this is a sub-obligation that if one is aware that a relative has to sell family land, and one can afford to buy it, one must offer to do so, so he is never subjected in the first place to the ignominy of selling it out of the family. (That, as near as I can tell, is what was happening in Ruth. Naomi and Ruth, having claimed Elimelech's property for their ketubot, were now purportedly looking for a buyer, and turned to the family to give them first refusal.) By extension this also includes discharging other obligations, not to do with the family land, such as ones obligation to a woman whom a relative has left destitute, so that her state will not be a disgrace to the family. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:56:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 20:56:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to comfort her > and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not make any > request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but she > did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion > of the community which did not presume a social negiah restriction. Was > Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, > what should he have done? I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to include any contact in any social situation in addition to more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly consistently not included are professional scenarios where your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors, nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says there that even in his generation he was unique in being able to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for this situation. But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei aveira then there is no issur of negia. I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred option. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 03:08:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 10:08:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? I heard from Rav Matis Weinberg that the final reference to Ruth Hamoavia emphasises that, despite the way we usually think of geirus, and despite everything she's gone through, she remains a Moavia. Meaning that she retains her Moavi roots and personal context, and brings the positive from that into Klal Yisrael. I understand him as polemicising against the tendency to destroy ones previous identity, consciously or otherwise, in order to join the Jewish world either as a ger or a baal teshuva. Ben ________________________________ From: Avodah on behalf of via Avodah Sent: 02 June 2017 03:34 To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 72 Send Avodah mailing list submissions to avodah at lists.aishdas.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org You can reach the person managing the list at avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." A list of common acronyms is available at http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms Avodah Acronyms ? The AishDas Society www.aishdas.org Here?s a hopefully useful but incomplete list of acronyms that are standard to Avodah, but aren?t in common usage. I marked each either ?A? for those specific ... (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) Today's Topics: 1. Re: Maharat (Rich, Joel via Avodah) 2. Re: Maharat (Ben Waxman via Avodah) 3. Re: Maharat (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 4. matched soldier and praying for them (M Cohen via Avodah) 5. Re: Maharat (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) 6. Elimelech's land (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 7. Ruth Hamoaviah (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 8. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (ADE via Avodah) 9. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (Zev Sero via Avodah) 10. A Holiday Afterthought (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) 11. Re: A Holiday Afterthought (Micha Berger via Avodah) 12. Re: Ruth Hamoaviah (Zev Sero via Avodah) 13. Re: Ruth Hamoaviah (Lisa Liel via Avodah) 14. Re: Elimelech's land (Ben Waxman via Avodah) 15. Re: Elimelech's land (Zev Sero via Avodah) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:06:28 +0000 From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" To: 'Ilana Elzufon' , "'The Avodah Torah Discussion Group'" , Micha Berger , "Akiva Miller" , Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05 at VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. ---------------------------------------------------- Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the debate on black letter law? KT Joel Rich (full disclosure-kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-not everything that is permitted to you should be done) THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:22:13 +0200 From: Ben Waxman via Avodah To: Ilana Elzufon , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Micha Berger , Akiva Miller , Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Probably the best and most succinct historical analogy I've seen for this question. Ben On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > > Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women > rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the > vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it > seems to be shaping up as the latter. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:59:33 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation. Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. How can this be? Dare we imagine that he did such things unauthorizedly? Certainly he must have had/received some sort of Heter Hora'ah. If so, then when and how did he get it - and without getting semicha at the same time? Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:01 -0400 From: M Cohen via Avodah To: , Subject: [Avodah] matched soldier and praying for them Message-ID: <014801d2d969$41c5c800$c5515800$@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A while ago on Avodah, a well known (chareidi) Baal machshava was quoted as disagreeing strongly with the concept of matching frum people with a nonfrum soldier in order to pray for them. "we have no brotherhood with secular Israelis" Recently, I posted to Avodah a link to a collection of 1400 short tshuvot from HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlitah (of Toronto) On the above topic, he writes there.. #600 Pray As They Go Q. There are two organizations here in Eretz Yisroel, one called; Elef LaMateh, and the other; The Shmirah Project. Basically, their intent is to match Israeli soldiers with Avreichim and bochurim learning. Each Avreich and Bochur who volunteers, receives the name of a specific soldier (his name and his mother's name) that he takes responsibility to daven for and learn specially for so that in the merit of the tefillos and learning, that soldier will merit to return home alive and well. (Is this a good idea) A. HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is a great mitzvah to pray, learn Torah and accomplish mitzvos for the benefit of all our brethren B'nay Yisroel in times of peril and need, especially for those who put their life in harm's way to save and protect others. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:39:53 +0200 From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah To: "Rich, Joel" Cc: Avodah , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Micha Berger , Akiva Miller Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should be identical for each community and each generation? - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:01:50 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" . I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start farming? I suppose it was pretty desolate after a ten-year famine, but did she even try? She must have at least gone there to see the place, if for no other reason than to be sure that no squatters took over while she was gone. Without making sure of such things, how could she even hope that anyone (even a goel) would buy it? Maybe she expected to get a better profit from Boaz than she'd get from farming it herself, but maybe there are other answers? Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:05:01 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the distinction? When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on this. Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:14:59 +0100 From: ADE via Avodah To: Zev Sero , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are still being machshiv some pesukim over others. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk > *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:32:23 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: ADE <9006168 at gmail.com>, The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: <510d4fd4-6c91-fb85-0c23-f6cdfa7ffcbf at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 02/06/17 05:14, ADE wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one >> pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this >> reason. > Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are > still being machshiv some pesukim over others. There is no requirement to treat all pesukim exactly the same. One is entitled to stand or sit during KhT as one wishes, and has no obligation to choose one policy and stick to it. The problem is only with standing up for special pesukim, such as Shma or the 10D. Since there's nothing special about the pasuk before the 10D, there's no problem with deciding to stand for it. And when the special pesukim come along one is already standing, so one has no obligation to sit down. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:46:10 -0400 From: Cantor Wolberg via Avodah To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50 at cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In our personal religious commitments there are those among us scrupulous in performance of the ceremonial mitzvot but at the same time displaying reckless disregard of our elementary duties towards our fellowman. Halacha embraces human life in its totality. One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social trait from our behavior! A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:31:31 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Cantor Wolberg , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <20170602153131.GA15356 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made : a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study : of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social : trait from our behavior! Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, among the aphorisms of his listed in R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I. :-)BBii! -Micha ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:28:00 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Akiva Miller via Avodah , "akivagmiller at gmail.com >> Akiva Miller" Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: <4dd6e4f1-2d00-a274-ace0-e5d2a803039a at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 01/06/17 23:05, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I only see four instances of "Ruth Hamoaviah", three in ch 2, and only one in ch 4, in Boaz's description of the situation to Tov. Since his purpose was to scare him off, it made sense to mention her origin, so Tov would be reluctant to risk his future. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:20:16 +0300 From: Lisa Liel via Avodah To: Akiva Miller , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 6/2/2017 6:05 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I can't cite a source for it, but I remember once reading that Ruth HaMoaviah was intended to praise her, since she gave up her position in Moav to join us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus [https://static2.avast.com/11/web/min/i/mkt/share/avast-logo.png] Avast | Download Free Antivirus for PC, Mac & Android www.avast.com Protect your devices with the best free antivirus on the market. Download Avast antivirus and anti-spyware protection for your PC, Mac and Android. ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:31:41 +0200 From: Ben Waxman via Avodah To: Akiva Miller , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Actually if the land had lied fallow for 10 years, it should be in good shape. Granted it needs weeding but the soil should be good. It only requires a relatively small amount of rain for grass to grow and re-invigorate the soil. Maybe she was too old to work the land and figured that a sale would provide her with enough money to live out the rest of her days in dignity? Ben On 6/2/2017 5:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:17:52 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Akiva Miller via Avodah , Akiva Miller Subject: Re: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: <272b8698-d5c1-55a1-560b-2bc6d0c39b74 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 01/06/17 23:01, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? It seems to me that finding a buyer for the property was not at all important to her, and in fact she had shown no interest in doing so until she saw how she could use it to get Boaz to marry Ruth. It was Boaz who spun the story out for Tov in order to scare him off; first he drew him in with the prospect of an easy transaction for Naomi's portion of the field, but then he threw in the Ruth monkey wrench. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/avodah http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org ------------------------------ End of Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 72 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 04:24:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:24:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <545028A09009CEB1.0C33F862-E0BD-4F09-B72B-2B14A928A471@mail.outlook.com> I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter, the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat, is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin and relay the answer. We have fine female educators like Shani Taragin etc and we have Yoatzot Halacha as above. I consider this ordination movement as a Western valued and inspired institution. Indeed, these days I know Shules look for husband *and* wife teams. The Rebbetzin occupies an increasingly important place. This is most certainly also true of successful Chabad Houses, and here I speak of people like Rivki Holtzberg hy'd whom I knew well personally and I watched as the women gathered around her and the men around her husband. This is the mimetic tradition not withstanding exceptions. That, I believe is the thrust of the OU proclamation and it is dead on the money. Judaism certainly adapts but it is not the plasticine for Western values and aspirations. Even at a funeral, where one expects little hope for Yetzer Hora, the Halacha mandates the Shura to be separate for males and females. This category of notion underpins our Mesora and always did; right back to the days when our tents were arranged with Tzniyus in mind. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 07:26:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:26:41 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap Message-ID: can anyone explain and show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from non-Kosher fat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 07:23:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:23:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh Message-ID: regarding Chamets buried under a collapsed building where we remain the owner - we intend to salvage it after Pesach but are not transgressing BY and BY without needing to make Bittul I explained that Halachic ownership is determined by ones perception of control and explained this is the reason that YiUsh means one is no longer an owner for example you forget your wallet holding your ID and some money in a restaurant even though you go back in the HOPE of finding it or are HOPING an honest person will return it this is nevertheless YiUsh you no longer believe you are in control although RaMBaM encourages that the finder return it Halachically the finder is entitled to tell you Once upon a time this was yours - but you were MeYaEsh so it is no longer yours and I picked it up AFTER you were already MeYaEsh This is the foundation for the Pesak of R Y E Spektor that money lost by a woman at a trade fair MUST be returned because there was NO YiUsh the money had been found and taken to the local Rav it matched perfectly the description given by the woman who lost it but the finder insisted he wants to keep the money unless he is obliged to return it even though the woman had Simanim Muvhakim there was no doubt the money found was the money she lost she was certainly MeYaEsh she is not the owner Reb Y E Spektor Paskened that there was no YiUsh her husband is the owner and he, sitting many miles away was unaware of the loss of the money so there was no YiUsh R Micha argues that this is not correct he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost so there is no YiUsh however if they would know it is lost they would be MeYaEsh I would suggest that there is no problem the Machlokes is simply a dispute about ACTUAL belief one is in control versus POTENTIAL belief one is in control for example walking behind a fellow Yid you notice a diamond fall off his ring he would be unaware of his loss if we say YiUsh requires DaAs then there is no YiUsh yet you would have to wait until you see the fellow stop and look around for something then you can take your foot off the diamond and take it home [BTW is such a person a Rasha? or worse, not a Mentsch?] If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs then you can take the diamond straight away because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 10:48:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:48:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> , <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a : conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of : YaVY... Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because there is no actual issur la'avor. I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where there's an issur involved? That's why I'm suggesting that since it's on pain of yeihareig then we know there must an issur la'avor so the point of the sugya is to work out what that is. The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below. : Since when is conversation : hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes : the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation : carries the din YvAY. I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from hirhurim. >From hirhurim? Chazal were gozer yeihareig on hirhurei aveira? If that were true we'd find the same din in a lot of other places. Which is why is seems to me we must be dealing with something else here. And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA: : That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, : causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of : hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and : certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? : : The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya : due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the downward character spiral. Me'heicha teisi that we're dealing with Hilkhos De'os here? Where do you find a din of yeihareig in Hilchos De'os? Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does. Your partially stated assumption is that this din in both man d'amrim is d'rabanan. Rambam strongly implies otherwise. Kol tuv Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 09:19:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha wrote: "In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable. And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving R Ploni answering questions. (The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the model.) This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads -- or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her rebbe's license?" me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using. They are hiding behind ambiguity. if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do hora'ah. AND, you cant use the model of semicha to prohibit women from hora'ah, becuase in the Venn diagram of the topic, there is hora'ah outside the lines of semicha. So R. Micha et al need to provide some other basis for their issur of hora'ah, AND, address all those who write that a woman can provide hora'ah. AND, address the quote from R. Penner that the semicha for REITS graduates is not one to pasken(or perhaps even to give hora'ah). AND, address why(rather than simply say) the Rabbanut semichah test system, perhaps the most popular semicha in Orthodoxy, does not undermine his entire thesis. One can give a woman 'heter hora'ah l'rabbim' because there has not been a cogent argument presented not to do so, and there are many poskim who write that a woman can give hora'ah. The argument regarding 'what would HKBH' want is interesting. Does he want us to restrict women from doing things just so that we can say there are differences between men and women? Or, did He establish Halakha to help us sort out those that He wants, rather than ancient ones that and are gradually being re-evaluated, similar to how we have gradually moved away from embracing slavery, polygamy(in the vast majority of instances), restrictions on the deaf/dumb, the devaluation of women(see Mishna in Horiyyot 'men's lives are saved prior to women....), the idea that a women's wisdom is only with the spindle, one who teaches his daughter Torah has taught her tiflut, etc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 11:28:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:28:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/6/2017 7:19 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all > those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to > clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using. They are > hiding behind ambiguity. if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then > saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do > hora'ah. Are you suggesting that the burden of proof is on those *opposed* to a radical change in Jewish practice? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 11:18:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:18:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> (And also some "Re: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim".) On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:48am CDT, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you : understand the OU panel as defining it. Otherwise you are just using a : nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning. To me, "semichah" is a secondary concept. My focus was to assert whose halachic decision-making can qualify as hora'ah. That question involves semichah in the discussion. We were discussing the Rama YD 242:14. The Mechaber writes in strong terms that a higi'ah lehora'ah is obligated to actually provide hora'ah. The Rama there adds that this is only if there is no barrier of kevod harav -- his rebbe passed away, gave him semichah, is a rebbe-chaver, or the like. He doesn't make semichah a definition of magi'ah lehora'ah, but only a removal of a barrier, a necessary condition in the usual circumstances. Not a defining feature. If we look at the Rama in se'ifim 5-6, he tells you he is basing himself on the Mahariq (113.3, 117 [and the OU panel adds, cf 169). The Mahariq's position is based on assuming that what was true for classical semichah is still true for modern day semichah. The Rambam (Sanhedrin 4:8) agrees with that comparison -- he derives the need today for netilas reshus from Mosaic semichah. IOW, who needs reshus for hora'ah? Someone who is magi'ah lehora'ah and has kevoad harav issues in giving hora'ah without one. A magi'ah lehora'ah can only be someone eligable to sit on a BD of [Mosaic] musmachim (or according to the Rambam, other mumchim). Not because "rabbi" is defined by "has semichah", but because "yoreh yoreh" or Yesivat Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim" declares someone to be a hegi'ah lehorah. I find the OU's argument compelling, fits the words of R/Prof SL's letter and is probably his intent, and how I understood the sugyah in general before the notion of an O woman as rabbi became a topic people would seriously discuss. I am interested to know if you asked R/D Novak which one of us understood his intent. Did he mean to explain R/Prof SL's position or explain why he differs with it in ways that makes Yeshivat Maharat an option? Agreed that few rabbis pasqen, and that we could have female clergy that avoid this first issue that I have even if a Maharat's semichah read "Rabbah uManhigah" instead of "heter hora'ah lerabbim". : The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship : between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah : to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here: : http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah ... : So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that : apply to beit din. That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist... And yet the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama all think that one continues enough of the other that we can draw conclusions across that bridge. It's not me doing the category taking, it's the Rambam and the SA. What greater authorities do you need? While on the topic of magi'ah lehorah... On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 11:24am GMT, Isaac Balbin wrote: : I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his : students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the : aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was : a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter, : the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat, : is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is : 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin : and relay the answer. There is a difference. Hopefully, someone who get "Yoreh Yoreh" is first magi'ah lehora'ah. But that's a sliding scale. They could get reshus to pasqn because there are less weighty or less involved questions they can and should be answering, while still being aware when they are in over their heads and should call RMF. Whereas the impression I got from RYHH's posts here on Avodah is that a Yo'etzet isn't supposed to ever be giving pesaq; only answering questions that the community has definite answers for -- reporting halakhah pesuqah. But then there's the second and third issues.... 2- How do we know shul is no supposed to be a men's club? Men's clubs work, or at least the Rotary and the Masons have for centuries. Movements that went egalitarian now have issues getting male participation in shul; this is a big topic in Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs (C umbrella organization) discussion. And more fundamentally, how do we know that this social dynamic was not Anshei Keneses haGdolah's intent? I would assume indeed it was. This would rule out having a woman for much of the congretational role of rabbi. 3- Halakhah is inherently non-egalitarian: a- Importing an external value over those implied internally. And more functionally, we are telling women that indeed, the traditionally male role is the better path to holiness -- let us help you run at that glass ceiling. b- This is bound to lead to greater frustration as soon as LWMO has gone as far as it could up to that halachic limit. and c- It is making a claim that is false. One is sacrificing Judaism's model of equal worth despite hevdel for the sake of egalitarianism and erasing havdalah. The last being more of a perceptual issue. And this may explain why you can get a bit further not using the word "rabbi". It's not merely a word game, there is an issue at stake; are we trying to be egalitarian, or to accept a system in which kohanim not only defy egalitarianism, but apparently start out holier than I am. Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW. On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 7:51am IST, Ben Waxman wrote: : For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community : that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like : Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi : community consider to be kefira. Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'" (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not! : If so, than kal v'chomer many of : the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are : some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in : getting hung up on multiple non-issues. There are two possible sources of division here. 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators, and therefore in practice will be a separate community. Comfort zone isn't only a psychological issue. it nostalgia, mimetic tradition, Toras imekha or minhag Yisrael sabba, communal continuity is a big issue. 2- The ideological problem isn't in the bottom-level issues but in how they highlighted the loss of common language. The opposition to these changes are talking about Mesorah, values, etc... and the proponents just see the issue as "if it's halachically allowed, why are you giving us a hard time?" This lack of common language, more specifically, the lack of a notion of metahalakhah* is disconcerting. So to my mind the schism-level battle isn't over ordaining women, Partnership Minyanim, or whether Document Hypothesis is a viable option without O as much as these decisions are apparently being made by a different set of rules. And that could quite validly be a schismatic level issue. (* In this sense of the "word" "metahalakhah". We on Avodah have also used "metahalakha" to refer to the halachos of making halakhos, even when the rules are more black-letter. Such as discussions of when we say halakhah kebasrai, or whether there is acharei rabbim lehatos in this post-Sanhedrin era.) Back to R/Dr Noam Stadlan... I believe in a role for women in the clergy that isn't that of poseiq, part of minyan, nor claiming to be egalitarian. The OU thinks that categorizing the resulting role set as "clergy" is itself too egalitarian. Again, I see that as a perceptual issue. But they too end calling for finding more venues for women to contribute communally and to be visible role models. (An Areivim-esque tangent: It would be interesting to see if the OU acts on these closing remarks as rapidly as they did about the 4 member shuls that already have Maharatos.) But then, the only difference between the position now taken by Aish or Chabad kiruv today and the actual permission granted in the driving responsum is perception as well. In terms of dry facts, both were premitting causing the non-observant to drive on Shabbos rather than let them remain disconnected. They only differed in how they let the person perceive his own driving. And yet one was a major part of a broad collapse of observance, and the other is apparently increasing observance. Presentation and perception matter. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:03:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:03:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606150330.GB26549@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:23:51AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : R Micha argues that this is not correct : he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control : then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs : i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost : so there is no YiUsh : however if they would know it is lost : they would be MeYaEsh Rather, I was saying ownership hinges on responsibility, which I suggested was both a consequence of and license for having actual control. : I would suggest that there is no problem : the Machlokes is simply a dispute about : ACTUAL belief one is in control versus : POTENTIAL belief one is in control It would help if you can find a case where somone has potential of believing they control an item for reasons other than having actual control, and has the din of ba'al, OR someone has potential to believe they lost control of an item for reasons other than actually losing control, and does not have ba'alus. Yi'ush is giving up on finding it again, not knowledge of loss of control, real or potential. Let me use your example to explain how I see it: : for example : walking behind a fellow Yid : you notice a diamond fall off his ring : he would be unaware of his loss ... : If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs : then you can take the diamond straight away : because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss But this is a case where he loses actual control. The yi'ush shelo mida'as is more of an expectation not to regain it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:06:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606150633.GC26549@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:26:41AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : can anyone explain and : show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim : to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from : non-Kosher fat "Preferable"? Because we make a point of using dish soap that is ra'ui la'akhilah. So, using a treif one means taking a position on akhshevei. I believe the OU knows they are just pandering to the market when they give such a heksher, though, and don't lehalakhah require it. (But you did say "preferable", and avoiding even a shitah dechuyah could be deemed preferable.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:55:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 09:53:30PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil : Siman 199, the Maharil writes: ... :> And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive :> commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we :> should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut ... :> And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible :> to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules :> and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in :> our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and :> hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by :> way of tradition from outside, I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather than knowledge of abstract ideas. However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. There I ass more promise. he quotes the Rambam (which you already discussed) and the Sema"q's haqdamah (from near the end). There the Maharil talks about oseiq beTorah as in kol ha'oseiq beparashas olah kei'lu hiqrivu qorban, and that this should apply even to mitzvos in which they are NOT obligated (like qorbanos). Is this exclusively TSBK? It might; the Maharil talks about men saying birkhos haTorah before reading pesuqim they do not understand. Ayin sham. : And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in : Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous : generations: :> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their :> upright fathers. Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. Which the Maharil you cited appears to be doing as well. I place more hope on the second Maharil. Which is why I disagree with: : But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the : ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach : women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was : taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in : the form of the Mishna?... Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an example to imitate. (Tosafos believe Rabbe compiled the mishnah; writing down didn't happen for centuries. So what the mishnah was to the amora'im was an official text to memorize and repeat. As in "tani tana qamei deR' ..." Not that it really touches on our discussion.) : So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what : the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women : to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al " peh... True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask why, etc... but it's not an "education" setting. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 16:57:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men gather. Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis. So that women can gather around women rabbis. certainly it is not an argument against women rabbis. And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals does not apply either. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 18:50:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:50:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: - R' Shalom Simon wrote: > I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value > as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters > of grave import. No one?!? I imagine this might be true about people who are relatively learned, and relatively savvy in the ways of certain yeshivishe circles. But I can testify that it is certainly not true of a typical less-learned nominally-Orthodox person. Towards the end of my first year in yeshiva in Yerushalayim, as I made my plans to returns back to the USA, my friends were nudging me to stay for a second year. I felt that the proper thing for me to do was to return, as per my plans. But their annoying reached a certain level, and I felt the most effective response would be to ask my gemara rebbe (who I was very close with), and then I'd be able to tell them to keep quiet. Surprise! He answered me honestly, that leaving the yeshiva would be a mistake, I needed a second year of chizuk, etc etc etc. I was devastated, having to choose between his p'sak and what *I* felt to be right. In the end, I wasn't strong enough to follow Hashem's halacha. I left the yeshiva, returned to YU for the one remaining year to get my degree, and then returned to my yeshiva in Yerushalayim. All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha. Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 19:25:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 22:25:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support? Message-ID: - R' Ben Bradley wrote: > I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur > derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what > consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to > include any contact in any social situation in addition to > more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly > consistently not included are professional scenarios where > your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors, > nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who > can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like > the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says > there that even in his generation he was unique in being able > to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for > this situation. > > But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively > certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei > aveira then there is no issur of negia. I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses, physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her, she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia. But in the case at hand, the physical contact is not incidental. It is the goal. Nay, I would argue even more strongly: The mere physical contact isn't the goal -- The EMOTIONAL RESPONSE to the contact is the goal! The whole point of hugging this person is for emotional support. I certainly agree that this sort of hugging is on a lower level that the sort of hugging that leads to sexual relations. But at the same time, it *IS* more intimate than the examples you cited. A person will choose a doctor, nurse or therapist, based on their medical ability -- but the sort of hugs we are discussing here are valued more when from a friend than from a stranger. > I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And > preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in > sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved > in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred > option. "The need to comfort the bereaved..." Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor" regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this "needed" comfort from someone else. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 20:28:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 03:28:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R Meir Rabi asked for mekoros. I suggest Yechaveh Daas 4:43 Although Chacham Ovadya is Meikel he does bring Rishonim who would hold its an Issur Derabonnon as in Pesach for 'off' Chametz. This is probably the place to look but I don't have the Sefer in front of me at the minute. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 03:38:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 06:38:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607103838.GC10990@aishdas.org> There are also sources in RAZZ's column in Jewish Action https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_kosher_soap (He sent me the link privately. Perhaps R/Dr Zivitofsky wanted to spare me being corrected in public.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 06:35:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:35:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> >Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed >incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis >are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community >in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to >do so?" >----------------------------------------------------- >As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question >(chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", >on what basis >are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a >Halachic reason to do so?" But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no? We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni or Tzlophad's daughters. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 06:49:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 08:49:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maharat Message-ID: R. Micha- if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL). It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is one of them. You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get semicha. You obviously hold that a woman cant be a judge, and the barrier to the woman is actually not semicha, but her not being qualified to be in the category of hl. Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness. There are others in that category. Since there is no reason to differentiate between those in the category, you are saying that all those others in the category also are forbidden, not from semicha, but from being in the category of HL. We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be dayyanim in some cases. So, the disqualification of women from HL actually wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot. So your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not claiming to be eligible for semicha. I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive lomdus. Is there a source that specifically states that women are forbidden from being HL? The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age. It seems that you may be distinguishing between hora'ah, and HL, there being hora'ah that is not in the category of being given by someone that is HL(if not, you have to deal with the myriads of sources that state specifically that women can give hora'ah). So you and the OU authors may be referring to HL in the mosaic understanding, and moderns, including YM, are using it in a different fashion, to refer to non-formal HL. Because if there is hora'ah that is not part of the formal HL, there is no restriction on women. And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? what is the basis for that? It seems that even assuming that you are correct(for which I have not found any support in any references), there is no basis for excluding women from having non formal hora'ah, someone acknowledging that they are capable of that non-formal hora'ah, and them functioning as a rabbi and doing what rabbi's do in shuls and elsewhere. Your restriction only keeps them from occupying a formal title which is not neccessary or needed for the job description. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 07:05:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 14:05:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> References: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> Message-ID: <94258eaf26e94a0ea0c49de3630ef2ce@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no? We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni or Tzlophad's daughters. ========================= So just to complete the loop-the question is who gets to answer this request for whom Kt Joel rich _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rn0JnHwKAKxEU5lYbmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGWm5q4mhsFBBsamlgbGDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAF5osAg&Z THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 09:38:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607163850.GA12495@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:49:45AM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL). It's not me positing it. Look again at YD 242:13-14, warning against the talmid shelo higia' lehora'ah against giving any, and the chakham who did higi'ah lehora'ah and was not moreh, applying condemnatory pesuqim to each. The SA is based on R' Abba amar R' Hunah amar Rav on AZ 19b. : It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can : give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is : one of them. So yes, it is clear. The SA says so outright. : You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get : semicha... Again, not me, Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq all assume comparability between the two. A Mahariq the Rama then cites (se'if 6) as the basis for his concluding how a musmach should behave toward the rav who gave him semichah, when not his rebbe. So it would seem the Rama buys into the notion that our "semichah" of declaring someone a hegi'ah lehora'ah (and in the case of a rebbe, implicitely that he has permission to be moreh) follows the rules of Mosaic semicha for beis din. So, thinking you are arguing against me, rather than centuries of dissentless precedent, you propose a line of reasoning at odds with the Rambam and Tosafos: : Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for : those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness... The Sema and Be'eir heiTev (on CM 7:4) does say yalfinan lah mei'eidus. See Nidah 49b But see the Y-mi, Shevuos 4:1 (vilna 19a) brings several derashos. One of them (R' Yosi bei R' Bun, R' Huna besheim R' Yosi) does learn is from a gezeira shava from eidus. ... : We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be : dayyanim in some cases. So, the disqualification of women from HL actually : wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot. So : your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not : claiming to be eligible for semicha. One thing at a time. Eligability for true Mosaic semichah and how it reflect on who can give hora'ah is what's relevant now. Not who can serve in other judicial roles that did/will not require semichah. : I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive : lomdus. Is there a source that specifically states that women are : forbidden from being HL? There are numerous sources that say women can't get real Mosaic semichah, and numerous sources that say that the laws of today's "semichah" are derived from those. The fact that I don't know anyone before the current dispute actually connect the two to deny something no (O and pre-O) observant community considered a plausible question even as recently as the late 1990s (including a statement by R' Avi Weiss) really doesn't make the argument less compelling. If you have A =/= B and B = C, do you really demand a source telling you that A =/= C? : The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara : and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age... No, that HL in the SA is the same. ... : And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the : requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? ... Never claimed that. I separated my problem with declaring a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" for women from my problem with a woman serving during services and from my 2 or 3 problems with giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings in halakhah. You have only responded to the first. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 10:33:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:33:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607173338.GB9596@aishdas.org> As I see it, the question WRT hora'ah is whether we follow the Rama's lead and hold like the Mahariq, or the Birkei Yoseif CM 7:12 a viable shitah -- and then, does "viable" mean "advisable"? (We aren't heter shopping, after all.) The Birkei Yoseif says Af de'ishah besulah ladun, mikol maqom ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah basing himself on one of the opinions in Tosafos (Yevamos 45b "mi", Gittin 88b, ve'od) about what it means that "Devorah melamedes lahem dinim". (Devodah vs. ishah asurah ladun is the topic of 11.) It seem to me that "melameid lahem dinim" is a different use of the word "hora'ah" than the SA is using in YD. And thus it seems to me that Birkei Yoseif would explicitly permit a yo'etzet, who is teaching established halakhah and defering questions that require shiqul hada'as to a rav. But he is not describing hora'ah as assumed in a Maharat's heter hora'ah lerabbim and the YD 242 sense of magi'ah lehora'ah and who needs such a heter when he does. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 10:12:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:12:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607171230.GA2858@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:25:57PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses, : physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a : "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one : will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so : too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked : her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her, : she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia. "Melakhah she'inah tzerichah legudah" is specific to the 39 melakhos, so "sort of" indeed. Besides, might be more of a pesiq reishei. In any case, when a professional violates negi'ah, the heter is ba'avidteih tarid (BM 91b). And it's specifically to professionals and the air of professionalism. (As well as the lowered odds of a problem for someone who has a license at risk.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 12:22:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 21:22:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/7/2017 3:50 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I > will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I > *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for > disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi > Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha. > > Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar > things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent. I would agree that this is an extreme example. I don't know you so I can't say anything about you in particular (not that I would anyway, not on a forum) but I would expect a yeshiva guy who had been learning with a teacher/rav for a year to take the teacher/rav's words much more seriously than the average ba'al habayit. The first thing a ba'al habayit would do is say "Well, I went to him for advice, not psak, so I don't have to listen to him". >I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value >as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters > of grave import. I don't know what constitutes grave import - an abortion? learning Biblical Criticism? Marrying someone of questionable yichus? Whether or not a particular business maneuver constitutes fraud in the eyes of halacha (or if it isn't but is illegal)? Accepting charity from criminals? Would the average MO Jew speak a rav and get his psak on these issues? Or do people limit themselves to strict Orach Chayim issues like eating on Yom Kippur? Are there issues that people will do whatever the rabbi says and ignore what he has to say about other things (obviously people ignore what rabbis have to say about a lot of issues, but I mean a straight psak)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 11:57:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maharat Message-ID: R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress. You are engaging in a theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls. (they were not arguing against specific wording on a claf, they were arguing against holding a specific position). Given what you wrote, we both agree that the OU argument against does not hold water. Even if they are technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are capable of doing so(even if according to you they actually do not need permission from their rav). Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R. Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and others. Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav) have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and the authority is in the sources, not the person. You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments. You have admitted that the issue of women semicha has not been considered until recently. So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong. (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an arguement, that it be consistent. So if you are claiming that the reason women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot. you cant have it both ways). Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.' Please read the article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier. He makes it very clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that external 'modern values' are an important part of that. Modern values are neither positive nor negative. Those that find resonance in the Mesorah are elevated. R. Nachum Rabinovitch and R. Lichtenstein point out that our goal is to make moral progress. You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'. It isn't about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion. As R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice. I happen to be married to a Maharat student and personally know many of them and their teachers. It is the ultimate in hubris and mansplaining for you and the others to claim to know what their motivation is. It was reprehensible of the OU panel to claim to know what the motivation is when they failed to talk to anyone actually involved in the enterprise. Even if we incorrectly grant that it is due to 'egalitarian yearnings,' is that wrong? I suggest that our Mesorah has incorporated egalitarian yearnings. The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way, and those that would probably would give all sorts of apologetics and rationalizations for it. (I am aware of the different shitot, and know that RSZA for example gave so many other rationales to decide that even though l'halacha he held this, there were so many other bases for deciding ahead of gender that practically it never would have been applicable.) Even the OU panel said that we value women the same as men. Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women. The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large or as small as possible? Because as we have decided above, if we go by strict halacha, there is no problem with women serving as shul rabbis. is it a value to have differences, and because you want to have differences, you are going to prohibit women from doing things? Just to have differences? There are differences between Jews and Converts. Is it a Halachic value to maximize the differences, or minimize the differences between Jew and Gerim? R. Moshe wrote that a convert can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah is not a problem. Would he have agreed that a women can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah is also not a problem for her? (rosh yeshiva does not require semicha). Mishpat echad yehiyeh lachem, ka-ger ka-ezrach. The OU paper brought up tzniut. I do not think that the MO community thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a violation of tzniut. So there is no violation of tzniut when women or men perform the functions of clergy on their side of the mechitzah(one could designate a man to take of things on the men's side of the mechitzah if you were worried about interactions across the mechitzah). if you are claiming that this is a tzniut problem, then it applies to every interaction of women and men, inside the shul and outside. The OU paper claimed that a synagogue required greater tzniut, and therefore women cant perform rabbinical duties. That is a non-sequitor. First of all, it hasnt been demonstrated that appropriately dressed and acting people are a problem with tzniut. and, why is this particular action the one picked to fulfill the mandate of more tzniut? perhaps the men fulfilling EH 21 would be a better starting place. I understand you and others not being comfortable with ordination for women. no one is asking for you to be comfortable with it. If you dont think it is a good idea(halacha v'ain mori'in kein), that is fine to say. But it isn't fine to say that Halacha bans it when it doesn't, and it isn't ok to try to kick people who are shomrei Torah u'mitzvot out of the tent because of your comfort or lack of comfort. I would hope that you are at least as uncomfortable with some of the people on the far right wing. No one is asking for you to go to their shul, ask them a shailah, or learn their Torah if you dont want to. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:10:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:10:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:57:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress. You are engaging in a : theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU : rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls... Well, my first point is a discussion of hora'ah, and consequently for whom is semichah meaninful. But my argument on this point is a subset of the OU's argument on that point. See their paper, pp 8-9 : Given what you wrote, we both agree : that the OU argument against does not hold water. Even if they are : technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give : hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are : capable of doing so (even if according to you they actually do not need : permission from their rav). HOW do you get from what I wrote an implication that we have agreement on that? I think it's firmly established by aforementioned rishonim (plus others in the OU's footnotes) that if someone is ineligable for Mosaic semichah they are ineligable to give hora'ah and therefore have no use for today's yoreh-yoreh. Or the Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim"? : Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch : who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R. : Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a : later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't : invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and : others. Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav) : have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and : the authority is in the sources, not the person. Asked and answered, although in a post after the one to which you replied. Some use the word hora'ah to mean "melameid lahem dinim". Which is not hora'ah as the Rama is discussing it. I pointed you to the Birkei Yoseif. The Chinuch is similar; his : You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments... Another? What's the first? : So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only : poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong. The OU paper doesn't make that argument. Not that I see everything the way the OU panel does. (But halakhah lemaaseh, I would be more likely to follow their opinion than my own.) Nor did I find RJF's analysis of this claim in neither (his general position on ordaining women) nor the only place where I saw him discuss the OU panel on Lehrhaus. As an activist on the subject, I'm sure you've spent more time reading up on it than I. Could you kindly provide more specific references? But let me deal with what you wrote: IOW, you are saying that because our ancestors thought the idea was absurd, we ought to go ahead? What such an argument would say is that we historically had numerous women capable of being rabbis and even so no one even considered making any of them one. The OU's section on mesorah should explain why such attitudes have precedential authority. But again, none of this reflects on what I myself was arguing : (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an : arguement, that it be consistent. So if you are claiming that the reason : women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from : being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including : that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot. you cant : have it both ways). I argued the opposite causality. Lo sosuru mikol asher YORUKHA refers to dayanim. So, someone who is excluded from becoming a dayan can't be the subject of the pasuq, and their decisions don't fall under the halakhos generated by this pasuq. Their decisions are not hora'ah, in the pasuq's sense. (YOu had me saying: Can't give hora'ah implies can't be dayan. I am really saying: Can't be dayan implies can't give hora'ah.) : Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.' Please read the : article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier. He makes it very : clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that : external 'modern values' are an important part of that. Modern values are : neither positive nor negative... Not because they're modern, no. But obviously some are positive, some negative. We can judge them. Mesorah and its values are logically prior to modern values. Numerous halakhos are unegalitarian. Even if egalitarianism is a good idea for benei noach, as a perspective it is inconsistent with that the Torah expects of Jews. : You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'. It isn't : about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers : to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion. As : R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice... The motive I attributed, really echoed back from what I heard in prior iterations, is not that anyone is about making halakhah more egalitarian, but a desire to make halakhah fit a more egalitarian reality. So I don't know what you're rebutting. I argued that some realities reflect values that must be resisted rather than accomodated. We can talk about the end of inequality in the workplace as a good thing, but can we talk about reducing the differences in avodas Hashem, differences that can't be eliminated because halakhah demands they're there, as a good thing? Good point here to address RSSimon's post. On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 09:35:14AM -0400, Sholom Simon wrote: : But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight : halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's : education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent : this", no? To avoid making this a false dichotomy, you have to define halakhah broadly, to include the obligation to live according to the values and general guidelines of aggadita -- mitzvos like qedoshim tihyu, vehalakhta bidrakhav, ve'asisa hayashar vehatov (a/k/a Chovos haLvavos or Hil' Yesodei haTorah and Hil' Dei'os). I think this is what the OU is trying to get to with the concept of "Mesorah". But if I may be frank, they are handicapped in their ability to discuss the aggadic by too many of them seeing the world with Brisker eyes. Back to R/Dr Stadlan... In addition to the question needing to be asked about the Torah's evaluation of a modern value before we simply adopt it (rather than tolerate, limit the scope, or entirely reject).... Second, I do not think justice is served by telling women to find their religious meaning in a headlong rush toward a glass ceiling. I think it's more just to teach them how to find meaning in ways that aren't dead-ended for them. More equal, if less egalitarian. ... : Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women. : The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large : or as small as possible?... That decision should be made by starting with "why does halakhah have those differences"? And what do our aggadic sources say? As I said above, we judge whether to adopt, tolerate or resist new values based on TSBP. : The OU paper brought up tzniut. I do not think that the MO community : thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a : violation of tzniut... Tzenius isn't about clothes. I don't agree with their argument, but don't fight strawmen. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 13:55:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:55:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a > woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken > that way I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:21:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 23:21:05 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB writes: >I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" >in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather than knowledge of abstract ideas. No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these were not "textual" sources - how would you translate ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? better though, to keep the flow and that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? >However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult to understand them as having been written by the same person. Indeed the Birchei Yosef, who seems to have only seen the first one inside, and seen the second one referred to in other sources, particularly the Beis Yosef,( who himself seems to have had the second on but possibly not the first) challenges the quotations from the second teshuva on the basis of the first, and seems to suggest (in the politest possible way) that the Beis Yosef got it wrong, because they just do not match. I do not know any real way to reconcile these two, and can only note that the two compilations of teshuvos were compiled by different students of the Maharil . : And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in : Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous : generations: :> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their :> upright fathers. >Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk, it is about actively teaching (albeit oral). Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting up of schools), but it is a strange pasuk to use if he was talking purely about mimeticism. >Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at all the experiential aspect. When the gemora cites a ma'aseh rav, is this *not* TSBP because it would seem to be mimetic? >I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an example to imitate. The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two types of TSBP. And the other alternative would seem to be to write this kind of teaching out of TSBP. But is not a lot of TSBP, even though by no means all of it, this kind of teaching. Is not the gemora etc filled with this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. : So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what : the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women : to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al " peh... >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting. But the Rambam doesn't say either - "but with regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she ba'al peh taught in a formal educational setting, but that not taught in a formal education setting is fine". And note of course that one cannot just observe Mum taking challa, one also needs to be told about the correct shiur. It is highly unlikely that anybody would necessarily conclude, by watching week after week, exactly what the correct shiur for taking chala and the bracha is by mere observation. That has to be communicated as a form of rule. Ok a situational rule, - taught in context, but the tradition would be lost in a generation if it was left for every generation to guess the correct shiur by watching closely enough week after week. >-Micha Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:53:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:53:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we have now is historically completely wrong. From "b'inyan semichat chachamim' published in Or Hamizrach: 'At this time when semicha is batel, all the mishpatim from the Torah are battel..based on lifneihem- and not lifnei hedyotot. And nowadays we are all hedyotot. And the only way it works is that we act as shlichim of Mosaic beit din' So everyone is a hedyot. More to the point in section five there is a detailed examination of semicha included what was required in various areas. 'The Chatam Sofer writes...that this semicha of morenu and chaver has NO BASIS IN SHAS but is a ashkenazi minhag and does not contain anything real'. 'They issue of semicha that they estabkished(tiknu), according to the Rivash, because it is forbidden for a student, even one who is hegiah l'hora'ah, to give hora'a or to establish a yeshiva(note that this obviously is not hora'ah)while his teacher is alive....therefore they had the PRACTICE of semicha...that he is no longer a student but can teach others(the word is l'lamed, not hora'ah)' There is a lot more. But it is quite clear in the sources brought in this article that the historical record clearly shows No connection between Mosaic semicha and what was begun in the Middle Ages. Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:53:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 22:53:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> References: , <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> Message-ID: <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 7, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > >> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: >> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way > > I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this Not really. They basically say either that there are other tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why.specific citations available upon request Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:07:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:07:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> References: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> Message-ID: On 07/06/17 18:53, Rich, Joel wrote: >> I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that >> this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this > Not really. They basically say either that there are other > tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it > would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why. That's what I thought too. I was surprised to read RNS not only insisting otherwise but deducing an entire shita from this supposed fact. In practise I doubt it was ever meant to be implemented kipshuto, because even on its own terms it applies only when all else is equal, and it rarely is. But it seems to me that when all else *is* equal, i.e. when we have no other information so all else is zero, and we are free to set our own priorities without fearing negative consequences (that too constitutes additional information which makes all else not equal), then the halacha must still apply. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:51:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:51:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170607225122.GA14289@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 05:48:13PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : > Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because : > there is no actual issur la'avor. : : I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on : pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where : there's an issur involved? Red shoelaces? : The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that : yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below. No, it could be preservational and still deOraisa. Like my example of a ben soreier umoreh, who Chazal say dies al sheim ha'asid -- we're also preventing the continuing deteriation in a downward spiral. This "downward spiral" was what I was calling Hil' Dei'os. Hirhurim and hana'ah -- devarim sheleiv in general -- aren't even punishable altogether, how could they allow a court to decide yeihareig? Most dinei nefashos don't even qualify. : Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context : of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must : be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as : issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does. And qiddush hasheim could involve avoiding something that is not assur either. (Agian: red shoelaces.) That too is death to preserve an attitude. I am just saying that your desire to make this yeihareig ve'al ya'avor is putting an overly formal halachic box. Whether or not something is a qiddush hasheim or otherwise worth dying for is not necessarily reducible to a Brisker chalos-sheim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:17:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:17:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we : have now is historically completely wrong... And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah? The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up to imitate the other with no continuity between them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:58:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> Message-ID: The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way, and that saying that modern semicha was set up to imitate ancient semicha(to such an extent that the same prohibitions apply) is a distortion of history and Halachic history. Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources. The Rama makes more sense when read in the context of the quotes that I provided from the Chatam Sofer et al. The Rambam, could well be discussing ancient semicha in the sources you describe........ On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun > 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: > : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we > : have now is historically completely wrong... > > And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based > on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical > study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah? > > The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up > to imitate the other with no continuity between them. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 23:40:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 09:40:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> References: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> Message-ID: <5938F16E.9010705@biu.ac.il> the topic is addressed in this article: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0048-0068.pdf ?A MAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER from Tradition in 2014 Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > >> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a >> woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken >> that way > > > I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this > is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? > What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument > is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the > question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O? > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 06:14:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:14:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check Message-ID: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> [RJR poses these questions at the start of his Audio Roundup column on Torah Musings . I prodded him to share them here as well, as questions work better in an actual discussion venue. But I didn't think he would do so without plugging his column! So, here's my plug: Worth reading, and if you have one -- pointing subscribing to on your news agreegator / RSS reader. -micha] A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled the commandment to wear tfillin. In fact, many pasul tfillin were pasul from the start (e.g., missing a letter). The Rav later reported that a listener heard the shiur and had his tfillin checked and found such a psul, even though he had bought the tfillin from a reputable sofer and had them checked earlier by another reputable sofer. The Rav was pleased with this result. Two questions: 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status) appropriate? 2) As a societal issue, how should current rabbinic leadership view the tradeoff of now requiring (suggesting) frequent checks? We will have some who will have the listener's result. OTOH, we will also have those whose tfillin will more likely become pasul due to uncurling the klaf and the increased costs of checking. BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan checking be appropriate? Kt Joel rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 06:15:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:15:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Parenthesis Message-ID: <1c9fcdd2c38f43e7af59d24ffe246c8b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> [See my plug of RJR's column in the previous post. His question about a distraught new widow and negi'ah as well... And that's just the column's *padding*! Extra credit if you answer the question about parenthesis while "vayehi binsoa'" and its upside-down nuns is still in parashas hashavua. -micha] 1. In the Shulchan Aruch -- who is the author of the statements in parenthesis in the Rama like print that don't start with Hagah? 2. In Rashi (or Tosfot), who decided to put certain words in parenthesis and why? (e.g., differing manuscripts, logic, etc.) Kt Joel rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 04:31:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 07:31:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . I would like to start a new thread to discuss exactly what we mean by "redemption". I will begin by quoting most of R' Micha Berger's recent post from the thread "Elimelech's land": > ... it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to > all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that > strikes me as a progression): > > - the go'el hadam > - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's > not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) > - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) > - and of people (ibid v 48) > - the end of galus > > To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even > something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on > its nachalah. > > But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more > to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first -- > "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of > redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why > there are different words in lh"q. Several years ago I tried working on this as part of my preparations for Pesach. The first obstacle I encountered was (as RMB mentioned in the last line here) that there are so many interchangeable synonyms. The first two that came to my mind are "geulah" and "pidyon", such as in Yirmiyahu 31:10: > Ki fadah Hashem es Yaakov, > Ug'alo miyad chazak mimenu. I agree that a good starting point, as suggested by RMB, is "restoration". This carries over to English as well, and I could cite several pieces of literature whose theme is "the chance to redeem myself," where someone suffered a significant loss of status (justified or not) and is trying to correct that loss, and restore himself to his prior status. This is very much what Naomi was trying to accomplish. But I'm not so sure how relevant it was to Mitzrayim, where the problem was not merely social status, but physical danger. And that brings more synonyms into the mix: yeshuah and hatzalah. A useful tool for distinguishing synonyms is when they occur near each other in the same context. I brought an example of pidyon and geulah above from Yirmiyahu, and here is a case of hatzalah and geulah: Shemos 6:6-7: "V'hotzaysi... V'hitzalti... V'gaalti... V'lakachti..." On this, Rav SR Hirsch explains: "Whereas hitzil is deliverance from a threatening danger, gaal is deliverance from a destruction which has already occured." In Shemos 8:19, RSRH seems to say that "padah" refers to redemption when "anything has fallen into the power of someone else, to bring it out of that power." I suppose that relates to kedushah (Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, etc) because the redeemed object is no longer encumbered by the halachos that applied before. On the other hand, Vayikra 25:24-54 teaches about using money to redeem land, or a house, or an eved. In those pesukim, the word "redeem" appears as some form of geulah 17 times, but as pidyon not even once. How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? Looking forward to your thoughts Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 04:49:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:49:29 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500 From: Noam Stadlan via Avodah > R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men > gather. Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis. So that women > can gather around women rabbis. I'm sorry this does not compute halachically or logically. The men don't gather around the Rabbi either, and I have never seen a problem when the Rav who has been directing everything requests women on one side and men on the other. > certainly it is not an argument against > women rabbis. It was a comment that even in a place where the Yetzer Horah is least likely to have an influence, we are asked to be separate from each other. > And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like > the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly > dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual > immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals > does not apply either. Ger does not make that their focus. They have Gedorim for their own wives even if dressed Tzniusdikly etc One doesn't have to be modern orthodox to encounter women in the workplace either. It would be good if there were more women asking shaylos period. For Nida shaylos there have always been ways to treat a matter discretely. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 07:30:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of > any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even > punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of > the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? Yes, it's what the victim's blood needs and deserves, and the victim is unable to provide it for himself, so as the closest relative it's his duty to provide it for him. The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. Ya`akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because Kel Nekamos Hashem. We are commanded to love our fellow Yidden so much that we forgive them and *forgo* our natural and just desire for revenge, just as we would do of our own accord for someone we actually loved without being commanded. Even the neshama of a murder victim is expected to forgive his Jewish killer, and Navos was punished for not doing so. But we can't forgive on someone else's behalf, especially on our father's behalf, or assume he's such a tzadik that he must have forgiven his killer. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 09:13:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:13:39 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Psak of a Musmach Message-ID: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> The Maharat thread got me thinking about this, but it is a bit of a tangent, hence the new thread. It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don?t recall that it is mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 07:23:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 10:23:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170608164150.ETSG4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> At 09:43 AM 6/8/2017, via Avodah wrote: > >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather >than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she >noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask >why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting. Surely, *some* of it is. Rn Ch L gave the example of a shiur, but there's an awful lot that goes on in the kitchen, and I would guess (I don't know, as I've never been a mother or a daughter) that the mother would be almost negligent if she didn't actually explain some various rules. (I'm using a slotted spoon here, but in cases x, y, z, I can't use a slotted spoon; or: when I do this it's not considered borer because x, y, z; or: if I want to return the pot to the blech, I have to have in mind x,y,a; or: this is how you make tea, and this is how you make coffee, and this is why I can't melt the ice in a cup, and this is why you can defrost the orange juice, etc etc etc). I have a teacher who told me that any women who is doing a competent job in the kitchen has to have learned TSBP. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:28:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:28:47 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> Message-ID: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of >> any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even >> punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of >> the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? > > The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like. Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:45:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 14:45:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <3c673353-b5e9-d704-9cb0-52aff2f213c7@sero.name> On 08/06/17 14:28, Daniel Israel wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not >> Jewish. > An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. > Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos > chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an issur on doing so againstyour own people, because you are commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in itself does not come from any Jewish source. > That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like. > Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam > should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise > above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes. He's not go'el ha'emes, he's go'el hadam. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 13:43:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 20:43:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? ------------------------- The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an extension of the beit din. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:40:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 18:40:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Psak of a Musmach In-Reply-To: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> References: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <70d0ce58d48443a8a6b7fb558f001745@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From: Daniel Israel via Avodah Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 12:14 PM > It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, > then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying > on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or > her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not > obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don't recall that it is > mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha. Good starting point is first Mishna in horiyot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 14:01:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:01:33 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> References: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2D819FCB-5A0D-497C-8E21-EE99A6A9069A@kolberamah.org> A few points that have been swirling around my head reading through this thread. 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? Let?s concede, for sake of argument, that there are halachically permissible ways for a woman to do much of what communal rabbis actually do in practice. Not everything that is mutar is advisable. I don?t see why we should be embarrassed that community policy is being set by Torah principles which are not purely halachic. And while we are all entitled to our own opinions, community policy must be set by gedolei Torah of a certain stature. I don?t believe any of the Rabbaim who are supporting these ventures, with all due respect to their legitimate scholarship and accomplishments, are among the select few who a significant portion of the Torah world look to for answers to these kinds of questions. They were never among those who set gedarim for the community before they become involved in this issue, and so it should be no surprise that their taking the initiative on this issue is widely not accepted. 2. As far as hora?ah, we are discussing it like there is a clear line: halacha p?sukah and hora?ah. (And some comments make a third distinction, between what a local Rav can pasken, and what requires phone call.) But every case requires some amount of shikul hada?as. Sometimes it is so trivial we don?t notice it (?is this specific package of meat marked ?bacon,' treif??). But there are lots of questions we essentially MUST pasken for ourselves. Things like, ?is my headache painful enough to justify taking asprin on Shabbos??. OTOH, most of the questions we ask a Rav (?is this spoon okay??) aren?t really about shikul hadaas, they are more about his knowing all the relevant sugyos. I.e., they are topics that we could (should?) learn enough to answer for ourselves. Note also that any responsible Rav is continually evaluating which questions he feels capable of answering on his own. Just to be clear, I?m not saying there is no distinction to be made. Given that hora?ah lifnei Rabo is assur, clearly there is such a category. But what it is is not so clear cut. Also, I?m not pointing this out to support Rabbanus for women (although one could formulate such an argument), rather to suggest that hora?ah is not this place this needs to be argued out. 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher.? I think this is a good model. First, I would note that there are definitely still circles which strongly disagree with aspects of the chassidic approach. What has changed is that no one is seriously concerned that it will degenerate into widespread k?firah. (Keep in mind there was precedent. Chassidus arose soon after exactly that happened with regard to the Sabbateans.) That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, much as happened with the Conservative movement. Fifty years from now, if that happens, the question will be answered. If it doesn?t happen, then those who are still opposed may be willing to make their peace with it as part of Orthodoxy, even they don?t themselves hold that way. Given this long term view, perhaps the vehement opposition is an important part of the processes (as it may well have been with regard to chassidus). 4. Related to the prior point, RnIE (I think) suggested that this is less of a big deal in E?Y. And RSS posted a link to an article by Dr. Rachel Levmore that concludes with a list of reasons the situation may be different in E?Y and the US. For myself, WADR to those involved, who I am sure really feel they are acting l?sheim shemayim, I share RMB?s concern that they are aiming at a glass ceiling (extremely well put!). And, consequently, I suspect that there will eventually be a schism with at least some of that camp transforming into a neo-Conservative movement. After reading the above mentioned article by DrRL, perhaps another reason for the difference is that in E?Y these developments are fundamentally a response to a need. That is, there are specific issues having nothing to do with female clergy which are creating a need, and in some natural way it has come out that the best solution is the creation of these new roles for women. Whereas, in the US, the driver seems to be a conviction that there should be some form of female clergy, in and of itself. Which leads to a concern I?ve long had about many issues where people point to historical halachic change to justify contemporary changes. Perhaps certain changes are okay if they happen on their own, but we really shouldn?t be pushing for them to happen. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 14:25:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 17:25:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170608212546.GB25737@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 06:58:57PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam : Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way... But you neither explain 1- If it is a "distortion of history and Halachic : history" to claim that current yoreh-yoreh is an imitation of the elements of true Mosaic semichah that are still meaningful, how and why the Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq the Rama quotes lehalakhah all derive laws of yoreh-yoreh from Mosaic semichah for dayanus? Nor 2- How the CS's claim -- citation would be helpful -- that today's semichah is "merely" an Ashkenazi minhag means that this minhag was not set up to certify who is standing in the shadow of the true Mosaic musmach? Don't we need something explicit from the CS before we can just assume he would not deduce the rules of the minhag from the rules of true semichah. After all, you're setting him up against the precedent of doing just that (in Q #1). See the AhS YD 242:29-30. He explains that contemporary "semichah" is to announce to the nation that (1) he is higi'ah lehora'ah, and (2) his hora'ah is by permission of the ordaining rabbi. (He also requires a community to have a rav ha'ir, and others need the RhI's reshus to pasqen in his town as well.) This is much like what you said the CS says, as well as the Rivash. And the Rivash, which appears from your quote is the CS's source, talks about hora'ah -- just as the AhS does. In any case, I am looking for the Tzitz Eliezer's discussion of Sepharadim and their not accepting the notion of contemporary "semichah". Because IIRC, his discussion about semichah, not higi'ah lehora'ah. Recall, AISI the real question isn't the nature of a semichah, but how can be higi'ah lehora'ah. Semichah is only a good belwether, because it's not meaningful to say yoreh-yoreh to someone who can't give hora'ah with or without that permission. And it's semichah the CS dismisses as minhag; the extra gate can be minhag without changing who is allowed to enter. The discussion of semichah doesn't touch on who can give hora'ah, it is just out one precondition before actually doing so. : Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of : the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the : Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources... I don't know what you mean. Does the Rambam derive halakhah from dayanim musmachim with Mosaic semichah to today's morei hora'ah or not? Does Tosafos? Do they not take it for granted that the laws are consistent between the two, without which those derivations would not work? What exactly is your other understanding? (To reword Q #1.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 19:36:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:36:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will bow out. A few details: I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look up the underlying sources to be sure. The article is in Or HaMizrach 44 a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski(I hope the transliteration does him justice). There are other sources on the the Halachic/ historical aspects of semicha including one by R. Breuer in the journal Tziyon. and many others. I do not have time to find and read them all, but I think the point is clear in the article cited above. In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may explain my difficulty in finding it. I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot both of which are not applicable(or have not been applied) to modern semicha. So it is a stretch to state that this Rambam implies anything about current Hora'ah or semichah. I have not found any specific statements that a woman is not qualified to reach the state of 'hegiah l'hora'ah', and certainly not in the modern(non-Mosaic) context. I am not arguing that some of the sources cant be read to come to this conclusion, but it seems to be a novel halachic statement(similar to the OU rabbis making a new halachic category of "stuff that a shul rabbi does") and the only characteristic is that women are forbidden from it. I suggest that if someone on the left had made a similar claim, they would be accused of pretzeling the Halacha to support a pre-existing mahalach. I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable understanding of the Halacha. And perhaps even that those who oppose are the ones who are trying to find arguments when a fair reading of the sources indicate that there really is none specifically applicable to the issue at hand. Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical Ethics on the topic of triage. thanks Noam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 20:55:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 05:55:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Cherlow's Post Message-ID: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> https://www.facebook.com/RabbiCherlow/posts/1442987509096046 In response to a question regarding a psak that supposedly allows women to recite Sheva Brachot and an accusation that certain rabbis are distorting the halacha because of feminism, Rav Cherlow wrote a response. I am summarizing a few points. Full text is in the link above.. Introduction: Your words are a perfect example of how someone can break the Torah's most serious commandments and yet act as if he is a yirei shamayim. 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah. 2) Never mock rabbis (or anyone) because you disagree with their opinions. Mocking people publicly is one of the most serious aveirot. 3) Never use a nickname for others, in this case "Dati Light". 4) Always be careful about generalizing. 5) Never accuse someone of being guilty of what you assume to be their hidden motivations. You don't know and accusing someone violates "M'devar sheker tirchaq". More importantly, you're assuming that you're a tzaddiq and don't have an agenda. 6) Never use a group name to mock someone. The Torah world owes feminism a great debt for things its done (Talmud Torah for women, leading the fight against sexual harassment, etc) along with strong criticism for other things done in its name. 7) Always try and live according to Halacha as it is written. Don't have other gods, like opposition to chiddushim. 8) Bring halachic arguments to halachic discussions. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 02:15:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:15:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: On 6/8/2017 9:28 PM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah > > wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. > > An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. > Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos > chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. > Where is there any issur on taking revenge? Against fellow Jews, yes, of course. But generally? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 04:21:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:21:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Cherlow's Post In-Reply-To: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> References: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <9f3eaf48-0c03-fc88-cc90-e84a27b77ea9@sero.name> On 08/06/17 23:55, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in > Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to > do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you > guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah. And yet in this case the newspaper seems to have got it right, and R Cherlow's correspondent simply hadn't bothered to read it before fulminating. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:06:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:06:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption Message-ID: Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it. Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time before they went into exile was simply waiting time? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 07:32:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 17:32:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern > day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? Who says it was? > What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin > (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah > tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work > to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It > doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it. Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite. But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. I don't think their much more lengthy exile was a punishment. I think it was simply necessary. Had they rejoined us, by which I mean all of them, and not just those who Jeremiah brought back, and we had been exiled as a single nation, things would have been different. But viewing themselves as a separate nation from us, how would you envision things having worked in the ancient world? I don't think it would have been significantly different from what happened with us and the Samaritans. In fact, the Samaritans called themselves Israelites; not Samaritans. (That's the root of the mistake in the Christian "good Samaritan" story, btw.) > Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time > before they went into exile was simply waiting time? Not at all. Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 07:50:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:50:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 09/06/17 11:06, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern > day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? Assuming that it was, and that Yirmiyahu didn't bring them back. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:20:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:20:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <019f7de8-108b-d533-3e11-4556470c1c43@sero.name> On 08/06/17 22:36, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is > that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the > time of the Gemara. I think that is obvious, and it didn't occur to me that this could be what R Micha was referring to. I thought there must be some other Rambam, perhaps a teshuvah, where he discusses "modern" semicha to whatever extent such a thing even existed in his day and place. BTW I have seen it suggested that the original semicha was kept alive at the yeshivah in Damascus (they would cross into the borders of EY to confer it) until it was destroyed in the 2nd Crusade, which, if true, would mean there may still have been living musmachim in the Rambam's day. > Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. > That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar > statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical > Ethics on the topic of triage. But that article doesn't support the claim you made, that there exist poskim -- and in fact that it is the unanimous position of MO poskim -- that this halacha is no longer operative. The article cites sources relevant to the entire topic of triage, in all circumstances, including the mishneh and gemara in Horiyos, and I didn't see any suggestion that they are less authoritative or applicable today than they ever were. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:00:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1af6febd-3d16-f901-472d-92f0a5cd66e7@sero.name> Another idea: To expect a redeemer from the House of David one must first subject oneself to that House. Those who reject its sovereignty can't (by definition) expect one of its members to save them, so on being exiled they would naturally assume that this would be their new home and these their new neighbors, with whom they must assimilate. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 11:08:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 05:32:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: :> Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any :> modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? : Who says it was? First, I think we concluded among ourselves that the 10 lost tribes are really 9+1 lost tribes, with Shim'on, living in Malkhus Yisrael, being a separate case. With, perhaps, it's own spiritual malais. They lived amongst sheivet Yehudah; is it likely their culture was more like Yisrael than their own neighbors? With that tangent out of the way... It's a machloqes tannaim in Sanhedrin 10:3 (110b), no? "The 10 shevatim are not destined to return, 'Vayashlikheim el eretz achares kayom hazah' (Devarim 29) [derashah elided]... divrei R' Aqiva. "R' Eliezer omer: [his own derashah] ... even as the 10 shevatim went through the darkening, so too it will grow light for them. The gemara's discussion focuses on the previous part of the mishnah's machloqs -- their olam haba. But Rebbe says they do have olam haba and seems to be implying that the kaparah is total -- so they will return to EY. The Sifra (Bechuqosai 8:1) has R' Aqiva saying they won't return, but based on (Vayiqra 26:38), "vavadtem bagoyim..." And it has R' Meir as the one disagreeing with R' Aqiva. In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman, we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim. Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. R' Chaim Brisker uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. Which R' Aharon Lichtenstein uses as a snif not to support giving them Israeli citizenship in "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity." :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:19:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:19:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema Message-ID: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in the famous midrash about Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry halacha guide demands that they be sourced? Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 09:39:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:39:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170609163954.GA24832@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:36:08PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will : bow out. A shame, as we went in circles on one issue and didn't touch the others. Including my assertion that the Chinuch (142) speaks "ishah chokhmah hare'uyah lelhoros" and "assur lo leshanos letalmidav" -- whether someone who has the skills to give hora'ah shouldn't be teaching when drunk. No mention of hora'ah, but ra'ui lehora'ah and teaching. Because, he explains, their teaching will be accepted by those who look up to them, as if it were hora'ah. Similarly the Chida (Birkei Yoseif, CM se'if 7:12) rules out ordaning women, following the example of Devorah. People can voluntarily listen to Devorah (or, it would seem, to a yo'etzes), but she cannot be appointed a rabbi nor ordained as one because her opinion could not be imposed. Picture the town hiring a rabbi that any chazan can say, "Well, I don't follow him" and therefore can break from the shul's norm, or even "I don't follow him on this one." But more to the point, following the Chinukh (who is cited), he says "deDevorah haysah melamedes lahem dinim." R' Baqshi Doron mentions this problem in his letter, which RGS has scanned at http://www.torahmusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Rav-Bakshi-Doron-on-Women-Rabbis.pdf#page=2 REBD concludes that because of this, women should not be tested or given semichah, as that would be an appointment rather than voluntary acceptance of a particular teaching. And, while the Chida (and thus REBD) says "ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah", he is defining this as teaching law, not interpresting law -- nidon didan. Which is consistent with the Chinukh the Chida is building on. Nor did we get to my non black-letter-halakhah concerns. Including my concern that the whole project reflects a misrepresentation of Judaism's demands by thinking that anything that can fit the black letter of the law is in compliance with the Torah. That there is none of the more nebulous side of the law; an obligation to pursue a given value system and ethic. The fact that "Mesorah" is dismissed as political rather than a real Torah issue is to my mind a blunder; and your disinterest in discussing this aspect actually hightened those concerns. Nor the question of telling women that they are correct to seek value in a manner that has a glass cieling for them. Nor the question of whether a woman belongs in shul service, or whether it was designed to be a Men's Club. And if not designed, whether its function as a Men's Club is too useful to be sacrificed. As one example, but not the whole problem: Will male attendance lessen if we lose that character; will Tue, Wed and Fri (workdays with no leining) Shacharis attendance among O men go the way of Shabbat attendance among their C counterparts? But on, the topic we did discuss... : I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing : certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look : up the underlying sources to be sure. The article is in Or HaMizrach 44 : a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski... But having a reference in the CS itself would have been more ... : In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of : the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may : explain my difficulty in finding it. It's the Rama who says 113. (It's either that the copy in OhC is idiosyncratic, or, the OU copied a typo in the Rama and didn't check. I know that's what I did.) : I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he : is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the : Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz : Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot ... Limnos ledavarim yechidim is not always to be a dayan. One can get reshus lehoros be'issur veheter or lir'os kesamim but not ladun. It's the same process as geting reshus ladun or ladun dinei kenasos, or... Do you think "lir'os kesamim" was ever limited to dayanim? The fact that the Rambam treats reshus lit'os kesamim and reshus ladun as one topic that's the whole point! (And that addresses Zev's recent post, which I approved while this one was sitting around mid-edit.) Now that you found the Mahariq that the Rama se'if 6 says he bases himself on, I would have like to have heard if you disagree that he too is treating the rules for yoreh-yoreh and the rules for Mosaiq semichah as one topic. And Tosafos? : I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the : discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very : least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of : women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable : understanding of the Halacha... I haven't heard a complete defense, but I didn't see at all a positive case for. After all, the burden of proof is on the innovator. We didn't touch the whole conversation of proving that the innovation is positive enough *in Torah values* to justify settling for just what could be read as a not 'beyond the pale' understanding. On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 03:01:33PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? ... : 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My : example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were : huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are : today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher." ... : That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two : camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that : this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically : okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, : much as happened with the Conservative movement... My own concern is (as Avodah long-timers should expect) more meta. Why is the only quesiton that of black-letter halakhah? Why the ignoring of -- what do I call it, "gray-letter halakhah"? -- laws that don't codify cleanly, that require a feel for what seems in line with the Torah, that which RHS calls "Mesorah"? (Although "mesorah" has become an ill-defined concept, including both Torah-culture values and mimetic practice. For that matter, I find that R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's use of "mimeticism" also blurs both, as both are transmitted culturally.) To me, that's a critical meta-innovation that warrants asking if we're still all playing by (evolving our practice with) the same rules. I am not worried about a slippery slope to C. To my mind, that's worrying about when the problem, if there is one, becomes symptomatic. To me the question is whether procedurally, the process R/D NS is defending is already unlike the rest of O IN A DEFINITIONAL WAY. After all, once you define MO to include an openness to modern values, following the Torah becomes just using the halakhah as a test -- can this new idea fit black-letter law or do we have to do without? But also our test itself changes. Deciding which shitah to follow depends in part on our priorities, and in LWMO, those modern values also define the priorities. As R/Dr Stadlan put it: : ... I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very : least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of : women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable : understanding of the Halacha... Thinking something is okay to do as long as one can find understandings of shitos that can combine to show the idea is plausible and not "beyond the pale" is to my mind itself beyond the pale. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 12:07:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:07:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> On 09/06/17 11:19, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in the famous midrash about > Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem > Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a > source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry > halacha guide demands that they be sourced? > > Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice? I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. When we say the Rambam doesn't give his sources, we mean that he doesn't tell us where in the gemara he derives the halachos. He doesn't expect his audience to be familiar with the gemara, and he's not interested in convincing those who are, or in defending himself to them. But he always gives the pasuk where a mitzvah or halacha is stated, or tells us that it comes "mipi hashmuah", or was instituted by chazal or by the geonim. When he gives a psak which doesn't come directly from the gemara he says "ken horu hage'onim", "ken horu rabosai", or "ken nir'a li". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 12:51:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:51:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> On 09/06/17 14:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman, > we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim. Only if he's from the countries where they were taken. > Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his > day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact; the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. As for the men's descendants by nochriyos, according to the first lashon Shmuel derived from the pasuk that they're nochrim, and according to the second lashon it's a halacha pesukah ("lo zazu misham"). But according to either lashon the problem of the women was solved. Also, there's no "by his day". Either the problem was solved within one generation, or it was never solved at all. Not by his day. By at latest the 2nd BHMK. Either Yirmiyahu brought them back, so they're not there any more, or the first generation had no children so they died out then and there, or the Sanhedrin decreed them to be goyim. > R' Chaim Brisker Where is this R Chaim? > uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not > halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. On what basis? Unlike the ten tribes' descendants, these children exist. How can they not be Jewish? Even if you want to say the second lashon applies to both the men and women, and it means they lost their Jewish status, this was not a gezera, it was derived from a pasuk, that Hashem took away their Jewish status, so in the absence of any pasuk about other people how can it be extended? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:03:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:03:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >In Yevamos... : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. : : Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke; he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...") : the : women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there : never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. That's Ravina. Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu". Which is inconsistent with Ravina. Whom I forgot about entirely. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 11:31:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:31:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check In-Reply-To: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 01:14:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is : needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without : knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled : the commandment to wear tfillin... : Two questions: : 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha : by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status) : appropriate? We're discussed variants of this question before. Usually WRT whether a person in the same situation buit with their mezuzah will get less shemirah. My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was really cheilev. And if that is true of cheilev and timtum haleiv, why not the protection of mezuzah or the effects of wearing tefillin? But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely, are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome. And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... If someone is doing everything they're supposed to, and we're not talking about the teva necessary to allow for human planning, then why wouldn't Hashem just give a person as per their deeds. Why have a whole metaphysical causality if it doesn't aid bechirah, nor Din, nor Rachamim? .... : BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has : changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan : checking be appropriate? I take this as evidence of the "Litvisher" answer. If it were really a problem, why wouldn't halakhah reflect a greater need to check? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:33:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:33:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 12:15:04PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos : >chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. : Where is there any issur on taking revenge? Against fellow Jews, : yes, of course. But generally? "Revenge is bad" is not the same as "revenge is assur". The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim. In which case, he would hold that only lo siqom would hold for them, whereas only lo sitor would apply to a yisra'el chotei. But Shabbos is coming, so I can't check about "chaveirim". But in any case, the notion that hene'elavim ve'inam olevim shome'im cherpasam ve'einam mashivim, aleihem hakasuv omeir, "ve'ohavav ketzeir hashemesh bigvuraso" (Shabbos 88b) has nothing to do with who the counterparty is. Not a chiyuv or issur in and of itself. But the person who doesn't take offense nor act on taking offense is among "ohavav". Similarly, the Rambam (ibid) talks about lo siqom in terms of "ma'avir al midosav al kol divrei ha'olam", not just offenses by chaveirim. This appears to be included in his "dei'ah ra'ah hi ad me'od". :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:26:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check In-Reply-To: <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> References: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <781fc94e-241d-e738-5060-522eeeb4f325@sero.name> On 09/06/17 14:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When > something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell > the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about > the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was > really cheilev. But if it's nisbarer afterwards that it really was chelev the kelim need to be kashered. Ditto if it's nisbarer after someone toveled that the mikveh was pasul all the taharos he touched since then are retroactively tamei. In fact if a mikveh is found to have been pasul all the taharos touched by all the people who used it since it was last known to be kosher are retroactively tamei. > But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely, > are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk > to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the > case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome. That's not a mystical position, it's a plain rational Litvisher position on risk assessment. > And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... Now *there's* mysticism! To a Litvak that shouldn't be a consideration. The din is the din, and it's not up to us to justify it. But IIRC you never deal with the explicit gemara about mikvaos. A gemara that explicitly distinguishes the case of kohanim who were found to be pesulim from *every other case* in the Torah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:40:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:40:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <81e3d31e-aa58-5f1a-fefb-bdc0297298a2@sero.name> On 09/06/17 16:03, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : >In Yevamos... > : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his > : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. > : > : Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact > > "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke; > he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the > issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...") No, he wasn't. Lo zazu misham has no connection to finding a solution to any problem, and there's no indication that "they" were even thinking of this problem. It's simply a statement that it was agreed upon by all that the pasuk makes the ten tribes (or at least their men) nochrim. No connection to any practical problem. > : the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there > : never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. > > That's Ravina. No, it isn't. It's Shmuel himself, answering why the womens' descendants are not a problem -- they didn't have any. Ravina is the one who says the halacha we all know, that the child of a nochri and a Yisre'elis is a Yisrael. > Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu". > Which is inconsistent with Ravina. It's irrelevant to Ravina, because in this lashon he isn't citing the general halacha about the child of a Yisrael and a nochris being a nochri, but instead says those children (of the men with nochriyos) were ruled to be nochrim from the pasuk. The women's children still aren't a problem, because there weren't any. But even if you say that according to the second lashon Shmuel didn't say the women were sterile, and he meant the pasuk to apply to both the men and the women, still it's specifically about them, not meshumadim in general. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:51:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:51:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: > The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any > Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different objects. > I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only > those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim. I don't believe so. The only non-Jewish "chaverim" I can think of are the sect that ruled in Persia in the Amoraim's times -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 15:36:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 18:36:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not > Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, > but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min > ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world. Me'am Lo'ez (R' Aryeh Kaplan's The Torah Anthology, pg 293) explains: "You must realize that your brother is suffering very much because he has no place to go. If his soul comes to heaven, it will be all alone, since no one else is here. If it comes down to earth, it feels great anguish when it sees its body's blood spilled on rocks and stones." > Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source? > And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because > Kel Nekamos Hashem. I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples, but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than "yikom". In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean it's appropriate for us. RZS continues in another post: > But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an > issur on doing so against your own people, because you are > commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want > revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in > itself does not come from any Jewish source. Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 14:07:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:07:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> Message-ID: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other places. I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? This one stands out. On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and > sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the > previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons > for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third > parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha > four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 14:16:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:16:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' AM wrote: 'Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor" regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this "needed" comfort from someone else.' Halachos of contact between husband and wife are more strict than with strangers, vis all the harchakos during nidda which are unique to a spouse, due to the familiarity of pas b'salo. So I wouldn't be as surprised. Although just to return my theme for a moment, If I'm right then the act is one of outright mitzva, probably including kiddush hashem. If I'm wrong, then the act is one of aveira lishma. Now I realise that we don't hold with aveira lishma these days, but when the overall cheshbon is as stated, I think I'd be willing to chance it. Especially when you add the possibility, as R'MB mentioned, that if you don't do it you're a chasid shoteh. Because then the cheshbon becomes tzadik or chasid shoteh for not doing it vs big mitzva or aveira lishma for doing it. Given that in any given circumstance we wouldn't be able to be clear about which of these would apply, I think the worst of those four options is probably the chasid shoteh. If this was on Areivim I'd sign off with :) Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 19:04:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:04:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170611020429.GA20848@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: : >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any : >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. : : Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase : with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei : amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different : objects. See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. Gut Voch! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 20:45:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:45:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <720f24ed-7e17-74ae-afc7-3e7d2a0f3a7b@sero.name> On 10/06/17 17:07, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and >> sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the >> previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons >> for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third >> parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha >> four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. > Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the > Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other > places. > > I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he > often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat > haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? > This one stands out. He has to give the source, explain why we do this, and he uses as few words as he needs to. He says mesorah hi beyadeinu; what else could he say? How could he express that any more concisely? BTW he cites medrash all the time; that's where halachos come from, after all. But here he doesn't mention any medrash, just this mesorah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 22:39:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 07:39:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Who says it was? As was stated in other posts on this thread, it is a machloqet in the Gemara if they will or won't come back. That more or less proves my point - their return, if it happens will be something completely different than what happened with the rest of the tribes. Even if we take the claims of various people claiming to be descendants seriously, they still have to convert. Their return will be tipot-tipot, individuals, that have to be re-integrated and not whole groups. > > Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of > assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where > they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite. But > even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . . Not at all. > Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were people from the > northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first > posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two separate exilic > populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our exile to have ended successfully? The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, it doesn't speak well of our history. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 23:54:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 09:54:49 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03c78b43-410c-30ec-c2bf-33691b72f348@starways.net> On 6/10/2017 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > > R' Zev Sero wrote: > >> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because >> Kel Nekamos Hashem. > I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. > Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is > intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. You're mistaken about the Hebrew. Yikom is not "uphold". That would be yakim. Yikom has a dagesh in the quf because of the dropped nun. There is literally no question whatsoever that Hashem yikom damo means may God avenge his blood. > It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples, > but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an > experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh > apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem > mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 > hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both > numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than > "yikom". Yinkom is a mistake. Just like the future of nosei'a is yisa and the future of nofel is yipol, the future of nokem is yikom. > In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean > it's appropriate for us. Consider Bamidbar 31. In the second verse, Hashem tells Moshe: Nekom nikmat bnei Yisrael me-ha-Midyanim. Take the vengeance of Israel against the Midianites. In the next verse, Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael latet nikmat Hashem b'Midyan. To take the vengeance of Hashem against the Midianites. Moshe isn't arguing with Hashem here. When we take vengeance upon our enemies, it *is* Hashem's vengeance. I recommend that you watch the video of Rabbi David Bar Hayim debating Jonathan Rosenblum at the Israel Center back in 1991 (I think). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYefNy1D0DY They both bring sources for their arguments on the subject, and rather than repeat all of them here, have a look. > RZS continues in another post: > >> But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an >> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are >> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want >> revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in >> itself does not come from any Jewish source. > Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo > sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) It doesn't just say lo tikom v'lo titor. It says lo tikom v'lo titor *et bnei amecha*. Do not take vengeance or hold a grudge *against* your own people. Detaching the first part of that from its object is unjustifiable. It would be like taking lo tochal chametz, dropping the object, and saying that we're forbidden to eat. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 02:02:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:02:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. > Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is > intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. > "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will avenge". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 20:40:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:40:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68dacd1f-f6c7-8792-daad-b5b21531f3bc@sero.name> On 09/06/17 18:36, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not >> Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, >> but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min >> ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. > Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in > pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world. Interesting, I'd never heard that. But in that case why "eilai"? That implies wanting something from Me. >> Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. > I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source? Yismach Tzadik ki chaza nakam, pe`amav yirchatz bedam harasha. When Chushim knocked Esav's head off, his eyes fell onto Yaakov's feet and Yaakov sat up and smiled. >> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because >> Kel Nekamos Hashem. > I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. Yikkom does *not* mean uphold, it means avenge. There's no such word as "yinkom"; the nun disappears into the kuf and becomes a dagesh. Perhaps you are thinking of yakim. > experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh > apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem > mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 > hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both > numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than > "yikom". For a non-existent word that's pretty good. I'm relieved that it doesn't outnumber the correct word :-) > In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean > it's appropriate for us. It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not something to be ashamed of. >> But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an >> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are >> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want >> revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in >> itself does not come from any Jewish source. > Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo > sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) Es benei amecha. [Email #2. -micha] On 10/06/17 22:04, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: >: >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any >: >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase >: with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different >: objects. > See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. > This doesn't answer the question. Lo sikom has the same subject as lo sitor. It's not even the identical object, it's literally the *same* object. So how can we pry them apart? Beside which, if netira is forbidden against a Jewish non-chaver, then how is nekama against him even possible? Netira would seem to be a necessary prerequisite for nekama (which is why the pasuk lists them as lo zu af zu). [Email #3 -mi] On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" > (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will > avenge". Is yinkom even a valid form? AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that have it in Av Harachamim are in error. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 09:11:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:11:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <83aef0cf-edbb-3ac8-3727-cc086f348ffa@sero.name> References: <83aef0cf-edbb-3ac8-3727-cc086f348ffa@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > >> >> "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" >> (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will >> avenge". >> > > Is yinkom even a valid form? AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that > have it in Av Harachamim are in error. > > It's irregular, but I would hesitate to say it's a mistake: there are a few exceptions to the rule that the initial nun assimilates, e.g. yintor in Yirmiahu 3:5; yinkofu in Yeshayahu 29:1; or tintz'reni in Tehillim 140:2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 11:29:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <2f8fdb3a-11ac-11d2-eea8-d064a7265bda@sero.name> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> <20170611020429.GA20848@aishdas.org> <2f8fdb3a-11ac-11d2-eea8-d064a7265bda@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170611182926.GA20138@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:56:06PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase : >: with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei : >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different : >: objects. : : >See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. : > : : This doesn't answer the question... But you didn't ask the question. You asserted that what I said was "not true". Since the Maharshal and Avodas haMelekh said it, and I don't know of a dissenting interpreter of the Rambam, I would assume it is indeed true. This was a bit of a hasty judgement on your part. But you said a great question, and worth exploring. Doesn't change that the Rambam apparently does hold what I said he did: > The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any > Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 12:32:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 22:32:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> References: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 6/11/2017 8:39 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of >> assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point >> where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were >> Israelite. But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . >> . Not at all. Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were >> people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards >> that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two >> separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been >> disastrous in very many ways. > That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our > exile to have ended successfully? Why harsh? Causes have effects. > The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of > (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them > (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal > with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this > feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, > it doesn't speak well of our history. Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind. And we don't gloat over their downfall. Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, which they were. And what kind of attempts would you have wanted? Jeremiah brought some of them back. I'm sure others joined us in Bavel after we were exiled. But their exile was their own doing. Though it affected us as well. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 16:18:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:18:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170611231815.GA29585@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:32:22PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind. And we don't gloat over : their downfall. Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, : which they were. (Quibbling about the orogin of the word "Jews" and whether or not Malkhus Yisrael and their descendents qualify aside. We all know we mean "Benei Yisrael", right?) Actually, one of the topics raised was whether the descendents of Malkhus Yisrael exist, bdyond the refugees absorbed into Malkhus Yehudah. And if they do, R Chaim Brisker takes the gemara as concluding the descendents are not part of the community of Beris Sinai. Yes, but in either case, as we cited numerous source showing in the past, "binfol" is not only about the fall of fellow Jews... Which I then collected into a blog post : The most common reason we pass around [for spilling wine at the mention of the makkos at the seder], however, is that we're diminishing our joy out of compassion for the suffering of other human beings, even the Egyptians. This reason is relatively new, but it is found in such authoritative locations as the hagaddah of R' SZ Aurbach and appears as a "yeish lomar" (it could be said) in that of R Elyashiv (pg 106, "dam va'eish").... ... The Pesiqta deRav Kahane (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a) gives us a different reason [for chatzi hallel (CH) during the latter days of Pesach]. It tells the story of the angels singing/reciting poetry at the crossing of the Red Sea... ... This is midrash is quoted by the Midrash Harninu and the Yalqut Shim'oni (the Perishah points you to Parashas Emor, remez 566). The Midrash Harninu or the Shibolei haLeqet ... The Beis Yoseif (O"Ch 490:4, "Kol") cited the gemara, then quotes the Shibolei haLeqet as a second reason... Sources from RAZZivitofsky (same blog post): The Taz gives this diminution of joy as the reason for CH on the 7th day (OC 490:3), as does the Chavos Ya'ir (225). The Kaf haChaim (O"Ch 685:29) brings down the Yafeh haLeiv (3:3) use this midrash to establish the idea that we mourn the downfall of our enemy in order to explain why there is no berakhah on Parashas Zakhor (remembering the requirement to destroy Amaleiq). Amaleiq! R' Aharon Kotler (Mishnas R' Aharon vol III pg 3) ... Then I listed others' suddestions here: ... R' Jacob Farkas found the Meshekh Chokhmah ... R' Dov Kay points us to the Netziv's intro to HaEimeq Davar... (Since we're going from Maharat was to ethics wars, might as well play the game to its fullest...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 16:27:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:27:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170611232725.GB29585@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 06:36:45PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" : actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is : often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. : Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is : intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. : Hashem yiqqom damam does indeed refer to revenge. : In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean : it's appropriate for us. Keil neqamos H'. (A little obvious this discussion didn't span a Wed yet.) But the whole point, to my mind, for sayibng HYD is a longing to see Divine Justice in the world. HYD undoes the chilul hasheim of the wicked prospering. Hinasei shofit ha'atzetz... Ad masair recha'im ya'alozu... If we were to take neqamah (qua neqamah; pre-empting a repeat attack is a different thing) we rob most of the possibility of that happening. Even the Six Day War gave people the opportunity to say it was luck or human skill -- "Kol haKavod laTzahal" Implied in HYD is that revenge is G-d's, not ours, to take. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 19:49:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 22:49:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . When I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong. I was wrong, and I thank all the chevreh who pointed out my error. "Yikom" does mean to avenge. Thank you all. But the main question is our attitude towards revenge in general. R' Zev Sero wrote: > It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not > something to be ashamed of. He seems to feel that there's nothing wrong with wanting to take revenge in general, except that we're not allowed to do it if the object of the revenge is a fellow Jew. I suppose he might compare vengeance to eating meat: right and proper in general, but sometimes forbidden. (Pork in the case of meat, and Jews in the case of revenge.) Exactly *why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew? RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct source. But either way... I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be in the "Ribis" category. There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a non-Jew.) Setting Nekama aside for a moment, does anyone know of a source which goes through the various Bein Adam L'chaveiros, and categorizes them in that manner? (I can easily imagine that most people would avoid publishing such a list, to avoid supplying the anti-Semites with ammunition, but I figured I'd ask.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 20:07:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 20:07:35 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists Message-ID: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into hashem's business. And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the future even though they were right. One surmises he would not have been surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land... Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 22:57:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:57:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> References: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9b2f0d53-8794-4b0d-43b7-3bb0ee4d6e3c@zahav.net.il> On 6/6/2017 8:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW. > > Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'" > (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL > Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not! However one defines the Chareidi opposition to Zionism and Zionists, the former wrote book after book justifying it and explaining why Zionism is so awful and why it is so wrong to participate in the Zionist enterprise. It is still going on today. Back in the 20s, people used extremely strong language about Rav Kook, language which was much worse than anything used today, not to mention what the Satmar Rebbe wrote about RK. > There are two possible sources of division here. > > 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were > only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My > predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply > de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators, > and therefore in practice will be a separate community. Here I have a couple of questions. 1) Like my wife always tells me, if someone is triggered by something he has to ask himself why. I know people who would walk out of shul if a woman gave the dvar Torah on Friday night. Yet the same people are perfectly OK having a Rosh Hashana tefilla that incorporates a lot of Sefardi piyuttim. Completely different prayers, tunes, flavor. But in order to have an experience of "b'yachad" we do it. 2) What what exactly would change? Does one see more women in shuls that have a maharat? Do the maharats come to Tuesday afternoon Mincha? If they do they're behind the mechitza, yes? What changes are people talking about? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 03:09:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 06:09:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:49:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" : only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of : morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be : in the "Ribis" category. : : There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even : to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed : against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. : (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a : non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I : admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B : or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, : things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a : non-Jew.) IOW: (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited. (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition when you do them against your sibling. (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito neshekh vesarbit". As for neqamah, I argued from quotes like kol hama'avir al midosav and ne'elavim ve'eino olvin that it's in (B). I would add now that this is implied by the Rambam's inclusion of these two issurim (lo siqom velo sitor) in Hil' Dei'os p' 7 that he is considering the middah bad, not only the act wrong. Interesting to note, the Rambam puts them after LH. Also, I noted that the only commentaries on the Rambam that I could find that discuss his change in terminology between Dei'os 7:7 and 7:8 explain that he is prohibiting neqamah against all chaveirim but netirah "mei'echad meYisrael". Meaning you now need a B' and C' where the category is only observant Jews. (And I still have a nagging recollection that the Rambam's "chaveirim" in general includes geirei toshav and other observant Noachides.) And neqamah is in one of those. So, (B'). How you get such a distinction in two issurim that are written in the pasuq as verbs sharing the same object is a good one. But the Avodas haMelekh says that the Maharshal reaches the same conclusion in his commentary to the Semag, and I see the Semag uses the same difference in nouns. Lav #11 - "[Lo siqom.] Hanoqeim al chaveiro". #12 - "Kol hanoteir le'echad miYisrael". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 03:53:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:53:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> References: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> On 6/13/2017 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > IOW: > > (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited. > > (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition > when you do them against your sibling. > > (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family > nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito > neshekh vesarbit". I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews. Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 04:37:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal > judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C (Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 04:33:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:33:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> References: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170613113340.GA11269@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:53:18PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: ... : >(B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition : >when you do them against your sibling. ... : : I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an : outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly : doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against : non-Jews. Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal : judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. But there are things that are morally wrong and yet not prohibited. "Stretch goals" like the Rambam's take on ego and anger in Dei'os pereq 2, the Ramban's "hatov vehayashar". Here, the gemara talks about (1) a ma'avir al midosav, (2) taking insult and not responding, it even says (3) a tzadiq is one who never takes revenge -- which, if it were about neqamah when assur, would be heaping overly high praise on someone for just keeping the din. So, two or three times that I am aware of, the gemara talks positively of the middos that would avoid ever taking revenge. It seems neqamah in particular is a moral wrong even when the black-letter halakhah allows the act. The Torah does manage to relay to us goals beyond those it prohibit or demand in black-letter halakhah. (Something Chassidus and Mussar were each founded on...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 06:44:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:44:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] restaurants Message-ID: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From the OU: Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example, one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility. Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food. Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based? For example, in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in a treif restaurant, what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % threshold for concern? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 07:16:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 10:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6388500a-9329-9367-9de2-e75ed55d6022@sero.name> On 12/06/17 22:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Exactly*why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew? > RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that > "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct > source. But either way... It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. > There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even > to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed > against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh *re`ehu* basater". > (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a > non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I > admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B > or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, > things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a > non-Jew.) Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 19:11:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shelach Message-ID: " We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." (Numbers 13:32-33). One of the greatest teachers of Torah of our age, Nechama Leibowitz, zt'l, in one of her essays on this parsha, asks an important question: how did the spies know what the "giants" thought of them? If they really were giant beings, then one could understand the feeling that "we seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes," but how did they know if the "giants" even noticed them? Unfortunately, although Nechama Leibowitz posed this great question, she didn't give any hint as to an answer. The following is a Midrash in which God rebukes the spies: "I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11). On the other hand, Rashi says that the spies reported overhearing the giants talking to one another, saying that "there are ants in the vineyard that resemble human beings.? (Rashi is also quoting an ancient midrash from the Talmud). Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities and an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties. Harry S Truman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 09:10:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:10:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/13/2017 2:37 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R"n Lisa Liel wrote: >> Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal >> judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. > My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category > A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C > (Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)? I would have to say that, by definition, if it's permissible to speak LH against non-Jews, it isn't immoral. But of course there are numerous subcategories of LH, and it'd be interesting to see if all of them are mutar against non-Jews, and if so, why? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 10:49:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:49:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shelach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170613174946.GA24674@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 10:11:31PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The following is a Midrash in which God rebukes the spies: : "I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to : ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to : them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? : Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11). ... : Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear : not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies : but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon : His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, : and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). Good -- is the yeitzer hatov, *very* good -- is the yeitzer hara. But in any case, the spies are an imperfect example, because they had G-d's promise that this specific mission would succeed. We don't have such reason to be optimistic. Related: I wonder if the difference between Chassidic or the Alter of Novhardok's view of bitchon is related to history. The AoN said that sufficient bitachon generates success, to the extent that he felt that being a "baal bitachon is an objective reality provable by experience and he signed his name with a B"B without fear of it being bragging. The CI's view is that bitachon is not prognostic, but the attitude that everything is happening according to Hashem's plan. I may fail and suffer, ch"v, but knowing it is all for a purpose makes it easier to cope. The history that I think divides them -- the CI's Emunah uBitachon was written in the shadow of the Holocaust. (It was published in 1954, a year after the CI's passing.) Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:57:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:57:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists In-Reply-To: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> References: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> Or they were part of a self fulling prophecy. Instead of going in confident in themselves and in God's ways, they chose to second guess God. The Bnei Yisrael who had actually seen Yitziat Mitzrayim would have gone into Israel. Instead a weakened Bnei Yisrael went in and almost immediately got trapped in the lure of the local idol worship. Ben On 6/13/2017 5:07 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into hashem's business. And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the future even though they were right. One surmises he would not have been surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:53:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:53:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Does it make a difference that the woman in the hypothetical scenario is - unfortunately - no longer an eishet ish, and presumably at her stage of life also not a niddah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:22:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:22:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. Can one enter a non-kosher establishment to buy a can of soda or use the bathroom? Message-ID: <1497385351309.31544@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. Can one enter a non-kosher establishment to buy a can of soda or use the bathroom? A. Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example, one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility. Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 18:09:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:09:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists In-Reply-To: <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> References: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170614010904.GA6321@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:57:19PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Or they were part of a self fulling prophecy. Instead of going in : confident in themselves and in God's ways, they chose to second : guess God. The Bnei Yisrael who had actually seen Yitziat Mitzrayim : would have gone into Israel... Or not. After all, Hashem didn't pick that generation for a reason. Apparently they didn't just sin, but they sinned in a way that made working with them a bad idea. And even before that Vayehi beshalach Par'oh es ha'am velo nacham E-lokim derekh Eretz Pelishtim ki qarov hu, ki amar E-lokim, "Pen yinacheim ha'am bir'osam milchamah veshavu Mitzrayim" Remember, they were also stuck with a slave mentality. But I agree with your point, about the self-fulfilling prophecy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 18:33:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:33:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special > consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah > of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not > hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend > him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip > about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. I would think that killing and stealing are in this category too. But you would then point to the phrase "special consideration". In other words, there is a particular shiur of consideration. Some actions are below that shiur; they are so basic that they apply even to non-Jews. And other actions are above that shiur; it is "special" consideration that we extend to family, but not to outsiders. I would accept such a response, but it isn't very helpful. Exactly what is that shiur? Where do we put the line? I have always thought that *all* these things are basic menschlichkeit, and apply to everyone, Jewish or not. > Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? > The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh > *re`ehu* basater". That's just two pesukim. Sefer Chofetz Chayim brings a lot more than that - 31 if I remember correctly. Granted that one doesn't violate these particular mitzvos if the object of the Lashon Hara isn't Jewish. But the others aren't so simple. At the very least, you're gambling that the Lashon Hara will remain secret and not result in a Chilul Hashem. > Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. True. I have always thought of ribis in a class of its own, for the simple reason that the entire world considers it to be a generally acceptable business practice. This includes Chazal, who felt it important to find a way to structure certain business activities in ways that would skirt this issur. The point is that ribis is NOT inherently immoral. It *can* be abused and thereby *become* immoral. But if done properly, it is a neutral (or even benevolent) business tool. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 21:17:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:17:28 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Anyone have access to HaRav Sh Goren's Terumas HaGoren? Message-ID: Anyone have access to HaRav Sh Goren's Terumas HaGoren? I am looking for 3 pages to be copied [pictured?] and sent to me - meirabi at gmail.com Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 21:02:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:02:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ac357ec-2fb0-c5c8-e187-ccbd26cd60f9@sero.name> On 13/06/17 21:33, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special >> consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah >> of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not >> hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend >> him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip >> about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. > I would think that killing and stealing are in this category too. No, those are inherently wrong, no matter who is the victim. You don't need to love someone in order not to kill them, hit them, steal from them, damage their property, etc. They have the right not to have these things done to them, so you may not do so even if you actively hate them. They have the right to be treated with common decency. Or, in the lashon of libertarianism, non-aggression, i.e. not to have you initiate force or fraud against them. Whereas they have no right to any favors from you; you have no duty to lift a finger to help them or to give them anything. Doing favors for people is a gift which you naturally give only to those you love; the Torah therefore commands you to give it to those whom it wants you to love. > But > you would then point to the phrase "special consideration". In other > words, there is a particular shiur of consideration. Some actions are > below that shiur; they are so basic that they apply even to non-Jews. > And other actions are above that shiur; it is "special" consideration > that we extend to family, but not to outsiders. No, it's not a matter of degree but of kind. > I would accept such a response, but it isn't very helpful. Exactly > what is that shiur? Where do we put the line? I have always thought > that *all* these things are basic menschlichkeit, and apply to > everyone, Jewish or not. No, they are not. >> Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? >> The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh >> *re`ehu* basater". > That's just two pesukim. Sefer Chofetz Chayim brings a lot more than > that - 31 if I remember correctly. The hakama to CC is mussar, so he piles on pesukim, but it you look at them they all pretty much flow from a very few sources, all of which specify "re'echa" or "amecha", etc. > The point is that ribis is NOT > inherently immoral. It *can* be abused and thereby *become* immoral. > But if done properly, it is a neutral (or even benevolent) business > tool. So are all these other things. They're normal and natural behaviour between people who don't necessarily like each other, but one would never treat someone one genuinely loved like that, so the Torah tells us that we must not treat our fellow yisre'elim like that. [Email #2] Google produced this: http://www.havabooks.co.il/article_ID.asp?id=1046 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 00:50:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 10:50:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 241) explains the prohibition of lo sikom as follows (my rough translation): "A person should understand in his heart that everything that happens to him good or bad is caused by Hashem and between people there is nothing but the will of Hashem. Therefore when someone bothers or hurts you, you should know that your sins caused this and whatever happened is a gezera from Hashem. Therefore, you should not think about taking revenge because the other person is not the cause of your troubles, rather your sins are the cause. " Based on the Chinuch's explanation there should be no difference between taking revenge on a Jew or a Goy. In either case they are not the cause of your suffering they are just the instrument of Hashem and therefore there is no reason for revenge. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 06:44:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:44:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/06/17 03:50, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 241) explains the prohibition of lo sikom > as follows (my rough translation): > > "A person should understand in his heart that everything that happens to > him good or bad is caused by Hashem and between people there is nothing > but the will of Hashem. Therefore when someone bothers or hurts you, you > should know that your sins caused this and whatever happened is a gezera > from Hashem. Therefore, you should not think about taking revenge > because the other person is not the cause of your troubles, rather your > sins are the cause. " > > Based on the Chinuch's explanation there should be no difference between > taking revenge on a Jew or a Goy. In either case they are not the cause > of your suffering they are just the instrument of Hashem and therefore > there is no reason for revenge. That is the basis for Chazal's dictum that "Whoever gets angry [over *anything*] is as if he serves idols", but there is no actual mitzvah against anger. Obviously one who truly believes in and fully accepts what we on Avodah have dubbed "strong HP" has no need for either of these two mitzvos, because it will never occur to him to hold a grudge, let alone to take revenge; but one who *does* gets angry or upset at what a fellow Jew does to him, but doesn't hold a long-term grudge against him over it is not violating a mitzvah. One mitzvah is that even if you *do* feel upset you shouldn't hold it against the person who did it, and another mitzvah is that even if you do hold it against him you shouldn't punish him for it. Therefore despite the Chinuch's relating this mussar idea to these two mitzvos, it cannot be the actual reason. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 09:16:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:16:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Akiva Miller wrote: 'I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be in the "Ribis" category. There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a non-Jew, such as Ribis.' I think this categorisation may need refining. It assumes that the Torah doesn't want us to do unethical things to non Jews either by black letter law or by unlegislated preference. The problem with this is that the Torah assumes that non-Jews are ovdei Avoda Zara and some mitzvos are specifically intended to malign them as such. Take Lo Sechaneim - The gemara learns that we can't even praise a non Jew, never mind be kind in a more concrete way. Gerei Toshav don't have this prohibition but the pshat din of the Torah is that it applies to non-Jews stam. In other words the mitzvos of the Torah treat non-Jews as transgressors and so it's likely that at least some of thing the otherwise unethical things we are allowed to do to them are due to this status. So we need at least to distinguish between what is allowed to any non-Jew and what is prohibited to a Ger Toshav. For example Ribis is clearly allowed even to a Ger Toshav. It's not unethical per se, just prohibited to a family member viz a Jew. So we need possibly, categories of: A) forbidden to everyone B) Forbiden to Jews and Gerei Toshav but totally allowed to Ovdei Avoda Zara C) Technically allowed to non-Jews of whichever category but best avoided as a bad midda D) Forbidden to Jews but totally allowed to all non Jews Re nekama, I think, subject to correction, that it is only ever positive when by Hashem or on his behalf. The nekama on Midian is 'nikmas Hashem m'es HaMidianim'. We needed to be commanded in order to do it. Hashem is 'El nekamos Hashem' in Tehilim. If anyone has a source for it being a positive thing to take personal revenge then let's hear it. Not sure the agadeta of Yaakov waking and smiling fits that bill. Otherwise the Rambam's placing of nekama in De'os as a bad midda should tell us what we need to know about it. That would be consistent with nekama being forbidden against Gerei Toshav, although we haven't found a source for that (yet). Lisa Liel wrote: 'I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews. ' The Torah clearly allows things which it considers morally wrong - Shivya Nochris for example. And the gemara says that's assur to bring one's wife as a Soteh, yet it's a whole parsha in the Torah. And the Ramban's naval birshus haTorah. Seems to me the Torah sets a floor, not a ceiling, and prompts growth through the mitzvos. Isn't that the whole thrust of Hilchos De'os? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 12:45:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:45:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish optimism [was: Shelach] Message-ID: <23c6ce.6a161a0e.4672ec49@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah ... : Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear : not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies : but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon : His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, : and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). [--Cantor Wolberg] RMB wrote: >> ...But in any case, the spies are an imperfect example, because they had G-d's promise that this specific mission would succeed. We don't have such reason to be optimistic.... ....Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? << Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> I once heard a powerful and inspiring talk given by R' Joseph Friedenson a'h. He had survived a number of different concentration camps in hellish circumstances, and had lost all or most of his family. He said in his talk that the last time he ever saw his father, his father said, "I don't know if you and I will survive this war, but no matter what happens, remember this: Klal Yisrael will survive!" R' Friedenson said that he never saw his father again but he went through the war with an unshakeable optimism. That's what he called it, optimism. He underwent horrendous suffering, but nevertheless he had a firm conviction that the Nazis would ultimately fail. He always held onto his father's words, "Klal Yisrael will survive." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 13:25:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:25:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shoah Message-ID: <842320B8-8657-4A22-98E8-76CAA22765DC@cox.net> R? Micha wrote in regard to the Shelach posting: Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? Along the same lines there was a fascinating book written many years ago by a legitimate, authentic, respected orthodox rabbi who wrote that someone who was not a victim in the holocaust has no right to say there is no God. Here is what was really an astonishing and somewhat shocking statement he made: if someone was actually in the Concentration Camp, this person has the right to deny God. I can see many raised eyebrows, but I would greatly appreciate someone remembering this book. Since it was rather revolutionary to be coming from a musmach who is respected by other orthodox rabbis. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 15:39:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:39:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: <20170614223903.GA14026@aishdas.org> In some, more Zionist, circles, the Satmar Rebbe's position that Israel is a maaseh satan is often left not understood. Many of the RZ camp have summarily dismissed it as overly polytheist for their liking. However, it is possible -- even if I or you do not find it plausible -- that Zionism was a challenge to the Jewish People. To see if after the Holocaust we would be so desperate for political relief that we would stop working toward true ge'ulah. As per the title of the SR's response to the mood after the Six Day War -- Al haGe'ulah ve'Al haTemurah (About the Ge'uilah and about the Replacement; perhaps "Decoy"). And, there is a particular mal'akh charged with posing spiritual challenges for us to grow through overcoming -- the satan. Thus, such a temurah would be a maaseh satan. Pretty conventional metaphysics, even for those who find the other religious positions bothersome. I mentioned this because of R' Gidon Rothstein's latest column in TM on the Ramban. "Ramban to Re'eh, Week Two: Avoiding False Prophets, Hearing From Hashem" http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/06/avoiding-false-prophets-hearing-hashem Along the way, RGR writes: It Might Actually Be From Hashem In the last verse in this passage, Moshe warns that this false prophet is a nisayon, a test, from Hashem. Ramban points out that back inBereshit, he had already dealt with the question of why Hashem "tests" us (doesn't Hashem know the future, and therefore know the outcome of the test? There are many answers, this is Ramban's). It's only a test from our perspective, he said. Hashem indeed knows the outcome, and is engaging in it to bring our potential into actuality (that implies that everyone always passes these tests, which works well for figures like Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov. It seems to me less convincing about the nisayon here, since the Jewish people have in fact occasionally followed such false prophets). Still, that's the less surprising part of this Ramban, since it is the face value of the verse, that the wonder did in fact come through the Will of Hashem, Hashem showed him this dream or vision to test our love of Hashem. Ramban doesn't say more, but I think he means--and this is the part that is more surprising and a bit challenging- that all people involved must realize that this is not what Hashem wants. I think he means the prophet him/herself was supposed to refrain from giving this prophecy (the other option is that Hashem was commanding and condemning this person to be a false prophet, to forfeit his/her life in doing so, and that someone we would put to death as a false prophet is actually a hero of Hashem's service. I find that unthinkable, unless the prophet said "I had this vision, but you clearly shouldn't listen to because we're not allowed to ever worship any power other than Hashem." But it's logically possible). The prophet aside, anyone who hears that prophecy, even if it's supported by uncannily accurate predictions, must both refuse to obey and react to this person as a false prophet. That is what true ahavat Hashem would lead us to do, a reminder that acting on our love of Hashem sometimes means doing that which under other circumstances should be distasteful. Putting someone to death for sharing his/her vision is not usually conduct we applaud. Here, it would still be upsetting, but necessary for those whose love of Hashem fills their beings. If the Ramban could say that there could be a navi sheqer who gets his message from Hashem for the sould purpose of challenging us, is it such a far stretch to the SR's anti-Zionism? IMHO, it's easier to understand Satmar or Munkacz anti-Zionism than Agudah's classical position of non-Zionism. The former agrees with the RZ that the Medinah is a huge event of vast import, but disagree about what the import is. The Agudist (at least classically, there were exceptions in the early years of the state, and things seem to be wearing down now) believe that Jews can regain sovereignty over EY for the first time in 2 millenia without it being religiously significant. (I am not talking about those of Neturei Karta who protest with the Palestinians and their supporters, or who visit Iranian gov't officials. They pose a whole different and perhaps even more fundamental set of problems. The SR's anti-Zionism included praying for Tzahal, as these were Jews led to danger through a horrible (in his opinion) error; an error that exists in part for the purpose of putting Jews in danger.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: RGR -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 18 10:59:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:59:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Korach Message-ID: <2943596C-CE9C-488B-B333-D25328C619BD@cox.net> 1) 16:1 "Vayikach Korach...." "And Korach, the son of Yitzhar, the son of Kehoth, the son of Levi took, and Dathan and Aviram, the sons of Eliav,etc.? The question is what did Korach take? The verb has no object. Resh Lakish said: "He took a bad 'taking' for himself" (Sanhedrin). Rashi said: "Korach...separated [lit.,took] himself. Korach placed himself at odds with the rest of the assembly to protest against Aaron's assumption of the priesthood." Ibn Ezra said it meant: "Korach took men..." 2) In the Ethics of the Fathers 5, 17 it states: "Every controversy that is pursued in a heavenly cause, is destined to be perpetuated; and that which is not pursued in a heavenly cause is not destined to be perpetuated. Which can be considered a controversy pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And that not pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Korach and his congregation." An analysis of this by Malbim explains in quite a compelling fashion why the Mishnah was not worded as we would have expected it to be: "A controversy pursued in a heavenly cause...that is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. That not pursued in a heavenly cause is the controversy of Korach and Moses." Instead it reads: "Korach and his congregation." As Malbim explains-- they would be quarreling amongst themselves, as each one strove to attain his selfish ambitions. The controversy therefore was rightly termed "between Korach and his congregation." They would ultimately fight among themselves. And the denouement would be their self-destruction. 3) "Korach quarreled with peace, and he who quarrels with peace quarrels with the Holy Name." (Zohar, Korach 176a [ed.,Soncino], Vol. V, p.238). The bottom line here is "Don't Mess with Hashem." In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves. Buddhal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 18 17:07:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 17:07:22 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: the aguda made a very practical decision-- to not make a halachic decision, but rather to seek support economically and non-military . the only halachic issue was to determine that the State's money is muttar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 01:17:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shalom Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:17:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shoah Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg's reference to the Orthodox Rabbi who wrote about who has the right to disbelieve after the Holocaust is most likely Eliezer Berkovits in his Faith After the Holocaust. Shalom Rabbi Shalom Z. Berger, Ed.D. The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education Bar-Ilan University http://www.lookstein.org https://www.facebook.com/groups/lookjed/ Follow me on Twitter: @szberger NETWORK*LEARN*GROW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 09:40:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:40:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. I am required to attend a business meeting at a non-kosher restaurant. How do I avoid the issue of maris ayin? Message-ID: <1497890418438.2614@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. I am required to attend a business meeting at a non-kosher restaurant. How do I avoid the issue of maris ayin? A. The general rule regarding maris ayin is that one can avoid the prohibition of maris ayin if there is a heker (sign) that indicates that the action is permitted. For example, Rama (YD 87:3) writes that one may not cook meat with almond milk, since this gives the impression that one is violating the prohibition of cooking milk and meat together. This would constitute maris ayin. However, this situation is permitted if one places almonds near the pot, since the almonds will alert a bystander that the milk comes from almonds and not from an animal. Therefore, if one must enter a non-kosher restaurant, one should do so in a manner that makes it clear that one is entering for business and not for pleasure. For example, one should enter carrying a briefcase or a stack of papers. Rav Schachter, shlita said that in such an instance it would be preferable to wear a cap instead of a yarmulke. Rav Schachter also said that once seated, one may order a drink -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 12:56:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:56:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur Message-ID: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> This is a comment on R Yaakov Jaffe's article at http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2017/6/13/get-your-hashkafa-out-of-my-chumash Since the Lehrhaus doesn't take comments, I thought we could discuss it here. (CC-ing RYJ.) He writes: Lehrhaus Get Your Hashkafa Out of My Chumash! [R] Yaakov Jaffe ... It has become commonplace in Modern Orthodox circles to lament the lack of alignment between the beliefs of the movement and some of the editions, translations, and versions of ritual texts that members of the movement use. These critiques are often welcome, such as Deborah Klapper's[13] recent excellent essay about the Haggadah for Pesach, and tend to frame ArtScroll Publishers as the almost villain who has taken the ideologically open, natural, innocent, uncorrupted foundational texts of Judaism and colored them with an Ultra-Orthodox translation, skew, or commentary.... Okay, that's the general topic. Here's the point I wanted to discuss: For me, there is a more grave concern when Modern Orthodox Jews flock to a different ritual text because it aligns more purely with their own ideology, and that is that the ritual text ceases to be important for its own sake (as a Siddur, Humash, or Hagaddah), a vehicle for transmitting sacred texts and values through the generations, but instead becomes a mere bit player in a larger drama about movements and self-identification. ("I use this Siddur because in many ways it demonstrates that I am a proud Modern Orthodox Jew.") This carries the risk that readers will stop reading the text of the Humash or being taken by the poetry of the Siddur and instead become hyper-focused on ideological markers that appear in those ritual texts. And for reasons that we will demonstrate below, the subordination of prayer within the mind of the person at prayer, beneath the selection of outward identifiers of ideology undermines the very purpose and notion of prayer itself. In 1978, Rabbi Soloveitchik authored a[15] short essay entitled "Majesty and Humility" in Tradition, in which he poses a dichotomy critical for Jewish religious experience and prayer. He describes one pole as majestic humanity, striving for victory and sovereignty, as "Man sets himself up as king and tries to triumph over opposition and hostility." The other pole is humble humanity, full of "withdrawal and retreat," which appreciates the smallness of human beings in the scope of the cosmic order. In the essay, prayer is an example of man in the mood of humility, of withdrawal, who finds the Almighty not when humanity triumphs over the forces of nature, or in the scope of the galaxies, but when humanity recognizes its own limitations, and, as a result, causes that "God does descend from infinity to finitude, from boundlessness into the narrowness of the Sanctuary," or: All I could do was to pray. However, I could not pray in the hospital... the moment I returned home I would rush to my room, fall on my knees and pray fervently. God in those moments appeared not as the exalted majestic King, but rather as a humble, close friend. While at prayer, the individual is constantly focused on his or her own inadequacy compared to the Divine Creator and his or her own limitations. The individual cannot be engaged in the battles of denomination supremacy, as he or she is paralyzed by his or her own smallness while attempting to pray. Moreover, prayer is generally a uniquely unsuited vehicle for conveying specific, unique, or modern ideologies and beliefs. It focuses on requests and aspirations, not on statements of creed. The text of the Siddur also serves as a unifying tool for the Jewish people (given the enormous general similarity despite centuries of division and dispersal) and highlights what we have in common and not what we have apart. 13. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-haggadah-without-women-2/ 15. http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2017/No.%202/Majesty%20and%20Humility.pdf 16. http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/?author=5886cfaabebafbcb2d43550f My problem is that tefillah is all about ideology, and the siddur runs from statement of creed to statement of creed -- Yigdal to Ani Maamin. (Not saying AM is mandatory, but it's there...) For example, RYBS's is one approach to prayer. It's different than that of Nefesh haChaim, where the focus of baqashos are what the world needs for G-d's sake, not our own needs for our sake. Curing the sick because His Presence is enhanced when people are healthy. Etc... It's different than RSRH's approach to berakhos, where they are declarations of personal commitment. So that we ask for health so that we can contribute to His Say in the world -- "berakhah" lashon ribui, after all. Etc... (I think I dug up 7 different theological resolutions to how to undertand "barukh Atah H'" given that ribui and HQBH don't mix.) This is taking a specific hashkafah's side in order to argue that tefillah shouldn't be taking a specific hashkafah's side. As for Tanakh... It is true that in one community, maximalist positions that magnify G-d's Greatness -- whether it's a description of qeri'as Yam Suf or Rivqa's age at meeting Yitzchaq -- have a near-exclusive currency. Saying that the sea simply split vehamayim lahem chimah miyminam umismolam is seen as the product if ignorance; of course it split into 13 tunnels, each providing all of our needs, ready to be grabbed out of the walls. Whereas the other prefers more rationalist positions, and in any case there is a broader array of Chazal's statements taken as possibly true. Or, does an MO Jew relate to a chumash in which the only topic of footnotes on the berakhos of Yissachar & Zevulun is their possible precedent for kollel life? (Despite there never having been an entire community where kollel was the norm until the past century.) In a community where wearing hexaplex (the snail formerly known as murex) dyed strings is a significant minority, isn't there more interest in sefunei temunei chol than in a community where it's unheard of? Then there is just different communities having different tastes in what kind of Torah thought they find more appealing / satisfying / moving. People who gravitate to the words of the Rav like the ideas in Mesores haRav for that reason. Just as Chabadnikim are more likely to find things to their taste in the Guttenstein Chumash than in the Stone Edition. Shouldn't, then, all these options exist? And is that any less true when thinking of how to relate to some complex poseq in Tehillim or a line composed by Anshei Keneses haGdolah (or the typical Ashkenazi paytan) to be a palimpsest of meanings? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 03:25:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:25:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: <> R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah poisition basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful but is against the wishes of G-d. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 06:19:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yaakov Jaffe via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:19:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Hi, Regarding the first point that "This is taking a specific hashkafah's side in order to argue that tefillah shouldn't be taking a specific hashkafah's side." I confess that I am guilty as charged. But one approach to tefilah (let's call it the one that resonates with me) is that it is purely a communication between the speaker and his or her Creator, and that consequently, it is not the time and place to be focused on proclaiming our ideologies. Obviously others may argue, and there are numerous siddur options for them. But we shouldn't pretend that this is the only approach to prayer, or that every Jew must use ideology in chosing a siddur. Regarding the second point, which I understand to be saying "each occasion of Torah study involves someone chosing an approach they prefer to understand the text, so they should chose a Chumash that furthers the approach that they prefer" I also tend to agree as well, but here my post focuses on the reductio ad absurdum problem of splitting hairs and hyper-focus on details hashkafa. I did not conduct a comprehensive study of the stone Chumash, but wonder whether the troubling explanations are ubiquitous, occasional, or somewhere in between. The problem with a "Modern" chumash, is that there are many "modern" explanations that could be equally troubling, depending on how modern the chumash and conservative the reader. Did Bilaam's donkey talk or was it a dream (Ramban versus Rambam)? If Artscroll said he spoke, and for example a new chumash says that he did not - then which one most accurately reflects my hashkafa? And if you imagine 100 different texts that can be each read multiple ways, how do we find the chumash that on all 100 provides the perfect match? Hope this makes sense, happy to continue the conversation further, Yaakov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 08:07:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:07:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Shmitta fund Message-ID: <2A3CAC10-A501-4AF5-A666-AB7B0D35E90C@gmail.com> http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2017/06/proposed-law-shmitta-fund.html?m=1. Is that the general psak, that heter mechira is no better than nothing? Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 15:02:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:02:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] restaurants In-Reply-To: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170620220230.GB29839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:44:00PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From the OU: : Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher : restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would : be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness : the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad : (giving the appearance of impropriety)... A question about that "and"... I agree with their parenthetic definition, but I will rephrase to show why I think it's rare-to-impossible for something to simultaneously be both mar'is ayin and cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone who sees the action will assume it's mutar, or at least informally "not so bad". Cheshad is where someone who sees the action is sure it's assur, and therefore think less of the person doing it. How many actions involve two conflicting default umdenos? So, being confused, I looked up the Igeros Moshe. The teshuvah is primarily about a frum minyan in a room in a non-O synagogue. The last paragraph begins "Ubedavar im mutar le'ekhol berestarant..." ("Restaurant" transliterated in Yiddish or hil' gittin style.) The line is "yeis le'esor mishum mar'is ayin vecheshad". But if someone is mitzta'er tuva, so that these gezeiros do not apply, they could eat betzin'ah something that has no actual kashrus problem. Does "ve-" here have to mean both? Or could it mean that between the two, it is assur in all circumstances? Like "lulav hagazul vehayaveish pasul" doesn't refer only to a lulav that is both stolen and dried out. Chazal's "ve-" is more complex than "and". (I am tempted to discuss de Morgan's laws and ve-, but I will just leave in this hint rather than detour into a class in symbolic logic.) If it does have to mean both mar'ish ayin and cheshad, can someone : Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based? I am not clear how they could NOT be. : For example, in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in : a treif restaurant, what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % : threshold for concern? In NYC, if you see two people, only one of which in O uniform, entering a restaurant, it's common to just assume this is a business meeting and accomodations were made. Restaurants in Manhattan routinely take delivery for a kosher meal when catering a group; it's a matter of the minimum size of the group they'll make such accomodation for. (I have been one of three, and got Abigails delivered double-sealed.) In such a climate, I don't think people would assume you're there to eat treif even if it's just two people meeting and no kosher could possibly be brought in from the outside. It's just a known thing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 16:11:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 19:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170620231132.GC29839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:33:00PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. : : True. I have always thought of ribis in a class of its own, for the : simple reason that the entire world considers it to be a generally : acceptable business practice... According to the Rambam, it's a mitzvas asei. The SA (YD 159:1) holds like the Tur, it's mutar de'oraisa, and usually prohibited derabbanan "shema yilmod mima'asav". Bikhdei chayav, tzurba derabbanan and if the profit is only defined derabbanan as ribbis are three exceptions. (Charging ribis from a mumar shekafar be'iqar is also mutar, because we are not obligated lehachayaso; but paying ribis to him is not.) The Levush says "shema yilmod mima'asev" doesn't apply in the current economy. Chazal assumed a primarily Jewish economy where we have a few exceptional deals with non-Jews. So for us, ribis is always mutar lemaaseh. I wonder whether this heter of the Levush would apply to Jews in Israel today. In any case, halakhah pesukah (assuming the reader isn't Teimani) doesn't mention any mitzvah asei. In terms of the taam being because their own economy is based on interest... Would you argue that it's wrong to lend a Muslim or an Amish person money with interest? (Even in the Levush's opinion?) Particularly in a Moslem country. where they have their own parallels to heter isqa , and the person's whole culture (I presume) reviles interest. So is it whether or not ribis is considered immoral by the person being charged, or whether or not kelapei Shemaya galya ribis is moral? I argued the latter, but your wording left me wanting to articulate the chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 13:49:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:49:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting Message-ID: What would you like the first thing that HKB"H says to you at 120 when you report to the beit din shel maaleh(heavenly study hall)? Kt Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 13:50:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban Message-ID: What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:53:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:53:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 11:21:05PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : > I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi : > haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, : > like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" : > in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather : > than knowledge of abstract ideas. : No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these : were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi : haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and : that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? "They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..." :> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. : These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult : to understand them as having been written by the same person... Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position. ... :: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in :: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21... ::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us ::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the ::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers ::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their ::> practice on their upright fathers. :> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. : Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the : pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] : and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk... But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write: : Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the : context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting : up of schools)... Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's derashah. I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with "chadash assur min haTorah".) :> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. : Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas : etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody : define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at : all the experiential aspect... Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect? :> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when :> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an :> example to imitate. : The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is : as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with : Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her : ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." : The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard : to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, : excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of : Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily : in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education. After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior? In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49. : And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they : could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward : etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two : types of TSBP... Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah. : Is not the gemora etc filled with : this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it occuring... So I am toally lost here. Maybe the "this" has been stretched further than I can follow. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 19:00:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Message-ID: The gematria for Rosh Chodesh is 813. In the whole of tanach there is only one verse with the gematria of 813. It is B?reishis, Chapter 1, verse 3. ?Vayomer Elohim ohr, vay?hi ohr? ?And God said: Let there be light and there was light.? Music is moonlight in the gloomy night of life. Jean Paul, Author From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:42:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:42:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170621234200.GF18168@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 09:19:46AM -0400, Yaakov Jaffe via Avodah wrote: : But one approach to tefilah (let's call it the one that resonates with me) : is that it is purely a communication between the speaker and his or her : Creator, and that consequently, it is not the time and place to be focused : on proclaiming our ideologies. Obviously others may argue, and there are : numerous siddur options for them. But we shouldn't pretend that this is : the only approach to prayer, or that every Jew must use ideology in chosing : a siddur. But if a person wants to approach tefilah as a pure communication, then shouldn't they pick a siddur whose ideology is that tefillah is a pure communication? Having a siddur of a given ideology is not necessarily about proclaiming that ideology. (But if you want to rail about the fact that too often this call for an MO siddur /is/ about proclomation, there is room to do so.) It is about having a siddur that aids the kind of prayer you want to do. Which is why I never understood why people assign value to having "their siddur". I have a collection, as I go from more cerebral to more experiential moods, and want different siddurim depending on where my head is just then. For example, the as-yet-unpublished RCA siddur has something in it about shelo asani that would say something that a Mod-O Jew is more likely to be concerned about saying than someone who is less engaged with the more egalitarian west would feel a need to say. ... : I did not conduct a comprehensive study of the stone Chumash, but wonder : whether the troubling explanations are ubiquitous, occasional, or somewhere : in between... In my experience, occasional. But the rationalists are under-represented, given the chareidi tendency toward more maximalist approaches. That's not troubling, but it's promoting one worldview and not allowing the other to reach the market-share it deserves. : or was it a dream (Ramban versus Rambam)? If Artscroll said he spoke, and : for example a new chumash says that he did not - then which one most : accurately reflects my hashkafa? ... My ideal chumash would present both, or if space requires, inform me that both possibilities are discussed without full presentation. If two hashkafic ideas are viable, why should I let an editor choose between them for me? But that's a different story. The problem the MO nay-sayers have with the absence of a vaiable alternative to ArtScroll is less that there is a specific problem with a comment. As I wrote, those are rare. But that without variety, without a survey that includes ideas current and popular outside the Agudist community, those ideas will cease being thought of as normative. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:20:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:20:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170621222015.GB18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:50:41PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? #1 Qedoshim Tihyu -- naval birshus haTorah #2 The end of Bo (although you didn't ask for a runner-up) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:28:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:28:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170621232850.GE18168@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:07:45PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : >I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons : >and sources, and this chapter is a perfect example... In the Bavli "Mai ta'ama?" is a request for a reason. In the Y-mi, it is a request for a pasuq as source. Reasons and sources are different things, and I think the difference helps clears up the question. : Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites : the Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than : in other places. Zev was saying that the Rambam usually opens or close with a reason, a ta'am hamitzvah. (And, as he explains in the Moreh, he only expects these to cover the generalities.) Usually, these are unsourced. But, kedarko, when he can paraphrase a source he does. Which is what he is doing here. : I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he : often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or : "pashat haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a : Midrash? This one stands out. This paragraph addresses the Rambam's not spending much time on sources, not about reasons. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:16:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:16:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170621221634.GA18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:49:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What would you like the first thing that HKB"H says to you at 120 when : you report to the beit din shel maaleh(heavenly study hall)? (After introducing me to my daughter...) "I'm proud of you, son!" "I would help you get used to this, but techiyas hameisim will be underway..." "So THAT'S why I did that..." But according to Rava (Shabbos 31a) I should expect, "Nasata venatata be'emunah?" Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:24:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:24:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170621232402.GD18168@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 08:43:42PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : > How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of : > any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even : > punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of : > the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? : : The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an : extension of the beit din. Perhaps according to the Rambam (Rotzeiach 1:2), who says "mitzvah beyad go'el hadam..." and if the go'el doesn't want to or there is none, "BD memisin es harotzeiach besayif". Rashi al haTorah appears to hold that "ein lo dam" means the go'el is killing an already dead man, and therefore bears no guilt. Not a mitzvah, but a reshus. (But see below.) And if the go'el only has reshus, it's hard to say he is operating as beis din's appointee. Sanhedrin 45b says "mitzvah bego'el hadam", but if there is no go'el, BD appoints one. There is no sayif. BUT, Makos 2:7 has a machloqes: R Yosi haGelili says that if the killer is found outside the techum, it is a mitzvah on the go'el hadam and a reshus for everyone else to kill him. (According to the beraisa on 12a, if there is no go'el, there is reshus...) R' Aqiva disagrees, saying it's a reshus for the go'el and a non-punishable issur for anyone else. (According to the beraisa, they are chayav.) And here's the weird part -- despite what I quoted above from the Yad, the Rambam on the mishnah says halakhah is like R' Aqiva. Rashi on Makkos 12a says about Bamidbar 35:27 "ika leferushei lashon tzivui ve'ika leferushei lashon tzivui. In sum, I think RJR is understating it. It's not "only" the pesuqim that are unclear. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 01:29:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:29:00 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: : No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these : were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi : haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and : that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? And RMB replied: >"They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..." I like "the root principles and the general rules .." - thanks, that is better than my use of source - but I think "osmosis" is not quite right either. I don't think "osmosis" as we understand it would necessarily have been within the Maharil's conception, and that it is not a great translation for "al pi hakabala" - maybe "from tradition" - but osmosis isn't right. The girls in question probably learnt how to speak the local language by osmosis (even if eg Yiddish was spoken in the home), but you would not say that is "al pi hakabbala". There is a big difference. :> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. : These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult : to understand them as having been written by the same person... >Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position. I don't think you can say that. First of all, the second one, ie the one from Maharil HaChadashos, made it into the Shulchan Aruch, - it is quoted by the Rema - and you can't just dismiss that. And the first one was in the possession of the Birchei Yosef, who is very influential in a whole host of ways in terms of psak. I think rather you have to treat them as two different rishonic teshuvot, and give them weight on that basis. It may well be that they were influenced by, or even possibly penned by, the student of the Maharil who collected them (hence my note that they came from two different collections) , and we may never know which one was really the Maharil's opinion and which one was in fact that of his student or some other rishon from around that time and attributed to the Maharil, but they are both rishonic source material, and I don't think we can ignore either of them. ... :: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in :: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21... ::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us ::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the ::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers ::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their ::> practice on their upright fathers. :> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. : Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the : pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] : and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk... But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write: : Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the : context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting : up of schools)... >Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's derashah. Yes, but even in terms of pshat, it seems very difficult to come away from the idea of transmission of tradition from father to children when using this process. "Asking" is not about osmosis - it is about an attempt at formal learning, and answering in response to an ask is exactly the process of formal learning in pretty much all contexts (it is why we still have teachers even in Universities, and not just books). If you have system where you are supposed to "ask" and somebody else is supposed to then answer, you have formal education. This is a step up from where you are expected to learn by watching (but not asking) - but where at least sometimes the educational aspect is clear - eg, I want you to watch and see how I go to place X, so you can find it yourself next time, is a less formal process than asking, but it is still a form of education, which is a step up from osmosis, where nobody on either side necessarily realises that something is being learnt, it just seeps in (language is a classic case, or how about accent - kids pick up their accent from school by osmosis, it is not a conscious process, and maybe the parents would in fact prefer, and maybe even they would prefer, that they talk with the parent's accent, rather than that of their peers, but it doesn't happen that way, you send a kid to school, they start talking like the locals in their school). >I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with "chadash assur min haTorah".) Because the proof text resonates, it does even in the pshat. In the pshat it is clearly linked to "vshinantam l'vanecha" - ie is the flip side of it (which is why the extension into drash makes sense, just as v'shinantam l'vanecha is the basis of the command for Torah study, this is the basis of the need to listen to the master of Torah). And if you know the drash, even when you use it in the pshat form, you will get the resonance. "V'shinantam l'vanecha" is the pasuk from which the obligation for boys to learn is learnt (banecha v'lo banotecha) - with the emphasis then on the father's teaching - the formal school process came later, when the father's obligation was delegated to a school teacher. Ask you father (in the masculine) is similarly in the pshat about a boy's obligation to learn. Applying it to girls is an odd stretch in the first place. What you are saying is that the proof text when applied to girls suddenly doesn't mean what it means when applied to boys, in either pshat or drash, that to me seems odd. :> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. : Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas : etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody : define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at : all the experiential aspect... >Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect? Well the CC is explaining the Rambam. The Rambam says: ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????, ???? ??? ??????, ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????, ???"? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????, ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????, ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man, because she is not commanded and all who do a thing that they are not commanded to do, there reward is not like the reward of one who is commanded and does rather [their reward] is less than these, and even though she gains a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning, and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut. So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav (note that the Rambam himself in Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 Halacha 11 - says a man is required to divide his time into thirds, a third in Torah shebichtav, a third in Torah sheba?al peh, and a third in understanding and weighing - what he calls Gemora, so there he seems to have three categories, but the third requires a knowledge of the other two, and presumably cannot be taught). So, in terms of your question "does anybody force the CC to define the set of TSBP that was classically prohibited as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including the experiential aspect" - it seems to me that the Rambam does. Ie given that the CC is explaining the Rambam, and the Rambam has only two categories of Torah, then either the experiential aspect is Torah shebichtav or it is not Torah at all. But saying that the experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase. I therefore think it very difficult to say that experiential teaching, especially when linked with the formality of "asking", as the CC does, can be defined as not Torah at all. So that leaves Torah shebichtav. I did try and say that was the Tur's point, what you are should not teach are the laws as written down, but to say that the experiential is Torah shebichtav seems to me a very difficult assertion. :> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when :> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an :> example to imitate. : The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is : as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with : Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her : ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." : The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard : to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, : excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of : Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily : in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". >I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education. >After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior? Yes he does, the minute he is "asked", or if he says "watch what I do" (similar to when I take my children somewhere to show them how to get there on their own, eg a new school, including pointing out the landmarks, that is most definitely active teaching, despite the fact that it is experiential, and not done from giving them a map and teaching them to map read). >In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49. And "look, let me show you how ..." is formal teaching, whether it is a maths problem or it is how to bake chala. And if that particular aspect of teaching falls within the definition of Torah, then one is teaching Torah, albeit informally. And the danger with understanding "lelameid" to only mean formal teaching, not informal teaching, is that you then write out of a father's obligation to a son an awful lot, as it is not within the mitzvah. You can't have it both ways, either when a father teaches a son informally (eg shows him how to put on tephillin, as that seems very difficult to learn from a book) he is teaching him Torah or he is not. Which is it? : And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they : could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward : etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two : types of TSBP... >Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah. So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect, showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn?t take the bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid? Isn't that the consequence of what you are saying? That the only Torah that men are obligated to learn as Talmud torah are the formal abstract rules and regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially? : Is not the gemora etc filled with : this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. >The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it occuring... I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules. If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? -Micha Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 06:27:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:27:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> On 22/06/17 04:29, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: >> The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or >> memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it >> occuring... > I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the > formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the > formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules. > > If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of > the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? Indeed, it's an explicit gemara: "*Torah* hi, velilmod ani tzarich". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 09:32:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:32:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170622163247.GA19841@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:27:07AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: :>If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of :> the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? : Indeed, it's an explicit gemara: "*Torah* hi, velilmod ani tzarich". I am excluding informal education from "lelameid bito", not excluding the acquired info from "Torah". When the R' Eliezer (as quoted by the Rambam) talks about learning or teaching, is he thinking about mimetic osmosis and the like or is he referring only to formal education? It is indeed a key way to learn how to practice. In many cases -- eg milah, safrus, mar'os, tereifos, etc... -- it's the /only/ way to learn the necessary Torah. "Mimetic osmosis *or the like*" is my acknowledgement that Chana managed to convince me that my dichotomy is really a spectrum from the informality of unconscious imitation to raw text study. And therefore there will be gray are that is more or less likely to be included by R' Eliezer or the Rambam rather than a yes-or-no. My talk of mimeticism and osmosis overstates where I am going, and created needless problems with the CC's use of "she'al avikha". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 06:26:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:26:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Letter from Europe Message-ID: <84dd8782469149f99c23cf85a031e37b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I seem to remember a letter from a European (German) Jewish community to someone/thing in Eretz Yisrael with the general message that their hometown was where they intended to wait for Moshiach whether moving to Eretz Yisrael was possible or not. Does this sound familiar? If so, do you know the source? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 07:06:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:06:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple Message-ID: <20170623140615.GB17536@aishdas.org> SA EhE 62:11 says that if the benei hachupah have to divide up into chaburos, they all make sheva berakhos. Even if the locations are not open to each other nor is there a common server -- none of the normal things that combine a zimun. The AhS #37 adds that they each make their own 7 berakhos. Does this mean that if a man needs to leave a wedding early, he should really invest the effort to find 9 others and not just 3, not only because zimun requires trying, but also because the 10 of you would be passing up a chance to bentch the chasan & kallah! To add more weight to the idea, earlier in the siman the AhS discusses the function of panim chadashos at 7 berakhos. In #23-24 he says that the Rambam (Berakhos pereq 2) implies that the reason why we need panim chadashos for 7 berakhos is that the whole thing is to fulfill *their* chiyuv to bentch the chasan & kallah. As guests of the couple, they have a chiyuv to give them a berakhah, which is fulfilled at the minimum by their amein. Whereas if everyone there already fulfilled that obligation, the berakhos are levatalah. Then in #35 he gives besheim "rov raboseinu" the usually quoted reason (at least in my circles) that it's their addition to the simchah that legitimizes the berakhah. Which is why the neshamah yeseirah and Shabbos meal can serve in the same role. (However, he warns, this only works for a real se'udah shelishis. A yotzei-zain shaleshudis lacks that requisite simchah.) So, it could be that according to the Rambam, walking out of the se'udah without 7 berakhos is neglecting one's chiyuv to give the couple a berakhah! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 10:46:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:46:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> <20170621234200.GF18168@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170623174657.GA20760@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:00:14PM -0400, Yaakov Jaffe wrote: : Thank you for your perspective. I understand your argument - rather than : my three-options (hashkafa a, hashkafa b and hashkafa c), you suggest a : fourth with a & b side by side, for the reader to chose. I hadn't : considered it - but it does have a lot to offer! We need to distinguish between a specific commentary -- R' Hirsch's Pentateuch, Mesoret haRav works, Divrei Moshe -- and an anonymous collector of footnotes as in the Stone Chumush, the ArtStroll or RCA siddurim, etc... And I want to acknowledge the gray areas. R/Lord Sack's siddur can be either, depending upon whether someone bought it out of esteem for R' Sacks and wanting to know his position, or it's as just Koren's contender in that market. I am only talking about the latter category, the anonymous shul chumash or siddur. Chareidism is founded on the need to protect ourselves from the modern. And only after dealing with the thread, one considers the opportunities. And part of that defense mechanism is deffering decisions to those more knowledgable. In contrast, Mod-O embraces the West's admiration of autonomy. Thus leaving a gap between the communities about when one turns to gedolim for answers, and when not. A side-effect of how "daas Torah" is formulated is that it has little tolerance for plurality. "The gedolim hold" is an oft-repeated idiom, in my hometown of Passaic, even by people who -- if you made them stop and consider the question -- know "the gedolim" often disagree. Because if we need to choose between valid answers, we could run the risk of choosing wrongly, a dangerous variant of one, the other, or in combination. A comparative unknown yeshivish rav or collection of avreikhem providing such commentary, choosing a consistent style of comment over others is perceived from that mindset. As promoting one position as the sole truly normative approach. The same often happens with Rashi. We think of Rashi's position as the default, because it's girsa diyenuqa, and another rishon is seen as the machadesh. Did the brothers sell Yoseif or did they find the pit empty after the Moavim got there first and selling him? There is a machloqes tannaim about Rivqa's age when married, but Rashi quotes one, and that becomes the default in some circles. In other circles, peshat is more likely to trump medrashic stories. With the position of numerous rishonim and acharonim (are there cholqim?) that medrashic stories are repeated for their nimshalim, not the story itself. Which brings me to a second effect of daas Torah... The more one takes pride in deferring to authority the more likely one is to embrace the maximalist position, to accept that which is further from rationalist, from what the autonomous decision would have been. A second reason why Rivqa must have been 3 when married, not 15. Yes, many people know both, but isn't there a clear emotional attitude about one position being normative rather than the other? I therefore think that giving a survey of opinions is itself an inherently MO way of doing this kind of text. It allows someone to choose autonomously between rationalism, mysticism, maximalism, etc... without the relatively-unknown rabbi -- or anyone but my own rav, his rav, his rav's rav... ("my gadol" is a much more MO view than "the gedolim) -- setting himself to tell large numbers of the observant community what to view as the mainstream, and what is an acceptable but avant-gard alternative, even if they ever learn of the other options. If we want RYBS's position to be viewed as part of the mainstream, or R' Herschel Schachter's (which is far closer to yeshivish but still not something ArtScroll would quote too often) or R' Aharon Soloveitchik or RALichtenstein, R' Amital, R CY Goldvicht or any other rosh yeshivas hesder, R' Kook, etc... there has to be chumashim that put these ideas in the hands of the common people, the ones who aren't spending spare time hanging out in the sefarim store or following e-zines, blogs, email lists or even FB groups that discuss (usually: argue) such things. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 15:56:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:56:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d2ec73$fba1e110$f2e5a330$@gmail.com> R' Joel Rich: What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? ------------------------ The one about being a naval b'rshus haTorah. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 14:04:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 23:04:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: <2a88576c-335d-3d30-a014-301f177029c1@zahav.net.il> References: <2a88576c-335d-3d30-a014-301f177029c1@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <297327dc-ba39-c064-1bd4-0a61c750d11f@zahav.net.il> Mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisrael, including conquering it. Ben On 6/21/2017 10:50 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? > KT > Joel Rich > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 06:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 16:10:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple Message-ID: "Does this mean that if a man needs to leave a wedding early, he should really invest the effort to find 9 others and not just 3, not only because zimun requires trying, but also because the 10 of you would be passing up a chance to bentch the chasan & kallah!" Actually, even without regard for Sheva B'rochos, the din of zimmun requires that one not who has eaten with a minyan not bentsch with less than a minyan. There is mention on OC 193:1 that only where there would be difficulty in a minyan hearing, thus necessitating the bentsching calling attention to itself and thus offending the host, that it can be done in groups of three; it would seem to be a kal vachomer that gathering ten and saying Sheva B'rochos would be even more noticeable, and thus more hurtful. It would also seem that if one person has to leave, he should not request two others to join him in zimmun unless they, too, must leave early, since otherwise they should not violate their obligation of proper zimmun so that the one leaving have an incomplete fulfillment of his obligation. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:01:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 01:01:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: . R' Eli Turkel wrote: > R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He > understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah position > basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a > state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful > but is against the wishes of G-d. Could you please explain to me what the Agudah position is, and *how* it denies that G-d affects history? Personally, I do not know what the Agudah position is about the Medinah. I'm not convinced that they even *have* a position. Over the years, I have gotten the impression that they have deliberately avoided publicizing their views, because at this point in history it is so difficult to be sure of such things. You yourself concede that the state "APPEARS" to be successful. Who knows? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:21:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:21:57 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] perhaps not such a well-known RaMBaM, but ... Message-ID: in his intro to Sefer Shemos Matan Torah was just a device employed to re-attain the standards that had already been accomplished by the Avos when they came to Mount Sinai - made the Mishkan and HaShem returned His Shechinah amongst them, that is when they restored their status to be like their Avos .... and that is when they were deemed to be redeemed [from the servitude in Egypt] Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:42:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:42:05 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] redemption - The GoEl HaDam Message-ID: the family can come to terms with the killer. when circumstances are such that the killer is deemed too negligent, he can not seek refuge in the Ir Miklat and they MUST come to terms, of the aggressor lives his life in constant fear of being executed. Lo SikChu Kofer LeNefesh RoTzeach Hu - is a warning [to BDin] NOT to take redemption money, NOT to avert the death penalty, NOT to come to terms; but in other circumstances it seems we ought to seek strategies to come to terms. That may include but is not limited to offering money - it probably has more to do with Teshuvah, which is the need to persuade the victims that the regret is sincere, which is why BDin cannot provide a ruling, it can only be negotiated through direct communications, and finding friends of the victims and persuading them of the sincerity and getting THEM to intercede - this is the Shurah that is described in Halacha and RaMBaM. Why are they defined as the GoEl the redeemer? It is a redemption for the society - an evil [negligence of this magnitude, especially when Chazal indicate it is a reflection of other misdeeds, is an evil] of this magnitude leaves an impression on the collective mind of the community, the Eidah, those whose lives is a testimony to HKBH, and if it goes unpunished, the community is tainted. So the community requires redemption. This too feeds into the coming to terms with the aggressor - it is not only the friends of the victim who are impressing upon their traumatised consciousness the need to forgive to accept that the aggressor truly regrets [and that the victim is also as Chazal say, a contributor to his untimely own end] but the community is a sort of spectator to these negotiations and the aggressors feel a need to be accepted by the community and not be seen as being too harsh and vengeful or rapacious in their demands for compensation. This is a very redeeming experience for everyone Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 10:10:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:10:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] most famous ramban Message-ID: <000b01d2edd5$f855df80$e9019e80$@actcom.net.il> First Ramban in Yayera-polemic with the Moreh Nevukhim. After that, 'Kedoshim tihiyu', (which many people are horrified by or completely misunderstand and yes, the Ramban was an ascetic and makes a brilliant case for asceticism) but we could probably have a whole lot of fun on this list making a list of Rambans that everyone should know. In fact, we may actually have done this already. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 10:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:05:14 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting from God Message-ID: <000601d2edd5$3d08f5a0$b71ae0e0$@actcom.net.il> I'd be thrilled to hear: "It's okay-don't worry about it" but I'm not counting on it. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 07:06:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:06:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170626140643.GD29431@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 04:10:45PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : hurtful. It would also seem that if one person has to leave, he should not : request two others to join him in zimmun unless they, too, must leave : early, since otherwise they should not violate their obligation of proper : zimmun so that the one leaving have an incomplete fulfillment of his : obligation. OTOH, if they have an obligation to bless the chasan and kalah, perhaps the threshold for "must leave early" has to be raised. After all, there are cases of need where we do break a zimmun, but we would never (e.g.) walk out on a beris milah over the same motivation. "Need" is a relative term. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 09:15:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 12:15:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> On this thread, did any of us mention birkhas ge'ulah? "Ufdeih khin'umekha Yehudah veYisrael" expresses our expectation that Hashem will redeem both malkhios. Or is there another way to talk separately about Yehudah and Yisrael. So I would think the siddur pasqens, and this is in all traditional nusachos, that the 1- tribes are not permanently lost. I am assuming since this is a birkhas shevakh rather than baqashah, this is an expectation "you will surely redeem", and not a request. Requesting the impossible is a tefillas shav. So... As a baqashah, the berakhah would only prove they could be redeemed; as shevakh (which is, I believe, the correct category), the berakhah is expressing our faith they will be redeemed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 14:51:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:51:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Talmud Torah vs Mitzvah Maasis Message-ID: <20170626215120.GA8220@aishdas.org> Another data point... AhS EhE 65:4 says "mevatlin talmud Torah lehakhnasas kalah lechupah", even toraso umenaso. But limited to someone who sees them going to the chupah. If you just know of a wedding in town, you aren't obligated to stop learning to go. For sources, the end of the se'if cites 1- Semachos 11[:7], which RYME summarizes as "dema'aseh qodem leTT". The mishnah itselces cites both Aba Sha'ul and Rabbi Yehudah, that "hama'aseh qodem letalmud". (Rabbi Yehudah would enjoin his talmidim to participate as well.) 2- Qiddushin 40b which discusses whether talmud gadol or ma'aseh gadol. R' Tarfon: ma'aseh R' Aqiva: talmud "Ne'enu kulam ve'amru: talmud gadol" because talmud leads to ma'aseh. (And so on, discussion elided.) This gemara concludes that talmud is greater. 3- And for exaplanation of how to resolve Semachos vs Qiddushin, he points you to Tosafos BQ 17[a] "veha'amar". The gemara there says "gadol limud Torah shemeivi liydei ma'adeh", much like Qiddushim. Rashi says "alma ma'aseh adif". R' Tam asks on Rashi, from the gemara in Qiddushin. Tosafos then explains the gemara's distinction between learning and teaching in two opposite ways: 1- It's teaching which has priority, because it brings the masses to action. Whereas one's own learning or acting are one person either way. 2- It's learning, which tells one how to act, that has priority. But since teaching doesn't inform the teacher how to fulfilll a mitzvah, it does not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 08:22:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:22:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chukas Message-ID: <9B3AD7FA-3712-4F5A-B2FC-BAC8F688CD87@cox.net> Rashi picks up on the juxtaposition of the consecutive sentences where we first read of Miriam?s death and immediately following ? of the lack of water. This would indicate some connection which Rashi points out that the existence of the water was on the z?chus of Miriam. Nonetheless, the question of the Sifse Chakhamim is also quite valid. Weren?t Aaron and Moses worthy enough to warrant the existence of the water on their z?chus? As a chok has no rational explanation, so, too, there is no logical explanation as to why as long as Miriam was there, offering her inspired leadership, the waters of the be?er, the wells of Torah, flowed ceaselessly and with her death, the waters stopped; whereas, the greatness of Aaron and Moses paled in comparison. This shows the error of those who downplay the role of women in Judaism. Remember, it?s the mother who determines the child?s religion and it?s the mother who plays a major role in her children?s development. The dedication and devotion of the exemplary Jewish mother are a shining example to all who would seek idealism in a Jewish woman. "The Lord gave more wit to women than to men." Talmud - Niddah ??And the Lord God built the rib which teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, endowed the woman with more understanding than the man.? Niddah 45b ?A beautiful wife enlarges a man?s spirit.? [adapted from] Talmud, Berakhot 57b -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 15:15:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:15:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <78965e20-72ab-5232-fd11-bfbe6b3a4ee2@sero.name> On 26/06/17 12:15, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On this thread, did any of us mention birkhas ge'ulah? "Ufdeih > khin'umekha Yehudah veYisrael" expresses our expectation that Hashem > will redeem both malkhios. Or is there another way to talk separately > about Yehudah and Yisrael. > > So I would think the siddur pasqens, and this is in all traditional > nusachos, that the 1- tribes are not permanently lost. It is not in all traditional nuschaos. TTBOMK it's found only in Nusach Ashkenaz. Sefarad substitutes the pasuk "Goaleinu", Italians substitute "Biglal avot...", I don't know what other traditional nuschaot do. (Modern Nusach Ashkenaz and some versions of the Chassidic "Sfard" combine the old Ashkenaz and Sefarad endings; this was originally Nusach Tzorfat, back when that was distinct from Ashkenaz.) (The reason for the Sefaradi ending with the pasuk rather than the other two versions is that the bracha is about Geulat Mitzrayim, not the future Geulah, hence the chatima "Ga'al Yisrael" as distinct from "Go'el Yisrael" in the 7th of the 18, so ending with a prayer for the future Geulah is off topic. I don't know how the other two nuschaot would respond, but maybe that's why NA ended up adopting the Tzorfati combination.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 22:08:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:08:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Agudah [was: Support for Maaseh Satan] Message-ID: <15180d.31f3d54b.4685e552@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <> [--I don't know who is being quoted here] R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah poisition basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful but is against the wishes of G-d. -- Eli Turkel >>>>>> All through Tanach there are examples of reshaim who succeed (if only for a while). Obviously it is Hashem's wish that they succeed, even if it is not His wish that they sin. What is remarkable and miraculous about the last century of history in Eretz Yisrael is how Eretz Yisrael has been built up, the growth of agriculture, cities, the economy, the Jewish population, and most of all the amazing growth of Torah living and learning -- despite secular socialist Zionism. The Medinah gets some credit but what is most remarkable is that so much good has happened despite the Medinah or even very much against the will of the secular government. There is so much ohr vechoshech mishtamshim be'irbuvya. Nevertheless it is impossible /not/ to see the Yad Hashem in the overall course of events over the past century. How many prophecies are coming true before our very eyes! A thriving economy grew up under the very feet of the socialists! Is that not a miracle?! Has such a thing ever happened in any other country?! :- ) So what is the Agudah's position? In November 1947, when the UN voted for the establishment of the Jewish State, the Agudah made the following declaration: --begin quote-- The World Agudas Yisroel sees as an historic event the decision of the nations of the world to return to us, after 2000 years, a portion of the Holy Land, there to establish a Jewish state and to encompass within its borders the banished and scattered members of our people. This historic event must bring home to every Jew the realization that ***the Almighty has brought this about in an act of Divine Providence*** [my emphasis] which presents us with a great task and a grave test. We must face up to this test and establish our life as a people, upon the basis of Torah. While we are sorely grieved that the Land has been divided and sections of the holy Land have been torn asunder, especially Yerushalayim, the holy city, while we still yearn for the aid of Mashiach tzidkeinu, who will bring us total redemption, we nevertheless see the hand of Providence offering us the opportunity to prepare for the geula shelaima if we will walk into the future as G-d's people. --end quote-- [quoted in __To Dwell in the Palace: Perspectives on Eretz Yisrael__ edited by Tzvia Ehrlich-Klein, 1991] The above is still fairly representative of the hashkafa of broad swaths of Klal Yisrael who are charedi or charedi-leaning, yeshivish or chassidish, neither Satmar nor Dati Leumi. That is, the majority of all frum Jews in America and Eretz Yisrael. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 22:31:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:31:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? Message-ID: <151979.a3a1c08.4685eabc@aol.com> From: Chana Luntz via Avodah I Well the CC is explaining the Rambam. The Rambam says: --quote-- A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man, ...and even though she gains a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning, and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. --end quote-- That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut. So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav ... ....But saying that the experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase.... .....So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect, showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn't take the bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid? Isn't that the consequence of what you are saying? That the only Torah that men are obligated to learn as Talmud Torah are the formal abstract rules and regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially? Regards Chana >>>>> I think that different uses of the word "Torah" are being confused here. The very word "Torah" has many meanings, depending on context. It can refer to just the Chumash -- the Torah shebichsav -- about which the Rambam says "but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." Some chassidishe schools to this day do not teach girls Chumash. The word Torah can mean both Chumash and Gemara. "The Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut." There is universal agreement that "Torah" in this context means Gemara. NO ONE thinks that teaching halacha to girls is tantamount to teaching tiflus. The word "Torah" can refer to the vast corpus of everything that has ever been written by or about the Tanaim and Amoraim, Rishonim and Achronim. The word can refer to halacha, to hashkafa, to everything that makes up Jewish life and thought. "Torah" can also refer to that which is taught and learned by example, or by osmosis, or by a mother's tears when she bentshes lecht and davens for her children. "Al titosh Toras imecha." Every language has words like that, words whose precise meaning depends on context. Certainly in the Gemara itself there are many such words. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 29 06:18:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:18:11 +0000 Subject: What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem’s name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? Message-ID: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem's name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, HY"D the Av Bais Din of Shomloy in Hungary, once wrote a letter on this subject. It reads in part, "We have a tradition in our hands from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty, that the reading of the honored and awesome name of Hashem is AH -- DOY -- NOY (AH-DOE -- NOY or AH-DOW-NOY) using the vowelization of Chataf Patach for the Aleph, a Cholam for the Daled and a Kamatz for the Nun..." "Our master the Chasam Sofer and the author of the Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah, zt"l and a whole group of Geonim and Kedoshim have already warned us that unfortunately there are many mistakes concerning this. One needs to be very careful about this matter for a common mistake has spread among the masses and even among those with fear of Hashem. Through a lack of concentration, the Daled (of Hashem's pronounced name) is said with a Sheva as "AHD-ENOY." It is certain that whoever pronounces Hashem's name this way has not said Hashem's name at all and must repeat the bracha again, and so did the Chasam Sofer rule." Rav Shimon Schwab, zt"l in his classic work on Siddur, Iyun Tefilla (p. 25), adds that one should also be careful not to say AH -- DEE -- NOY. He writes: "One must pronounce the Daled with a Cholam (DOY, DOE or DOW) and the Nun with a Kamatz, and not use a Chirik under the Daled (DEE) as is the custom of some who are mistaken and think that they are pronouncing the Name properly... This is a disgrace of the honored and awesome Name. One who pronounces Hashem's name with a Chirik even a hundred times a day is not transgressing the prohibition of saying Hashem's name in vain." Rav Pinchas Scheinberg, zt"l was once asked if Ahd-enoy or Ahdeenoy are acceptable be'dieved, after the fact. His response was a resounding "No!" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 29 06:30:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zalman Alpert via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:30:39 -0400 Subject: What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem’s name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? In-Reply-To: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> References: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 29, 2017 10:18 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > From today's OU Halacha Yomis > > *Q. What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem?s name in Shmoneh Esrei > and other brachos?* There are different ways in Ashkenazi hebrew to pronounce many vowels like cholom zeira segol etc so this answer isof little meaning Galicianer Lithuanian German Ukrainian Hungarian and Central Polish jews each have their own pronunciation See Michtvei Torah by Gerer rebbe Imre Emes where opines different than what is written here Rabbi Heschel of Hamodia several yrs ago discussed this issue in a very cogent manner Although many American college educated frum Jews believe there is only 1way of halachic practice that is absurd,there are many authentic practices to the chagrin of a group of yedhivashe people seeking to impose uniform practicr namely their own Nehare nehare upishteh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 30 06:56:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:56:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Forgotten Fast Days Message-ID: <650c141a32674be8bd8ee65a52bc1d83@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see the article at https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5929 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 30 09:04:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:04:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Authority of Cherem deRabbeinu Gershom Message-ID: <20170630160442.GA20546@aishdas.org> AhS EhE 1:23,25 etc... refers to taqanos or gezeiros passed by Rabbein Gershon meOr haGolah and his contemporaries. Not the idiom I heard in the past, "cheirem deR' Gershom" -- not even the same last letter on the name. Since this was well after the last beis din hagadol / Sanhedrin (so far), we have discussed in the past where the authority to pass such laws came from. My own suggestion revolved around them being charamim for anyone who... rather than direct issurim. But the AhS would be more medayeiq to call them charamim if he thought that was a critical part of the mechanism. But here is something that had me wondering all over again. AhS EhE 119:17... The question is how a gett given without the wife's agreement would be valid if one holds "i avid lo mahani" (like Rava). And yet the Rama says "avar vegirshah ba"k" he is an avaryan (and thus in nidui) until she remarries. One it can't be fixed, because he cannot remarry his gerushah anymore, the nidui is removed. But the AhS writes, if this is true for a derabbanan (Kesuvor 81b) *kol shekein* dChdR"G hu kemo qarov le'isur Torah. Without explaining why. And I can't even figure out how it has the authority to be more than minhag altogether... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 13:45:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:45:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Aruch HaShulchan was not happy with the minhag that the baal haseder has his wine poured by someone else. He writes that it's a bit haughty to order his wife to pour for him and that in his city it was not the minhag. Aside from the interestingly contemporary sound of his concern, it seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for everyone to pour for everyone else, which would avoid the concern of the ArHaSh. 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? 2. If so is it a) based on the poskim, b) an old practice without formal endorsement, or c) a new-fangled sop to modernity? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 17:49:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzav: "As Long As The Soul Is Within Me, I Will Give Thanks Unto Thee, O Lord, My God And God Of My Fathers" Berakhot, 60b Message-ID: <476D9522-69B8-43D1-9E77-D0491911541D@cox.net> Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the korban todah, Thanksgiving Offering. The Medrash (Lev. R., 9.7) tells us that in the future all the sacrifices will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering. Rashi (Leviticus 7:12) states (paraphrased): A man offers a thanksgiving offering (in the Temple) when he is saved from potential danger. There are four types: sea travelers, desert travelers, those released from prison and a seriously ill patient who has recovered. As the verse says in Psalms (107:21), "They should give thanks to God for His kindness, and for His wonders to mankind.? Interestingly and providentially, the mnemonic for this group of four is Chayyim, which stands for [Chavush (jail), Yisurim (illness), Yam (sea), Midbar (desert)], (Shulchan Aruch 219:1). In our times, we fulfill this concept with the recitation of the blessing, HaGomel ("He who grants favors..."). There is a beautiful insight in the Avudraham on laws and commentary on prayers. The author was student of Ba'al HaTurim (R. Yaakov ben Asher) and was a rabbi in Seville. When the hazzan says Modim, the congregation recites the "Modim d'Rabbanan" (The Rabbis' Modim). Why is that? The Avudraham says that for all blessings in the Sh?moneh Esrei we can have an agent. For 'Heal Us', for 'Bless Us with a Good Year' and so forth we can have the sheliach tzibbur say the blessing for us. However, there is one thing that no one else can say for us. We must say it for ourselves. That one thing is "Thank You". Hoda'ah has to come from the individual. No one can be our agent to say 'Thank You.' (This is similar to asking for forgiveness. You must obtain it from the individual wronged. Not even the Almighty can forgive you for wronging a fellow human being). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 20:28:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:28:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: <5101c.42bfc52f.460fb895@aol.com> References: <5101c.42bfc52f.460fb895@aol.com> Message-ID: > "The Halachic Adventures of the Potato" ? by R' Yitzchak Spitz > https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5184 > [...] > In fact, and this is not widely known, the Chayei Adam does actually > rule this way, Sigh. This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location, but do *not* cheat by copying a citation from some secondary source; I will not accept it, because I know very well that there are many secondary sources who claim this, but none of them give a *valid* reference to where he wrote it. What I *have* seen in the Nishmas Adam is an aside, in the course of writing something different, that by the way in Germany they treat potatoes as kitniyos. In fact I'll go further: I don't believe that there has ever been a posek of any stature who forbade potatoes as kitniyos, nor any community that ever accepted such a practice. I have seen many sources claiming that someone else, somewhere else forbade it, or that some other community far away treats it as kitinyos, but never any first hand acccount. When the Rosh writes that in Provence they said Tal Umatar from Marcheshvan 7th I believe it, because he was there and saw it with his own eyes. But I have never seen anyone report having seen with his own eyes a community that forbids potatoes, or a psak din to that effect. It's always someone else somewhere else. Until I see a first hand account I don't believe it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 20:30:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:30:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked about guests in a shul where the guest's practices differ from the shul's. I am bothered by the question, and even more so by the responses. What has happened Porush Min Hatzibur? What has happened to Derech Eretz and simple good manners? (Previous discussions here on Avodah have claimed that some poskim actually hold that a visitor who davens Nusach Sfard should use that text even if he is in the tzibur of a Nusach Ashkenaz shul. Ditto for responding to Kedusha, so I will not discuss those particular examples.) But: > Would your shul allow a guest to say 13 middot aloud > by Tachanun (if local practice is not to)? We're not talking about a few words here, but approximately a whole page worth, that the tzibur would be forced to say. It's not clear from the question whether this guest is the shliach tzibur or not, but I think it is safe to say that in my shul, a shliach tzibur who tries this would be quickly informed of his error, and if it came from someone in the seats he'd simply be ignored. > Would your shul allow a guest to read his own Aliya? >From your use of the word "guest", I am presuming that this was not arranged in advance. If the guest had approached the gabbai a few days in advance to make this request, I don't know what the answer would be. But it sounds like the guest was called up, and at that point he asked the koreh, "May I read it myself?", as in the story that R' Josh Meisner told. I am horrified by the lack of consideration that this guest has toward the time and effort that the baal koreh put into preparing the laining. In RJM's story this happened on Rosh Chodesh, and I do concede that RC is by far the most frequently read parsha of all. But the question as posed was more general, applicable to any laining whether weekday or Shabbos. I am particularly surprised by the reaction of RJM's rav, who <<< insisted ... that the next two olim also read their own aliyos so as not to directly draw a distinction between those who read their own aliyah and those who do not. >>> While I appreciate the sensitivity involved, I am really surprised that this shul has such a large pool of people who can be called upon to lain properly, even for Rosh Chodesh - literally at a moment's notice. How common is this? Are there shuls where any randomly chosen person is able to lain? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 03:40:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:40:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chazkah that changed Message-ID: <> I would venture that according to everyone chazakot in financial matters can change. The famous case is a borrower who denies everything (kofer ba-kol) according to the Torah he doesn't pay anything and is not required to swear since no borrower would be brazen to completely deny a lie. The gemara says that "today" people are brazen and so we require a "shevua". I would guess that other financial chazakot for example that someone doesnt repay a loan ahead of time would depend on the current situation. If today there would be some reason for people to pay back a loan early that I would guess that the halacha indeed would change. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 04:01:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:01:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Visiting a Shul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJRich asked: > Visiting a shul questions-actual practices and sources appreciated: > * Would your shul allow a guest to read his own Aliya? > * Would your shul allow a guest to say his own nussach of kaddish (not as shatz)? > * Would your shul (in galut) allow the shatz not to say baruch hashem l'olam in maariv? > * Would your shul allow a guest to say 13 middot aloud by Tachanun(if local practice is not to)? > * Would the answers be different if requested before prayer (vs. gabbai intervention at time of event)? Me: In all those cases, in our shul, local minhag trumps the wishes of the guest, though we won't jump at anyone for adding vekooraiv mesheechay or werewa'h weassalah. Sometimes the reading of one's own aliya may be tolerated. When I was an avel, I mostly davvened in shuls that did not adhere to my minhag (though I layer "converted" to one of those other minhaggim), and as shaliach tzibbur, always followed their respective minhaggim. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 06:15:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:15:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked about guests in a shul where the guest's practices differ from the shul's. I am bothered by the question, and even more so by the responses. What has happened Porush Min Hatzibur? What has happened to Derech Eretz and simple good manners? ----------------------------- I have seen them all occur. What triggered the question was a shiur on yutorah where a pulpit rabbi mentioned that a visiting guest sfardi scholar asked in advance and was granted the right to read his own aliya. I was surprised and then thought of other situations that I had a similar reaction to. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 19:16:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 22:16:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Poisoning in Halacha Message-ID: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> Tonight my chevrusa and I learned the sugya in Bava Kamma 47b of one who puts poison in front of his friend's animal. A brief synopsis and application of the sugya is at http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/infected: ?A person put some poisoned food in front of his neighbor?s animal,? Rabbi Dayan said. ?The animal ate the food and died. The owner sued the neighbor for killing his animal. What do you say about this case?? ?I would say he?s liable,? said Mr. Wolf. ?He poisoned the animal.? ?I?m not so sure,? objected Mr. Mann. ?The neighbor didn?t actually kill the animal. Although he put out the poison, the animal chose to eat the food.? ?Animals don?t exactly have choice,? reasoned Mr. Wolf. ?If they see food, they eat! Anyway, even if the neighbor didn?t directly kill the animal, he certainly brought about the animal?s death.? ?But is that enough to hold him liable?? argued Mr. Mann. He turned to Rabbi Dayan.?The Gemara (B.K. 47b; 56a) teaches that placing poison before an animal is considered grama,? answered Rabbi Dayan. ?The animal did not have to eat the poisoned food. Therefore, the neighbor is not legally liable in beis din, but he is responsible b?dinei Shamayim. This means that he has a strong moral liability to pay, albeit not enforceable in beis din (Shach 386:23; 32:2).? It struck us that it follows that if one poisons another human being by, say, placing cyanide in his tea, which the victim then drinks and dies, the poisoner is exempt from capitol punishment. It would seem that such a manner of murder falls into the category of the Rambam's ruling in Hilchos Rotze'ach u'Shemiras Nefesh 3:10: Different rules apply, however, in the following instances: A person binds a colleague and leaves him to starve to death; he binds him and leaves him in a place that will ultimately cause him to be subjected to cold or heat, and these influences indeed come and kill the victim; he covers him with a barrel; he uncovers the roof of the building where he was staying; or he causes a snake to bite him. Needless to say, a distinction is made if a colleague dispatches a dog or a snake at a colleague. In all the above instances, the person is not executed. He is, nevertheless, considered to be a murderer, and "the One who seeks vengeance for bloodshed" will seek vengeance for the blood he shed. (translation from http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1088919/jewish/Rotzeach-uShmirat-Nefesh-Chapter-Three.htm) Perhaps this was a davar pashut to everyone else, but for me, tonight, it was a mind-boggling revelation! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 06:05:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:05:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hilchos Chol HaMoed Message-ID: <1491224727245.62311@stevens.edu> >From the article at http://tinyurl.com/l8ll4lf The following is meant as a convenient review of Halachos pertaining to Chol-Hamoed. The Piskei Din for the most part are based purely on the Sugyos, Shulchan Aruch and Rama, and the Mishna Berurah, unless stated otherwise. They are based on my understanding of the aforementioned texts through the teachings of my Rebbeim. As individual circumstances are often important in determining the psak in specific cases, and as there may be different approaches to some of the issues, one should always check with one's Rov first. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 12:50:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:50:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> > RZS: > In fact I'll go further: I don't believe that there has ever been a > posek of any stature who forbade potatoes as kitniyos, nor any community > that ever accepted such a practice. I have seen many sources claiming > that someone else, somewhere else forbade it, or that some other > community far away treats it as kitinyos, but never any first hand > acccount. When the Rosh writes that in Provence they said Tal Umatar > from Marcheshvan 7th I believe it, because he was there and saw it with > his own eyes. But I have never seen anyone report having seen with his > own eyes a community that forbids potatoes, or a psak din to that > effect. It's always someone else somewhere else. Until I see a first > hand account I don't believe it. > This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade potatoes. David Riceman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 09:15:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 12:15:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: <7f1aa7e091a1468c8cc6c5df61f610ac@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <7f1aa7e091a1468c8cc6c5df61f610ac@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <29.EA.10233.B3572E85@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 11:57 AM 4/3/2017, Ben Bradley wrote: >The Aruch HaShulchan was not happy with the minhag that the baal >haseder has his wine poured by someone else. He writes that it's a >bit haughty to order his wife to pour for him and that in his city >it was not the minhag. > >Aside from the interestingly contemporary sound of his concern, it >seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for everyone to >pour for everyone else, which would avoid the concern of the ArHaSh. > > >1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? In my home the children poured my wine once they were big enough and now my older grandchildren do this. And they pour for my wife also. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 10:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:10:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bourbon no Longer an Automatic, Faces Kashrus Issues Message-ID: <1491239439011.48127@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/kh92xxv "Companies that once distilled just a few barrels of bourbon every year are now churning out dozens of other drinks-Sherries, brandies, flavored vodkas-which might not be kosher. They can contaminate the bourbon, Rabbi Litvin said, if the liquors are run through the same pipes or tanks." The Litvins, a family that lives in Louisville, "have taken it upon themselves to keep bourbon kosher." Despite the fact that Jews are proportionately poor Bourbon consumers (it is an $8.5 billion industry), there has been a dramatic increase in demand in recent years, particularly by younger kosher consumers. "Alcohol consumption has definitely increased manifold," said one kosher wine and spirits expert. Heaven Hill, one of the largest liquor companies in the world, is owned by a Jewish family, but only a few of the bourbons-Evan Williams, the company's largest brand, and the high-end single-barrel whiskeys-are still guaranteed to be kosher. The others are run through the same pipes and storage tanks as other products, including untold flavors of vodka, spiced rum and mint whiskey. ______________________________________________________________ I guess that I have been ahead of the trends, because I have been drinking bourbon for decades and never liked Scotch. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 12:21:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:21:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Good manners will open doors that the best education cannot. Clarence Thomas Message-ID: <708AB73F-9427-468E-AAEE-C0DD97D63B94@cox.net> One of my doors recently broke and I?m having a new one installed Wednesday. It brought to mind a MIdrash I once learned telling of the basic distinctiveness of the Jewish door and the secret of its architectural design, which served as a protection against annihilation. ?And strike the upper doorpost through the merit of Abraham, and the two side-posts, in the merit of Isaac and Jacob. It was for their merit that HE saw the blood and would not suffer the destroyer? (Midrash Rabbah XVII - 3 Exodus). It set me to thinking. Aren?t the doors to a home indicative of the nature and character of those who live beyond them? I began to think of doors with various emblems displayed upon them. Some say: ?We have given.? ?No Beggars or Peddlers Allowed.? ?Nobody lives here,? etc. But next Monday evening, the Jewish emblem on the entrance door will say: "Let all who are hungry, come and eat." On this Festival of Pesach, let not Judaism pass over our doors. When we open our doors to welcome Eliyahu Hanavi, let us keep it open wide, to welcome all that is positive, invigorating and creative in Jewish life. Let our doors be indicative of proud Jewish occupants. Let us display our Mezuzot not as mere adornments but as emblems which proudly proclaim for all to see: ?We are proud to be the sons and daughters of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and we are determined to carry on in their tradition. Grief is a room without doors but Passover?s power not only changes that situation but it sends Eliyahu Hanavi right through. Truncated clich?, rw From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:11:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> References: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> Message-ID: On 03/04/17 15:50, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: >> > This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a > friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly > gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one > ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. > Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras > kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade > potatoes. That comes close, but not close enough. If the name of the town were given, so that one could track down other families from that town and verify it, then I'd accept it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:17:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:17:00 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach Message-ID: *<<*This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location >> *Nishmas* *Adam*, *Hilchos* *Pesach*, Question 20 (from the article on Potatos) mentions retzke that are called tatarka which are used to make flour are kitniyot My yiddish is very limited I saw one place that translated this as corn while another used buckwheat later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called erdeffel which I saw a translation as potatos. If this translation is accurate then the Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that allowed potatos on Pesach in case of a major famine. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:43:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:43:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170403204335.GC6792@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:17:00PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not : true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or : whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location >> : : Nishmas Adam, Hilchos Pesach, Question 20 (from the article on : Potatos) mentions : retzke that are called tatarka which are used to make flour are kitniyot It's Kelal 119, Q 20. : later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called erdeffel which : I saw a translation as potatos. If this translation is accurate then the : Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that allowed potatos on Pesach : in case of a major famine. And so, as Zev pointed out, it is untrue that the CA advocated this position. Which is what is commonly retold. (At least, in my experience.) The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:47:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:47:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 01:15:37PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What triggered the question was a shiur on yutorah where a pulpit : rabbi mentioned that a visiting guest sfardi scholar asked in advance : and was granted the right to read his own aliya. I was surprised and : then thought of other situations that I had a similar reaction to. Isn't there a problem that the second you let those who are able to lein for themselves, you destroyed the minhag of leveling the playing field with a baal qeri'ah? Along thse lines, my father -- who certainly doesn't have to -- reads the berachos from the card on the bimah. The whole procedure is built around avoiding embarassing those less educated Jewishly. And today, where so many who get aliyos may be newer baalei teshuvah who don't know the berakhos by heart, shouldn't everyone read the berakhos, just the way everyone has a shaliach do the reading? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 14:34:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:34:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> References: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 03/04/17 16:47, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Along thse lines, my father -- who certainly doesn't have to -- reads > the berachos from the card on the bimah. The whole procedure is built > around avoiding embarassing those less educated Jewishly. As I understand it, the purpose of reading the brachos from a card is to make it clear that one is not reading them from the Torah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 14:30:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:30:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> On 03/04/17 16:17, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not >> true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or >> Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the >> location > Nishmas/ /Adam/, /Hilchos/ /Pesach/, Question 20 (from the article > on Potatos) Yes, I'm obviously aware of this reference, which *does not say* what so many people cite it as saying, because they saw it cited to that effect somewhere else, and have not bothered looking it up. This is frankly getting up my nose, which is why I specified that I am not interested in citations that the poster has not looked up himself and verified that they actually say what they are represented as saying. > mentions retzke that are called tatarka which are used to > make flour are kitniyot My yiddish is very limited I saw one place > that translated this as corn while another used buckwheat Retchke, or Gretchke, means normal buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum). Tatarke means Tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum). > later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called > erdeffel which I saw a translation as potatos. Yes, bulbes are potatoes. as in the famous song "Zuntik bulbes, Montik bulbes". > If this translation is > accurate then the Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that > allowed potatos on Pesach in case of a major famine. He reports having heard that in 1771-72 there was a famine and the community of Frth convened a beis din which permitted potatoes and kitniyos, but not buckwheat. His purpose in citing this is simply to demonstrate that buckwheat is worse than kitniyos, since even in this extreme case they refused to permit it. Of course this immediately causes the reader to wonder why they'd need a heter for potatoes, so he throws in the explanation that in Germany they don't eat them on Pesach. Of course anyone who sees this can see immediately that (a) he reports this practise neutrally, without expressing any support for it, and (b) he doesn't claim first hand knowledge that it even exists, but merely repeat a rumour he'd heard about some other place. Somehow, in the hands of irresponsible people, this seems to have transformed into the received wisdom that he forbade potatoes, or wanted to forbid them, or thought they ought to be forbidden, etc, none of which has the slightest tinge of truth, and it's perpetuated by lazy and dishonest people who repeat it as fact, complete with a fake citation which they have not bothered to verify. This, in turn, by exaggerating the extent of gezeras kitniyos, is used to make it seem ridiculous, onerous, impractical, and ripe for reform. On 03/04/17 16:43, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. and did so merely as a rumour. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 20:11:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:11:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder Message-ID: R' Ben Bradley wrote: > it seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for > everyone to pour for everyone else, which would avoid the > concern of the ArHaSh. > > 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? The ArtScroll Haggadah says (in the instructions for Kiddush), "The participants fill each others' cups", without mentioning any minhagim to the contrary. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat, in Halachos of Pesach, on pg 468, cites Haggada Kol Dodi (Rav Dovid Feinstein) 7:2, writing: > The Ramoh (473;1) specifies that the leader of the Seder > should not fill his own cup, but should allow others to pour > for him, as this displays cheirus (freedom). > > Although the wording of the Ramoh seems to imply that this > requirement only applies to the host and leader of the Seder, > the general custom is to do this for all the participants. > Most people therefore pour the wine for each other at each > juncture of the Four Cups. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 03:40:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 06:40:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> References: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170404104004.GA3715@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 05:30:34PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. : and did so merely as a rumour. What he repeated was a story about someone making an exception to their minhag. The explanation as to why the minhag was needed isn't given as part of the story. And if the CA puts the story into writing and uses in halachic argument, he obviously thought it was more than mere rumor. Still, not his own position, not even something he advised in theory, even before ein hatzibur yakhol laamod bah considerations. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 05:52:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 12:52:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman Message-ID: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> There is a shiur about this at http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 19:29:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 22:29:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Isn't there a problem that the second you let those who > are able to lein for themselves, you destroyed the minhag > of leveling the playing field with a baal qeri'ah? Yes, that's what MB 141:8 says. Actually, that MB goes a bit farther, and points out that "harbeh" such people *don't* know the laining so well, and the result is that the tzibur isn't yotzay. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 06:42:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:42:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato Message-ID: "This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade potatoes." This has nothing to do with potatoes but I was talking to the wife of a Moroccan this morning and she said that he told her (third-hand again) that many Moroccan towns had their own minhagim. For example, in one town they didn't use sugar because it was stored in bags near grain. So it's certainly possibly true about potatoes as well. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 06:23:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:23:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: from an OU bulletin My grandparents, may they rest in peace, would be startled to discover that I can purchase OUP kosher for Passover items such as breakfast cereals, pizza, bread sticks, rolls, blintzes, waffles, pierogis and farfel. OTOH the OU has many chumrot on what is kitniyot I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily be mixed up with chametz. It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 08:58:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:58:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> On 04/04/17 09:23, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer > makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as > kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. > > To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and > bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our predecessors made. Thus the machlokes acharonim about newly discovered legumes and pseudo-grains: was the original gezera only on certain species, or was it on the entire class? Most acharonim seem to say it was on the entire class, but then argue about how to define that class, and thus how to decide what it includes. But very few if any say zil basar ta`ma to include new things that definitely don't fall in the original definition of the banned class. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 09:45:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 19:45:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> References: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> Message-ID: <6bd3ddad-9fb6-b9ae-d7e5-edded0b2f267@starways.net> On 4/4/2017 6:58 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 04/04/17 09:23, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> >> It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer >> makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as >> kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. >> >> To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and >> bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. > > It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no > authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our > predecessors made. I was under the impression that gezeirot weren't something that could be instituted after the Sanhedrin. Even Rabbenu Gershom only instituted his rules as chramim, rather than gezeirot. And the minhag (not gezeira by any stretch of the imagination) was made by local rabbis for local conditions and local situations. Conditions and situations change. I realize that the reason we differentiate between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan law is because there's a meforash commandment of bal tosif. But we can learn out from that on some level that we shouldn't be jumbling up gezeirot and takkanot and cheramim and minhagim and siyagim and treating them like they're all the same. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:43:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 20:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58ee56f4-ffb7-2f3d-6cf8-93f18c2d7746@zahav.net.il> See my post a week ago in which I cited Rav Yoel Ben Nun and Rav Yosef Rimon as both taking the position that we need to ban flour substitutes and relax on kitniyot. Ben On 4/4/2017 3:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals > and bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:13:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:23:37PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer : makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as : kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. : : To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and : bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. In this era of packaged foods and heksheirim, the whole minhag makes no sense. People aren't deciding on their own whether quinoa is qitniyos. Or whether some sack contains pure peas with no wheat from the bottom of the silo. Or would eat a porridge based on a guess about whether it was pea or oatmeal. (The fact that I get my *unflavored* gourmet whole-leaf teas without a KLP symbol -- something little different than buying any [other] vegetable -- makes my wife nervous.) The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:58:06AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no : authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our : predecessors made... Well, they lacked that authority too. This is minhag, not gezeira. And the notion that we should be bery mimetic and work with what our ancestors actually did rather than what their rationale would imply in our context works even better with minhagim than with gezeiros. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:01:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman In-Reply-To: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> References: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170404180132.GB8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : There is a shiur about this at : http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz So, I am listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on YUTorah at this link. He opens by saying that the afiqoman (epikomion) must be before chatzos, and very likely the 4th cup too. So, kol hamarbeh means adding to the END of the seder, not having a longer Maggid that will push past chatzos. (Eg tzeis is 8:12pm in NY, as MyZmanim computes it -- 36 min as degrees, and chatzos is 12:56. So, we're talking Qadeish to the end of Hallel in 4 hr 44 min. Unhitting pause...) The Avnei Neizer (R Avrohom Bornsztain, the first Sochatchover Rebbe, descendant of both the Ramah and the Shach) argues that if you are finishing by chatzos to fulfil R Gamliel's shitah, then you could eat other foods after chatzos. And if you are not eating the rest of the night, that's because you're worried that if the mitzvah is indeed alkl night (unlike RG), ein maftirin achar hapesach would also be all night. So, the AN suggests that a moment before chatzos, eat a piece of matzah al tenai that if the halakhah is like Rabban Gamliel, it will be your afiqoman. Then, don't eat the minute or two until chatzos -- for R' Gamliel's en maftirin. Then, go back to eating (as long as you finish before alos), concluding with another afiqoman, also al tenai -- thus fulfilling the other ein maftirin. (BTW, note that the seder in the hagadah that went until zeman qeri'as Shema didn't include Rabban Gamliel.) R Meir Arik in Kol Torah uses this to answer a problematic Rashbam (Pesachim 121). The Rashbam says you're allowed to bring qorbanos todah or nedavah on erev Pesach. But you're not allowed to bring a qorban where you are mema'et the zeman akhilah, and the zeman akhilah for these qorbanos is until the morning. So how could you bring them on a day where ein maftirin achar hapesach will limit the time in which they could be eaten? But according to the Avnei Neizer, you can fulfill ein maftirin for both shitos and only limit eating for a moment before chatzos, by eating that 2nd afiqoman at the last possible time. However, there is a lot of opposition to the AN's chiddush. RALebowitz says there are 6 questions, but he's running out of time. 1- The Baal haMaor and the Ran's explanation for why ein maftirin would work with the AN. But the Ramban says the problem was that having so many people needing to eat their kezayis qorban pesach bein hachomos before chatzos, there was a worry that people would eat early, when still famished. (Which is assur derabbanan, gezeirah maybe they'll break bones. The question of why ein maftirin wouldn't then be a gezeira al hagezeira was not raised in the shiur.) Which means that even if the zeman for the qorban is until chatzos, if people could still plan a late dinner, they could rely on that and still eat their pesach while very hungry. 2- RMF (IM OC vol 5, pg 123) brings several objections. One basic one: even the AN says he never saw anyone do this before. RMF found it tamuha to rely on a sevara be'alma to change so many generations of mimeticism. (An argument that touches on some hot topics today.) 3- RMF adds that one needs to prove that the zman akhilah and the zeman ta'am are the same. Maybe the chiyuv of having the taste in your mouth happens to run longer? 4- The Chasam Sofer writes against doing a mitzvah mitoras safeiq. Similar to Rabbeinu Yonah's (on Berakhos) explanation for why an asham talui is more expensive than a chatas. Because we need to correct the "I probably didn't do anything wrong" attitude. If you never know when you're fulfilling the mitzvah, kavah will be lacking. RALebowitz then gives eidus from R Wolf that R Willig finishes his 4th kos right before chatzos. And timing then becomes a central theme during the seder. R' Avraham Pam said on many occations that we have to be aware of those who spent all that time making the seder. (Typically the wives and mothers.) Sometimes we spend so much time on Magid, that we then rush through the beautiful se'udah they made to get to the last kos on time. RAP thought that this bein adam lachaveiro issue is sufficient to justify relying on the Avnei Neizer. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 12:21:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 21:21:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <496ab467-1c33-a721-97d2-48512539e648@zahav.net.il> Rav Rimon's Hagaddah specifies that the minhag is to pour the wine/grape juice of the ba'al habayit alone. He also notes that there are those who don't follow the custom. In the footnotes, he cites that when people put water in their wine, it wasn't derech cheirut for the home owner to do it himself. Today, that isn't the case and it is common for everyone to pour his own wine/grape juice. He also cites the AHS' opposition. Ben On 4/4/2017 5:11 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? > > The ArtScroll Haggadah says (in the instructions for Kiddush), "The > participants fill each others' cups", without mentioning any minhagim > to the contrary. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:21:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:21:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Fungibility of Mitzvos Message-ID: <20170404182125.GD8762@aishdas.org> As y'all know, I'm obsessed with this topic. The notion of metaphysical causality that interferes with "you get what you deserve / need" bothers me. So I appreciated RNSlifkin finding these sources. http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2017/04/can-you-do-mitzvos-to-benefit-others.html Tir'u baTov! -Micha Can You Do Mitzvos To Benefit Others? April 03, 2017 Can you do mitzvos in such a way that the merit for them will benefit other people? Can you designate them to receive the reward for your mitzvah in their mitzvah bank account, such that they receive more Divine favor? A friend of mine recently forwarded to me a request on behalf of someone who is tragically unwell. The community was requested to pray for his recovery, which is certainly a time-honored Jewish response. But there was also a request to do mitzvos on his behalf, as a merit for God to heal him. My friend wanted to know if there was any classical Jewish basis for this. In my essay "What Can One Do For Someone Who Has Passed Away?" I noted that classically, one's mitzvos are only a credit to those people who had a formative influence on you. One's mitzvos cannot help the souls of other people. Rashba cites a responsum from Rav Sherira Gaon on this: "A person cannot merit someone else with reward; his elevation and greatness and pleasure from the radiance of the Divine Presence is only in accordance with his deeds." (Rashba, Responsa, Vol. 7 #539) Maharam Alashkar cites Rav Hai Gaon who firmly rejects the notion that one can transfer the reward of a mitzvah to another person and explains why this is impossible: "These concepts are nonsense and one should not rely upon them. How can one entertain the notion that the reward of good deeds performed by one person should go to another person? Surely the verse states, 'The righteousness of a righteous person is on him,' (Ezek. 18:20) and likewise it states, 'And the wickedness of a wicked person is upon him.' Just as nobody can be punished on account of somebody else's sin, so too nobody can merit the reward of someone else. How could one think that the reward for mitzvos is something that a person can carry around with him, such that he can transfer it to another person?" (Maharam Alashkar, Responsa #101) The same view is found explicitly and implicitly in other sources, as I noted in my essay. There is simply no mechanism to transfer the reward for one's own mitzvos to other people. It seems that only very recent mystical-based sources claim otherwise. Now, I don't see any reason why there should be any difference if the person that one is trying to help is deceased or alive. Nor do I know of any source in classical rabbinic literature that one can do a mitzvah as a merit to help someone that is sick. Prayer, yes. And Tehillim are also a form of prayer (though it may depend upon which Tehillim are being recited). But I know of no classical source that one can honor one's parents or learn Torah or send away a mother bird as a merit for somebody else. (The most common example of people attempting to do this may be the custom of women to separate challah on behalf of a sick person. Here too, though, it appears that the classical basis of this is not that the mitzvah of separating challah is crediting the sick person, but rather that the person separating the challah thereby has a special time of power/inspiration, which makes their prayer more powerful.) If I'm wrong in any of the above, I'll be glad to see sources showing otherwise. But so far, I have found that while people are shocked when one challenges the notion that you can learn Torah on behalf of someone who is sick, nobody has yet actually come up with any classical sources demonstrating otherwise. Furthermore, if this indeed was a part of classical Judaism, we would certainly expect it to have prominent mention in the writings of Chazal and the Rishonim. We appear to have another situation of something widespread that is believed to be an integral and classical part of Judaism, and yet is actually a modern innovation that has no basis in classical Judaism whatsoever. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:33:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:33:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> References: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we > start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system > will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. > > Mehila, but aren't you being rather Chicken Little (or is your tongue somewhere in the direction of your cheek?) We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other minhagim that people are so set against any change? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 12:22:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 19:22:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot Message-ID: > The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we > start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system will > collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and many modern oils RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and cottonseed oil and this is being expanded by many I don't see this as destroying a Mimetic tradition the reason to include canola oil is that it is similar to Kitniyot even though it or even corn oil did not exist at the time of the generation So the question is why extend the minhagim to canola oil when the problem of the confusion doesn't exist but we don't extend it to non chametz cereal or breadstick where the possibility of mistakes is greater As previously mentioned rsza was against these chametz look a like products as are several contemporary rabbis OTOH the outside is nachman in lecithin in candies where there are many reasons to be making and they are making in chametz looking and tasting products where many are machmir From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 13:15:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170404201511.GI8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:33:22PM +0300, Simon Montagu wrote: : We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha : hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other : minhagim that people are so set against any change? Sorry if this will sound like circular reasoning, but it isn't because of the time lag: Minhagim that are *currently* treated very seriously can't be broken *going forward* as readliy simply because of the psychological / experiential impact of bending or breaking something that is so vehemently held. Since my argument is about mimetics, halakhah-as-culture, you can't necessarily get a textual / theory-based answer. On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 07:22:32PM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote: : We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them : My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and : many modern oils RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and : cottonseed oil and this is being expanded by many .. Well, RMF didn't actively permit peanut oil as much as report that back in Litta, peanuts were commonly consumed on Pesach. According to R/Dr Bannet, within my lifetime peanut oil was THE go-to oil for Pesach. But that's Litta. Minhag Litta didn't expand qitniyos to legumes found in the New World, after the original minhag formed. (Although they did take on avoiding New World grain -- maize / corn.) Minhag Litta was also lenient on mei qitniyos, and a far broader range of the northern half of Eastern Europe (I don't know what Yekkes hold) were lenient on shemes qitniyos in particular. Yes, by my minhagim, there are two reasons not to need a special formula for KLP Coke. If we could get anyone to give a hekhsher to certify there is nothing "worse" than mei New World qitniyos in it. But other parts of Europe went by reasoning, and did have stringencies including liquids and oils. That's their minhag, and it always was their minhag. Which gets me to my point: It's not really that any rav is expanding minhagim. It's that the heksher industry is going to be cost efficient. Heksheirim that say something is okay for 2/3 of their audience don't survive. Causing a lest-common-denominator approach to the spread of minhagim. Like trying to find reliable non-glatt meat in the US; the larger hekhsheirim don't even try. And so, as more move into the area whose minhagim exclude using peanut oil on Pesach, it becomes harder to find KLP certified peanut oil, and all too quickly people forget what was once the norm. I think that framing it as pesaqim and machloqes is imprecise. It's more like watching the evolution of new minhagim as our new communities from mixtures of the old ones. Not necessarily in directions we would like, but at least that's the framework in question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:11:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:11:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/17 15:22, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them We have no more authority to limit them than to eliminate them altogether. > My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and > many modern oils What people do has no relation to what they have the right to do. > RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and cottonseed oil RMF (almost alone) holds that the original gezera was on particular species, and peanuts were never included. The machlokes about cottonseed oil is precisely about whether it is a kind of kitnis or not. > the reason to include canola oil is that it is similar to Kitniyot > even though it or even corn oil did not exist at the time of the > generation Whether the oil existed then is lechol hade'os irrelevant. If the species is included in the ban then all forms are included. RMF however would presumably say that since rapeseed was not an edible species at the time, it was not included. Most acharonim, who hold that the ban was on the whole category, would presumably include it. > So the question is why extend the minhagim to canola oil when the problem > of the confusion doesn't exist but we don't extend it to non chametz cereal > or breadstick where the possibility of mistakes is greater Once again, because no individual rav or group of rabbanim have the authority to permit what is already forbidden, or to forbid for the entire people what is currently permitted. > As previously mentioned rsza was against these chametz look a like products That he was against something doesn't make it assur. > as are several contemporary rabbis OTOH the outside is nachman in lecithin > in candies where there are many reasons to be making and they are making in > chametz looking and tasting products where many are machmir But what authority do they have for this? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:33:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 17:33:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman In-Reply-To: References: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <0A.54.10233.A4114E85@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:01 PM 4/4/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via >Avodah wrote: >: There is a shiur about this at >: http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz > >So, I am listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on YUTorah at this link. >R' Avraham Pam said on many occations that we have to be aware of >those who spent all that time making the seder. (Typically the wives >and mothers.) Sometimes we spend so much time on Magid, that we then >rush through the beautiful se'udah they made to get to the last kos on >time. RAP thought that this bein adam lachaveiro issue is sufficient to >justify relying on the Avnei Neizer. Rav Schwab in his shiur on the seder (to be found in Rav Schwab on Prayer) suggests eating very little during the Seder besides the required amounts of Matzah and Moror, so that one will have room and appetite for the Afikoman and not have to "force" oneself to eat it. I do not know what Rebbetzen Schwab prepared for the Seder meal, but I assume it was not an elaborate meal based on what she knew Rav Schwab would eat. I know that R. Miller would not allow his children or grandchildren to read from the sheets that they came home with from Yeshiva. He told them to save it for later, probably the next day. And since I mentioned all of the material that the kids come home with from school, let me say that IMO the schools "spoil" the seder. To me it is clear from the Gemara in Pesachim that the children are not supposed to be "primed" with all sorts of knowledge about the Seder. The things we do are supposed to be new to them so that they will ask questions. My children when they were young and my younger grandchildren now know enough to conduct the Seder themselves! There is nothing new for them. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:59:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:59:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah Message-ID: I understand that one cannot use Egg Matza for the mitzva of Achilas Matza, but I'm not sure exactly why. I'm aware of two different reasons, and they seem mutually exclusive. 1) The Torah requires that this mitzva be done with "lechem oni" - poor bread, plain and lacking the richness that it would have if it were made with eggs, juice, oil, or the like. 2) Matza must be something that could have become chometz, but was baked before chimutz could occur. According to those who hold that flour and pure mei peiros will not ever become chometz, "matza ashira" isn't really halachic matza at all. I suspect that I am conflating various shitos, and that according to any individual shita, one reason or the other will apply, but not both. Can someone help me out? Thanks! Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:27:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:27:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I understand it, the purpose of reading the brachos from a card is to make it clear that one is not reading them from the Torah. I believe that's the reason for turning one's head to the side, haven't seen that as the reason for using a card. And that's only according to the opinion that the oleh leaves the Sefer Torah open while making the brachos. The opinion that the Sefer Torah should be closed is for the same reason if memory serves, and then of course no card would be needed at all. So I presume the reason for the card is simply for people who need it. Given that the whole reason for having a designated baal koreh in the first place was to save the embarassment of those who can't read their own aliya, I'm bemused by the permission for someone to decide they'd like to read their own aliya. Unless you say that a well known talmid chacham, or a guest of honour, would not embarrass the other olim by reading his aliya since he's known as a scholar. It does seem that avoiding the chashash of embarrassment was more important to chazal than to many contemporary kehillos. Maybe it needs some chizuk. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 23:41:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 06:41:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot Message-ID: And so, as more move into the area whose minhagim exclude using peanut oil on Pesach, it becomes harder to find KLP certified peanut oil, and all too quickly people forget what was once the norm. Which is a difference between Israel and USA Israel with a large sefardi community has top level hasgacha on kiniyot products also many candies now list that they contain lecithin so that the consumer can decide rather than the hasgacha deciding -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 20:45:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 23:45:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/17 17:27, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > Given that the whole reason for having a designated baal koreh in the > first place was to save the embarassment of those who can't read their > own aliya, I'm bemused by the permission for someone to decide they'd > like to read their own aliya. Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone wants to do his own, why not? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 21:53:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:53:50 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Are Mitzvos Fungible Message-ID: Obviously, and in spite of all the stories of people selling their Olam Haba it is a nonsense - good and evil deeds cannot be redeemed or transferred by a financial transaction or any agreement HOWEVER if anyone is inspired to do a good [or evil] deed or desist doing an evil [or good] deed because of another persons influence clearly that influencing person is rewarded accordingly and so when we learn Torah or do any other other Mitzvah and we are inspired to do it because of an institution or a person be they in Olam HaEmes or in this world a Zechis accrues for that person Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 21:18:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:18:03 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru - We have no authority to decree new gezeros Message-ID: Although it has been said on these hallowed pages Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru - We have no authority to decree new gezeros yet many felt that the new stainless steel Shechitah knives were forbidden machicne Matza was forbidden Ben PeKuAh is forbidden they're even arguing that soft Matza is forbidden for Ashkenazim etc. But it is Kula Chada Gezeira Thus newly discovered foods are Kitniyos And whatever the truth is we are V lucky that potato was not included and not reversed remember when peanuts were KLP? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 03:01:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:01:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pate de Foie Gras Message-ID: <20170405100107.GA16249@aishdas.org> Daf Yomi learners just learned BB 73b. It looks to me like the gemara is condemning, although on an aggadic level, the preparation of pate de foi gras. Since I can't quote the gemara, here's R' Steinzaltz's commentary (from : And Rabba bar bar Hana said: Once we were traveling in the desert and we saw these geese whose wings were sloping because they were so fat, and streams of oil flowed beneath them. I said to them: Shall we have a portion of you in the World-to-Come? One raised a wing, and one raised a leg, [signaling an affirmative response]. When I came before Rabbi Elazar, he said to me: The Jewish people will [eventually] be held accountable for [the suffering] of [the geese. Since the Jews do not repent, the geese are forced to continue to grow fat as they wait to be given to the Jewish people as a reward.] Rashbam ("litein aleihem es hadin"): For in their sins, they delay mashiach. They, those geese, have tza'ar ba'alei chaim because of their fat. Apparently even the messianic se'udah is insufficient grounds to justify torturing geese for their fat. Also implied is that the sin of making the geese suffer in their obesity is not a sin so great at to itself holding up the mashiach's arrival. Otherwise, R' Elazar would be describing a vicious cycle. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 03:51:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:51:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on > kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU > gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be > prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily > be mixed up with chametz. > > It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if > no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the > same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. I am both surprised and confused, by this post and almost all the ones that followed. It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and gebroks. Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right? So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate gebroks. I am not surprised that amei haaretz like myself have trouble understanding the definitions of kitniyos. But one thing is for sure: That our rabanim ought to understand that kitniyos and gebroks are two different things. Some might respond that today's "farfel, bread sticks etc" are being made not of matza meal but of potato and tapioca. I don't see that as relevant. *ANY* definition of kitniyos has to be one that doesn't include matza meal. And if matza meal is excluded, then you can't include potatoes merely because they are so useful. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 05:20:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:20:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <50BEA150-B533-4159-AFEB-ADE8B18EB7E1@sibson.com> > Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone wants to do his own, why not? > > -- Synagogue practices in particular are a very sensitive area, at least according to rabbi Soloveutchik. THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 08:56:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:56:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170405155630.GA29273@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:45:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any : given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, : it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone : wants to do his own, why not? Since when does logic have to do with emotions? Your line of reasoning would work for robots, not people. If everyone else is leining their own aliyah that day, someone who can't may still be embarassed and decline taking an aliyah with the ba'al qeri'ah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 05:57:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 08:57:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Tefillin on Chol Moed Message-ID: R Samuel Svarc wrote on Areivim >This, as it turns out, is a minority view. Not all Ashkenazim hold >that way, nor do Sefardim, nor a nice junk of the Litvishe wing. From http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/tefillinONmoed.htm The Aruch Hashulchan notes that "recently" a practice among some Ashkenazic Jews has developed to refrain from wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. He is referring to the practice of Chassidim, which was also the practice at the famed Volozhiner Yeshiva (as recorded by the Rav, Shiurim L'zeicher Aba Mori Zal p.119) And from http://dinonline.org/2014/04/07/tefillin-on-chol-hamoed-pesach/ The Rema adds that the Ashkenaz custom is to wear Tefillin and recite a berachah, but because of the sensitivity of the topic the berachah should be recited quietly. Later authorities espouse the compromise noted by the Tur, meaning that Tefillin are worn but the berachah is not recited (see Taz 31:2; Mishnah Berurah 31:8). YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 09:29:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:29:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170405162920.GB19562@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 06:51:14AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and : gebroks. I think the conversation works better as is. Gebrochts is a minhag to avoid the possible manufacture of real chameitz from any flour that happened to stay dry when the matzah was made. Qitniyos is a minhag or multiple minhagim to avoid things that either: 1- are stored in the same silos as with chameitz, in which case it's much like gebrochts in function. Or 2- are used in a manner similar to chameitz, and people might eat chameitz thinking it's pea porridge or mustard seed or whatnot. And these could indeed be divergant minhagim, where different explanations became primary drivers in different areas, leading to difference in how practice evolved. But explanation #2 does open the door for the original question. Pretzels made from oatmeal make it possible for someone to accidentally eat real chameitz pretzels. And if your ancestral version of qitniyos includes growing it to include new items that make the same mistake possible, eg corn, then why not all these gebrochts or potato / potato starch products -- not because they're gebrochts (if they are), but because reason #2 applies. : So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever : arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they : were rejected by communities that ate gebroks. No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) This really is a recent development. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 07:48:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:48:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Fungibility of Mitzvos In-Reply-To: References: <002801d2ae0d$a752e040$f5f8a0c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: R? Micha Berger quoted R? Natan Slifkin: <<< I have found that while people are shocked when one challenges the notion that you can learn Torah on behalf of someone who is sick, nobody has yet actually come up with any classical sources demonstrating otherwise. >>> I?d like to suggest a very slight difference between two scenarios: Suppose I say, ?Hashem, I am going to learn some Torah now, and I?d like the s?char for this mitzvah to go to Ploni, instead of to me.? That seems to be the situation that RNS is talking about. But suppose I say, ?Hashem, I am going to learn some Torah now, and I?d like *MY* s?char for this mitzvah to be that You heal Ploni, who is currently ill?, or ?? that You elevate Ploni to a higher level in Gan Eden?, or something similar. My point is that if there is no mechanism to transfer s?char from one person to another, perhaps we can still request that the s?char should take a particular form, and it would result in the same effect. I?m pretty sure that there *are* sources for requesting that the s?char should take a certain form. More accurately, I recall cases where one requests that his *onesh* should take a particular form, such as if it has been decreed that one should lose a certain amount of money, it should occur in tiny amounts over a long time, or some other similar request. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 08:52:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:52:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos HaGadol Message-ID: It is not easy to explain the origin of the Hagadol which is applied to this coming Shabbos. In the Haftorah, the prophet Malachi speaks of a Yom Hashem Hagadol which according to various customs is to be read when the Sabbath before Pesach happens to be Erev Pesach. And yet the term Hagadol as applied to the Sabbath before Passover has been accepted by all whether or not it falls on Erev Pesach. The Midrash offers additional insight as to why this Shabbos is termed Hagadol and tells us something most of us have learned that on the Shabbos preceding the 14th of Nissan (when the Pascal lamb was to be brought as an offering), the Egyptian masters entered into the homes of the Jews and noticed that each family had a sheep tied to its bedposts. The Egyptians asked: ?What are you doing with our sheep?!? The Jews replied: ?We are going to slaughter it as an offering to our God.? The Egyptian masters gritted their teeth in exasperation and walked out. This is another basis for the Shabbos preceding Pesach to be called the ?Great Shabbos.? It is the Shabbos that the Jewish people experienced a miracle ? they were not killed by their masters because of their subordination to the Will of the Almighty and they were not deterred by concern for their personal safety. THAT was ?greatness? and they were, indeed, truly ?great.? It is also interesting that every Shabbos symbolizes complete freedom ? freedom from technology and the mundane. Pesach typifies freedom and redemption. The parallel to Shabbos is profound. May this Shabbos be the ?GREATEST!? "The price of greatness is responsibility.? Winston Churchill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 14:25:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:25:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a5b4365-260b-ab41-7882-0043d896073e@zahav.net.il> On 4/5/2017 12:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone > who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from > gebroks, right? Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can get today which is no different than cake flour? [Email #2. -micha] On 4/4/2017 8:33 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and > halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all > other minhagim that people are so set against any change? If this one is different it is because people have set out to take down this minhag. Whereas something like changing from an Ashkenazi white with black stripes tallit to a more Sefardi all white one wouldn't be such a big deal because no one is making an issue out of it. In my community there is a back lash against the kitni-chumrot so I see it changing, somewhat. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 01:32:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:32:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Food in the desert questions Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: "In the mishkan, a mincha offering was brought. other offerings too. Some : required flour and oil. Where did they come from? " I just saw a Tosafos in Menachos 45b that discusses the question of flour in the midbar. Tosafos quotes Rashi as saying that they did not make the shtei halechem in the midbar because all they had was man (so they had no flour). Tosafos disagrees and says that they bought flour from merchants (based on the Gemara Yoma 75b). I would assume that Tosafos would say the same thing about oil. The Rambam in the Peirush Hamishnayos (Menachos 4:4) agrees with Rashi that they had no flour in the midbar. So to answer your question according to Rashi and the Rambam they had no flour and therefore did not bring anything flour based. According to Tpsafos they bought flour from merchants in the midbar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 22:03:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Meisner via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 01:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > I understand that one cannot use Egg Matza for the mitzva of Achilas > Matza, but I'm not sure exactly why. I'm aware of two different reasons, > and they seem mutually exclusive. > > 1) The Torah requires that this mitzva be done with "lechem oni"... > 2) Matza must be something that could have become chometz, but was baked > before chimutz could occur. According to those who hold that flour and pure > mei peiros will not ever become chometz, "matza ashira" isn't really > halachic matza at all. If matzah is baked with mei peiros and a kol she-hu of water, it would not be lechem oni but would be halachically matzah. Josh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 04:16:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:16:49 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller asked: "It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and gebroks. Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right? So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate gebroks." There is no question that this is a new problem, even 50 years ago no one made things out of matzo meal or potato starch that looked almost exactly like the equivalent chometz item. There has been an explosion of "imitation" chometz products over the last 20 years that look and even taste like chometz. This is more a spirit of the law issue. One of the reasons given for not eating kitniyos is that since kitniyos look like and/or can make things that look like chometz we are afraid that people will confuse them with chometz and come to eat chometz. This concern certainly applies much more to these modern products. If I can get kosher l'pesach cereal that looks exactly like chometz cereal there is certainly a risk of confusion. No one is saying that these things are kitniyos, what they are saying that in the spirit of kitniyos these should be prohibited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 05:06:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those measures should be. I wrote: : So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? : Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 : years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate : gebroks. and R' Micha Berger responded: > No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks > that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) > This really is a recent development. Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my mother made at home? I'm sorry, but I can't buy that. It is true that today's factory kitchens allow an amazing variety of technologies and abilities, including products that are almost indistinguishable from regular bread. But I maintain that this does NOT translate to an increased chance that someone will mix flour and water in their home kitchen, precisely because the factory and home are so far apart - both geographically and sociologically. If someone is enticed by the quality of a store-bought breadstick or pizza slice, I cannot imagine that they would attempt to duplicate it at home nowadays without a recipe. Seeing a breaded chicken cutlet at one's neighbor's home *IS* something that you might duplicate in your own home, and there is great danger there. But I just don't see that happening with factory-made goods. Anyone who is awed by the quality will read the box to figure out how they managed such a feat, and they will immediately see the potato and tapioca listed. (But I am willing to listen to other arguments.) My suspicion is that the anti-potato sentiments may have originated in the non-gebroks sectors. Pesach pizza and pancakes are very new to them, and I suppose I can understand their concern. But among those who have been eating gebroks for generations, I just don't understand why these new products bother them. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 03:35:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:35:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah Message-ID: R' Joshua Meisner wrote: > If matzah is baked with mei peiros and a kol she-hu of water, > it would not be lechem oni but would be halachically matzah. That's true. Theoretically, if one would bake it fast enough, before it becomes chometz, it would be real matza. But because of the mei peiros, it isn't plain matza, but it is "rich" matza - matza ashira, and thus disqualified from Mitzvas Achilas Matza. But as far as I know, no one makes such matza, because (there is a fear that) the combination of both water and mei peiros will allow the dough to become chometz much faster than usual. That's not the case with the stuff on the shelves that's labeled "Egg Matza" or "Matza Ashira" - This has no water at all, and its dough can never become chometz. If so, then it seems to me that the term "Matza Ashira" is a misnomer. It isn't matza at all, because it was incapable of becoming chometz. A better term for it might be "Matza-style squares" (which is the term that the industry has chosen for the potato and tapioca stuff). I suspect that at some point in history, some educator felt that the logic of "the fruit juice makes it rich bread" was more easily accepted by the masses, and the logic of "it can't be chometz and therefore it isn't matza" was too difficult for them. And from that point onwards, it was the go-to explanation, despite the technical shortcomings. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 05:28:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat Message-ID: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I've been thinking (pun intended) about staam daat" . (I have in mind "whatever HKB"H wants me to have in mind without actually knowing what that is [e.g., to be yotzeih the chazan's bracha]). Firstly what is the source of the concept. Secondly, Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal says works, that's what I want to think/occur). [relatrd to daat makneh and koneh issues] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:07:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:07:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru Message-ID: We all assume we can't have new gezerot. Is this really true? At least according to some opinions bicycles and umbrellas are allowed on shabbat. According to RSZA electricity (without a heat or fire) is really allowed on shabbat and certainly yomtov. Years ago many held that electricity was allowed on yomtov. Today we have things like fitbit watches which many feel are allowed on shabbat. Yet in practice the poskim prohibit all these things. Other things are prohbited in davening because it is a slippery slope etc. In essence these are all new gezerot perhaps without the nomenclature -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:21:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:21:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:06:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos : understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect : people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is : acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those : measures should be. Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change a minhag. And if we were talking about gezeiros, then we'd need a Sanhedrin or universal consensus to create one. ("Universal consensus", eg RSZA on electricity.) But we would also need that level authority to modify or repeal one. So there too there is a high barrier to change. So in either case, while I could appreciate R' Aviner's reasoning, I don't know if I would be comfortable applying it lemaaseh. :> No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks :> that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) :> This really is a recent development. : Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in : the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my : mother made at home? While, really I'm suggesting that an environment where -- even a bagel or a loaf of bread -- could be a gebrochts or potato starch replacement poses bigger problems than we faced 50 years ago. Because a person can pick up anything and mistake it for a KLP alternative. Much like one of the reasons given for qitniyos. The same was not true when the only KLP pancakes were rare and homemade. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:41:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:41:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Working on Chol Moed Message-ID: <1491493270335.3143@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If I don't work on Chol Hamoed my paycheck will be much smaller. Is this a davar behaved (irreparable loss)? Am I permitted to go to work on Chol Hamoed? A. A loss of profit is generally not considered a davar ha'avud. As such one cannot automatically assume that it is permissible to work on Chol Hamoed. Nonetheless there are situations where davar ha'avud would apply. For example, if a person will use up vacation days by not working during Chol Hamoed, and there is a preference to take vacation at a more convenient time, this may be considered a davar ha'avud. (See Shmiras Shabbos Kihilchoso, vol. 2, chapter 67, footnote 47.) Furthermore, if a person is struggling financially, and not earning a salary on Chol Hamoed would be stressful, this may be treated as a davar ha'avud. Nonetheless these leniencies are not ideal, and Rav Belsky, zt"l stressed that it is preferable to not work on Chol Hamoed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 09:44:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:44:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat In-Reply-To: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <958e2160-18d0-985e-70d4-9c571dea3a3f@sero.name> On 06/04/17 08:28, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Secondly, Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., > I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal says > works, that?s what I want to think/occur). Isn't that *exactly* what we do when we write in a shtar that we stipulate to having made whichever kind of kinyan is most effective ("be'ofan hayoser mo`il")? We don't know which of the various kinyanim we should be doing so we stipulate that whichever one it is, we did it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 10:01:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 20:01:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/6/2017 6:07 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We all assume we can't have new gezerot. Is this really true? ... > In essence these are all new gezerot perhaps without the nomenclature The nomenclature is vital. As I said in my previous email, we don't blur the distinctions between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan, and we don't blur the distinctions between gezeirot, takkanot, chramim, siyagim, minhagim, etc. Yes, it's forbidden to eat chicken parmesan. And it's forbidden to eat a pork chop. There's no wiggle room. Both are forbidden. So to someone on the outside, those prohibitions might look like the same thing, "perhaps without the nomenclature". But the nomenclature matters, because there are different rules for the two. Just as there are different rules for the various "add-ons". Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:49:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:49:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7c4f2947-d6c6-62b2-40fd-a9b977d026f4@starways.net> > Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy > in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes > that my mother made at home? Matza meal pancakes, which I grew up with as well, are nothing at all like regular pancakes. The difference is clear and obvious. Ditto for cakes. We used to have sponge cake at Pesach. And we thought of it as a Pesach cake. It wasn't something we had all year. I don't have a problem with fake treyf. So I don't really have a huge problem with fake chametz. But to pretend that there's no difference between what we used to have in the 60s, 70s, etc, and today is just silly. The difference is enormous. And while I don't have a huge problem with fake chametz, I see another distinction between fake chametz and fake treyf. You can't ever eat bacon. So making fake bacon is reasonable. But fake chametz? Really? We can't make it a week without waffles and pizza and pretzels? [Email #2. -micha] On 4/6/2017 6:21 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be > mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very > overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change > a minhag. WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be determinative. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 10:54:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:54:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:03:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept : of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be : determinative. Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei For that matter, the topic here is qitniyos -- which is itself a minhag avos, not halakhah. It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the accepted ruling in practice. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 13:59:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:59:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> I am confused by the term mimetic. I understand it in the sense of tradition, We are discussing various situations that didn't exist years ago, My parents didnt use Canola oil because it was not available but they did use cottonseed oil. What is my mimetic custom for lechitin? When I grew up we had mainly macaroon cookies. Any cakes even with matza meal tasted and looked different than chametz items. No one I knew used CI shiurim. In EY on the radio I still hear about the necessity of using CI shiurim at least lechatchila. I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. I recently heard a shiur from R. Aviner attacking much of these chumrot and R. Lior also has many kulot and these are considered right wing DL rabbis. As I stated before one difference between EY and the US is the existence of a large charedi sefardi community, This gives rise to kitniyot products with top level hasgachot. The easy availability of soft matzaot etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 12:10:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:10:26 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder Message-ID: is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a korban pesach? i think we all agree that the matzot to make a korech were soft matzot [and presumably mashiach will rule that's the way we should all be making them ]. if the zaytim were like larger then , would the sandwich have been the size of a big mac? or half a pizza? kiddush would have started the meal . then some form of maggid [ 3 hrs long? would the korban be edible that many hours later?] . so people washed and then what? hamotzi on 3 matzos? but the mitzva matza was to eat the korech no? so the rest of the meal was not matza followed by marror, but rather that of korech. so then the chiyuv-matza was the afikoman matza? or people would have chazon ish'ed it up twice---at the matza they washed on and again on korech? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 07:46:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:46:29 +0000 (WET DST) Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Apr 6, 2017 11:03:15 am Message-ID: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> > > ... This is another basis for the Shabbos preceding Pesach to be > called the "Great Shabbos." > No, it is not. Haggadol is not an adjective modifying Shabbath, because Shabbath is feminine. No one who speaks Hebrew uses masculine adjectives to modify Shabbath, ever (pedantic footnote: except in the fixed expression "Shabbath shalom umvorakh", which is said by people who do speak Hebrew, but which for other reasons is clearly an idiomatic expression that does not follow the rules of grammar, unless you want to call it a mistake, which is also fine with me). It is the same reason why we know that Lshon Hara` and `Eyn Hara` are not nouns modified by adjectives, because lashon and `ayin are feminine nouns. No one who speaks Hebrew would ever use the masculine adjective ra` to modify the feminine nouns lashon or `ayin. They are nouns modified by other nouns, and so is Shabbath Haggadol. (Whether lshon hara` and `eyn hara` are the correct pronunciation turns on whether the smikhuth forms in Rabbinic Hebrew are the same as the smikhuth forms in Biblical and modern Hebrew, a question that is irrelevant to the current discussion. They are unquestionably smikhuth forms, however they should be pronounced.) This alone is not sufficient reason to reject your translation "The Great Shabbos", because languages do not have to be translated literally and word-for-word. I do not reject the translation "the holy tongue" for "lshon haqqodesh", even though "lshon haqqodesh" literally means "the tongue of holiness", because languages do not have to be translated literally. If you want to translate "lshon haqqodesh" as "the holy tongue", fine. But you cannot do that with "Shabbath Haggadol", because we do not say Shabbath Haggodel, or Shabbath Haggdula, we say "Shabbath Haggadol", and gadol is an adjective, albeit a masculine one. As for what it does mean, well, if you want to say that Hagadol is a kinuy for God ("the Great One"), I think that is far-fetched, but I won't post an article publicly saying that you are wrong. It is clear to me that we say Shabbath Hagadol for the same reason that we say Shabbath Xazon or Shabbath Naxamu or Shabbath Shuva. You may disagree. But what you cannot plausibly say is that it means "the great Shabbath". Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:24:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:24:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matzah Meat (was Kitnios In-Reply-To: <728a7944561447f0984b79952cedf5a5@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <728a7944561447f0984b79952cedf5a5@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <86.ED.07959.212B6E85@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:03 PM 4/6/2017, Ben Waxman wrote: >On 4/5/2017 12:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone > > who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from > > gebroks, right? > >Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for >matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can >get today which is no different than cake flour? I must admit that I have no idea what you are referring to when you write about "roughly ground matza meal." Is this what is called cake meal? If so, it is good for making many things. See for example http://tinyurl.com/n6yo95b Also, do a google search for cake meal recipes, and you will see how many recipes come up I use "regular" matza meal to make matzah balls and they come out fine. See http://tinyurl.com/kl5tljs for a recipe for matza balls that calls for matza meal. I have never seen shmura cake meal. Has anyone? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 13:30:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:30:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 4/6/2017 8:54 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:03:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: >: WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept >: of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be >: determinative. > Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel > Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei > > It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering > cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the > accepted ruling in practice. I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:48:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:48:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170406214806.GH26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:30:40PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : >It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering : >cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the : >accepted ruling in practice. : : I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi : is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that : we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea : that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible. You are only discussing the absolutes, the case where the halakhah isn't known, and that where it is, but common practice differs. But in the part I left above, I described the gray area. There are cases where the logic for one position is more compelling than the other, but not muchrach. In fact, this is more common than a case where two rishonim or noted acharonim disagree and one opinion is found to be outright wrong. Between the brilliance of the people involved and the "peer review" as to which ideas reach us, it is very rare for us to find a true incontrovertable mistake, and even harder to know if we really did, or if it is our own assessment that's in error. In that situation, where we have to choose between multiple viable shitos, there are a number of things a poseiq would weigh. Different schools of pesaq may give each different weights. This kind of comparison of apples and oranges requires real shiqul hadaas, and is why pesaq is an art, not an algorithm. This is my usual list of categories of factors that go into pesaq. 1- Textualiam 1a- Logicalness of the rationale 1b- Authority of those who back each postion: majority, expertise (eg the Rambam and Rosh carry more weight than some other rishonim) 2- Mimeticism 3- Aggadic concerns -- whether it's chassidim not wearing tefillin on ch"m or some of RSRH's innovations. My point in #2 is that there are many times that we continue following what we do because it has a sound textual basis -- even though some other shitah may have a stronger such basis. And again, this is minhag, not halakhah. The whole topic of qitniyos rests on mimeticism, not formal halachic reasoning. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] P.O.P. Paradox Of Pesach Message-ID: <5204F12E-00B5-47B0-92DD-2D93AB3E7C87@cox.net> A great ambivalence is to be found in the symbolism of the Seder. On one hand, the white kitel is a manifestation of joy and purity, and on the other hand, it is also the shroud of death. An egg is a token of mourning, but at the Seder it recalls the korban chagigah, the additional sacrifice brought to assure joy on Pesach. The matzah is the bread of affliction as well as the food of freedom baked in haste as our forefathers rushed out of Egypt. The very word individual which refers to a single person ends with DUAL. Pesach brings out the duality of man but through the unity of the family, we are able to live with cognitive dissonance, paradox and conflict. ?We may have different points of arguments from perspectives of belief, faith and religion. But we must not hate each other. We are one human family.? ? Lailah Gifty Akita, (Think Great: Be Great!) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:04:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:04:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406220429.GK26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:59:51PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be :> mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very :> overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change :> a minhag. : I am confused by the term mimetic. I understand it in the sense of : tradition, Mimetic is from the shoresh mime, to copy. (Like a mimeograph.) Mimeticism is Judaism as culture. Things like absorbing that "Shabbos is coming" feeling of the erev Shabbos Jew. The pious Jew of today may be able to work himself up emotionally on Yom Kippur, the mimetic Jew of 100 years ago was simply terrified, without such work. (Both kinds of religiosity have their pros and cons.) Mimeticism evolves because culture evolves. Textualism is also tradition. But it's the formal tradition passed off from rebbe to talmid. RYBS's dialog down the ages that he watched gather around his father's table, or later, in his own shiur room. So the mimetic-textualist axis is not quite the same as the tradition-ideology one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:07:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:07:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> References: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> Message-ID: <20170406220711.GL26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 02:46:29PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote: : Haggadol is not an adjective modifying Shabbath, because Shabbath is : feminine. No one who speaks Hebrew uses masculine adjectives to : modify Shabbath, ever (pedantic footnote: except in the fixed : expression "Shabbath shalom umvorakh", which is said by people who : do speak Hebrew, but which for other reasons is clearly an idiomatic : expression that does not follow the rules of grammar, unless you want : to call it a mistake, which is also fine with me). What about Shabbos morning, and "veyanuchu vo"? The previous night it was "vahh". I agree with your thesis, I am more trying to get from you what the masculine noun "vo" refers to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:27:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav Message-ID: Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik heh under my understanding and also be milera. Is my understanding of the word incorrect? Kol tuv and Chag Kasher v'Sameach to all, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 00:29:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:29:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot Message-ID: from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) BTW the sefer contains 3 sections ; main, dvar halacha and orchot halacha. I am assuming that all 3 are from RSZA or notes of students. I will do my best in the translation but have added some of the notes in Hebrew RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who determines this minhag?) He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat. He adda that PERHAPS there is a reason to prohibit potato flour (serach kitniyot - based on chiddishin of RSZA to Pesachim). Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be prohibited (ie even according to those that eat gebrochs) (yesh ladun behem - Pesachim 40b - Rashi that when people are "mezalzel one should be machmir) In the notes that this was what RSZA said in shiurim and when asked a question responded that one should follow the family minhag. Nevetheless he remarked several times that cakes with matzah flour that look like chametz cakes that he didn't understand the heter when we go to lengths to avoid things that might be confused with chametz -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 23:27:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 06:27:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Afikoman_-_=93Stealing=93_and_Other_Rel?= =?windows-1252?q?ated_Minhagim?= Message-ID: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> Please the article at http://seforim.blogspot.com/2017/04/afikoman-stealing-and-other-related.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 20:28:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:28:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: > ... Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., > I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal > says works, that?s what I want to think/occur). [related to daat > makneh and koneh issues] I think Mishne Berura 649:15 might be exactly what you're looking for. I am paraphrasing him, and he was paraphrasing the Magen Avraham and Pri Megadim. But basically, the point is: >>> Suppose it is the first day of Sukkos, and you want to use someone else's lulav, but you can't, because on the first day you need to own it yourself. So l'chatchila, the best option is make it explicit that you want to acquire his lulav in a "matana al m'nas l'hachzir" (gift on condition of returning) manner. >>> But b'dieved, if you borrowed it in a "stam" manner so that you could be yotzay with it, then we presume that he gave it to you intending to do it in whatever manner would allow you to be yotzay, namely, "matana al m'nas l'hachzir". >>> However, if you explicitly used the word "borrow" rather than "gift", then you would not be yotzay. Also, if the lulav's owner is unaware that a borrowed lulav is pasul, it would not work then either. (End of Mishne Brura.) Here's my commentary: There are two requirements for "stam daas" to help us here. The first is that the conversation must be vague, because if it were explicit we would not be able to assign a meaning to the words. But the second requirement is very relevant to RJR's question: The lulav's owner has to be aware that a borrowed lulav is pasul. If the owner does have that awareness, then we say that his stam daas was to grant ownership to you. But if the lulav's owner is not aware of this halacha, then his stam daas is to *lend* the lulav, which would not be valid. We see from this that "stam daas" is not a magic wand that can be applied conveniently to any vague comment. Rather, it is applied with a lot of care and understand of what the person's likely intention really was. Please read the MB yourself and see what he means. Even better, check out the MA and PM that the MB was summarizing (because I did not go into that much depth. Maybe over Shabbos.) [Press Pause button... Okay, continue...] I have now reread RJR's post, and I noticed that while the MB ruled how the halacha views these two people and the lulav, RJR's post is much more "me"-oriented. He asks about the case where > I have in mind ?whatever HKB?H wants me to have in mind > without actually knowing what that is ..." It seems to me that this is an explicit vagueness. If "stam daas" works where outsiders are trying to figure out what Ploni probably meant, it should certainly work where Ploni himself is being deliberately vague. I never studied Logic to the depth that R' Micha and other have, but even I can see a serious flaw in the above paragraph. In the MB's case of the lulav, the owner had *something* in mind, and we are presuming to know what it was. But in RJR's case, the individual made an effort have nothing in mind at all, and I can easily understand someone who says that this simply won't work. I would suggest this as a practical solution: One should never say simply, "I have in mind whatever Hashem wants me to have in mind," because that is essentially admitting that he really has nothing in mind. Rather, one should use an explicit tenai: "If Hashem wants me to have A in mind, then I do have A in mind; but if He wants me to have B in mind, then I do have B in mind." Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#m_3151624698786785420_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:24:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav Message-ID: > Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH > translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". > Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik > heh under my understanding and also be milera. Upon reviewing the pshat in the word "bushala", it is possible that my understanding was incorrect and the structure would be similar to "yochLUha" where the translation of the suffix in both cases is "it" as opposed to "its" and thus not requiring a mapik heh. Shabbat Shalom, HT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:25:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:25:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67447a90-4764-0dce-4f82-b0f11d5c55af@sero.name> On 06/04/17 18:27, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: > Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH > translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". > > Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik > heh under my understanding and also be milera. It's a verb, not a noun. If it were written as you would have it it would be a noun, presumably meaning "its cooking", but then it would be "bishulah". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 08:46:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:46:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170407154652.GD32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:27:30PM -0400, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: : Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH : translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". : : Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik : heh under my understanding and also be milera. That would make it a posessed noun, "if its cooking was in a copper vessel". RSRH is treating is as a verb. In more contemporary American English, "if it had been cooked in a copper vessel". :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:47:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Afikoman_-_=E2=80=9CStealing=E2=80=9C_and_Othe?= =?utf-8?q?r_Related_Minhagim?= In-Reply-To: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> References: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <0a933758-f6de-9e33-4fd0-33f89b9dc517@sero.name> > http://seforim.blogspot.com/2017/04/afikoman-stealing-and-other-related.html My father gives presents to all those children who *don't* steal. He also explains that if the hidden matzah is stolen he will not pay any ransom for it but will simply use a different matzah. Thus the purpose of the minhag is preserved but the bad chinuch is avoided. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 08:44:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:44:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:10:26PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a korban : pesach? I assume koreikh was the norm. Not that Hillel argued they were necessary and no one else made wraps, but that everyone made a wrap, which is why a machloqes could arise as to whether one is yotzei if not. : i think we all agree that the matzot to make a korech were soft matzot [and : presumably mashiach will rule that's the way we should all be making them ]. One could be yotzei koreikh just putting a tiny lump of meat on a cracker. Not difficult. OTOH, we seem to have proven in numerous years that until the acharonic period, softa matzos were the norm in every community. (Ashkenazim too; see the Rama.) : if the zaytim were like larger then, would the sandwich have been the size : of a big mac? or half a pizza? But they were smaller, so no problem. Another perrennial is whether the growth of the kezayis is halachically binding even after archeology proved the historical assumptions wrong. : kiddush would have started the meal... And Ha Lachma Anya would have been 4 days before, as you can only invite people to join the chaburah BEFORE the sheep is set aside. For that matter, I'm convinced Ha Lachma Anya is not part of Maggid. Maggid ought to begin with questions, so let's assume it does. HLA is an explanation of Yachatz. And then, once we fact out qwhat it's like to have to ration our lachma anya, we express empathy for the dirtzrikh and dichpin. So perhaps Yachatz too would be before picking the sheep. . then some form of maggid [ 3 hrs : long? would the korban be edible that many hours later?]. Sure! How quickly does meat go bad where you live? It looks like there is a fundamental machloqes about the seider. Notice that Rabban Gamliel wasn't present at R' Aqiva's seider in Benei Beraq. OTOH, in the Tosefta at the end of Pesachim Rabban Gamliel hosts big seider in Lod, where they spent the whole night "osqin behilkhos haPesach". (This Tosefta goes with "ein maftirin achar haPesach afiqoman". A whole answer-to-the-chakham vibe here.) Notice that at R' Aqiva's seider "vehayu mesaperim beytzi'as mitzrayim". R' Aqiva held that a seider is all about the story. R' Gamliel -- the mitzvos. Most of Maggid we do R' Aqiva style: 1- We follow R' Yehudah, and tell the story of physical redemption. Avadim Hayinu. 2- Then (after an intermission in which we explain why we're doing multiple versions -- 4 banim, etc...) we follow Rav, and tell the story of spiritual redemption. Betechilah ovedei AZ. 3- And we tell the story using Vidui Biqurim and other texts. 4- Then, at the very end, we make sure to do the least necessary to be yotzei according to Rabban Gamliel. So it would seem we basically hold like R' Aqiva, that the main role of the foods is as aids to the story-telling. But Rabban Gamliel would have Maggid as /during/ the other mitzvos of the seider. We discuss the foods. : washed and then what? hamotzi on 3 matzos? but the mitzva matza was to : eat the korech no? so the rest of the meal was not matza followed by : marror, but rather that of korech. so then the chiyuv-matza was the : afikoman matza? or people would have chazon ish'ed it up twice---at the : matza they washed on and again on korech? The afiqoman was the sheep, all matzos umorerim. Before that was the chagiga, re'iyah and shulchan oreikh. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:48:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Meisner via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:48:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:10 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a > korban pesach? The Rambam in Ch. 8 of Hil. Chametz uMatzah provides a step-by-step description of the seder that includes the eating of the Korban Pesach, which is probably a good start. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 09:32:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:32:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4167b94e-52b7-16a4-0069-0697990750d6@sero.name> On 07/04/17 11:44, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And Ha Lachma Anya would have been 4 days before, as you can only invite > people to join the chaburah BEFORE the sheep is set aside. Not true. One can join or leave a chavurah right up to the moment of shechitah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 09:58:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 17:58:36 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Surely either we'd pasken like Hillel, and eat the full portion of Pesach, Matza and Maror in one sandwich, or else we wouldn't, and there'd be no Korech at all? On 7 April 2017 at 16:44, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > One could be yotzei koreikh just putting a tiny lump of meat on a > cracker. Not difficult. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 10:15:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:15:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170407171523.GI32239@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 05:58:36PM +0100, Allan Engel wrote: : Surely either we'd pasken like Hillel, and eat the full portion of Pesach, : Matza and Maror in one sandwich, or else we wouldn't, and there'd be no : Korech at all? I assume everyone ate koreikh. It's most reasonable to assume that a machloqes over an annual practice kept by everyone is theoretical, not pragmatic. Not that one person is saying what a significant number of people are doing is pasul / assur. For similar reasons, I assume that until the rishonim, people considered both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam tefillin to be kosher. Otherwise, how were both styles in existence and common use since the days of the Chashmonaim until some 1,300 years later when rishonim started voicing preferences? Note my use of the phrase, "I assume". Li mistaber, I have no strong arguments for it. Back to our topic... I figure everyone ate the matzah, marror and lamb in a wrap. Otherwise, how did Hillel come around and argue that what everyone was doing was pasul? And why would it stay with Hillel, wouldn't he have the Sanhedrin vote on it? Rather, the machloqes was whether one was yotzei if they did the weird thing and eat them separately. If this was a rare event, multiple opinions could persist without resolutions. Now when it came time to commemorate, rather than fulfill the mitzvah.... Matzah we have to eat separately from maror, because without the pesach, there may be a problem with our fulfilling the mitzvah of eating matzah without it being the only tast in the mouth. And then there's the question of what are we commemorating -- eating all three in one meal, and the wrap aspect was not a critical facet that needs commemoration, or are we commemorating a wrap? So, we do both. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 10:28:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel In-Reply-To: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> References: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:05:30PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : My son who lives in EY told me that Ashkenazim have to very careful : about the products that they purchase for Pesach, since many products : that are certified for Pesach contain kitnios. The item below reinforces : this. ... : Eretz Yisrael: Strauss Cottage Cheese Contains Kitnios : : April 3, 2017- from the Arutz 7 : : : "Badatz Mehadrin, the hashgacha of Rabbi Avraham Rubin Shlita, alerts... I was wondering about this. Qitniyos is batel berov. Ah, you may say: but they're intentionally mixing in the qitniyos, there is no bitul! So here's my question: If a Sepharadi makes cottage cheese containing qitniyos, he isn't really having Ashkenazim in particular in mind. And for him the qitniyos are mutar. By parallel, a non-Jew mixing 1:61 basar bechalav for his own use or for a primarily non-Jewish customer base isn't bitul lkhat-chilah, as a permitted person's intent doesn't qualify as lekhat-chilah. So, does this Sepharadi man mixing qitniyos in run afowl of the problem of bitul lekhat-chilah? Why can't one argue that as long as the qitniyos is a mi'ut of the cottage cheese, and as long as it's not against the mixer's own minhag or that of the main bulk of people for whom he is mixing, the food is permissible for Ashkenazim too? And does it have to be both the mixer's own minhag AND that of most of the people the cottage cheese if for? After all, this is minhag, not pesaq. It's not like an Ashkenazi holds a Saphradi ought to be holding like us too. What if an Ashkenazi was doing the mixing on a product where most of the target customer base is Sepharadi? (Now, add to that mei qitniyos, and whether corn should have been added to the minhag, the observation that it is primarily NOT made for Ashkenazi Jews, and ask the same thing about Coca Cola.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 15:48:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: <<< I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. >>> Is this only in the DL community? If so, can anyone suggest why this would be so? I can this of two very different possibilities: One is negative, that there is some sort of jealousy to the sefardim, or taavah for the many products that are available. The other is positive, that this is simply a natural development of how minhagim change over the centuries when communities mix. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 13:42:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 22:42:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel In-Reply-To: <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> References: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <43acd44d-c45c-b481-7dfb-2671547565a7@zahav.net.il> This is part of the backlash. People want the labels to read "contains kitniyot", not "for ochlei kitniyot only". Ben On 4/7/2017 7:28 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Qitniyos is batel berov. > > Ah, you may say: but they're intentionally mixing in the qitniyos, there > is no bitul! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 10:44:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:44:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58E92189.9030803@zahav.net.il> [Part 2, a mid-post detour. -mb] And as long as I am writing, a comment on the next posting in the Digest 48. Matza meal is the coarse version and is used for making latkes and kneidlach. Cake meal is the fine ground version for making cakes. Both were on the market and used by my mother in the US some 70- 80 years ago. And R' Micha mentioned a week or so ago that R/Dr Bannet pointed out that in my youth, peanut oil had the most machmir heksher of all Pesach oils. Three comments: It is true that chasidim used only peanut oil made by a Shomer mitzvot Jew. I am neither a R nor a Dr, and my family name ends with two t's. PKvS. David Bannett From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 10:44:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:44:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58E92189.9030803@zahav.net.il> [RCD tried to sneak multiple topics into the same email. For the sake of threading, I split it and fixed the subject lines. -micha] Without commenting on the meaning of Shabbat Hagadol, I'd like to comment on the "fact" that Shabbat is feminine and one would have to say Shabbat Hag'dola. The Rambam in Hilkhot Shabbat 30:2 says Shhabat Hagadol. I then looked in the Bar Ilan Shu"t and found that there are a dozen other sources for a male Shabbat. [End of part 1. Now, part 3. -mb] And then R' Micha on the vayanuchu va, vo and vam in the tefila: There were three nuschaot. One said Shabbat and va, Another said yom haShabbat and vo and the third said Shabbatot and vam. PKvS. David Bannett From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 20:22:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2017 05:22:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If the issue was jealousy of sefardim, people would want to drop the minhag entirely. There is that, but only on the fringe. These chumrot seem like a false imposition, something someone invented. You can only hear "when I was a kid, we ate X, Y, Z" or "I went to a shiur and the rav said X, Y, Z are muttar" so many times before asking yourself "so why don't we eat X, Y, Z"? And yes, intermarriage is a huge factor. On 4/8/2017 12:48 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I can this of two very different possibilities: One is negative, that > there is some sort of jealousy to the sefardim, or taavah for the many > products that are available. The other is positive, that this is > simply a natural development of how minhagim change over the centuries > when communities mix. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:00:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:00:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) > ... > He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak > was never accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat. > He adds that PERHAPS there is a reason to prohibit potato flour > (serach kitniyot - based on chiddishin of RSZA to Pesachim). > Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be > prohibited (ie even according to those that eat gebrochs) ... To me, it seems contradictory to allow gebroks yet forbid matza meal cake. Yet it certainly seems that this is how RSZA held. I think I'm going to have to retract most of my recent posts. Or add least append a big "tzorech iyun" to them. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:22:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimetics [was:kitnoyot] Message-ID: > Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be > mimetically defined, by definition, .... [--RMB] WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be determinative. Lisa >>>>> "Shema beni mussar avicha, VE'AL TITOSH TORAS IMECHA." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:19:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <23551cea-98c2-5446-2323-d0fb7e82cc09@starways.net> On 4/8/2017 1:48 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Eli Turkel wrote: > > <<< I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been > a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. >>> > > Is this only in the DL community? If so, can anyone suggest why this > would be so? I think it's because the DL community is the community that is (a) committed to the Torah and (b) not stuck in fear mode. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 01:16:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 11:16:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller asked why in the dati leumi community there is a backlash against kitniyos? I think there are a number of reasons for this: 1. Theological - The Dati Leumi community views the establishment of the State of Israel as a significant theological event, the beginning of the Geula. They view the state as having significance. Therefore, they view the Jewish people as much more of an organic whole and want to eliminate things that separate the Jewish people into groups. Kitniyos very much does that. There is no question that whan Moshiach comes the division between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no machlokes. The Charedi world on the other hand believes that we are still fully in Galus and nothing has changed. 2. The Dati Leumi community isw much less segragated between sefardim and Ashkenazim. There are no ashkenazi or sefardi yeshivas and there is quite a bit of "intermarriage". If your daughter marries a Sefardi do you suddently not go to her for Pesach because she eats kitniyos? 3. People realize the hypocrisy of not eating kitniyos while eating kosgher l'pesach pretzels. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:31:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:31:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Why can't one argue that as long as the qitniyos is a mi'ut of > the cottage cheese, and as long as it's not against the mixer's > own minhag or that of the main bulk of people for whom he is > mixing, the food is permissible for Ashkenazim too? > > ... What if an Ashkenazi was doing the mixing on a product where > most of the target customer base is Sepharadi? I would like to focus on the words "target customer base". We have to distinguish the manufacturer's customer base from the hashgacha's customer base. The two might be identical for a small brand that markets only to frum neighborhoods, but not for an industry giant like Strauss. We can presume that the manufacturer and their target customer base is mostly not makpid about kitniyos. Therefore, the manufacturer is doing nothing wrong by putting kitniyos into the product, and once they have done so, it is acceptable even for Ashkenazim, exactly as RMB suggests. But the hashgacha cannot put their certification on it. The target customer base of this hashgacha seems to be people who *are* makpid on kitniyos. (If they're not the majority of the hashgacha's clientele, they are at least a very significant minority.) And as such, the hashgacha has accepted the responsibility to act in place of their clientele at the factory. This turns it into a "bittul lechatchila" situation, and the hashgacha cannot grant an official okay to such products without an accompanying warning, which is exactly what they seem to have done. > (Now, add to that mei qitniyos, and whether corn should have > been added to the minhag, the observation that it is primarily > NOT made for Ashkenazi Jews, and ask the same thing about Coca > Cola.) Not just Coca Cola. Weren't we discussing chocolate bars a few weeks ago? Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 23:42:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 02:42:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman Message-ID: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> I tend to agree with the negative aspect of stealing the Afikoman. Very similarly, I feel the minhag to get so drunk on Purim so that you can?t distinguish between blessed be Mordecai and cursed be Haman is a very bad minhag and more offensive than stealing the afikoman. You are encouraging people to get drunk and that also has caused many problems in recent times. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:02:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:02:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman In-Reply-To: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> References: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 02:42:40AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : I tend to agree with the negative aspect of stealing the Afikoman. : Very similarly, I feel the minhag to get so drunk on Purim so that : you can?t distinguish between blessed be Mordecai and cursed be Haman : is a very bad minhag and more offensive than stealing the afikoman. Yeah, I don't see how teaching kids to steal the afiqoman is going to weaken their knowledge that it's wrong to steal. Should kids playing baseball not steal home? Just because the rule of the game is called "stealing"? But there is backlash against the drunk-on-Purim minhag too. The OU and RCA each put out something like annually. Hatzola puts out warnings. There are black-n-white wearing yeshivos that clamped down on their kids getting drunk when doing their Purim fundraising. And there has been backlash to the backlash, by people who value minhag. Really, the treatment of the two has been pretty parallel. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:19:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman In-Reply-To: <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> References: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <621677e8-92b7-ca89-7197-201a3af3f7e6@sero.name> On 09/04/17 09:02, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Yeah, I don't see how teaching kids to steal the afiqoman is going > to weaken their knowledge that it's wrong to steal. Should kids > playing baseball not steal home? Just because the rule of the game > is called "stealing"? That's a different sense of the word: "4. to move or convey stealthily". As in "with cat-like tread upon our prey we steal". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:48:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:48:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > There is no question that when Moshiach comes the division > between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The > Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no > machlokes. This is news to me. There is no machlokes here to be paskened. Everyone agrees that the halacha allows even rice to Ashkenazim. It is all minhag. Even if the Sanhendrin would want to, I don't know where they'd get the authority to do away with minhagim. On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim! > The Dati Leumi community is much less segregated between > sefardim and Ashkenazim. There are no ashkenazi or sefardi > yeshivas and there is quite a bit of "intermarriage". If your > daughter marries a Sefardi do you suddently not go to her for > Pesach because she eats kitniyos? That depends on your posek. By my memory, many poskim, including among the DL, hold that one can eat from the keilim, but to avoid actual kitniyos. And many other shitos in both directions. > People realize the hypocrisy of not eating kitniyos while > eating kosher l'pesach pretzels. I was arguing strenuously against this until a few hours ago, when I was reminded that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach held this way too. Perhaps I have overdosed on inoculations of matza meal cake and matza meal pancakes, and I cannot see myself ever sharing this view. But having seen RSZA's words, I cannot claim that it is only the little people who say this - it's the big guns too. And I would be indebted to any listmembers who would quote other gedolim on this topic. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 15:47:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 08:47:40 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyos - Why do today's Poskim argue with the Mishneh Berurah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can anyone show some Halachic source that argues with the Mishneh Berurah who Paskens that Foods containing LESS THAN 50% Kitniyos that is at the same time not visually discernible Although its taste is certainly discernible, is Muttar during Pesach? Is a Rov permitted to refuse to identify a Kosher product as Kosher (or worse, declare a product not Kosher) because of other considerations? See this article http://www.kosherveyosher.com/chocolate-pesach-lecithin-1001.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 01:45:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:45:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] order of the seder Message-ID: < See "leil haPesach be-taludum shel chachamim" (Hebrew) by David Henshkr who has a detailed discussion -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 01:47:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:47:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Matzah meal Message-ID: <> In Israel it is readily available in many supermarkets -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 02:04:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:04:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism Message-ID: <> Doesn't answer my question of how mimeticism deals with new situations. Sticking to kitniyot by patents used cottenseed oil but knew nothing about Canola oil or Lecitisthin <> Let me use this to sound off. I have a major problem with textualiism. In some circles it means studying a sugya and coming to a conclusion without any regard to the outside world. In regard to shiurim the Noda Yehuda has a question. One doesn't suddenly change minhagim because of a question. In recent years this doubling of shiurim has become popular because of CI. First there is evidence that CI himself did not use his own shiur. It is well known that some descendants of the CC don't use his kiddush cup because it is not shiur CI. However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. Even a slightly smaller shiur would hit various walls making it impossible to walk around while various testimonies make it smaller. There is now a new exhibition of a virtual 3D reality of walking around the bet hamikdash. It is based on aerial photographs of the current Temple mount and supplemented by details in the Mishna and archaeology using the topography of the land. Theis construction places the holy har habayit on the currently raised portion of the Temple mount. This yields an amah of about 38cm (CI=57, CN=44-48) Other proofs included the length of the Siloam tunnel which is documents in amot and can be measured. One of the strongest proofs is based on the meitzah of the cohen gadol which could not possibly hold the shiur of CI (note that if his hands were bigger this would redefine the amah). As to changes over the generations olive pits from the Bar Chocba era are the same size as today. In spite of a preponderous evidence that the shiur of CI is way too large almost all seforim in Israel give the amount of matzah to eat and wine to drink based on CI (at least lechatchila). This is textualism at the extreme in contrast to common sense -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 03:15:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "I have an opportunity to kill the terrorist..." Message-ID: <20170410101557.GA14700@aishdas.org> Anyone want to try this one, with meqoros? RSE raises two issues: killing a neutralized terrorist, and (I guess) dina demalkhusa on the topic. Chag Kasher veSameaich (belashon "lo zu af zu"), -micha The Jewish Press Tzfat Chief Rabbi Was Asked in Real Time whether to Kill Ramming Terrorist By David Israel -- 11 Nisan 5777 -- April 7, 2017 http://www.jewishpress.com/news/jewish-news/tzfat-chief-rabbi-was-asked-in-real-time-whether-to-kill-ramming-terrorist/2017/04/07/ Chief Rabbi of Tzfat Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, who is not known for particularly leftwing sympathies (he encourages his flock to refuse Arab renters, for instance), on Thursday night told a class he was teaching that one of his students had phoned him from the scene of the ramming attack that killed an IDF soldier. The student posed a halachic inquiry: "He told me, I see my buddy here lying down dead," Rabbi Eliyahu recalled, adding that his student had asked, "I have an opportunity to kill the terrorist - should I kill him or not?" Advertisement Around 10 AM, Thursday, an Arab terrorist rammed his vehicle into two IDF soldiers waiting at a hitchhiking post on Rt. 60, outside Ofra in Judea and Samaria. Sgt. Elhai Teharlev HY"D, 20, was killed, and the other soldier was injured. The terrorist was arrested by security forces. Rabbi Eliyahu said that his response was that "this terrorist deserves to die. However, unfortunately, the laws in this country are not well constructed, and so there is no legal way to do to him what needs to be done." "I told him that had he been able to do it while the attack was on it would have been possible, but we were after the event, unfortunately." Advertisement From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 03:39:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed Message-ID: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ > Let me run an idea by you guys... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha > 2. Melacha is forbidden on chol hamoed > 3. One of the permits for doing melacha is for tzorech hamoed, but in this > case, if possible you should do the melacha before the chag > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. > 5. If you find yourself on chol hamoed without pre-torn toilet paper, you > can tear it, however preferably not on the lines. > Am I crazy? :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 04:54:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:54:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> References: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2017 1:40 PM, "Micha Berger via Avodah" wrote... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha > 2. Melacha is forbidden on chol hamoed > 3. One of the permits for doing melacha is for tzorech hamoed, but in this > case, if possible you should do the melacha before the chag > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. > 5. If you find yourself on chol hamoed without pre-torn toilet paper, you > can tear it, however preferably not on the lines. > Am I crazy? Not at all. Please see Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa perek 66 footnote 78. RSZA was machmir for himself, though the author suggests that nowdays it would be unnecessary. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 06:39:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:39:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12e4046f8d104931a3a60fafe99b3947@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > There is no question that when Moshiach comes the division > between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The > Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no > machlokes. This is news to me. There is no machlokes here to be paskened. Everyone agrees that the halacha allows even rice to Ashkenazim. It is all minhag. Even if the Sanhendrin would want to, I don't know where they'd get the authority to do away with minhagim. On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim! --------------------------------------- Aiui there is some debate as to how much practice was/will be standardized-some believe (IIRC R'HS) that the shevet Sanhedrin set local practice and few issues went to great sanhedrin for standardization. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 06:41:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:41:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170410134127.GB29583@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:04:31PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> Mimeticism evolves because culture evolves. : Doesn't answer my question of how mimeticism deals with new situations. It answers your question by implying there is no answer. There is no rule for how common practice will evolve. Rules are textual. But the truth is, halakhah requires both. Not every evolution of a minhag is valid. That way lies Catholic Israel. It has to pass muster against the sources and sevara. :-)|,|ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 07:54:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Misc interesting Halacha questions from R Shlomo Miller shlitah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <035201d2b20a$5ef3d1a0$1cdb74e0$@com> Misc interesting Halacha questions from R Shlomo Miller shlitah http://baisdovyosef.com/rabbi-past-questions/ Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlitah for a printout of all the Q&As (100 pgs) https://www.dropbox.com/s/70y971r0ct2l7x8/RS%20miller%20bartfeld%20questions .doc?dl=0 or email me offline mcohen at touchlogic.com GYT, mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 12 12:45:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:45:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz Message-ID: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy A rav gave over some quick halachot and cited the Shulhan Aruch that if one finds chameitz in one's home, you cover it (if you find it on shabbat/yom tov) and later burn it, or burn it right away (cholo moed). I asked, if one sold one's chameitz, how can you burn it? It now belongs to the non-jew. This rav (and second rav) said that the sale only includes the chameitz that you specify. If you don't have a piece of chameitz in mind, you didn't sell it. OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz, everything in all of his properties. It makes no mention of what you have in mind. If a contract say "ALL" it means all, n'est pas? So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 12 21:09:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:09:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taanis Bechoros - Women? Message-ID: My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros. So I read her Mishne Berurah 470:4, which gives the reason as because there are no halachos in which female firstborns have any such kedusha. That seemed to satisfy her, but it didn't satisfy me. After all, if a boy is his father's first but not his mother's first, then he has no kedusha which would require Pidyon Haben. Aruch Hashulchan 470:2 gives that same logic, but explains that although the father's first doesn't get a Pidyon Haben, he *does* have special halachos about inheritance, and Aruch Hashulchan 470:3 says the same thing regarding a boy who was born after a miscarriage, or a firstborn Kohen, or a firstborn Levi. My question is: So what? Why is the special status of "firstborn for inheritance" more relevant than "would've been killed in Mitzrayim"? (Please note that there is another case that I'm *not* asking about, namely, where none of the people at home was a technical bechor, then whoever was oldest was subject to Makas Bechoros. Since that could vary depending on who was home in any particular year, I can easily understand why it never got included in the minhag.) Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 13 13:24:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 23:24:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefirot Ha`omer Message-ID: Every year I would like to get deeper into the combinations of sefirot (or middot) that appear in siddurim with the counting of the Omer, and every year I get lost and confused. For example, what is the difference between hesed shebigevura and gevura shebehesed? If tiferet is a synthesis of hesed and gevura, how does it differ from either of the above? And so on and so on. There seem to be a thousand books and websites that explain the sefirot and their combinations in modern terms, but I haven't found any that quote or even cite primary sources. Where might one look for such sources? Mo`adim lesimha! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 13 22:56:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:56:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim!" Given the illogic of the minhag of kitniyos I think not. Why would they impose a din that makes no sense in today's world. With regards to visiting children R' AKiva Miler wrote: "That depends on your posek. By my memory, many poskim, including among the DL, hold that one can eat from the keilim, but to avoid actual kitniyos. And many other shitos in both directions." I was saying that facetiously. WADR you missed the forest for the trees. Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child and can't eat all the food. You are looking at this from a pure halachic perspceticve but in truth, there is a non-halachic sociologcal perspective here that needs to be addressed as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 14 01:12:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 11:12:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefirot Ha`omer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71537556-72e6-e4ec-3ea1-61c0f913fb9b@starways.net> Lama li kra? It seems pretty clear on the face of it. Hesed she'b'Gevura means that you're doing Hesed by means of Gevura. Your intended result is Hesed. The way you're achieving that Hesed is by an act of Gevura. So let's take R' Aryeh Kaplan's understanding of the two Middot, where Hesed means going above and beyond what is required, and Gevura is restraining yourself, and here are a couple of examples. You're at the grocery store, and there's one box of Wacky Macs left on the shelf. You see a mother with a bunch of her kids coming down the aisle, and the kids are beginning for Wacky Macs. So you don't take it. You're limiting yourself in order to do something nice (but not required) for the mother. That's Hesed she'b'Gevura. You're at the grocery store, and you've taken the last box of Wacky Macs. You know you shouldn't eat it, because it's all starch and fat, but you can't help it. You're standing at the checkout line, and there's a mother behind you whose kids are giving her a hard time because they wanted Wacky Macs, but the store is out. So you decide that this will help you keep your diet, and you offer the mother the box of Wacky Macs. You're doing something nice (but not required) for the mother in order to limit yourself. That's Gevura she'b'Hesed. It's a thin line, sometimes. Figuring out what the actual action (or inaction) is and what the purpose is. Means and ends. As far as Tiferet, while you can see it as a synthesis of Hesed and Gevura, which is nice if you like the thesis-antithesis-synthesis paradigm, it's really the point of balance between them. Where you aren't refraining and you aren't overdoing. Another term for Tiferet is Tzedek. Meaning doing what you're supposed to do, or what you're allowed to do: no more and no less. I think that one of the reasons there aren't books that cite primary sources about this is simply because there aren't any. There are primary sources about what the meaning of each of the Sefirot mean, but the combination should be fairly clear. That said, I know it isn't. When I was a camper as a kid, we had discussion groups about whether we were "Jewish Americans" or "American Jews". I was 12 the first time we did it, and it was a mess. The next time, I think I was 14 or 15, and I already realized what the problem was, although the counselor leading the discussion didn't. It's a matter of definitions. If you look at it in terms of language, one of those words is the noun, and the other is the adjective. The noun is what you *are*. The adjective just modifies it. So "American Jew" is putting being Jewish first, and "Jewish American" is putting being American first. But a lot of the other kids (and the counselor) were looking at it from the point of view of which *word* came first in the phrase. And theoretically, I suppose, you could interpret X she'b'Y in the opposite way from what I've described above, but I'm not sure there's a real nafka mina, because we cover all the combinations. It just seems to me that the first week, we deal with the concept of *doing* Hesed, with all 7 possible intents, since these 7 Sefirot are fundamentally Sefirot of action (and interaction), as opposed to the first three, which are Sefirot of mind. But can you say that the first week, we talk about the concept of *intending* Hesed, with all 7 possible methods? I suppose. It's not the way I look at it, but absent primary sources to determine which way is right, I suppose it's possible. Shabbat Shalom and Moadim L'Simcha, Lisa On 4/13/2017 11:24 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > Every year I would like to get deeper into the combinations of sefirot > (or middot) that appear in siddurim with the counting of the Omer, and > every year I get lost and confused. For example, what is the > difference between hesed shebigevura and gevura shebehesed? If tiferet > is a synthesis of hesed and gevura, how does it differ from either of > the above? And so on and so on. > > There seem to be a thousand books and websites that explain the > sefirot and their combinations in modern terms, but I haven't found > any that quote or even cite primary sources. Where might one look for > such sources? > > Mo`adim lesimha! > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 14 06:40:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:40:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <491b0760-73a4-cf76-550a-2c2dfb57aeb3@sero.name> On 14/04/17 01:56, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > I was saying that facetiously. WADR you missed the forest for the trees. > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child and > can't eat all the food. If you think that's a problem now, wait till Moshiach comes and you have parents visiting their daughter who married a Cohen. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 11:52:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 20:52:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8fe0a1db-6349-9011-e2d4-ea78a89684eb@zahav.net.il> I've said this before but it bares repeating. I was married to someone with multiple food allergies. Cooking even at home was always a challenge. Going out to eat at someone else's house and giving them the list of what yes, what no made that it even harder. Whenever we had guests, we always asked about food allergies, kashrut requirements, and preferences. Compared to allergies, kashrut stuff was kid's play. More than that, I learned that it is perfectly OK to have food on the table that not everyone can eat. Any vegetarian who came over expecting to be able to eat everything was disappointed. Not being able to eat rice and having to settle for the five other dishes doesn't even make it on my radar. Thinking that one should be able to eat everything is a sense of entitlement that I don't accept. Ben On 4/14/2017 7:56 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child > and can't eat all the food. > > You are looking at this from a pure halachic perspceticve but in > truth, there is a non-halachic sociologcal perspective here that needs > to be addressed as well. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 18:36:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:36:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > Given the illogic of the minhag of kitniyos ... ... > Why would they impose a din that makes no sense in today's world. I could easily argue that avoidance of poultry and milk "makes no sense in today's world." I'd like to hear whether other people think that din to be logical or illogical. (One is a minhag, and the other is d'rabbanan, but that's a side issue. My question is whether one is less logical than the other.) Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 18:22:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:22:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini Message-ID: One of the main areas this portion deals with is kashruth. There is an overriding concept in the laws of kashruth that the characteristics of what we eat somehow have a great influence on the way we behave. We do not want to associate ourselves with cruelty, therefore we are forbidden to eat cruel animals, and in this case certain fowl. Among the fowl that are listed as being non kosher is the chasidah, the white stork. You may ask what cruel character trait does the stork possess. Rashi mentions that the reason it is called a "chasidah" is because it does chesed with its friends regarding the food it finds. On the surface this seems strange. If the stork acts kindly with its food, why is it disqualified as being kosher? A beautiful explanation to this difficulty has been given by the Chidushei Harim, a Chassidic 19th century Talmudic scholar, in which he explains the nature of the stork. He says that the fact the stork only shows its kindness with its friends defines its cruelty. A fowl who is not in the circle of the stork's good buddies is excluded from getting any help from the stork in finding food. In other words, the stork is very selective in its kindness. This type of kindness is misleading. We, as Jews, are commanded to help our foes. If we come across someone we dislike intensely who needs help, we are commanded to help. The stork, on the other hand, helps only his friends. It is this character trait of differentiating between close friends and others when it comes to providing food that makes the stork non-kosher. Chesed means reaching out altruistically, with love and generosity to all. The process of maturing involves developing our sense of caring for others. This is crucial for spiritual health. The Talmud likens someone who doesn't give to others as the "walking dead.? A non-giving soul is malnourished and withered. It is only through unconditional love that our successful future will be built. In the words of King David (Psalm 89:3): Olam chesed yibaneh - "the world is built on kindness.? May we live to see this kindness and care infused in all our lives. Kindness is the language the deaf can hear and the blind can see. Mark Twain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 12:40:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:40:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: <042313fe1c2b495fbe8f8efad437f69d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <042313fe1c2b495fbe8f8efad437f69d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: I was reminded of this question this evening. Our shul is nominally nusach Sefard. However if someone (like moi) does daven Ashkenaz, the gabbi is OK, but insists on things like: Saying Shir Ha'ma'lot in Maariv Saying Keter during Mussaf Ben On 3/30/2017 2:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Visiting a shul questions-actual practices and sources appreciated: > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:45:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:45:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ff40b88-0f88-fb08-9c92-10e44bbdfc3d@zahav.net.il> A bit of perspective here: this is the Orthodox version of a first world problem. 100 years ago how many Ashkenazim and Sefardim even met, much less intermarried or lived in the same neighborhoods? At most, this is a bit of growing pain. Ben On 4/14/2017 7:56 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child > and can't eat all the food. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:34:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:34:27 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: How do we determine when the dough is baked to the point where it can no longer become Chamets? when there are no Chutim NimShaChim When the Matza is torn apart there are no doughy threads stretching between the two pieces. These days this test is not available because so little water is added to the flour that there is no opportunity for the chemical reaction that activates the gluten and even when the Matza, or the batch of dough is torn BEFORE it is put into the oven there are NO Chutim NimShaChim [this is noted by the Chazon Ish] So if one suggests that there is a possibility that some flour within [but not on the surface of] the Matza which is protected from the heat of the oven and does not become baked [as once it is baked, flour can not become Chamets] then the Chashash that this flour might become Chamets if it becomes wet pales into insignificance and is completely eclipsed by the much greater risk that the middle part of the Matza which may not have been baked may actually be Chamets [Gamur] The fact that it is now now dry means nothing that is simply dehydrated dough AKA Chamets, maybe Chamets Nukshe Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:40:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:40:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed Message-ID: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ > Let me run an idea by you guys... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha....... > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. >>>>> It seems to me you are no more obligated to tear toilet paper for the whole week than you are to do all your cooking for the whole week before the yom tov. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:49:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:49:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taanis Bechoros - Women? Message-ID: <63e57.57f1ef36.46246de8@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros. << Akiva Miller >>>>> That's a pretty obscure medrash. It is seemingly contradicted by the Torah itself, which specifies that a pidyon haben is required for a firstborn boy because the firstborn boys were spared makas bechoros in Egypt. Nothing about a pidyon habas. On the other hand, according to Sefer HaToda'ah (Book of Our Heritage), "There are different customs associated with this fast. Some say that every firstborn, male or female, whether from the father or from the mother, must fast on that day. If there is no firstborn, then the oldest in the house must fast.....However others say that only firstborn males need to fast and this is the generally accepted custom." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 21:50:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Martin Brody via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:50:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Fast of the First Born. Message-ID: Akiva Miller posted "My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros etc." Maybe because the fast has nothing to do with the 10th plague at all? They should be celebrating, not fasting! Fasting is for repentance. More likely the Sin of the Golden Calf, when the firstborn lost their priestly status. On the 14th the first born have to watch the Aaronite priests slaughtering the Pascal offering instead of them. Cheers Martin Brody From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 20:55:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:55:38 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen son in law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: when Moshiach comes parents will seek a cohen for a son in law because it's a great investment, they can feed their son in law and his family with their tithes. It's like having the Bechor reinstated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 06:28:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:28:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is > impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har > habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. > ... > This construction places the holy har habayit on the currently > raised portion of the Temple mount. This yields an amah of about > 38cm (CI=57, CN=44-48) > Other proofs included the length of the Siloam tunnel which is > documents in amot and can be measured. ... I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction as well. The minimum shiur for a mikveh is 3 cubic amos, as this is the size that a typical person could fit into. Who among us could fit into a space 38x38x114 cm? (15x15x45 inches)? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 06:41:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:41:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > If you think that's a problem now, wait till Moshiach comes and > you have parents visiting their daughter who married a Cohen. Indeed! And I think an even more common case will be a husband (regardless of shevet) who wants (or needs) to eat taharos, but his wife is nidah. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:28:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:28:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170416212823.GC13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 09:28:13AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Eli Turkel wrote: : > However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is : > impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har : > habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. I pointed out that we know length of the water tunnel in meters and rounded to two digits precision amos. In contrast, the current Har haBayis platform post-dates Hadrian y"sh lobbing off the top of the mountain and dumping it into the valley between the kotel and the current Moslem and Jewish Quarters. So we really only have part of one wall to go on. The floor can't possibly date back to either BHMQ. But that doesn't mean the shiur is impossible. The shiur may indeed be at odds with historical interpretations of the halakhah. Even perhaps by accident. But would that necessarily mean it's not binding? In either case, the CI's ammah is textual. RCNaeh's ammah is a textualist's attempt to formalize a precise number that is basicallhy consistent with the praactice of the Yishuv haYashan. Mimeticism-driven. RAM himself replied: : I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction as well. : The minimum shiur for a mikveh is 3 cubic amos, as this is the size : that a typical person could fit into. Who among us could fit into a : space 38x38x114 cm? (15x15x45 inches)? According to http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13993-stature , in 1906, the average Jewish man was about 162cm high. Let's make his miqvah 165 x 31 x 31 cm. Same volume of water. A maximum belt size of something like 97 cm (39") would fit. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:49:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 10:29:56AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) ... : RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who : determines this minhag?) Well, if it's mimetic, you just watch what people do. And if so, RSZA's statement is descriptive, not descriptive. As in: Lemaaseh, people are nohagim not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach. : He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never : accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason than the one given. ... : Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be prohibited (ie : even according to those that eat gebrochs) (yesh ladun behem - Pesachim 40b : - Rashi that when people are "mezalzel one should be machmir) Who is being mezalzel on chameitz? If he saying that because some people are questioning qitniyos, we should strengthen qitniyos, then what does that have to do with foods not already under that umbrella? And even among those who question the minhag's sanity, is there really a major zilzul going on among Ashkenazim doing less and less to avoid qitniyios? On the contrary, as your translation opens, avoiding shemen qitniyos has spread well beyond the communities that originally had that minhag, to the extent that it's being applied to foods that in the past weren't on the list of qitniyos! The questioning is a counter-reaction to the growth of the minhag. Who is being mezalzel? : In the notes that this was what RSZA said in shiurim and when asked a : question responded that one should follow the family minhag... Ascerting mimeticism over his own textualism. Sevara aside, minhag is whatever is the accepted practice. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:30:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:30:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach - Lecithin does not render chocolate non-KLP for Ashkenasim In-Reply-To: References: <0b78331e-194b-c586-6de0-fc623959e4e3@sero.name> <32449da1-df34-d5e8-7170-a2c8676adf0e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170416213032.GD13509@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 07:25:10AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 2) The prohibition of being m'vateil an issur applies to the super : corporations that run the milk industry? This is a case where buying Chalav Yisrael, which is de rigeur in Zev's Chabad community, would be more problematic. After all, something done for CY milk is being done for Jews. Something done for stam OUD milk would not be. :-)||ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:38:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Poisoning in Halacha In-Reply-To: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> References: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170416213850.GE13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 10:16:10PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: : Tonight my chevrusa and I learned the sugya in Bava Kamma 47b of one who : puts poison in front of his friend's animal. A brief synopsis and : application of the sugya is at : http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/infected: ... : It struck us that it follows that if one poisons another human being by, : say, placing cyanide in his tea, which the victim then drinks and dies, : the poisoner is exempt from capitol punishment. It would seem that such : a manner of murder falls into the category of the Rambam's ruling in : Hilchos Rotze'ach u'Shemiras Nefesh 3:10: It might be similarly true, but I don't know if "it follows". After all, gerama in Choshein Mishpat has a more limited definition than in hilkhos Shabbos. So, it didn't have to be true that the same definitions of gerama and garmi apply in dinei mamunus as in dinei nefashos. Lemaaseh, they are consistent. I would ask the Y-mi-style question: How is retzichah more similar to mamon than it is to Shabbos? :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:10:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:10:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> References: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> Message-ID: <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 2:40am EDT, RnTK wrote: :> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook :> https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ :> Let me run an idea by you guys... :> 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha....... :> 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the :> beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. : It seems to me you are no more obligated to tear toilet paper for the whole : week than you are to do all your cooking for the whole week before the yom : tov. Actually, the heter is that the food tastes better when made closer to eating time. But if one is talking about food that would taste as good if made days ahead (including the logistical limitations of storage), one is actually supposed to be cooking it before YT. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 15:44:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:44:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> References: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> On 16/04/17 17:49, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never > : accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... > > But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod > bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason > than the one given. again, no he doesn't. We just went through this last week. He never proposed it, even as a hava amina, and never gives a reason against it. He merely reports, as a matter of fact and completely without comment for or against it, that he heard that in Germany they forbid potatoes because over there they make flour from them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 15:36:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:36:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> References: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8d50d8fe-f514-fdbf-c460-9971ad347ed9@sero.name> On 16/04/17 17:10, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Actually, the heter is that the food tastes better when made closer to > eating time. But if one is talking about food that would taste as good > if made days ahead (including the logistical limitations of storage), > one is actually supposed to be cooking it before YT. But not before chol hamoed. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 20:00:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:00:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> References: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170419030020.GA29092@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 06:44:54PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 16/04/17 17:49, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >: He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never : >: accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... : >But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod : >bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason : >than the one given. : : again, no he doesn't. We just went through this last week... And given the relatice abilities of RSZA and you to read the Chayei Adam, you're obviously mistaken. : never proposed it, even as a hava amina... He reports the existence of such a minhag, and recommends against its adoption. Close enough. You're setting yourself up as a baal pelugta of RSZA by splitting hairs to crration a distinction without a difference? Really? -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 19:56:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:56:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Isru Chag Message-ID: <68F6CB3B-3D32-4BF0-A68E-3AD77FD7EE69@cox.net> The gematria for Isru Chag is 278, the same gematria for l'machar found in Bamidbar, Ch.11, vs.18. This is in the Sidra, Beha?a'lotcha, where God has Moshe establish a Sanhedrin because Moshe complained that he could not carry on alone. God says to Moshe: "To the people you shall say, 'Prepare yourselves for tomorrow and you shall eat meat..." There is an interesting tie here. The day after a festival is the "morrow" and even though the holiday is over, we must always be preparing ourselves. (Also, in counting the omer, we are preparing ourselves for the climax of our faith in 50 days). A good Isru chag to all. ri ?By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.? Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 21:06:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:06:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: R' Meir G. Rabi explained his logic: > if one suggests that > there is a possibility that > some flour > within [but not on the surface of] the Matza > which is protected from the heat of the oven > and does not become baked > [as once it is baked, flour can not become Chamets] > then the Chashash that this flour > might become Chamets if it becomes wet > pales into insignificance > and is completely eclipsed by the much greater risk > that the middle part of the Matza > which may not have been baked > may actually be Chamets [Gamur] I do not follow this logic. He is comparing two distinctly different risks. For simplicity, I'd like to call one risk "insufficiently kneaded" and the other one "insufficiently baked". "Insufficiently kneaded" means that there might be some flour in the middle of the matza that never got wet and is still plain raw flour, and that if it gets wet it will become chometz. "Insufficiently baked" means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not get baked, and it is already chometz. And RMGR feels that the second of these is a "much greater risk". I don't know where he gets the statistics to say that "insufficiently kneaded" is a small risk (his words are "pales into insignificance"), and that "insufficiently baked" is a "much greater risk". Personally, my opinion is that *IF* one checks his matzos to be sure that they are uniformly thin, *AND* checks to be sure that they have none of the kefulos or other problems that halacha warns us about, then he can be confident that no part of the matza was insufficiently baked, and they are NOT chometz. Thus, there are steps that the consumer can take to minimize the risk that his matzos were insufficiently baked. In contrast, I don't know of any way that the consumer can check the matzos to verify that they were kneaded well enough; who knows if there might be a few particles of flour that never got wet? I guess the consumer has to rely on the manufacturer and hechsher to insure that they are doing a good enough job of kneading the dough. Anyway, my main point is that these two risks are distinct from each other. I don't see any logical connection between them. From the way he worded the subject line, it sounds like RMGR is making a "kal vachomer", that if one is worried about one of the risks, then he must certainly worry about the other one, but I don't see that. (In fact, I can't even figure out which risk he feels leads to the other.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 13:17:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:17:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: I am moving this to Avodah. >From: Ben Waxman via Areivim >To: Simon Montagu via Areivim , areivim > >Why is this even an issue? Meaning, why is it such an issue that people >with a different minhag are davening together*? Or is the issue that >both sides feel that the other is doing an aveira**? > >*Sefardim and Ashkenazim wrap their teffilin differently. That factoid >doesn't stop anyone from praying together. >** Which brings up other issues. >Ben My understanding is that people who wear Tefillen during Cho Moed are not supposed to wear them in a minyan where the custom is that no one wears Tefillen. I know that in a couple of shuls near me they are makpid that those who wear Tefillen and those who do not do wear them do not daven together until after the kedusha of shachris when Tefillen are taken off. In the Kivasikin minyan that I normally daven with, those who were Tefillen are upstairs in what is normally the ladies section. After Kedusha of Shachris, those upstairs join those downstairs for a Hallel. I have been told that in the Agudah in Baltimore those who wear Tefillen are on one side of the mechitza and those who don't are on the other side until after kedusha of shachris. So, apparently there is a problem with having a mix of Tefillen wearers and non-wearers during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 14:17:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:17:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:17:21PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : So, apparently there is a problem with having a mix of Tefillen : wearers and non-wearers during Chol Moed. Lo sisgodedu. The pasuq behind the whole notion of minhag hamaqom altogether. Eg see MB 31 s"q 8. The AhS OC 31:4 is okay with minyanim that are mixed between wearers and non-wearers. Nowadays, when the concept of minhag hamaqom is so weak and has so little to do with our sence of belonging, I think the psychology is the opposite as that assumed by those who apply lo sisgodedu. Having two minyanim is more divided, and certainly if it ends up an argument about which part of the minyan is behind the mechitzah. Look how in Israel, many minyanim ignore the halakhos of having a set nusach for the beis kenesses and just let each chazan use his own minhag avos! And this enables a single minyan to function in spite of diversity; a variety of Jews from different cultures able to daven together! Tir'u baTov! -Micha (PS: "wfb" summarized a nice list of sources about whether they should be worn from R Jacob Katz's article in Halakhah veQabbalah at .) -- Micha Berger Today is the 8th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed for another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 14:41:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:41:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Why would tefillin be any different to the various different practises about who does and doesn't wear a tallis? I have never heard of a non-tallis-wearing post-bar-mitzva boy being banished behind the mechitza at a yekkishe shul, or vice versa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 01:20:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:20:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> I didn't understand the question. My daughter married a sefardi and they eat kitniyot. I was by them for seder and everything served was without kiniyot. BTW I not aware of any shitah that there is a problem with keilim used for kitniyot. BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given modern communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a problem but there might be technological answers to that also. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 01:38:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:38:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kiniyot Message-ID: <<: RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who : determines this minhag?) Well, if it's mimetic, you just watch what people do. And if so, RSZA's statement is descriptive, not descriptive. As in: Lemaaseh, people are nohagim not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach. ... Sevara aside, minhag is whatever is the accepted practice. >> The question is "whose minhag". RSZA is stating what he saw. In my area of New York everyone used cottenseed oil. I recently saw a discussion of women saying kaddish. After a lengthy discussion the author concludes that the minhag is for women not to say kaddish. Well in almost all the shuls in my town women do say kaddish. I understand that even the Rama in SA in quoting minhag means Polish (Krakow) minhag and many other existing minhagim in Russia, or Italy were ignored. Similar things in the Sefardi communities. There are several cases that ROY opposes Morrocan customs as being against (sefardi) halacha but are heatedly defended by Moroccan rabbis. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 05:15:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:15:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Look how in Israel, many minyanim ignore the halakhos of having a set nusach for the beis kenesses and just let each chazan use his own minhag avos! And this enables a single minyan to function in spite of diversity; a variety of Jews from different cultures able to daven together! ---------------------------------- Which gets to the heart of the matter - some see diversity of Minhag as lchatchila (all the shvatim had their own Sanhedrin/practice) while others see it as a result of galut. IMHO this debate will continue ad biat hagoel (may it be very soon) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 05:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41e2d260-e360-8e8e-4d15-6f524b655121@sero.name> On 20/04/17 04:20, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make > sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given > modern communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush > hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a problem but there might be > technological answers to that also. The simplest method of getting word of kiddush hachodesh to the whole world on Shabbos/Yomtov is to have a goy send a tweet, which every Jewish house or shul could be set up beforehand to receive. Amira lenochri is of course midrabbanan, so the Sanhedrin can authorise an exception. But there's an even better solution: Kidush hachodesh (as opposed to notifying people about it) is docheh Shabbos/Yomtov. Eidim can be positioned in advance in places guaranteed to have no cloud cover and a good view of the moon (perhaps Ramon Crater?), and they can then drive to Yerushalayim, arriving in plenty of time to testify as soon as the beit din opens in the morning. They could even be positioned on desert mountaintops in chu"l, and fly in. Thus we could guarantee in advance that Elul will never again have a 30th day, and everyone could rely on that without actually being notified on the day. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 09:38:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:38:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:20:04AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make sense I : vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given modern : communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush : hachodesh instantaneously.... I would like to suggest a different angle on YT Sheini. It's not so much that Chazal were afraid of the same problems might arise in bayis shelishi. After all, the language in the gemara isn't the usual that we find with (eg) chadash on Nisan 16 or other taqanos to avoid that kind of problem. I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh ought to be al pi re'iyah. It is that important to remember that the progression is "meqadesh Yisrael vehazmanim", that people sanctify time, rather than the times imposing themselves on people. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 10:13:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:13:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> On 21/04/17 12:38, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I would like to suggest a different angle on YT Sheini. > > It's not so much that Chazal were afraid of the same problems might > arise in bayis shelishi. After all, the language in the gemara isn't > the usual that we find with (eg) chadash on Nisan 16 or other taqanos > to avoid that kind of problem. The language is "sometimes the kingdom will decree a decree"; therefore in an era when -- according to all opinions -- we will never again be subject to hostile kingdoms, it would seem no longer relevant. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 10:45:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:45:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:13:27PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The language is "sometimes the kingdom will decree a decree"; : therefore in an era when -- according to all opinions -- we will : never again be subject to hostile kingdoms, it would seem no longer : relevant. The language of the azhara to keep the minhag talks about zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah. Rashi ad loc says that the said gezeira would be against studying Torah, the community would lose the sod ha'ibbur and mess up their version of the calculation. But that's not the cause for keeping the minhag going. Because that rationale has nothing to do with where the messengers could arrive on time back when we needed them. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 11:23:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:23:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:58:36PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: :> The language of the azhara to keep the minhag talks about zimnin degazru :> hamalkhus gezeirah. :> Rashi ad loc says that the said gezeira would be against studying Torah, :> the community would lose the sod ha'ibbur and mess up their version of :> the calculation. :> But that's not the cause for keeping the minhag going. : The letter explicitly says that *was* the reason. You don't address my claim, just deny it. What the gemara says the letter read was: Hizharu beminhag avoseikhem! Zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah, ve'asi le'ilqalqulei. This is a motive given for "hizharu". (The letter expliticly says so.) Yes, it could mean that it's the motive for the minhag, which is so strong that that justifies not only keeping it going, but being warned But, given that the potential oppression does not justify the format of the minhag, this explanation must be for the caution alone. :> Because that :> rationale has nothing to do with where the messengers could arrive on :> time back when we needed them. : Those places never had a minhag of two days, so Chazal weren't going : to institute one now. Why not? If the problem is the unreliability of a computed calendar that is done once for centuries ahead without a Sanhedrin, this is new to those in Israel too! I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. Then they add, that one shouldn't say it's not /that/ important, because there is a pragmatic benefit as well. (In any case, Chazal were instituting a derabbanan based on a pre-existing minhag. I don't think you intended to imply that the "one" being instituted now was a minhag.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 11:42:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> On 21/04/17 14:23, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > What the gemara says the letter read was: > Hizharu beminhag avoseikhem! > Zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah, ve'asi le'ilqalqulei. > > This is a motive given for "hizharu". (The letter expliticly says > so.) > > Yes, it could mean that it's the motive for the minhag, which is so > strong that that justifies not only keeping it going, but being warned > But, given that the potential oppression does not justify the format > of the minhag, this explanation must be for the caution alone. No, it's not the reason for the minhag in the first place; we know what that was, and it no longer applies. That's why they wrote to the Sanhedrin asking whether they should abandon it. Hizharu means don't abandon it, keep it going anyway, and the reason for doing so is Zimnin degazru. > : Those places never had a minhag of two days, so Chazal weren't going > : to institute one now. > > Why not? Because that would be an innovation and Zimnin degazru is not enough reason to do so. But it *is* enough reason to continue an already existing practise that has just become obsolete. It takes a lot more to justify changing existing practise than it does to continue it. > I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that > qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices > from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. But there's no hint of this, and the letter explicitly says otherwise. > (In any case, Chazal were instituting a derabbanan based on a pre-existing > minhag. Yes, exactly. It's a din derabanan that behaves *as if* it were a mere minhag, because that's what the rabbanan said it should do. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 12:26:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:26:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421192640.GA20001@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 02:42:49PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : No, it's not the reason for the minhag in the first place; we know : what that was, and it no longer applies. That's why they wrote to : the Sanhedrin asking whether they should abandon it. Hizharu means : don't abandon it, keep it going anyway, and the reason for doing so : is Zimnin degazru. No, hizharu means "be careful", not "keep it going anyway". This is NOT "kevar qiblu avoseikhem aleihem. Shene'emar 'Shemi beni musar avikha, ve'al titosh toras imekha.'" (Pesachim 50b) ... : >I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that : >qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices : >from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. : : But there's no hint of this, and the letter explicitly says otherwise. Again, only once you mistranslate what it means lehazhir. This "explicitly" is not only far from explicit, it's not even there! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 13:37:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:37:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer > make sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside > Israel. Given modern communications, the whole world would know > the time of kiddush hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a > problem but there might be technological answers to that also. Shavuos mochiach. Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. If you can discover all of them, and explain all of them, and explain how Shavuos fits, *then* we can discuss "gezerot that no longer make sense". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 14:21:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:21:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> On 4/21/2017 7:38 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole > taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh > ought to be al pi re'iyah. That's a real possibility. In addition, I suggest that halakha is intended to be feasible without any technology. Just imagine changing something this fundamental to rely on an electronic network that will inevitably be subject to attack by EMPs at some point. I don't think it would be responsible. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 10:35:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 20:35:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole > taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh > ought to be al pi re'iyah. > It is that important to remember that the progression is "meqadesh > Yisrael vehazmanim", that people sanctify time, rather than the times > imposing themselves on people. Even more so once a Sanhredin is reconstituted and there is qiddush hachodesh ougal pi re'iyah.there is no use for YT sheni From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 19:18:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:18:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170423021813.GC19870@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:21:23AM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : That's a real possibility. In addition, I suggest that halakha is : intended to be feasible without any technology. Just imagine : changing something this fundamental to rely on an electronic network : that will inevitably be subject to attack by EMPs at some point. I : don't think it would be responsible. While I get your basic point... What EMPs? Even by Shemu'el's rather prosaic version of the messianic era, ein bein olam hazeh liyamos hamoshiach ela shib'ud malkhius bilvad. Gut Voch! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 00:03:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 03:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: <59924.64874017.462dabd2@aol.com> [1] From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" >> My understanding is that people who wear Tefillen during Cho Moed are not supposed to wear them in a minyan where the custom is that no one wears Tefillen. I know that in a couple of shuls near me they are makpid that those who wear Tefillen and those who do not do wear them do not daven together until after the kedusha of shachris when Tefillen are taken off. << YL [2] From: Allan Engel via Avodah >> Why would tefillin be any different to the various different practises about who does and doesn't wear a tallis? I have never heard of a non-tallis-wearing post-bar-mitzva boy being banished behind the mechitza at a yekkishe shul, or vice versa. << >>>> The difference between the tallis-or-not issue and the tefillin-or-not issue is that the former is in the realm of minhag while the latter is in the realm of halacha. People are not so makpid about differing minhagim in the same shul, but differing piskei halacha in the same shul -- that is much more serious. When you have some men wearing tefillin and others not wearing tefillin in the same minyan on chol hamoed, the presence of each subset implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 00:14:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 10:14:12 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> Hard to imagine that all communication would be lost for 15 days. It certainly is less likely than some problem with lighting fires between mountains. Remember that originally the "entire" galut knew the correct date of Pesach and Succot and so there was only one day of yomtov. Only when there was a deliberate attempt to mislead was the system changed. Also interesting is that there is no discussion of communities beyond Bavel. What was done in Alexandria and Rome? In any case even if locally they kept 2 days it was widespread. BTW I assume it took months to reach Rome. If there was a community in Spain (sefarad) it was even longer. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 12:34:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:34:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tazria Message-ID: <60DB8D20-7368-440D-830C-67A3C69835DD@cox.net> Rabbi Zelig Pliskin, in his book ?Love Your Neighbor,? quotes a hilarious true story about Lashon Hora. Someone asked a cerain woman if she wished to borrow a copy of ?Guard Your Tongue? to study the laws of lashon hora. Her response was: ?I don?t need it. I never speak lashon hora. But my husband really needs it. He always speaks lashon hora." We all know about lashon hora and how speaking ill of others is rather a poor reflection of ourselves. However, taken to another level, it was the S?fat Emes who said that it also can refer to having failed to speak lashon tov. This brings to mind the poignant story of a man weeping uncontrollably at the grave of his young wife. When the rabbi tried to console him by saying how good he was to her, he replied: ?Oh, rabbi, how I loved her so much and once I almost told her.? We have friends who take the time and effort to say nice things, and it would even be nicer if more of us did that. You never know the ripple effect a good word can have. ri After receiving another notice from school about bad behavior, a frustrated father sat to explain to his child the source of each one of the gray hairs in his once black beard. ?This one is from the last time the principal called about your misbehavior. This one is from the time you were mean to your sister. This one is from the time you broke our neighbor?s window,? etc., etc. The father looked at his child for a response to his appeal for better behavior, to which the child calmly replied: ?Oh, now it makes sense why Zaide has such a white beard!? Speech is the mirror of the soul Publilius Syrus, Latin Writer 85BCE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 11:47:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 18:47:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 256 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 25 15:03:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 22:03:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> "When you have some men wearing tefillin and others not wearing tefillin in the same minyan on chol hamoed, the presence of each subset implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment." Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people conscientiously following their family customs and davening together nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. Just a thought from a different perspective. Joseph Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 05:02:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:02:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "Shavuos mochiach. Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. If you can discover all of them, and explain all of them, and explain how Shavuos fits, *then* we can discuss "gezerot that no longer make sense"." The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 04:52:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:52:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Metzorah "LEPERS DO CHANGE THEIR SPOTS" Message-ID: On this, the Shabbos preceding Yom Haatzmaut, we read the Haftarah containing the following verse referring to the four lepers: ?And they said to one another: ?We are not doing the right thing; today is a day of good tidings and yet, we remain silent! If we wait until the light of dawn (until it?s too late), we will be adjudged as sinners; now come, let us go and report to the king?s palace.? Second Kings 7:9 It is fascinating that in our own times, this verse contains a challenging message. It is remarkable how the events of modern Israel ran parallel to the the story told in this Biblical chapter. The Arab armies besieging the Jewish community in Israel, their panic and sudden flight, the great deliverance which followed, and the birth of the State of Israel ? do we not see the hand of Providence in all these events? In one respect we are deeply worried. The lepers of the Haftarah possessed the moral obligation to proclaim the miracle. ?We are not doing the right thing. This is a day of good tidings and it is not proper that we should be quiet about it.? Many of us today (outcasts of yesterday) have still not risen to the moral height of recognizing that a miracle has transpired before our very eyes and therefore our duty to proclaim the greatness of the day! Let us, therefore, proclaim it to our children and to the world. Let us, with a firm belief in the future of Israel, do everything possible to assure its existence, strengthen its foundations, and thus look forward to the day of good tidings, the day of Israel?s total and quintessential Independence! rw John Adams: "I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations? They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews.? John F. Kennedy: "Israel was not created in order to disappear ? Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 13:29:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:03:43PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: :> implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This :> makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look :> bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. : Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly : perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people : conscientiously following their family customs and davening together : nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out : of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that : anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. I think we've lost sight of the original topic. Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. When I was a kid, we tefillin-wearers davened Shacharis in the basement, joining the rest of the shteibl only for the latter part of davening. We are therefore starting with data, the pesaq, and trying to figure out what that means aggadically. Not just blindly guessing about how things look in heaven. If things are as you portray it, the original question is stronger -- what you said doesn't resolve anything. BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos as self-identifications. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 15th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in Fax: (270) 514-1507 harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 14:42:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 21:42:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com>, <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> Lost sight of original topic? If that were a valid criticism we'd hear it at least once if not more in every issue. As to substance. I've been davening in shuls on chol haMoed for more than 50 years and every shul I've davened in, all Modern Orthodox led by rabbis who were well respected talmedei chachamim, had men with and without teffilin davening in one minyan together, sitting next to each other without problems or, I'm pretty sure, thinking of transgressors. That's MY data which I would hope is as valid as shteibl data. And that's what my response to my good friend Toby was trying to deal with. I wasn't the one to raise the perspective of Heaven but I found Toby's thoughtful comment refreshingly interesting and, as always, articulate, so I thought about it a bit and responded. I thought that what we do here on A/A. Joseph Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 26, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:03:43PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: > :> implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This > :> makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look > :> bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. > > : Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly > : perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people > : conscientiously following their family customs and davening together > : nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out > : of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that > : anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. > > I think we've lost sight of the original topic. > > Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in > a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises > evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. > > When I was a kid, we tefillin-wearers davened Shacharis in the basement, > joining the rest of the shteibl only for the latter part of davening. > > We are therefore starting with data, the pesaq, and trying to figure > out what that means aggadically. > > Not just blindly guessing about how things look in heaven. If things > are as you portray it, the original question is stronger -- what you > said doesn't resolve anything. > > BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are indeed > motivated by a consciencous following of family customs and the > perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. And how much > is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification with Litvaks or > Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than identification with the > Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos as self-identifications. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Today is the 15th day, which is > micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. > http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in > Fax: (270) 514-1507 harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 16:11:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:11:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:42:41PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : As to substance. I've been davening in shuls on chol haMoed for more : than 50 years and every shul I've davened in, all Modern Orthodox led : by rabbis who were well respected talmedei chachamim, had men with and : without teffilin davening in one minyan together, sitting next to each : other without problems or, I'm pretty sure, thinking of transgressors. : : That's MY data which I would hope is as valid as shteibl data. And : that's what my response to my good friend Toby was trying to deal with. Those are both anecdotes. (BTW, it was a pretty MO shteibl. We had more professors and other PhDs than you can shake a stick at. R/Dr SZ Leiman, R/Dr David Berger, Rs/Drs Steiner, Rs/Drs Sachat, progessors of Asronomy, Physics (R/Dr Herbert Goldstein, likely author of you physics textbook), Topology...) What is data is that the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed between tefillin wearers and not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 18:24:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:24:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com>, <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB wrote: "What is data is that the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed between tefillin wearers and not." Here's some "data" from R. Chaim (Howard) Jachter: "Nevertheless, in many North American congregations on Chol Hamoed, some wear Tefillin and others do not wear Tefillin in one Minyan. Are all these congregations disregarding the Mishna Berura and the Aruch Hashulchan? One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent authorities. The Gemara (ibid.) states that the coexistence of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad ? two distinct communities maintaining disparate practices in one community ? does not violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 1:158 and 159) notes that in this country Jews have gathered from the various sections of Europe and continue the Halachic practices of their former communities. Subsequent generations continue the practices of their parents. Rav Moshe asserts that American Jewry constitutes ?a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad? and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. The Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan addressed a situation in Europe, which radically differs from the situation in North America, as explained by Rav Moshe. However, it appears that one violates Lo Titgodedu if he wears Tefillin in public in Israel on Chol Hamoed." Joseph Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 22:54:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 01:24:46AM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent : authorities. ... Rav Moshe asserts : that American Jewry constitutes "a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad" : and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) : writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single : community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does : not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of : Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. : The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed... So, that answers the OP. Next question.. How long are we /supposed/ to continue being 2 BD be'ir echad, following the minhagim of our ancestral communities, rather than invoking lo sisgodedu and combining into communal minhagim in our current communities? EY is nearly there WRT tefillin on ch"m, with only a few holdouts like KAJ. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 04:29:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> , <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <36AE5716-00CB-4838-A9CE-5321370B72B4@tenzerlunin.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 27, 2017, at 1:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > > Next question.. How long are we /supposed/ to continue being 2 BD be'ir > echad, following the minhagim of our ancestral communities, rather > than invoking lo sisgodedu and combining into communal minhagim in our > current communities? Considering modern mobility, the world has been made so much smaller that I think the idea of strong communal minhagim imposed on all members of the community may be a thing of the past but not of the future. Joseph From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 16:48:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:48:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. ...<< Akiva Miller >>>>> I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 11:15:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent Message-ID: <20B9894A-31AD-494D-8049-66C38175C660@cox.net> It has been taught that a man must recite 100 b?rachot daily. There are different explanations why 100 and the following are a few: Rabbi Mayer said: a person is obligated to recite 100 Brachos each day. In the Jerusalem Talmud we learned: it was taught in the name of Rabbi Mayer; there is no Jew who does not fulfill one hundred Mitzvos each day, as it was written: Now Israel, what does G-d your G-d ask of you? Do not read the verse as providing for the word: ?what? (Mah); instead read it as including the word: ?one hundred? (Mai?Eh). King David established the practice of reciting one hundred Brachos each day. When the residents of Jerusalem informed him that one hundred Jews were dying everyday, he established this requirement. It appears that the practice was forgotten until our Sages at the time of the Mishna and at the time of the Gemara re-established it. There is an additional hint to the need to recite 100 blessings each day from the Prophets as it is written, Micah, Chapter 6, Verse 8: What does G-d ask of you (Hebrew: mimcha). Mimcha in Gematria is 100. There is also a hint to the need to recite 100 blessings from Scriptures as it is written in Psalms, Chapter 128 Verse 4: Behold, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the Lord (the Hebrew words: Ki Kain appear in the verse. The letters in those words total 100 in Gematria). I?d like to proffer another explanation. In most tests you take in school, a perfect score is 100 or an A+. Hence, when reciting a hundred brachot a day, we come as close to perfection as possible. ?If sin becomes an abomination to you, you will have a hundred percent victory over it.? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 17:35:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:35:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> References: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> Message-ID: <1210e77c-beca-a075-ee6d-2fb9df2cafe8@sero.name> On 27/04/17 19:48, via Avodah wrote: > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the > mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman matan toraseinu. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 18:13:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:13:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> On Areivim we were discussing how some activity could be labeled yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. Along the way I wrote that it couldn't be because the enviroment includes gender mixing. I concluded: : Arayos isn't yeihareig ve'al ya'avor until it's : actual relations. I'm not even sure that yeihareig ve'al ya'avor would : apply to bi'ah with a willing penuyah (who is not a niddah). Two people asked me off list to look at Sanhedrin 75a. In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he could speak to her; at least through a fence. According to either R' Yaaqov bar Idi or R Shemu'el bar Nachmeini, she was even a penuyah. (Peligi bah... chad amar...) But one could learn from that gemara that it would NOT be yeihareig ve'al ya'avor: Bishloma according to the man da'amar she was an eishes ish, shapir. But according to the MdA she was penuyah -- mah kulei hai? Two answers: R' Papa says because it's a pegam mishpachah, R' Acha berei deR' Iqa says "kedei shelo yehu benos Yisrael perutzos ba'arayos". So what's the exchange saying? That it is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor because of the consequent peritzus? Or that bishloma an eishes ish would be YvAY, but a penyah, who isn't, why wouldn't the guy be allowed to speak to her? As I said on Areivim "I am not even sure" which, because the gemara could be taken either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:03:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:03:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: R' Micha Berger concluded: > BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are > indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs > and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. > And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification > with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than > identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos > as self-identifications. That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the MB and AhS were on. By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? Do we really want to accuse the MB and AhS of that? I think there is another way we can look at this whole topic. Let's ask what makes Chol Hamoed Tefillin so unusual. Why is this case different than so many others? Someone else asked why there isn't any enforced uniformity regarding unmarried men wearing a tallis in shul. Why is that different? How about the differing ways of avoiding simcha during sefira? One person will make a wedding during the last week of Nisan, and another person FROM THE SAME SHUL will make a wedding after Lag Baomer. Not only is this tolerated, but the entire shul is allowed to attend both weddings! Why don't we insist that the whole town should go one way or the other, like with the tefillin? Sometimes I feel that our perspective on these issues is so very different than what prevailed in the unified kehilos of yesteryear, that we cannot ever hope to understand it. I think the confusion comes from try to impose one perspective on a differing situation. Perhaps we ought to "agree to disagree". Specifically: *WE* get strength from our diversity; *THEY* got strength from their uniformity. I personally worry about the misfits in those cultures, and the losses they suffered. But perhaps their leaders accepted that as an acceptable price for the chizuk that came to the larger group. We have been trained to be unwilling to accept such a price, and we fight for every single individual. But that too has a price, and we are often unable or unwilling to admit it. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:12:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:12:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement > in the mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. Yes, there is a disagreement over whether the Torah was given on 6 Sivan or on 7 Sivan. And there are lots of cute vertlach about whether Shavuos is about *Matan* Torah, or *Kabalas* HaTorah (and whether or not they happened on the same day). But the bottom line is the the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after Pesach. If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty about Shavuos. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:52:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:52:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025454.YQWS32620.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in >a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises >evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. There's something about this that I've never understood. Suppose a person is having a stomach problem -- isn't he supposed to refrain from wearing tefillin? So, in a shul, a guy is not wearing tefillin -- how do we even know what his reason is? (In fact, I think I recall hearing that R Moshe himself didn't wear tefillin many times towards the end of his life for this reason). So, of all the things regarding lo sisgadedu -- why tefillin? Why not all the other things that daveners wear differently? (E.g., different minhagim via-a-vis wearing a tallis before marriage?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:54:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:54:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Rabbi Mayer said: a person is obligated to recite 100 Brachos each >day. In the Jerusalem Talmud we >learned: it was taught in the name of Rabbi Mayer; there is no Jew >who does not fulfill one hundred >Mitzvos each day, as it was written: Now Israel, what does G-d your >G-d ask of you? Do not read the >verse as providing for the word: ?what? (Mah); instead read it as >including the word: ?one hundred? >(Mai?Eh). IIRC, there's a fun Ba'al HaTurim on this pasek: If you add the alef into the pasuk -- not only does it turn the word into "100" -- but the pasuk will then have 100 letters in it. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:58:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:58:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> > > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the > > mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. Indeed. Machlokes over whether it was Sivan 6 or 7. OTOH, the 50th day could also have fallen on Sivan 5, no? >The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed >calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman >matan toraseinu. Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? (I'm not being snarky -- it's a genuine question) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 21:45:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:45:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170428044535.GC2155@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:58:07PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" : when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? The explanation I like (eg from Maadanei Yom Tov) is that "zeman matan Toraseinu" is not a date in Sivan, but a number of days after Yetzias Mitzrayim or of the omer. Your question is based on the idea that "zeman" is a time on the calendar, not a point in a process (be it redemption or of omer). The MYT I mentioned earlier explains why Matan Torah was on the 7th whereas our Zeman Matan Toraseinu is on the 6th: He (the Tosafos Yom Tov?) notes that omer is both tisperu 50 yom and sheva shabasos temimos. It is 50 days or 7 x 7 = 49 days? So, uusually we think 49 days of omer, Shavuos is the 50th. The MYT says that 49 days of omer and the first day of Pesach is the 0th. Zeman Matan Toraseinu is thus after 50 days of process. For our Pesach, that's day 1 of Pesach + 49 omer, yeilding Sivan 6th. The first Pesach, though, Yetzi'as Mitzrayim was at midnight. So the first full day, usable as day 0, was the 16th of Nissan. Shifting everying off one day, so that process from physical ge'ulah to matan Torah ended on 7 Sivan. But whether you like that vertl or not, the idea that would answer your question is just that "zeman" is not necessarily a date; just as Shabbos is a time based on interval, not date. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:33:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:33:49 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <40e6067e-a5cf-689b-619a-908d5249a8a8@zahav.net.il> When was that prayer written, before or after the calendar was set? Ben On 4/28/2017 4:58 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" > when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 02:33:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:33:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the Exodus. Lisa On 4/28/2017 5:58 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed >> calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman >> matan toraseinu. > > Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" > when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:18:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:18:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428061804.GA19887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : "Insufficiently kneaded" means that there might be some flour in the : middle of the matza that never got wet and is still plain raw flour, : and that if it gets wet it will become chometz. "Insufficiently baked" : means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not : get baked, and it is already chometz. And RMGR feels that the second : of these is a "much greater risk". But... If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently kneeded, would any of the dry flour that went through the oven be still capable of becoming chaneitz if wet? If the dough is now too baked to rise any further, wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be to toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5, which discvusses things not to do because "shelma lo qulhu yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is that possible? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:22:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. Lo zakhisi lehavin. All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty. Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays being of the form of an uncertainty. But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain about the date. What am I missing in the CS's sevara? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 22:03:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:03:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite Message-ID: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> I signed up for something called Carbonite, which uploads everything on your computer to the Cloud where it might be possible to retrieve it all if your computer dies or is stolen. The thing is, either I have way too much on my computer or my computer is way too old and slow, but anyway, Carbonite started uploading on Sunday afternoon and now, Thursday night, it is STILL uploading. It continuously shows what progress it has made, and it is showing me that it has uploaded 43% of my computer. I am no math whiz but I can figure out that if it took from Sunday to Thursday to upload 43% it is not going to reach 100% before Shabbos. I asked the Carbonite tech person what happens if you turn off your computer in the middle, and he said Carbonite will just continue where it left off when you turn your computer back on. Interestingly we had a test case on Monday when my neighborhood lost power for six hours. When the power came back on, Carbonite did NOT resume where it had left off. Instead, I had to call Carbonite and ended up being on the phone for an hour while they told me to do this and that and then they did whatever and finally got Carbonite to resume its weary work. So here is my question for the learned chevra here on Avodah: Can I just leave my computer on all Shabbos, in another room with the door closed where I won't see it and it won't fashtair my Shabbos, and let Carbonite keep running and running? (It looks like it will take a whole nother week to finish.) Or should I sell my laptop to a goy and buy it back after Shabbos? (That was a joke, for those of you in Rio Linda.) Should I turn it off and resign myself to talking to tech support again for another hour to get it working again after Shabbos? Oy, siz shver tsu zein a Yid! Is leaving a laptop on all Shabbos with Carbonite uploading more like [A] leaving your lights, fridge and air conditioning on all Shabbos or [B] leaving a TV or radio on -- dubiously muttar, definitely not Shabbosdik or [C] making your eved Canaani work for you all day Shabbos -- a no-no or [D] giving your clothes to the Greek dressmaker to fix and telling her you need them some time next week, and if she for her own convenience decides to do the work on Shabbos, that's copacetic? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 06:44:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:44:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite In-Reply-To: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> References: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:03 AM, [Rn Toby Katz] wrote: > I signed up for something called Carbonite... > Can I just leave my computer on all Shabbos, in another room with the door > closed where I won't see it and it won't fashtair my Shabbos, and let > Carbonite keep running and running? (It looks like it will take a whole > nother week to finish.) ... What tzurus. I use crash plan. They each have their share of grief. I leave my computer on 24x7 except 2 day yomtov. I turn off the monitor and make sure the keyboard and mouse are secure before Shabbat. Why is it any different than leaving on the A/C? Back in the day, people would set the vcr to record a show over shabbat. That was a bit more dubious but was done. Good Shabbos From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 04:02:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:02:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org>, <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From: Micha Berger Sent: 27 April 2017 13:13 ... > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he > could speak to her; at least through a fence... > Bishloma according to the man da'amar she was an eishes ish, > shapir. > But according to the MdA she was penuyah -- mah kulei hai? ... > So what's the exchange saying? That it is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor > because of the consequent peritzus? Or that bishloma an eishes ish > would be YvAY, but a penyah, who isn't, why wouldn't the guy be > allowed to speak to her? Of note, that gemara is brought in Rambam Yesodei HaTorah in the context of acheiving cure for illness through hana'as issur. Meaning that it's not a halacha of gilui arayos per se, rather hana'as issur. He paskens it's assur even with a pnuya so that bnos yisrael won't be hefker. No mention of pgam mishpacha. (Parenthetically this seems to be an din of yeihareig v'al ya'avor midrabannon (so that bnos yisrael etc..). Any other such cases? I'd assumed YvAY is always d'oirasa, almost by definition) The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought. There is no suggestion that conversation in any normal situation is an issur hana'a per se, so therefore is not assur, certainly not Yeihareig V'al Yaavor. Therefore can't see how this gemara would be relevant to the army issue any more than the familiar dinim of r'eiyas einayim, kirva l'arayos etc which are no less relevant in the workplace and on the street. [Email #2. -micha] On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua. Nonetheless the whole gemara is still only relevant to a case of clear hana'as issur. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 07:57:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:57:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite In-Reply-To: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> References: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> Message-ID: <247ffd82-32aa-3bf1-c6ef-36c008a1a4a3@sero.name> On 28/04/17 01:03, via Avodah wrote: > Is leaving a laptop on all Shabbos with Carbonite uploading more like > [A] leaving your lights, fridge and air conditioning on all Shabbos > or [B] leaving a TV or radio on -- dubiously muttar, definitely not > Shabbosdik or [C] making your eved Canaani work for you all day Shabbos > -- a no-no or [D] giving your clothes to the Greek dressmaker to fix and > telling her you need them some time next week, and if she for her own > convenience decides to do the work on Shabbos, that's copacetic? It's A, shevisas keilim, which is a machlokes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. The halacha of course follows Beis Hillel, that we are not commanded on shevisas keiliim, so it's completely OK. The problem with B is hashma`as kol, which is a species of mar'is ho`ayin; passersby will hear the sound of work being done in your home and will suspect you, if not of actual chilul shabbos, then at least of amira lenochri. It is muttar if there are no Jews within a techum shabbos. C is of course completely out, mid'oraisa, even if the eved sets his own schedule. Avadim are obligated to keep Shabbos. D is amira lenochri, which is completely muttar mid'oraisa, but the chachamim forbade it lest you come to do melacha yourself. Thus it's muttar if the decision to do the work on Shabbos rather than during the week is completely up to the nochri. BTW you don't need to leave it to sometime next week; you can ask to have it ready when the shop opens on Sunday morning, and it's up to the cleaner whether to do it on Shabbos or to stay up all night motzei shabbos to get it done. It's only assur if there are literally not enough weekday hours between now and when you want it, so that the nochri *must* do some of it on Shabbos. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 07:27:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:27:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:14 PM 4/27/2017, R. Micha Berger wrote: >EY is nearly there WRT tefillin on ch"m, with only a few holdouts >like KAJ. This statement does not seem to be correct. See http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x Note the following from there. Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau?er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. and (I do not know what all of the ? stand for.) Here are a few names, a sampling of some past gedolim who wore tefillin on chol hamoed IN ERETZ YISROEL (either betzinoh or otherwise) ? Moreinu HaRav Schach, Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, Rav Michel Feinstein (eidem of the Brisker Rav), Pressburger Rav, and Rav Duschinsky, ????. The ???? ????? was in Eretz Yisroel. In his siddur Shaarei Shomayim, he has tefillin on chol hamoed. Rav Moshe Feinstein ???? writes in a teshuvoh that he knows of thousands of bnei Torah who put on tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel. ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????, ????? of Edah Charedis was heard also taking the position that someone whose minhog is to put on tefillin on chol hamoed cannot just suddenly drop it totally in Eretz Yisroel. The above and previous post is based on what I heard about this inyan ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????, ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????. I think there is an Oberlander minyan in Yerushlayim where they wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed as well, if I recall correctly. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 08:03:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:03:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7af7f734-f777-e833-2997-5d8daf3057af@sero.name> On 28/04/17 02:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos > : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not > : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day > : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a > : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most > : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But > : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the > : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. > Lo zakhisi lehavin. > > All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a > taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty. > > Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the > uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays > being of the form of an uncertainty. > > But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was > like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain > about the date. I think what he means is that even in their days, when most YT Sheni were safek d'oraisa, the 2nd day of Shavuos was a vadai d'rabanan pretending to be a safek d'oraisa. Nowadays that describes *all* YT Sheni (except the 2nd day of RH, which is a vadai d'rabanan not pretending to be anything else, because even in their days this was occasionally the case). So his explanation is merely historical, that what we have is not a new situation, because they had it on Shavuos. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 08:27:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:27:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is > the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the > case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which > we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the > Exodus. Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th day but on the 51st. So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the pseudo-Julian anniversary. Therefore I assume they did *not* say ZMT. In fact I assume they didn't say it even when it *did* fall on the 6th, since that was just a coincidence. Only when it was set to fall on the 6th every year did it take on a new nature as ZMT. This is all, however, on the assumption that we hold like the opinion that yetzias mitzrayim was on a Thursday. This is the basis of the entire sugya in Perek R Akiva Omer that we all know. But right at the end of that sugya, at the top of 88a a new source is suddenly cited, the Seder Olam, that YM was on a Friday, and the gemara seems to say "Aha! Forget everything we said till now, trying to reconcile the Rabbanan's opinion, now everything is simple: the Seder Olam follows the Rabbanan, YM was on a Friday, and MT was 50 days later on the 6th of Sivan, and the sources we've been working with, that say YM was on a Thursday, follow R Yossi, who says MT was on the 7th. So for years I've wondered why it is that we seem to ignore this source and continue to maintain that YM was on Thursday, even though it means accepting the strained explanations the gemara comes up with to reconcile them before it found the Seder Olam. If the SO was enough for the gemara to overthrow its earlier discussion, why isn't it enough for us? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 11:16:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:16:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: <24769a.1d3ee4d4.4634e11b@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> But the bottom line is the the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after Pesach. If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty about Shavuos. << Akiva Miller >>>> In the days when they kept two days Pesach because they didn't know when Rosh Chodesh had been, perhaps you can say that by the time Shavuos rolled around, the messengers had arrived to tell them when Rosh Chodesh Nissan (and therefore when Pesach) had been so by then they knew for sure when Shavuos was. But of course we still keep two days of Pesach until now, as we've been discussing, despite the fact that we no longer have a safeik about the date. So your statement, "If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty" is not really true or maybe is true but not relevant. After all, didn't you start counting Sefira on your [second] Seder Night? Was that not a stira -- counting sefira at the seder? After all, we're supposed to start counting "mimacharas haShabbos" -- the day AFTER yom tov, i.e., the first day of chol hamo'ed. So "fifty days after Pesach" turns out itself to be a slightly slippery concept. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 12:07:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:07:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent In-Reply-To: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> References: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Message-ID: I heard this from the late R Hershel Fogelman, of Worcester MA: The passuk says "ha'elef lecha Shelomo, umasayim lenotrim es piryo". What does this mean? The Gemara (Chulin 87a) says that the opportunity to say a bracha is worth ten golden coins. So we owe You, Melech Shehashalom Shelo, 1000 coins. But on Shabbos we are short 200. Who makes up these 200? Those who keep it with fruit. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 03:17:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 20:17:11 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: "Insufficiently baked" means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not get baked and it is already chometz. RMGR feels that this is a "much greater risk" than the risk of Gebrochts. I hope the following clarifies my argument that G is an utterly fake concern IF one is Choshesh that the baking has NOT reached the central part of the Matza as are Choshesh all those who do not eat G [bcs if it is properly baked then even if some flour remains bcs the dough was insufficiently kneaded that flour which has been baked CANNOT become Chamets] The problem is once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash that the central part of the Matza is not fully baked then never mind the problem of flour which will BECOME Chamets when it gets wet and given time WE HAVE A MUCH GREATER PROBLEM according to the Gebrochts-nicks argument we ALREADY HAVE CHAMETS in the Matza since the dough that is insufficiently baked is ALREADY Chamets -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 19:44:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:44:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently > kneaded, would any of the dry flour that went through > the oven be still capable of becoming chameitz if wet? > If the dough is now too baked to rise any further, > wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be > too toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5, > which discusses things not to do because "shema lo qulhu > yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is > that possible? What's the shiur of "qulhu yafeh"? Maybe roasting flour is more time-consuming than baking matzah? You want to say they're the same, but who knows? If we had a better handle on these things, our Pesach breakfasts could be farina or oatmeal made with chalita, but we have forgotten how to do that correctly. I have a friend who has been a Home Economics teacher at the local public high school for about 40 years. She likes to point out how different baking is from cooking. Cooking, she says, is about flavors, and you can put just about anything you like into a pot, cook it for a while, and it will be okay. "But baking is all about chemistry." You have to get the right ingredients in the right proportions at the right temperatures for the right time, or it will be a disaster. This distinction doesn't show up in Hilchos Shabbos, but it certainly does in Chometz UMatzah. Timing is key. I have no idea what the poskim say about varied situations of "shema lo qulhu yafeh", but it is very easy for me to imagine that if there is some dry flour inside the matza dough, the matza could be adequately baked while that flour is still not yet roasted enough to prevent later chimutz. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 04:10:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 21:10:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe Message-ID: R Micha points out RaMBaM does record the Halacha that we may not cook in water during Pesach toasted grains nor the flour ground from them because Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe perhaps they were not fully toasted and they may become Chamets one assumes this is because over-toasting the Camel grains ruins the taste and it was therefore far more likely that they were under-toasted than over-toasted Furthermore there is no test to apply to toasted grains as there is to baked Matza Matza is tested for being baked by tearing it apart and ensuring there are no doughy threads stretching between the torn pieces -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 19:17:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Acharei Mot Message-ID: Acharei Mot is the only Torah portion with the word ?death? in its title. The two words together are captivating: ACHAREI mot. In other words, we should be focusing on ?Acharei,? AFTER death. As depressing, difficult and mysterious as death is, we must not dwell on it. We must go on with our lives ?Acharei" AFTER. Life is eternal, and love is immortal, and death is only a horizon; and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight. Rossiter Worthington Raymond (April 27, 1840 in Cincinnati, Ohio ? December 31, 1918 in Brooklyn, New York) He was an American mining engineer, legal scholar and author. At his memorial, the President of Lehigh University described him as "one of the most remarkable cases of versatility that our country has ever seen?sailor, soldier, engineer, lawyer, orator, editor, poet, novelist, story-teller, biblical critic, theologian, teacher, chess-player?he was superior in each capacity. What he did, he always did well." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 20:58:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 05:58:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <77074713-e49c-4af3-1f69-39b611caa0e0@zahav.net.il> Read further down on the page: Your exceptions prove the rule. Sorry you are unfamiliar with minhagei eretz yisrael. They are esentially minhagei Hagra, brought here by the famous ?prushim? clan, and these minhagim have been accepted throughout Israel, with some exceptions.In Yerushalayim , they are accepted almost uniformly. The Tukotchinsky Luach for minhagim of the davening is a reflection of this and it is accepted by almost all. True, here and there, as your friend noted, there is a minyan that puts on tefillin. To each his own. But there are thousands of minyanim that don?t, and many of them do not hesitate to unceremoniously throw anyone out that dares put them on, even in the corner or in another room. I have seen this myself. Rav Schach?s custom, and certainly the Erlauer Rebbe indicate that the general custom is not to put on tefillin. None of the yeshivas, including Rav Schach?s yeshiva, adopted his minhag.None of the chassidim here do either except the relatively small numbered Erlauer. Ben On 4/28/2017 4:27 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > This statement does not seem to be correct. See http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x > > Note the following from there. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 20:53:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:53:56 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I had asked whether people had a view on the halachic propriety or otherwise of using a sous-vide machine over Shabbos and received no response. The sous-vide is a method of cooking which one might call very slow cooking. Bags with the food (e.g. meat) are places in a bucket or the like, and the machine is placed inside the bucket together with water which covers the plastic bag(s). It can take a really cheap cut of meat and make it tender and delicious. It?s buttons can be covered if someone is worried about Shehiya, I think the issue is Harmono. It can?t be both. One thing I noticed is that nobody seems to fiddle or touch the bags until the ?given time period?, and then one just pulls the plastic bags out. One can pre-program to turn the machine off, or it can continue keeping the water at the set temperature. There are various scenarios. Where the food is ready on Friday night. Where another bag of the food has a different texture is left till lunchtime on shabbos Where the meat is Mamash Raw (let alone not Maachol Ben Drusoi) on Erev Shabbos but will be good on Shabbos Where the concept of Mitztamek Veyofe Lo has nothing to do with Mitztamek, but rather a quantitative improvement that is still possible without it shrivelling The final issue is whether you say that since it might have had another 12 hours cooking and the temperature does not rise, that the meat is of a different VARIETY as opposed to quality. For example cooked versus roasted steak. Either way, here is a link to the only Tshuva I know of on this issue. I?m interested in reactions. There is a touch of Choddosh Ossur Min HaTorah from Rav Asher Weiss, but in the main, I can?t think of a reason why it?s not Hatmono. Disclaimer: I have not reviewed Hatmono for many years, and started to in dribs and drabs with the Aruch HaShulchan. This is the link to the Tshuva http://preview.tinyurl.com/kvxswnp or http://tinyurl.com/kvxswnp I spoke to Mori V?Rabbi Rav Schachter about it, and interchanged with his son Rabbi Shay, but they haven?t managed to show him the device and he won?t pasken until he has seen it (of course). "It is only the anticipation of redemption that preserves Judaism in Exile, while Judaism in the Land of Israel is the redemption itself." ______________________ Rabbi A.I. Hacohen Kook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 06:34:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:34:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >: The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos >: Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not >: differentiate between holidays... > All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaint[y]... > But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was > like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain > about the date. The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about second day of Yom Tov apply. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 09:48:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:48:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170430164805.GA11800@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 04:34:17PM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: : The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made : b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about second day of : Yom Tov apply. I know. That's my question. He says YT sheini of Shavuos was mishum lo pelug. So, if it's really lo pelug, then how/why would it be different in form than YT Sheini Sukkos, Shemini Atzeres or Pesach (x 2)? If it's lo pelug, then the usual qulos of pretending we're dealing with the old-time safeiq should apply -- or else, there is a pelug. No? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 09:57:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:57:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:02:29AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he : > could speak to her; at least through a fence... ... : The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone : who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as : issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought. ... : [Email #2. -micha] : : On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar : pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned : with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as : arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua. Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy for letting his taavos get so worked up. I see a slight conflict in your answers. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 11:05:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:05:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From AudioRoundup at Torah Musings: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/864540/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-sous-vide-cooking-for-shabbos-(and-through-shabbos)/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-From The Rabbi?s Desk ? Sous Vide Cooking For Shabbos (and Through Shabbos) Sous vide cooking (another thing we?ve lived without but now sounds like it will be the next sushi). If you do it for, or over Shabbat, is there an issue of hatmana or shehiya? FWIW the hashkafa at the end of R?Asher Weiss?s tshuva is well worth thinking about ? we seem to live in an age where any sacrifice is difficult. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 13:50:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> , <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I didn't think I was giving two answers, just clarifying further. So, let's work through it again. I must admit I have looked at neither Rishonim (except Rambam) nor achronim. But here goes: The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of YaVY. The gemara then says that this works fine for an eishes ish, The first question should be why that's obvious? Since when is conversation with an eishes ish YvAY? We answered that by saying, al pi Rambam, that the point of the gemara is to clarify how far we apply YvAY to hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation carries the din YvAY. That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. However, the bottom line for our original reason for analysing this gemara remains that it's not part of the cheshbon governing any standard interactions in which any ben Torah might participate, as it only applies to someone sick enough to have inevitable sexual hana'a from a conversation. R Micha's two correspondents can feel free to challange that whether off or on list. BW Ben Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy for letting his taavos get so worked up. I see a slight conflict in your answers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:22:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:45:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy : ... : OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the : rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very : clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz.... : : So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? I think the "out" is the clause "sheyeish lanu ba'alus alava". So, chameitz that you didn't have baalus on, but was delivered on Pesach wouldn't be included. (And would be a davar shelo ba le'olam, even if you did try to include it.) No, that doesn't cover things you owned since before Pesach and were unware "delo chazisei" that you only found on Pesach. OTOH, wasn't that stuff already mevutal anyway? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:30:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430173012.GB27111@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are :> indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs :> and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. :> And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification :> with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than :> identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos :> as self-identifications. : That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the : MB and AhS were on. : By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they : putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, : ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on : identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? ... I don't see how they are. If someone says there should be a single pesaq for a location and the shul could be consistent is talking about unity. Not about whether our community's minhagim are better or worse than those of another community -- they aren't present to suggest we're comparing. I was contrasting two different motives for breaking that unity: The first archetype is the one who does so because he takes more self-identity from his Litvisher (eg) ancestry than in being in part of the observant community, or Jewish community in general. The second is the one who is motivated by the logic of the pesaq or the hashkafah payoff. Such as someone who is "into" qabbalah for whom "qotzeitz bintiyos" means something and motivates not feeling happy in tefillin on ch"m. I was suggesting that lo sisgodedu only rules out the first motivation, not the second. But the acharon who promotes everyone following one practice isn't a question of whether their motivation is more important than lo sisgodedu to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:30:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430173012.GB27111@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are :> indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs :> and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. :> And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification :> with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than :> identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos :> as self-identifications. : That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the : MB and AhS were on. : By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they : putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, : ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on : identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? ... I don't see how they are. If someone says there should be a single pesaq for a location and the shul could be consistent is talking about unity. Not about whether our community's minhagim are better or worse than those of another community -- they aren't present to suggest we're comparing. I was contrasting two different motives for breaking that unity: The first archetype is the one who does so because he takes more self-identity from his Litvisher (eg) ancestry than in being in part of the observant community, or Jewish community in general. The second is the one who is motivated by the logic of the pesaq or the hashkafah payoff. Such as someone who is "into" qabbalah for whom "qotzeitz bintiyos" means something and motivates not feeling happy in tefillin on ch"m. I was suggesting that lo sisgodedu only rules out the first motivation, not the second. But the acharon who promotes everyone following one practice isn't a question of whether their motivation is more important than lo sisgodedu to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:08:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:08:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430170851.GD19139@aishdas.org> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 08:17:11PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The problem is : once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash : that the central part of the Matza : is not fully baked : then never mind the problem of flour : which will BECOME Chamets : when it gets wet ... Again, if gebrochts were about the middle not being baked, it would be worries about chameitz whether or not the matzah later gets in contact with water. It's about flour that didn't become kneaded. As the SA haRav states, the Besht ate gebrochts because in his day the 1 mil timer was stopped for kneading. We came up with this chumerah of trying to fit everything, including the kneading in the time limit. Which caused us to start rushing the kneading. (Yet, the Alter Rebbe of Lub lauded this new chumerah, despite it coming with new risks.) And so he justified chassidim of his generation following a new hanhagah that the Besht did not. (We discuss this teshuvah annually.) The question I asked is based on the fact that toasted flour doesn't become chameitz. And by simple physics, we expect that if dough, a huge lump, can bake through, then of course we would have completed the toasting of the same chemicals present in fine powder form, like any dry unkneaded flour within the dough. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 17:49:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 10:49:28 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <384BCE1C-0255-4CD6-9547-033963F2DA9C@gmail.com> Rich, Joel wrote: > > > From AudioRoundup at Torah Musings: > http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/864540/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-sous-vide-cooking-for-shabbos-(and-through-shabbos)/ > Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-From The Rabbi?s Desk ? Sous Vide Cooking For Shabbos (and Through Shabbos) > Sous vide cooking (another thing we?ve lived without but now sounds like it will be the next sushi). If you do it for, or over Shabbat, is there an issue of hatmana or shehiya? > > > FWIW the hashkafa at the end of R?Asher Weiss?s tshuva is well worth thinking about ? we seem to live in an age where any sacrifice is difficult. > > KT > Joel Rich R Joel, yes indeed. I got the Tshuva from R Aryeh :-) The other question is why does Halacha entail sacrifice. IF it's halachically sound it may be a hiddur! I know we have it on Tuesdays and everyone loves it. It is a superior form of cooking. If it's NOT Hatmono then why (if one has the implement) would one not use it. I find that a Hungarian Posek approach in general. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 17:34:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:34:13 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on Monday besides Hallel on tues Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 08:39:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 08:39:29 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> References: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <138374BA-01AB-4BF3-8554-304B33684B81@gmail.com> Young Israel century city holds both kulot. No tachanun Monday. Hallel Tues. Curious how most chul shuls do it. .I expect most follow israel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 09:51:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 18:51:40 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/1/2017 2:34 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on > Monday besides Hallel on tues Mine didn't and that was my experience in other shuls as well. The Tfilion app doesn't have Tachanun (but does have an added chapter of Tehillim for the fallen). Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 06:15:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:15:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> On Monday, May 1, 2017 6:02 AM, saul newman wrote: > Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on > Monday besides Hallel on tues Rav Ahron considered Hey Iyar to be Yom Ha'atzmaut and the day that Hallel (without a Bracha) is said and Tachanun is not said -- regardless of when Israel celebrates it (for whatever reason it may be delayed). I (and Yeshivas Brisk) did not say Tachanun at Mincha yesterday (Erev Yom Tov) nor today at Shacharis... nor will I say it at Mincha. I will say it tomorrow. HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 10:23:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:23:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Last year, in http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n055.shtml#10 , RHM gave R' Aharon Soloveitchik's shitah. Much like this year, although last iteration he added: One can review the Halachic sources RAS used in his book 'Logic of the heart, Logic of the Mind'. I responded in the post right below it, quoting RGS, http://www.torahmusings.com/technology-halakhic-change-yom-ha-atzmaut , who in turn was commenting on R/Dr Aaron Levin of Flatbush's evolving practice: In America, where the celebrations can be more easily controlled to avoid the desecration of Shabbos, many authorities did not recognize the change of date, among them Rav Ahron Soloveichik and Rav Hershel Schachter. They insisted that people recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar -- the day of the miracle of the declaration of the State of Israel -- regardless of when Israelis celebrate the day. Rav Aaron Levine's son, Rav Efraim Levine, told me that his father had to change his position on this question over time. Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a community to determine its own date to celebrate. To which I added: RAS might have decided similarly or not had he lived to see the day when the primary intercontinental communication was the telephone, not the aerogram. We can't know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 11:59:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 20:59:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: For Hebrew readers, Rav Yoni Rosensweig sums up Rav Rabinovitch's position on the matter: https://www.facebook.com/yonirosensweig/posts/1761639697197955 Bottom line: Moving Yom Aztmaout doesn't entirely remove the uniqueness of the day. While he does state that the rabbinate holds that one skips Tachanun only on the day Yom Aztmaout is celebrated, RYR doesn't accept that psak. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 12:35:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 15:35:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> On a lighter, more aggadic note, my father suggested that the existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to minimize chilul Shabbos is the very thing a Religious Zionist would be celebrating on Yom haAtzmaaut. Which reminds me of something Rav Dovid Lifshitz said about Yom haAtzma'ut. Rebbe said that Atzma'ut is something special, and certainly worth celebrating. But for now YhA is only half a holiday. We established the atzma'ut of Yisrael, but are still missing its etzem. To rephrase into my father's words: It is worthwhile to celebrate the existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to minimize chilul Shabbos, but what we pray for is the existence of a country that wouldn't have to! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 14:42:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 23:42:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the reading is pushed off until Sunday. Ben On 5/1/2017 9:35 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > It is worthwhile to celebrate the > existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to > minimize chilul Shabbos, but what we pray for is the existence of a > country that wouldn't have to! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 17:38:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 20:38:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:42:18PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the : reading is pushed off until Sunday. Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 22:29:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 07:29:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> Message-ID: 1) It is part of a package deal, the first part of which can fall on Shabbat. 2) When we go back to setting the month based on witnesses, it could fall on Shabbat. Ben On 5/2/2017 2:38 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. > > -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 23:12:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 09:12:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:42:18PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: > : It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the > : reading is pushed off until Sunday. > > Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. > 5 Iyyar certainly can fall out on Shabbat, and as it happens it doe so in exactly the same years when there is Shushan Purim Meshulash: Adar has 29 days and Nisan 30, so from 15 Adar to 5 Iyyar is 29 + 30 - 10 = 49 days or exactly 7 weeks. In other words, Shushan Purim and Yom Ha`Atzmaut (when not postponed or advanced) are always on the same day of the week. This last happened nine years ago in 5768 and will happen again in 5781 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 21:39:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 14:39:34 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Looking Jewish Message-ID: Gemara AZara 58a - R Yochanan b Arza and R Yosiy b Nehuroi, were drinking wine - they requested someone nearby to fix their drinks. After he fulfilled their request they realised he was not Jewish. May they drink the wine, is the Gemara's Q. But how could they make such a mistake? And how might the wine be permitted? the Gemarah 58b explains it was clear to the G that the Sages were Jewish, it was also clear that he thought that they knew he was not Jewish, and it was also clear that he as a non-J knew that if he handled the wine, they wold not be permitted to drink it So he thought - they MUST be drinking mead [which he may handle and mix for them] so even though he was actually handling wine, thinking it was mead, he would not make his usual pagan worship and so it did not become disqualified. So here is the tough part HE was CERTAIN they knew he was not J [that's why he was certain that they were drinking mead and not wine] however the truth was they DID IN FACT THINK he was J [and that is why they did invite him to fix their wine drinks] could this happen today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 04:48:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 07:48:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Ha'atzmaut Message-ID: <3866CC37-90C9-4337-8257-616B6EB01940@cox.net> The story is told of the Chafetz Chayim, zt"l, that he asked one of his visitors who had come from a great distance, "How are you?? which in Yiddish is, "Vos makhst du," literally, "What do you do?" So in answer to this inquiry, the visitor replied, "Thank God, I have a thriving business, I have no financial problems, I have a beautiful home with a swimming pool,? etc. etc. The Chafetz Chayim repeated, "Vos makhst du?" and the visitor, a bit confused as to why the question was repeated, gave the same reply. So for the third time, the same question was asked of the visitor, at which point the visitor looked at the saint and he said: ?I don?t understand why you asked me three times 'How I am.? I told you that thank God, I have a thriving business, a lot of money, a beautiful home, etc.? The Chafetz Chayim replied: ?You don?t understand. You told me what GOD is doing for YOU, but I asked, 'What are YOU doing?' I therefore repeat: 'Vos makhst du?'" How does this apply to Israel Independence Day? We know what Israel has done for US. The question remains: What are we doing for Israel, and what are we doing for each other? May we become ?Independent" enough to help others who "depend" on us. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 11:50:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Avram Sacks via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 13:50:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Cong Or Torah in Skokie said tachanun at shacharit, but not at mincha on erev Yom Ha-Atzmaut. On YhA, at ma'ariv we added additional tehillim at the end of davening, as found in the Koren siddur for Yom HaAtzmaut. At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. Kol tuv, Avi Avram Sacks From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 13:16:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 16:16:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Looking Jewish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170502201609.GB17585@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:39:34PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Gemara AZara 58a ... : the Gemarah 58b explains ... : So he thought - they MUST be drinking mead : [which he may handle and mix for them] : so even though he was actually handling wine, : thinking it was mead, he would not make his usual pagan worship : and so it did not become disqualified. ... : could this happen today? Their wine was this thick syrup that required dilution (mezigas hakos) to be drinkable. They also often had to add spices and/or honey to make it palatable. Inomlin / yinomlin (spelled with a leading alef or yud, depending on girsa; Shabbos 20:2, AZ 30a) was wine mixed with honey and pepper (Shabbos 140a). So, if the grapes were particularly sour, and more honey was added, perhaps it wasn't that easy to determine that it was wine (enomlin) and not meade. A problem 2 millenia of vintners eliminated through breeding better grapes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 14:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 17:20:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5908F811.8040504@aishdas.org> Beautiful sentiments, to be sure, but 100% emotional and 0% halachic. Was there live music on 6 Iyar? KT, YGB On 5/2/2017 2:50 PM, Avram Sacks via Avodah wrote: > Cong Or Torah in Skokie said tachanun at shacharit, but not at mincha > on erev Yom Ha-Atzmaut. On YhA, at ma'ariv we added additional > tehillim at the end of davening, as found in the Koren siddur for Yom > HaAtzmaut. At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel > (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and > ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it > is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet > observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in > Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added > that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about > those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA > on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 15:17:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 18:17:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akrasia and Ritual Message-ID: <20170502221754.GA25834@aishdas.org> Akrasia is a classical Greek term for why we so often don't do what we believe. In more mesoretic terms -- the problem of akrasia is the question of "what is the yeitzer hara?" In http://www.thebookoflife.org/akrasia-or-why-we-dont-do-what-we-believe there is an interesting piece on how ritual helps solve akrasia. It might help one's qabbalas ol mitzvos: ... There are two central solutions to akrasia, located in two unexpected quarters: in art and in ritual. The real purpose of art... (Fans of RAYK or Dr Nathan Birnbaum might want to read the part I'm skipping here.) Ritual is the second defence we have against akrasia. By ritual, one means the structured, often highly seductive or aesthetic, repetition of a thought or an action, with a view to making it at once convincing and habitual. Ritual rejects the notion that it can ever be sufficient to teach anything important once - an optimistic delusion which the modern education system has been fatefully marked by. Once might be enough to get us to admit an idea is right, but it won't be anything like enough to convince us it should be acted upon. Our brains are leaky, and under-pressure of any kind, they will readily revert to customary patterns of thought and feeling. Ritual trains our cognitive muscles, it makes a sequence of appointments in our diaries to refresh our acquaintance with our most important ideas. Our current culture tends to see ritual mainly as an antiquated infringement of individual freedom, a bossy command to turn our thoughts in particular directions at specific times. But the defenders of ritual would see it another way: we aren't being told to think of something we don't agree with, we are being returned with grace to what we always believed in at heart. We are being tugged by a collective force back to a more loyal and authentic version of ourselves. The greatest human institutions to have tried to address the problem of akrasia have been religions. Religions have wanted to do something much more serious than simply promote abstract ideas, they have wanted to get people to behave in line with those ideas, a very different thing. They didn't just want people to think kindness or forgiveness were nice (which generally we do already); they wanted us to be kind or forgiving most days of the year. That meant inventing a host of ingenious mechanisms for mobilising the will, which is why across much of the world, the finest art and buildings, the most seductive music, the most impressive and moving rituals have all been religious. Religion is a vast machine for addressing the problem of akrasia. This has presented a big conundrum for a more secular era. Bad secularisation has lumped religious superstition and religion's anti-akrasia strategies together. It has rejected both the supernatural ideas of the faiths and their wiser attitudes to the motivational roles of art and ritual. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 21:48:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 06:48:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0a07acaa-4c79-5eb5-b387-1887573b3cd1@zahav.net.il> There is an oversimplification here, that the issue is the secular. Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed off even if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash. Getting the country ready for these days means hundreds, thousands of people have to be in place. This includes soldiers, policemen, etc who are 100% dati. Holding these events on a date that would force these people to work on Shabbat is simply a non-starter and everyone understands that point. I have to add the following: My dream is that people will come to understand how wrong it is to make people (including dati'im) work on Shabbat when Lag B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate steps. Ben On 5/2/2017 8:50 PM, Avram Sacks wrote: > He added that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 21:30:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 21:30:06 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] nidche Message-ID: since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on thurs, does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded this way already in the 50's? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 06:38:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 16:38:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:30 AM, saul newman via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on thurs, > does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded this way > already in the 50's? > To be precise, they are only nidche if Pesah starts on Tuesday, like this year. If it starts on Shabbat or Sunday they are brought forward to Wednesday & Thursday. If my memory is accurate, the bringing forward has always been in practice, but the postponement from Sunday-Monday to Monday-Tuesday was introduced later, within the last 10 or 20 years. When I was first in Israel in the 1980s, YHA was still sometimes observed on a Monday. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 06:06:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 09:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> On 5/3/2017 12:30 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on > thurs, does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded > this way already in the 50's? It was instituted during the tenure of Rabbis Amar and Metzger. [Email #2. -micha] On 5/3/2017 12:48 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > There is an oversimplification here, that the issue is the secular. > Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed off even > if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash... > I have to add the following: My dream is that people will come to > understand how wrong it is to make people (including dati'im) work on > Shabbat when Lag B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate > steps. That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to 5 Iyar. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 14:34:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 17:34:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5a7c4dde-aeda-0d6e-0a6f-3824d06a66da@sero.name> On 03/05/17 09:06, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is > no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- > certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically > viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to > 5 Iyar. Why can't a religious holiday be defined by the day of the week, like Shabbos Hagodol and Behab? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 16:28:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 19:28:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: R' Micha Berger reposted from elsewhere: > Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this > subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on > the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his > position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, > Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut > celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with > perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a > community to determine its own date to celebrate. Why should telecommunications affect the day that my community says Hallel? Should we all start reading Megilas Esther on 15 Adar? R' Ben Waxman wrote: > Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed > off even if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash. Maybe not as unique as it seems. Isn't there a gezera against Motzaei Shabbos weddings for exactly this same reason - because of the likelihood that the preparations would begin on Shabbos? RBW also wrote: > My dream is that people will come to understand how wrong it > is to make people (including dati'im) work on Shabbat when Lag > B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate steps. Amen!! Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 20:43:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 05:43:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: Someone pointed out to me off line that the reading is on Friday, Al HaNissim on Shabbat, and Seuda/Matanot is on Sunday. Ben On 5/1/2017 11:42 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the reading > is pushed off until Sunday. > > Ben > > \ > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 21:26:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 14:26:20 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: <26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com> Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can never fall on a Thursday. Under the current arrangements, it cannot fall on a Monday, so those who fast on BeHaB and also wish to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzma?ut no longer need to be concerned. In Hilchot Yom Ha-Atzma?ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim (ed Nahum Rakover, 1973), there is an article by Rabbi Meir Kaplan which discusses what to do when the two did coincide. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 21:29:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 07:29:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Avram Sacks via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel > (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and > ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it > is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet > observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in > Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added > that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about > those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA > on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. ?Since the issue here is tachanun, hallel and suspending sefira restrictions, I fail to follow his logic. We are being asked to not say tachanun on the same day as the not-yet-observant?, on 6th Iyar. But why the 6th any more than the 5th. We should say hallel on the 6th, the same day as the not-yet-observant. Hardly. Sefira restrictions are suspended on the 6th like the not-yet-observant? If the entire sentiment is when we should have ceremonies to mark the significance of the State, you could that any day, or every day, as often as you like. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 22:11:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:11:39 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Nidche In-Reply-To: 26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com References: 26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: <8ff4cb3fb9929c8cf4af49714131daf8@mail.gmail.com> I wrote in haste. Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can fall on a Friday (as it does next year), in which case it is brought forward a day. David Havin *From:* David Havin [mailto:djhavin at djhavin.com] *Sent:* Thursday, 4 May 2017 2:26 PM *To:* Avodah *Subject:* Nidche Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can never fall on a Thursday. Under the current arrangements, it cannot fall on a Monday, so those who fast on BeHaB and also wish to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzma?ut no longer need to be concerned. In Hilchot Yom Ha-Atzma?ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim (ed Nahum Rakover, 1973), there is an article by Rabbi Meir Kaplan which discusses what to do when the two did coincide. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 07:53:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 10:53:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [From an Areivim discussion of how to be safe from house fires on Friday night.... -micha] On 03/05/17 18:26, Akiva Miller via Areivim wrote: > When eating the evening seudah elsewhere than where you're sleeping, > consider lighting at the seudah location, so that they won't be > unattended. My mitzvah is to light my own home, not someone else's. I know women have the custom of saying a bracha when lighting in someone else's home, but I'm not sure on what basis they do so. It seems to me they're not fulfilling their own mitzvah but rather helping their hostess with her mitzvah, just like helping someone else with his bedikas chametz. In that case (as opposed to doing the whole thing as his agent) one is supposed to hear his bracha, not make ones own, so why is this different? Thus it seems to me that this falls into the category of minhagei nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked, but the women have their own traditions and are not asking. But I don't see a basis for men, who don't have those traditions, to follow them. Yes, we are required to follow "toras imecha", but it seems to me that this means those things that women have traditionally taught their sons, not those that they have traditionally only taught their daughters. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 08:52:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:52:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <54B1C0DF-2CD4-49B5-92A0-AC29B878E3F2@sibson.com> The psak I receive many years ago is that you light where you sleep. One concern was to make sure the candles would run long enough so they were still burning when you came home so you could get benefit from them Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 13:50:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 20:50:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Tatoo Taboo and Permanent Make-Up Too Message-ID: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/ken8l8y There is a widespread myth, especially among secular American Jews, that a Jew with a tattoo may not be buried in a Jewish cemetery[1]. This prevalent belief, whose origin possibly lies with Jewish Bubbies wanting to ensure that their grandchildren did not stray too far from the proper path, is truly nothing more than a common misconception with absolutely no basis in Jewish law. Jewish burial is not dependent on whether or not one violated Torah law, and tattooing is no different in this matter than any other Biblical prohibition. Please see the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 15:13:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 18:13:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Tatoo Taboo and Permanent Make-Up Too In-Reply-To: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> References: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <72ddedb9-4172-c476-3fe6-acbb37a1e577@sero.name> > Jewish burial is not dependent on whether or not one violated Torah law, There are cemeteries, or sections within them, where only observant Jews can be buried, in line with the halacha that one may not bury a rasha next to a tzadik. But a person who qualified for burial there would not be rejected for having a tattoo, since it would be assumed that he had long ago repented. (The sin is *getting* the tattoo, not *having* it; once it's been done there's no obligation to remove it.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 20:54:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 21:54:36 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> On May 3, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is > no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- > certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically > viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to > 5 Iyar. My gut is with you on this. But then we do need to at least address the precedent of Purim. We don?t say Hallel, but we say a bracha on the Megillah. And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid chillul Shabbos. Now there are some important differences. For one thing, Purim seemed to be a concern of ignorance, not secularity. But it does seem to establish the precedent that it can be done. Whether it should be done is a different question. Following the precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off until Sunday, but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. Yom HaZikaron could be pushed earlier. ? Daniel Israel Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center of Santa Fe, President daniel at kolberamah.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 21:00:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 22:00:22 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> On Apr 30, 2017, at 11:22 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:45:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy > : OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the > : rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very > : clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz.... > : > : So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? > > I think the "out" is the clause "sheyeish lanu ba'alus alava". So, > chameitz that you didn't have baalus on, but was delivered on Pesach > wouldn't be included. (And would be a davar shelo ba le'olam, even if > you did try to include it.) I have been bothered by this same question for many years, and mentioned to my Rav over Pesach. It was his impression that contracts in EY more commonly did not use loshen including unmarked/unknown chametz. I think that is common in the US. I suggested that it is motivated by a desire to protect against the case of accidentally consuming chometz sh?evar alav haPesach where the person completely lost track and by the time he ate it, he didn?t remember he sold it. But it does seem that burning it would depend on how the contract was written. And I would take it a step further and point out that if it was sold, there is a serious geneivah issue. > No, that doesn't cover things you owned since before Pesach and were > unware "delo chazisei" that you only found on Pesach. > > OTOH, wasn't that stuff already mevutal anyway? Can I burn something that was hefker without acquiring it? If I declare something hefker (I?m not sure the legal implication of batel), and then I burn it, wouldn?t that imply I?m koneh it? Which makes things much worse. ? Daniel Israel Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center of Santa Fe, President daniel at kolberamah.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:08:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:08:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: On 04/05/17 23:54, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > . And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid chillul > Shabbos. The megillah only goes back, never forward. > Following the precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off > until Sunday, but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. The precedent of Purim is to pull it back to Friday *or Thursday*. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:40:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:40:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: 5 Iyar can also be on Shabbos (as it will in 2021), and its commemoration is pushed back two days, to Thursday. Nonetheless, that Thursday can never be a part of BeHaB, since the fasts begin on the Monday after the first Shabbos following Rosh Chodesh Iyar, and the preceding Shabbos is either the 28th or 29th of Nissan. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 6 12:32:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 21:32:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <04a24079-f3e7-a7e9-d195-3dac00552ebe@zahav.net.il> Yom HaZikaron and Yom Azmaut are an inseparable pair. There have been call to break the connection (to make it easier for the bereaved families to celebrate YA) but so far no one is willing to do so. Ben On 5/5/2017 5:54 AM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > Yom HaZikaron could be pushed earlier. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 21:20:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 00:20:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> On 5/4/2017 11:54 PM, Daniel Israel wrote: > On May 3, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: >> That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is >> no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- >> certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically >> viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to >> 5 Iyar. > My gut is with you on this. But then we do need to at least address > the precedent of Purim. We don?t say Hallel, but we say a bracha on > the Megillah. And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid > chillul Shabbos.... > Whether it should be done is a different question. Following the > precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off until Sunday, > but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. Yom HaZikaron could > be pushed earlier. On Purim Meshulash, the Al HaNisim remains on Shabbos, and the Megillah with the bracha is relocated to the day everyone else is celebrating. Moreover, there is no clash between simcha on 16 Adar and some pre-existing minhag to diminish simcha. Those are some of the differences. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:01:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 18:01:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: Discussion of chametz ?received? during Pesach can be listened to here: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/877269/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-girls-scout-cookies/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -From The Rabbi's Desk - Girls Scout Cookies KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 6 22:53:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 07 May 2017 07:53:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives today, certainly not in any practical manner. More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber). Ben On 5/5/2017 6:20 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > On Purim Meshulash, the Al HaNisim remains on Shabbos, and the Megillah > with the bracha is relocated to the day everyone else is celebrating. > Moreover, there is no clash between simcha on 16 Adar and some > pre-existing minhag to diminish simcha. Those are some of the differences. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 07:26:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 10:26:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Haircuts when Lag Baomer is on Sunday Message-ID: Rama 493:2 writes: "When [Lag Baomer] falls on Sunday, the practice is [nohagin] to get haircuts on Friday l'kavod Shabbos." What makes this Friday different from all other Fridays of sefira? If Kavod Shabbos is ample justification to get a haircut on Omer 31 (which is in the aveilus days by all reckonings), then it ought to justify a haircut on Omer 24 (the previous Friday) also, shouldn't it? But I have never heard of anyone allowing a haircut on Omer 24 simply because it is Erev Shabbos, so there must be an additional factor at work. For many years, I presumed the logic to be as follows: If a person would need a haircut on Friday Omer 31, or on Friday Omer 24, and fail to get that haircut, then he has failed to do Kavod Shabbos, but he did it by inaction. He did it in a "shev v'al taaseh" manner, and it is quite common for halacha to suspend an Aseh with a Shev V'Al Taaseh. (Compare skipping this haircut to skipping Shofar on Shabbos.) HOWEVER - If a person would go out of his way ("kum v'aseh") and actually get a haircut on Sunday, that is intolerable. To have been disheveled on Shabbos (even if justifiably), and then suddenly be all fancied up the very next day, that is an insult to Shabbos, and we cannot allow Shabbos to be insulted in that manner. So when the Rama writes that we allow the haircuts "for kavod Shabbos", what he actually means is that we allow the haircuts "to avoid insulting Shabbos." And this is what makes this weekend of Sefiras Haomer different from all the others: On the other Sundays of Sefira, no one is getting a haircut anyway, so the whole question doesn't exist. But in this year, on this particular weekend, we do have this problem. The Rabbis *could* have chosen to protect the kavod of Shabbos by forbidding us to get haircuts when Lag Baomer is on Sunday, but instead they chose to protect the kavod of Shabbos by allowing us to get haircuts when Omer 31 is on Friday. Or so I thought for many years. But I have questions on this logic. According to what I have written, getting a haircut on Sunday is a bad idea - no matter what time of year it is. Yet I don't recall ever hearing anyone advise against it. In particular, when this situation of a Sunday Lag Baomer occurs, I have often hear people cite this Rama as granting permission to get their haircut on Friday. But in actuality, shouldn't it be less of a permission, and more of a *recommendation*? When a person asks the question, shouldn't the answer be, "Yes, you can get the haircut on Friday, and that's even better than waiting for Sunday." But I have not heard anyone suggest this. That's about as far as I was going to write, but then I went to the seforim to make sure I understood the Rama correctly. Indeed, his phrasing, "nohagin to get haircuts on Friday l'kavod Shabbos", could easily be understood to mean DAVKA on Friday rather than Sunday. But although it *could* be understood that way, I don't remember anyone actually doing do. And then I came across Kaf Hachayim 493:33, who writes that the Levush held differently than the Rama in this situation: > The Levush writes that if the 33rd is on a Sunday when the > non-Jews are not barbering because of their holiday, *that's* > when you can get a haircut on Friday. Meaning that in a place > where you *can* get a haircut on Sunday, then you should *not* > get the haircut on Friday. But from the words of the Rama, who > writes "l'kavod Shabbos", he means to allow it in any case. > And Elya Raba #9 writes the same thing about this Levush, that > the Rama allows it l'kavod Shabbos in either case. To rephrase: If one has a choice between getting his haircut on Friday or Sunday, then the Levush gives precedence to the minhagim of aveilus during Sefira, and requires us to wait until Sunday for the haircut, and *not* get the haircut on Friday Omer 31. The idea of suddenly showing up with a haircut on Sunday does not (seem to) bother the Levush, and this is totally consistent with the lack of anyone ever being told to avoid Sunday haircuts the rest of the year. But the Kaf Hachayim (with support from Elya Raba) rejects the approach of the Levush. He seems to accept the word of the Rama, plain and simple, that we can get haircuts on Friday Omer 31 because it is l'kavod Shabbos. And, according to Rama, this applies whether the barbershops are open on Sunday or not. Even if one has the option of waiting until Lag Baomer, he can "violate" the aveilus of Sefira on Omer 31, because the haircut is l'kavod Shabbos. This leaves me stuck with my original question: If Kavod Shabbos is ample justification to get a haircut on Omer 31, then it ought to justify a haircut on Omer 24 also, shouldn't it? Obviously no, but why? with many thanks in advance for your thoughts, Akiva Miller PS: The Levush is not totally machmir; he does allow leniency, but only in the case of where Lag Baomer is on Sunday, AND the barbers are closed on that day. Only in such a case does he allow a haircut on Omer 31. I have to wonder why he would allow that exception, rather than disallowing it entirely. Here's my guess: The Levush was aware of poskim who allowed haircuts on Friday Omer 31, but he felt this to be an improper violation of the aveilus, and paskened that people should wait for Sunday Lag Baomer. But if the barbers would be closed, that means people would have to wait another two weeks for their haircuts, in which case he allowed the leniency. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 03:46:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 13:46:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: No, I'm pretty sure it was the 50th day. The first day after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the first day of the Omer. The 49th day after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the 49th day of the Omer. Shavuot is thus the 50th day after our leaving Egypt. On 4/28/2017 6:27 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >> I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is >> the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the >> case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which >> we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the >> Exodus. > > Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th > day but on the 51st. So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th > of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the > pseudo-Julian anniversary. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 06:38:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 09:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: On 07/05/17 06:46, Lisa Liel wrote: > No, I'm pretty sure it was the 50th day. The first day after our > leaving Egypt corresponds to the first day of the Omer. The 49th day > after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the 49th day of the Omer. > Shavuot is thus the 50th day after our leaving Egypt. Everyone seems to assume we left on a Thursday. The first day after we left was a Friday, so the 49th day was a Thursday. Mattan Torah was definitely on a Shabbat, thus the 51st day. There's no way out of that, unless we adopt the Seder Olam's view that the gemara suddenly springs on us at the end of the sugya that we left on a Friday. Then it all works perfectly, and as I read the gemara that seems to be the conclusion, but I've never seen any later source even deal with this view; everyone who mentions the day of the week on which we left Egypt takes for granted (as the gemara did for most of the sugya) that it was a Thursday. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 03:51:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 06:51:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minhagei Nashim Message-ID: In a thread about Ner Shabbos, R' Zev Sero wrote: > Thus it seems to me that this falls into the category of minhagei > nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked, > but the women have their own traditions and are not asking. But I > don't see a basis for men, who don't have those traditions, to > follow them. Yes, we are required to follow "toras imecha", but > it seems to me that this means those things that women have > traditionally taught their sons, not those that they have > traditionally only taught their daughters. That's an interesting way to classify things. I suppose it makes sense in the context of Ner Shabbos, which a mother would certainly teach to her daughters, but probably not to her sons. In this system, I suppose she would also teach Kitchen Kashrus only to her daughters, but Brachos to all her kids equally. Please consider the following scenario. I suppose it could happen even today, but it might be easier to imagine if you place it during the many centuries when there was no schooling for girls... A wife is preparing some food for dinner. She notices something unusual. Maybe it has something to do with meat and dairy, or maybe it has something to do with the just-shechted chicken she's kashering. Anyway, she concludes - based on what her mother (and both grandmothers and all her aunts) taught her - it's not a problem. Her husband happens to walk in, sees the same thing, and points out that it is a very clear black-and-white halacha that this food is assur. One could say that this sort of thing happens very rarely, because the men tend to stay out of the kitchen. But if you ask me, that only proves that the couple is unaware of the problem. It probably happened quite often, but no one noticed because the husband wasn't around. How could this *not* be a frequent occurrence? The men are busy learning, and the information never reaches the women. I concede that if a woman is unsure, she will ask, and some halachos will filter over to her side. But if she is *not* unsure, she could be blissfully unaware that her imahos have had a tradition for many generations, and it differs from the tradition that her husband got from generations of avos and teachers. And if this sort of thing can happen in Hilchos Kashrus, how much more often might it occur in Hilchos Nida? You may notice that I am taking pains to tell this story without prejudice as to which side is the truer halacha. Just because the women weren't in yeshiva, that does not prove them to be in error. All it proves is that there's been no opportunity for shakla v'tarya. Neither side can be discredited until they've carefully debated the issues. So who is right? As I wrote, these questions have been bothering me for years. But someone said that "Emunah is not when you have the answers; it's being able to live with the questions. " I got that chizuk from R' Haym Soloveitchik in his now-classic "Rupture and Reconstruction", which is all about these opposing chains of tradition, the mimetic and the textual. (The full text is on-line at www.lookstein.org. Just google the title.) He writes in footnote 18 there: > The traditional kitchen provides the best example of the > neutralizing effect of tradition, especially since the mimetic > tradition continued there long after it was lost in most other > areas of Jewish life. Were the average housewife (bale-boste) > informed that her manner of running the kitchen was contrary to > the Shulhan Arukh, her reaction would have been a dismissive > "Nonsense!" She would have been confronted with the alternative, > either that she, her mother and grandmother had, for decades, > been feeding their families non-kosher food [treifes] or that the > Code was wrong or, put more delicately, someone's understanding > of that text was wrong. As the former was inconceivable, the > latter was clearly the case. This, of course, might pose problems > for scholars, however, that was their problem not hers. Neither > could she be prevailed on to alter her ways, nor would an > experienced rabbi even try. There is an old saying among scholars > "A yidishe bale-boste takes instruction from her mother only". Somehow, these chains do find a way to work together. But I must be clear: I am NOT talking about a machlokes haposkim, where the wife was taught one thing and the husband was taught something else. In that case, there is much common ground, and they (or their rav) can go to the sources to figure out what the couple should do. I'm talking about a much more fundamental problem, where generations have passed on different traditions, without anyone ever realizing that there was a mismatch. (I'd like to close by pointing out that I am neither asking anything new in this post, nor am I trying to answer anything. But RZS mentioned a "category of minhagei nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked", and I simply wanted to expound on that category.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 09:43:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 12:43:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: In Avodah Digest 35:53 on Apr 19, R' Micha Berger wrote: > The AhS OC 31:4 is okay with minyanim that are mixed between > wearers and non-wearers. That's not what I see in the last line there: "In a single beis medrash, don't have some doing this and some doing that, because of Lo Tisgodedu." In Avodah Digest 35:55 on Apr 26, he seems to have corrected that: > ... the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed > between tefillin wearers and not. [You seem to have missed http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol35/v35n055.shtml#07 I didn't correct myself; I was forced to reread the AhS by RHK's post. -micha] This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. IF I understand that AhS correctly, he says that if there is only one Beis Din in town, then everyone must follow it, so Lo Tisgodedu doesn't apply. And if there is more than one Beis Din in town, then everyone can follow their own beis din, so again, Lo Tisgodedu does not apply. So when DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be factionalized like that. That is the AhS's explanation of why each town should be united and follow one set of days for the aveilus of Sefira: The question is totally minhag, and not under the jurisdiction of the local posek. It is a minhag of the people, and the people should get together and be united in one practice. The AhS doesn't mention it in that siman, but this explanation does help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 consistent with 493:8? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 8 05:32:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 15:32:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The relevance of the middle perakim of Bava Basra today Message-ID: Perakim 4-7 of Bava Basra (which Daf Yomi has been learning) deal with the sale of various things, what is included and what is not. The common denominator seems to be that these are seemingly solely based on the accepted business practice during the time of Chazal and what people expect to get when they consumate a deal. There are few to no Torah based sources for any of these. Here is a general outline of the perakim. Perek 4 - Hamocher es habayis discusses what is sold when you sell real property (houses, bathhouses, courtyards, fields, etc.) and what is not, for example when you sell a house the Mishna states that you include teh door but not the key Perek 5 - Hamocher es hasefina discusses the sale of movable objects, again detailing what is included in the sale and what is not (boats, wagons, animals, etc.) Perek 6 - Hamocher peiros lachaveiro discusses the sale of agricultural products. It details how much spoilage/wastage there can be in grain and wine etc. It also discusses selling land to build things on it like a house, graves, how much land is given, what access etc. Perek 7 - Deals with sales of real property how exact do the dimensions need to be. Given the above, are these at all relevant today? A house buyer in 2017 clearly has very different expectations as to what he is buying in comparison to the times of Chazal as does someone buying wine, a field, a boat, etc. The same goes for all of these categories. Since the mishnayos seem to be based solely on accepted business practice and have are not based on pesukim can we simply ignore these today? Am I missing something here? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 8 10:47:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 13:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The relevance of the middle perakim of Bava Basra today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170508174705.GA2335@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:32:57PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Perakim 4-7 of Bava Basra (which Daf Yomi has been learning) deal with the : sale of various things, what is included and what is not. The common : denominator seems to be that these are seemingly solely based on the : accepted business practice during the time of Chazal and what people expect : to get when they consumate a deal... : Given the above, are these at all relevant today? ... First reaction: They would be relevant to a poseiq trying to learn how to determine which of today's expectations have halachic import. It would require doing the saqme kind of mapping of market norms to law that chazal did, so the poseiq could learn from example. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 9 05:44:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 08:44:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor Message-ID: <4667BA80-CCF4-42D3-833D-99611C34F822@cox.net> ?And you shall count unto you from the morrow after the day of rest from the day that you bring the omer of the wave-offering; seven complete weeks shall there be.? (Vayikra 23:15) The Rambam included the counting of the Omer as Mitzvah 161 in his Sefer Hamitzvot. Those Rishonim who disagree, do count it as a mitzvah d?rabbanan and therefore, when we conclude the counting each night we pray: ?May the merciful One bring back to us the Temple service to its place speedily in our days, Amen, selah.? So the question has been asked why we do not say a ?sheheheyanu? when we first count the Omer on the second night of Pesach. The Rashba answers that according to most Rishonim who disagree with the Rambam, the counting is connected intricately with ktzirat ha?omer, harvesting the omer, ha?va-at ha?omer, the bringing of the omer and hakravat ha?omer, the offering of the omer as a sacrifice (Vayikra 23:10&16). So since these mitzvot are obviously inapplicable today it pains us to remember what we are missing when we count the omer. Therefore, the rabbis say, we pronounce no sheheheyanu which is said only when we experience joy. When I started counting my blessings, my whole life turned around. Willie Nelson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 06:33:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 09:33:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kedoshim Message-ID: It was brought to my attention that I hadn?t sent out a commentary on Parashas Kedoshim. Here is a belated d?var. ?In the presence of an old person you shall rise and you shall honor the presence of a sage and you shall revere your God ? I am Hashem.? (Vayikra 19:32) This verse is so rich with interpretation. According to Rashi, following one view in Kidudushin 32b, the two halves of the pasuk explain each other, i.e., the mitzvah is to rise and honor a sage who is both elderly and learned. Others hold that these are two separate mitzvot: to rise for anyone over the age of 70 and to rise for a learned righteous man, even if he is below the age of 70. The halacha follows the latter view, the rationale being that anyone can reach the age of 70 but it takes blood, sweat and tears to achieve scholarship and righteousness. I recall as a youngster being in awe when everyone in the beis medrash would stop what they were doing and a hush fell over the crowd as everyone rose immediately as soon as the Rosh Yeshiva entered the hall. There comes to mind the famous saying in Makkoth 22b: ?How foolish are those people who stand up when the Torah is carried by, but do not stand up when a scholar walks by,? indicating that greater than a piece of parchment upon which the Torah is written, is a human being who has put his whole life into learning and struggling in order to acquire a knowledge of Torah, and who in his personal life is a living embodiment of what the Torah teaches and represents. Along similar lines is the custom in some hassidic circles to kiss the hand of a talmid chochom upon first seeing him in the same manner as kissing the Torah when it passes by. The one thing we must never forget is the basic issue involved. It is not the mere person that is the center of the commandment; it is the ?v?yorayso mey-Elohechoh, Ani HaShem that is here involved. In rising before and granting honor to the talmid chochom, we affirm our profound belief in the Torah of God. Who sows virtue reaps honor. Leonardo da Vinci -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 13:24:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 16:24:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety Message-ID: In Avodah V35n60, RJR responded to RZS, who had responded to RAMiller: >>> When eating the evening seudah elsewhere than where you're sleeping, consider lighting at the seudah location, so that they won't be unattended. <<< >> My mitzvah is to light my own home, not someone else's. << > The psak I receive many years ago is that you light where you sleep. One concern was to make sure the candles would run long enough so they were still burning when you came home so you could get benefit from them < As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*); and as I learned as a kid every Pesach that my family was at a hotel (because my parents didn't have Pesach cooking utensils, dishes, etc. in their apartment), everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 14:55:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 21:55:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As RJR implies, I thought the key component of neiros Shabbos was enjoying their light (in contradistinction to neiros Chanukah); and as I learned as a kid every Pesach that my family was at a hotel (because my parents didn't have Pesach cooking utensils, dishes, etc. in their apartment), everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... All the best from Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA _______________________________________________ Except if they were incandescent bulbs in the individual hotel rooms. In that case I was taught that the women make a bracha on the bulbs in their room Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 04:54:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:54:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Lo Taamod Message-ID: Rav Asher Weiss discusses in parshat Vayeitzeih on lo taamod al dam reiacha that one would have to give up all his assets to save a single life if he is the only one who can do it. However, "it's pashut" that if others can also do it, that he doesn't have to give up all his assets. Why is it so pashut if others refuse? (i.e. why isn't it a joint and several liability?) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 04:55:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:55:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Local Government Message-ID: Anyone have any sources on how local government, if any, functioned in times of Tanach? Was there any besides the court system? What was the role of the nesiim of the shvatim? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 12:02:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:02:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App Message-ID: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Someone mentioned tahorapp.com on-line, so I took a look at their web site. To quote: > Keeping Tradition & > Keeping Your Privacy > Rabbinically Approved! Anonymously send pictures of your Taharas > Hamishpacha questions to a Rav right from your own home. Receive answers > quickly and privately. Download Tahor App For Free! I then thought of "The Dress" , a picture of a black-and-blue dress that floated around the internet that many of us perceived as white-and-gold. So, given that people guess at the background lighting when they see a picture and then subconsciously correct for it (see explanation on wikipedia page), how could a rav rely on a Tahor App image? So, I filled out their contact form with something to that effect, and a short discussion followed. They replied: : Color Precision: : Thank you for your inquiry, : To clarify (as this seems not to be clear): : "Tahor" is meant to serve as a halachically approved "filter" for a : majority of Shailos (many of which are straightforward and simple to : determine). It is meant to allow those who may not have access to a rov, or : who may not feel comfortable going to a rov, to have an option, when : halachically viable, to send in their sample anonymously. : What this app is not: : This app IS NOT meant to be an umbrella replacement for the process of : showing questionable bedikah cloths to Rabbonim. Rabbonim were all able to : pasken correctly because of our advanced white balance technology and : Rabbinic measurement capabilities. The cloths which are borderline or : questionable, will be told to show the actual cloth to a Rabbi. : It is obviously preferable to take the cloth directly to the Rabbi when : possible, but many many women are not doing it! This will allow them to : keep Taharat Hamishpachah and get accurate answers. I felt I was getting a barely touched form letter, so I paraphrased my original question: } But given that the human eye will misinterpret colors when the lighting } differs between the camera and the person looking at the picture, how } can you know the results are accurate? After all, the differences in } perception of the colors of The Dress is far far greater han that between } a tamei brown and a tahor one. And their reply: : Shalom, : Yes, this is true. : This is why the Rabbis will only answer questions through the app which are : clearly one or the other. : An example of this would be if a stain on underwear is less than a gris. : The Rabbi can with complete accurately declare this Pure/Impure. : If the Rabbi feels that it is not so clear, he will tell the user to go to : a Rav. I am letting it drop there, because I am not going to argue anyone into wondering whether or not his pet project works. But I myself am still wondering.... Given how pronounced optical illusions can be when it comes to color and how subtle many determinations are, can a rav even know when the question is "clearly one way or the other" rather than only seeming obvious? I saw the dress in a catalog, so I know I am getting it wrong when I look at the infamous picture. And yet, it's suprising. If it weren't for people reporting a different color set, I would have considered white-and-gold "clearly" right. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 30th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation Fax: (270) 514-1507 result in holding back from others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 12:57:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: See the following timeline: http://crownheights.info/jewish-news/575460 http://crownheights.info/chabad-news/575513 http://crownheights.info/communal-matters/575546 http://crownheights.info/chabad-news/575559 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 07:33:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 10:33:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> There is a definite dearth of rabbis on the site. I am somewhat conflicted on this. OTOH, the nuances of coloring will be distorted by many displays - perhaps all displays. OTOH, perhaps women who otherwise would not ask she'eilos would use this service. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 08:37:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:37:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App Message-ID: <11c7f4.7c2a7fc4.464730a1@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org Someone mentioned tahorapp.com on-line, so I took a look at their web site. To quote: > Keeping Tradition & > Keeping Your Privacy > Rabbinically Approved! Anonymously send pictures of your Taharas > Hamishpacha questions to a Rav right from your own home. Receive answers > quickly and privately. Download Tahor App For Free! I then thought of "The Dress" , a picture of a black-and-blue dress that floated around the internet that many of us perceived as white-and-gold...... .....So, given that people guess at the background lighting when they see a picture and then subconsciously correct for it (see explanation on wikipedia page), how could a rav rely on a Tahor App image? -- Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>>> According to wiki the human eye can distinguish about ten million different colors. Other sources say "only" seven million. (Not relevant here but interesting: Some birds, some fish, some reptiles, even some insects, like bees, can see colors we can't see.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision A computer screen can display about 33,000 different colors -- only a small fraction of the number of shades in nature that the human eye can see. http://www.rit-mcsl.org/fairchild/WhyIsColor/Questions/4-6.html The takeaway -- to my mind -- is that the tahor app probably can't be relied on. The rav needs to see the actual color, not on a screen. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 08:36:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:36:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:33am EDT, R Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: : I am somewhat conflicted on this. OTOH, the nuances of coloring will : be distorted by many displays - perhaps all displays. OTOH, perhaps : women who otherwise would not ask she'eilos would use this service. Because of "The Dress" I am worried that "perhaps all displays" really understates the possibility of getting a color wrong. While the problem you raise is real. I would still recommend yoatzos as a better solution. Still, there are women who still wouldn't go to antoher woman, or who live in an area with no one to ask. RnTK wrote: : According to wiki the human eye can distinguish about ten million different : colors. Other sources say "only" seven million. ... : A computer screen can display about 33,000 different colors... : small fraction of the number of shades in nature that the human eye can see. ... : The takeaway -- to my mind -- is that the tahor app probably can't be : relied on. The rav needs to see the actual color, not on a screen. I think the problem I raised can lead to more profound misassessments. The precision of color displays will blur the edges. And the rabbis behind Tahor App say that it's only for more clear cases. What had me concerned is that that perception is based on more context colors and lighting specifics than the phone's camera may capture. Thus "the dress", which is explained, amongst other startling optical illusions involving color perception here . It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in different lighting than it was taken. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 09:33:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 12:33:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 517 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 11:53:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 14:53:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:33:14PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote: : The 33rd day of the Omer is a minor holiday commemorating a break in : the plague. The common translation of askaria is some kind of lung disease. However, the only explanation of the gemara that predates the late acharonim is R' Achai Gaon's -- that the word is sicarii. Meaning, they were killed by Roman dagger- or shortsword-men. Tying the deaths of the omer to the Bar Kokhva rebellion. (The sicarii of the events of Tish'ah beAv were Jewish dagger bearers. Same word, different people.) If I may add, which emphasizes the connection to shelo nahagu kavod zeh lazeh. The galus was started by sin'as chinam; it couldn't be ended by people who still hadn't mastered showing another kavod. (A scary thought about our own hopes...) : This day is observed as a day of rejoicing because on this day, the : students of Rabbi Akiva did not die. Actually, it's not a day of mourning because they didn't die. It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. Or perhaps it's the day Rashbi left the cave the 2nd time, or.... For Litvaks, Yekkes, and other communities, Lag baOmer as a holiday is a new thing. Also, as per other iterations, Lag baOmer at Meron appears to have originally been Shemu'el haNavi's yahrzeit (Mag beOmer? Yom Y-m) at Nabi Samwel, and only moved when Arabs going to Nabi Samwel (from Tzefat) dangerous. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 12:42:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 15:42:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/05/17 11:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while > convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in > different lighting than it was taken. But isn't that explicitly taken care of by the instruction to the user to take the photo only in direct sunlight, and by the instruction to the rav to look at it only on a specific monitor at a specific brightness? However reliable or unreliable the technology is, at least *that* concern has been addressed, hasn't it? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 13:01:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 16:01:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> References: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/05/17 14:53, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined > communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- > find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) > writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then > a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping > the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. No typo is necessary. What could "yom simchas Rashbi" mean if not his yortzeit, which he explicitly instructed his talmidim to celebrate as if it were his yom hillula? That's where the whole concept of celebrating yortzeits rather than mourning on them comes from, as well as the concept of referring to them as "wedding days". > Also, as per other iterations, Lag baOmer at Meron appears to have > originally been Shemu'el haNavi's yahrzeit (Mag beOmer? Yom Y-m) at Nabi > Samwel, and only moved when Arabs going to Nabi Samwel (from Tzefat) > dangerous. This paragraph got garbled enough that if I didn't already know what you meant I could not have figured it out. But it's my understanding that it wasn't danger from Arab marauders that put an end to the pilgrimages to Shmuel Hanavi (from all over EY) but rather a government decree barring Jews from the site. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 14:49:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:49:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: References: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512214922.GB4067@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 04:01:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined :> communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- :> find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) :> writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then :> a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping :> the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. : No typo is necessary. It happened. Necessity isn't at issue. We know what the older version was, and there used to be a ches there. "Shemeis" is simply not what RCV wrote. : What could "yom simchas Rashbi" mean if not : his yortzeit, which he explicitly instructed his talmidim to : celebrate as if it were his yom hillula? Well, isb't that what I said in the last sentence quoted? But it's only the most likely (in my opinion) possibility, and not -- as you are taking for granterd -- the only one. To continue from where you chopped off that text: > Or perhaps it's the day Rashbi left the cave the 2nd time, or.... Simcha, in the sence that seeing the man carry two hadasim for besamim -- zekhor veshamor -- yasiv da'ataihu. His simchah learning with his son-in-law, R' Pinchas b Ya'ir. "Ashrekha shera'isi bekakh..." Shabbos 33b-34a give you plenty of reason to believe he was joyous, and wanted to share that joy with the qehillah. Or maybe R Aqiva started teaching his 5 new students in earnest the very day the massacre or plague stopped. And therefore Lag baOmer is the day Rashbi started learning qabbalah. Or maybe... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 18:04:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 11:04:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The rabbi is shocked He realises After pesach is concluded That one of the contracts he's supposed to sell to the G Was not sold to the G If ownership According to Halacha Is determined by believing one is in control And when that control Is lost There's YiUsh Then this Chamets Had no owner During Pesach This Chamets For all intents and purposes During Pesach Has no owner. And Chamets can be Muttar Even if owned by a Y If it's abandoned For the duration of Pesach That's the Halacha Re the Mapoles The shed collapse On a crate of whiskey It's buried under at least 3 Tefachim It's Muttar after Pesach And it seems Even without Bittul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 14:33:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:33:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512213304.GA4067@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 03:42:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 12/05/17 11:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while : >convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in : >different lighting than it was taken. : : But isn't that explicitly taken care of by the instruction to the : user to take the photo only in direct sunlight, and by the : instruction to the rav to look at it only on a specific monitor at a : specific brightness? ... My wife and I saw The Dress for the first time together, and reported different results. in that picture it is obvious it was taken on a sunny day. And we both saw it in the same lighting. So, I don't think it sufficiently takes care of the problem. Maybe if the distributed a color sheet that must be included in the picture in proximity to the kesem, and the rabbinic side of the software corrects the colors displayed based on knowing what the sheet should look like. If the woman prints the color chart herself, you widen the uncertainty. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 14:23:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 23:23:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I have also been in touch with them (the programmer and one of the rabbis). I haven't come to a final conclusion, but my impression so far is: (1) The people on this project are y'rei Shamayim who take what they are doing seriously and have worked very hard for a long time on developing something that will be reliable (2) It is definitely not as good as seeing a mareh in real life (3) It is not good enough for borderline or difficult-to-pasken cases, and when difficult marot are submitted the rabbis will tell them that they need to be evaluated in person (4) They have had quite good results testing this app with easier cases (and most marot that women ask about are easier cases), which is why they have the confidence to release it (5) There are clear instructions on photographing the mareh in sunlight (6) This is only available for iphone - and deliberately so. They have the camera and white balance technology to give a good enough image, and because everyone is using the same type of phone and operating system, there is more control. Developing an android version will be significantly more challenging. If asked, I think I would cautiously tell women that IF they have no way to get the mareh evaluated in person (they do not live near any qualified Rav or yoetzet, or they are traveling), and they have an iphone and carefully follow the instructions, this seems to be reliable. I have worked online with Rav Auman for a long time, and while I haven't actually met him in person, I do trust him to know what he is doing. I'm still checking into it. If any of you have iphones (like most Israelis, I have an android) and have installed the app, I would be very interested in hearing feedback. Thank you! Shavua tov, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 19:10:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 22:10:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Music on the night of Lag B'Omer Message-ID: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> It seems quite common that people have bonfires with music on the evening of Lag B'Omer. I haven't found a compelling reason for this custom - even those who are meikil like the Rama to lift the Aveilus on Lag B'Omer don't do so until the day, I thought, as miktzas hayom k'kulo. Does anyone have an explanation for this? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 21:20:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 00:20:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Music on the night of Lag B'Omer In-Reply-To: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> References: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <112dafa9-5b8f-9e78-8b3e-2c0fcd51e25b@sero.name> On 13/05/17 22:10, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > It seems quite common that people have bonfires with music on the > evening of Lag B?Omer. I haven?t found a compelling reason for this > custom ? even those who are meikil like the Rama to lift the Aveilus on > Lag B?Omer don?t do so until the day, I thought, as miktzas hayom > k?kulo. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Yes. If one is merely noting the end of aveilus, then it starts in the morning, tachanun (or Tzidkas'cha) is said at the previous mincha, and bichlal it's not a celebration, any more than one celebrates when getting up from shiva. I've never heard of people singing and dancing and playing music on such an occasion, even if it's permitted. But if one is celebrating Rashbi's yom hillula then it's a full holiday, an occasion for song and dance and music, and of course it starts at night, with no tachanun at the previous mincha. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 12:11:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:11:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin Message-ID: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 12:27:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:27:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin In-Reply-To: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> References: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170515192700.GA20468@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:11:29PM -0400, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? MB 40:3 says that's the universal minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 14:49:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 17:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped Tefillin Message-ID: <5F399CEB-B043-4AB8-A067-A8E1495829DF@cox.net> Saul Newman wrote: Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? To the best of my knowledge, YES. However, I also recall that one could give extra tzedaka in lieu of fasting. rw From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 16 19:26:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 22:26:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World" Message-ID: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> This Torah portion sets forth the blessings that are seen in this world in response to our deeds. It then continues with the Tochacha, words of admonition, "If you will not listen to Me and will not perform all of these commandments?" Interestingly, there are seven series of seven punishments each. God warns us throughout the portion that He will punish us in "seven ways for your seven sins. We are now counting seven days a week for seven weeks; the Torah has just recently given the laws for Shemita ? seventh year the land lies fallow and seven periods of seven years, we celebrate the Jubilee year. What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the diatonic scale, seven continents, etc. We wind the T'fillin straps around our forearm seven times. We sit shiva for seven days. At the wedding we chant 7 blessings (sheva b'rachos) and the wedding is followed by seven days of celebration. Even the Torah begins with seven -- the First verse has seven words also containing a total of twenty-eight letters which is seven times four. Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion. When we say "Baruch Hashem" we are praising God for something that is hopefully whole and complete. The acronym for Baruch Hashem (Beis, Hay) also equals 7. Finally, the patriarchs and matriarchs total seven: Avraham, Yitzchok, Ya?akov, Sarah, Rivka, Rochel, Leah. (Please don?t write me to say your phone number has seven digits or the rainbow has 7 colors or that there are seven letters in the Roman numeral system or that nitrogen has the atomic number of 7 or that there were 7 dwarfs with Snow White). :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 05:31:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 12:31:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality, Message-ID: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> See below concerning a frequently discussed issue: Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today, especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:30:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:30:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World" In-Reply-To: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> References: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170518143027.GB13698@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:26:19PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven : represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the : diatonic scale, seven continents... Although the diatonic scale and the division of the colors in the spectrum to fit the numbers 7 are human inventions. They say more about what 7 means to humans -- even without revalation -- than anything inherent. ... : Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion... As does the word. Without niqud, the letters /sb`/ could be read as "seven" or "satiated". (Or swear... go figure that out.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:18:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:18:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170518171844.GD26698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh : Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on : Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives : today, certainly not in any practical manner. A tighter comparison... The minhag as recorded in the SA clearly ran into Lag baOmer -- and ending mourning with the usual miqtzas hayom kekulo. Then the hilula deRashbi turned Lag baOmer into a holiday, and this new holiday overrode the older minhagim of aveilus. What's good for one new holiday ought to be good for another (YhA, where this conversation began), no? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:24:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:24:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:24:41PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was : enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*)... As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel YT") but it's "neir Chanukah". Their kids wouldn't forget. : everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get : enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel : dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... Fire hazard is safeiq piquach nefesh, and ein danin es ha'efshar mishe'i efshar. However, wouldn't the alternative been lighting in the dinig hall, near one's table? The point is to eat by neir shel YT, not to sleep by them! And in this case (combining the above with what RJR wrote), shouldn't they have provided incandescent lamps for each table? (Not that there were small bulbs of other sorts when we were growing up.) Wouldn't it be easier to justify making a berakhah on turning the light on than on lighting in a third room or a table off to the side of the dining room dozens of yards from where you are eating? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:35:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:35:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality, In-Reply-To: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170518143502.GC13698@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:31:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why : there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters : of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the : masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as : all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak : halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would : contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today, : especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.] Not sure what this means. There are halakhos about triage. About how much tzedaqah to give and how to prioritize them. There are a lot of halakhos about morality. I fail to see how this isn't circular. The open moral questions RYBS is referring to are those too situational for every possible situation to be addressed with its own pesaq. Ar the Ramban puts it on "ve'asisa hayashar vehatov". If "morality" is being used in a sense to limit it to those quetions that did not get halachic resolution, isn't he just saying the interpersonal questions that didn't get a pesaq didn't get a pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:46:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:46:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170518144626.GD13698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei : Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events : of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber). It seems (but is not muchrach) from the AhS 394:1-3 . As I wrote (in part) in 2010 . The AhS distinguishes between a global minhag from the Geonic period not to marry and a later minhag bemedinos ha'eilu. He attaches the minhag of 1-33 (and including miqtzas yayom kekulo) to when the talmidei R' Aqiva died (s' 4-5) and the minhag of the last days to "minhag shelanu" (s' 5), localizing the last days to the descendent of those who fled the Crusaders east. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:14:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 11:04:32AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : If ownership : According to Halacha : Is determined by believing one is in control : And when that control : Is lost : There's YiUsh : Then this Chamets : Had no owner : During Pesach But if this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as -- it would be open and shut. I think ba'alus (as opposed to ownership) is defined by having the legal responsibility for something, and only as a consequence about having control or a right to use it. Which would explain why qinyan, a mechanism for eatablishing shelichus or shibud, is more thought of as a means of establishing baalus. Because baalus is also primarily on the hischayvus side. And so, it has as a consequence actual legal right of control, rather than depending on belief that one is in control. Which is why a ganav needs yi'ush plus shinui. Yi'ush, loss of belief of having control, is NOT enough to end ba'alus. But that's ba'alus. We don't have ba'alus over chameitz on Pesach. For example, an avaryan who dies on Pesach while violating bal yeira'eh bal yeimatzeih (BYBY) does not leave that chameitz to his sons. BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs from choshein mishpat, and is not baalus. ... : And Chamets can be Muttar : Even if owned by a Y : If it's abandoned : For the duration of Pesach ... : And it seems : Even without Bittul. ... The mishnah on Pesachim 31b says that if it's buried so deep a dog cannot dig it up, it is a form of bi'ur. R' Chisda in the opening gemara says it needs bitul. But in any case, the question is whether this is destruction. The gemara likens it to bi'ur. Not about a loss of ownership. Which would create a whole different question, as Tosafos (Pesachim 4b "mideOraisa") understand relinquishing ownership to be the very definition of bitul. (The majority opinion -- Rashi "bibitul be'alma", Ritva, Ran, and the Rambam 2:2 -- say it's a form of bi'ur.) Rashi and the Ran say the need for bitul after a mapolah fell on one's chameitz is derabbnan, a gezeira in case it gets unburied. But while buried, it's kebi'ur. The Samaq (#98) says the need for bitul is de'oraisa. And the MA holds that the Semaq would require buried chameitz not was not batul to be dug up and burnt on Pesach. The Mekhilta (on Shemos 12:19, see #2 ) says that chameitz owned by a nakhri which is in a Jew's reshus or a Jew's chameitz are excluded from BYBY by the pasuq's extra word "beveteikhem". "Af al pi shehu birshuso". The Mekhilta is making a split between reshus and BYBY. And it could be we are discussing three different concepts of "ownership", with reshus and baalu being different from each other as well. There is also a whole sugya about buried issurei han'ah on Temurah 33b-34a (starting at the mishnah) that I would need to understand better with rishonim and posqim to really comment in full. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:38:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:38:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> References: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 18/05/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel > YT") but it's "neir Chanukah" In L's case, "neir shel shabbos kodesh", but "neir chanukah". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 13:53:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 21:53:30 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? Message-ID: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> A thought just struck me, and I wondered if this chimed with anybody. The Rambam says (Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 halacha 13): ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????. Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. The Tur says the same except that he has Torah shebichtav and Torah sheba'al peh around the other way (Tur Yoreh Deah Hilchot Talmud Torah siman 246): ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??"? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???"? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? The Sages said all who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking with Torah shebichtav but with Torah shebaal peh he should not teach her ab initio, but if he taught her it is not as though he taught her Tiflut The Beis Yosef says it is a scribal error in the Tur, and should be the same way as the Rambam, and that is how he has the statement in the Shulchan Aruch, and the Taz agrees, pointing to Hakel. The Prisha notes that the Beis Yosef says that it is a scribal error but adds: ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??"? In any event there is to give a small reason for this version in the books of the Tur, since with all of them it is written and published so, because there is a greater loss when Torah shebichtav is brought out as words of nonsense than with Torah shebal peh. However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil Siman 199, the Maharil writes: ?????? ????? ???"? ??????' ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?"? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ? - ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?????' ???? ???? ?? ??? ????' ?? ???????, ??? ??' ??"?? ?"?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????, ??"? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????, ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??'? ???? ???? ??????, ??? ??? ????? ????? ... ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???, ???? ?"? ????? ?????, And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut as it says in perek notlev and we learn it from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, when wisdom enters so does cunning since when wisdom enters the heart of a person there also enters into it cunning and according to the explanation of Rashi because of this she will do things privately, and if so we are concerned that she will come to damage since their knowledge is light and even though it is considered a mitzvah eit l?asot lashem so that one should not drown out the reward by loss and all the more so where there is not a mitzvah ... And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by way of tradition from outside, And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous generations: ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like it says ?ask your father and he shall tell you? and in this it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their upright fathers. But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in the form of the Mishna? That the Torah sheba'al peh was passed from father to son by oral transmission (albeit that at one point schools were instated for those lacking fathers who could teach them)? And on the other hand doesn't the Rosh (ie father of the Tur) famously say that today one fulfils the mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah by writing other seforim in Hilkhot Sefer Torah, chap. 1 as is brought by the Tur and Shulhan Arukh in Yoreh De'ah 270:2? So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al peh - as the vast majority of the details are sourced in Torah sheba'al peh, and if they were only to be taught what is in Torah shebichtav, they would all turn into Karaites! And indeed that women were, as the Chofetz Chaim suggests, taught in the home with the tradition handed over by their fathers in the same way as Torah sheba'al peh has always been learnt all the way back to Moshe Rabbanu. While if you understand Torah shebichtav as including mishna and gemora and rishonim, all so long as they have been written down, then one could indeed understand that as being a possible practical distinction - ie not to teach women to read and write and understand what is in the written seforim? Now perhaps one might say that if the Rambam had poskened like Rav Elazar in Gitten 60b as understood by Rashi, that Torahshebichtav is the majority and Torah sheba'al peh is the minority, because he includes in Torah shebichtav anything that is learnt out of the Torah by way of midrash or gezera shava etc, then it might be possible to understand that by and large women could both learn to do the mitzvot incumbent on them and simultaneously avoid Torah sheba'al peh, but he doesn't, as in his introduction the Mishna he categorises Torah Sheba'al peh into five categories, and is clearly in this poskening like Rav Yochanan. So how, according to the Rambam, did women know what to do if they were never taught Torah sheba'al peh, even ba'al peh, remembering that it is the Rema's addition to the Shulchan Aruch in the name of the Smag (actually Smak) via the Agur that adds in the halacha that women need to learn all the mitzvot that are relevant to them? Is not the Tur's version actually the one that makes more logical sense - especially if you explain Hakel as per the gemora in Chagiga that the women came to listen (ie hear it orally, without looking at the text)? Not that this would seem to explain Rabi Eliezer himself, as Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna in Sotah 21a - objected to women learning that sometimes drinking the Sotah water would not result in immediate death, and in the Yerushalmi, Sotah perek 3 daf 19 column 1 halacha 4 he objected to telling a woman why there are three different types of deaths listed vis a vis the chet haegel when there was only one sin - both of which pieces of learning were, at least in his day, definitely Torah sheba'al peh. So given that the Rambam poskened like Rabbi Eliezer, he would have needed, if a distinction was to be made, have to phrase it the way he did. But maybe what the Tur was saying is that, Rabbi Eliezer or no, the Rambam's solution is not workable, and given the way the gemora explains Rabbi Eliezer's limud from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, and that already in his day that kind of learning was found in Torah shebichtav, the whole thing can be made workable by turning it the other way around? Has anybody seen this suggested anywhere? Any thoughts? Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 15:56:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 08:56:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> References: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 19 May 2017 3:15 am, "Micha Berger" wrote: >: If ownership >: According to Halacha >: Is determined by believing one is in control >: And when that control >: Is lost >: There's YiUsh >: Then this Chamets >: Had no owner >: During Pesach > If this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as I don't understand. Please explain. One who is unaware of the loss of his wallet, believes he is still in control. We Pasken that he remains the owner. Famous story, woman lost her money at a trade fair, was found and taken to the Rov. Although there was no question that it was the money she had lost, there was no way to Pasken that it had to be returned to her. YiUsh. Until Reb Y ? explained that she was never the owner and her state of mind was not relevant. It was her husband's money and he, being unaware it was lost, still firmly believed he was in control. YSheLoMiDaAs suggesting that since he'd be in a different state of mind, if he knew the facts, in other words YSheLoMiDaAs, is still a Sevara that recognises and circulates around the principle that ownership depends upon ones state of mind. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 09:16:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 12:16:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts Message-ID: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Two Faces of Love Twice a day the Jew gives expression to one of the most potent forces in social life ? LOVE. In the morning we plead for ahavah rabbah, abundance of love, for in the morning we want love to expand and grow throughout the day. In the evening, however, when darkness descends upon us, we pray again for love, but not in quantitative terms. Instead we plead for ahavat olam ? enduring and eternal love. In the dark night love does not grow; it deepens. Two Philosophies of LIfe Sarah advised her husband to cast out Ishmael, when she saw he was ?Miitzachaik? and she feared he would be an evil influence on his brother ?Yitzchok.? Interestingly, both ?Miitzachaik? and ?Yitzchok? have a common root, meaning to laugh or to play. What is the disparity? The difference is compelling: ?Mitzachaik? is in the present tense and ?Yitzchok? is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael?s philosophy of life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future. Conversely, she saw that Yitzchok?s philosophy of life was to live life spiritually, delaying immediate gratification and living his life in a way that would provide genuine happiness and enjoyment in the future. The future depends on what we do in the present. Mahatma Gandhi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 11:14:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 14:14:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes Message-ID: <20170519181429.GA31873@aishdas.org> >From this week's emailing from The Halachah Center / Beis haVaad leInyanei Mishpat . There are a number of halachic discussions about e-cig use -- whether kashrus concerns apply, health issues, but then they close with this interesting (to me) more aggadic point. Note found interesting was that R' Yosef Greenwald assumes that venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem isn't about preserving life, but preserving one's ability to pull the ol mitzvos. (That sounds weird, but an animal "pulls a yoke", no?) Which includes preserving life. And thus includes intoxication and other mind- or mood-altering chemicals that could hamper one's ability to function. I could have seen argiong for each as separate values, but... Holy Smokes! A Halachic Discussion Regarding E-Cigarettes Are e-cigarettes problematic from a halachic standpoint? By: Rav Yosef Greenwald ... The Health Concerns of E-cigarettes ... 1. Are E-Cigarettes Any Better than Cigarettes? ... 2. Derech Eretz and a Life of Meaning Let us conclude with one more point about the general imperative to protect our health and its relevance to this case. Although as mentioned there is an injunction to safeguard our health based on v'nishmartem, we also have an assurance of shomer pesaim Hashem, that Hashem will protect those who engage in normal activities, as Rav Moshe explained, which is based on the Gemara (Yevamos 12b and elsewhere).[10] Consequently, eating greasy french fries, doughnuts, and the like, may not be the healthiest thing to do. However, doing so would not violate a halachic prohibition, as eating these foods is considered in the realm of normal behavior (like smoking used to be), and we can apply shomer pesa'im Hashem. There have recently been some questions asked about the kashrus on medical marijuana, due to the possibility that the recreational use of marijuana may be normalized soon. However, before discussing the kashrus questions, one must ask whether it is acceptable to consume marijuana. It would seem to be in the same category as significant alcohol consumption. Leaving aside any possible physical damage caused from overdosing, there is no specific halacha that forbids one from getting drunk, aside from being careful not to miss the proper time for Tefilla, and not issuing halachic rulings while in an inebriated state.[11] Nevertheless, it should be obvious that this is wrong, based on what could be called the "fifth section of the Shulchan Aruch," using common sense in living one's life. Clearly, Hashem does not want a person to waste away their life in a state in which one cannot serve Hashem properly. Rather, one should live life as an intelligent, sober person. One who overdoses on alcohol, or engages in mind-altering or mood- altering by ingesting marijuana, is taking away the ability to function as a normal person. This falls under the category of derech eretz, proper conduct, which precedes the observance of halacha. In other words, even if one does not directly violate the Shulchan Aruch, one must live in a manner in which the Torah and halacha can be fulfilled. To return to e-cigarettes, this notion of living healthy is an important reason why, even if it is concluded that they are 100% kosher even without certification, a non-smoker should not start using such a product. In the merit of being able to curb one's physical temptations, hopefully we as a people can merit to reaching great spiritual heights, and achieve the closeness to Hashem that He, and we, so desire. ... [11] Both of these issues are discussed in the Gemara (Eiruvin 64a) and are cited in the Shulchan Aruch. ... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 12:08:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:08:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Does Orthodox Commitment Provide What is Needed for Good Character? Message-ID: <20170519190815.GA24683@aishdas.org> From http://jewishethicalwisdom.com/does-orthodox-commitment-provide-what-is-needed-for-good-character Critical reading for anyone interested in what AishDas stands for. Jewish Ethical Wisdom Blog Does Orthodox Commitment Provide What is Needed for Good Character? Posted on April 6, 2017 Posted By: Anthony Knopf Does Orthodox commitment provide what is needed for good character? Not yet, I answer in this article. ... Rashei peraqim: Introduction Feeling and Thinking Ethically - Not Always a Matter of Halakha Exclusive Focus on Halakha Distracts from and Attenuates Moral Sensitivity More is Required :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 12:19:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:19:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts In-Reply-To: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> References: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170519191925.GA30260@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:16:28PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The difference is compelling: "Mitzachaik" is in the present tense and : "Yitzchok" is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael's philosophy of : life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as : much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future. However, "Yishmael", the name, is also in future tense, and later in his life, "Yitzchaq metzacheiq es Rivqah ishto" (26:8) -- in the present tense. And while "Yishmael's" name is about listening, not tzechoq, is not listening MORE fundamental to a healthy relationship? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 02:14:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 19:14:00 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah at the Age of 12 Message-ID: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> My maternal grandfather, who lived in Lithuania until his late teens, told me on a number of occasions that he celebrated his bar mitzvah when he was 12 years old, as his father had died and he was considered to be an orphan. Some years ago I recalled this and decided to learn more about the custom, but each of the rabbis I asked had never heard of it. Recently, however, I was re-reading A Tzadik in Our Time: The Life of Reb Aryeh Levin and, at page 95, he recounts that he attended a bar mitzvah of an orphan in Jerusalem on his 12th birthday. Does anyone know anything of this custom? David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 13:39:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:39:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs > from choshein mishpat, and is not baalus. We can see a connection between BYBY and "responsibility" by the situation of a shomer. Even in a situation where a shomer is absolutely not the owner or baal in any sense of the term, he will still violate BYBY if he is responsible for the chometz that he is watching. (I don't know which side of the discussion this supports, but it seems very relevant to *some* side, so I figured I'd mention it.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 19:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'midbar Message-ID: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> Israel?s brithplace was b?midbar ? in the wilderness. It has been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced the monotheistic faith. Man is always in need of fulfillment and his promised land is far away. He is always on the road to the actualization of his dreams, seeking better things and yearning for a fuller, fulfilling life. The wilderness is the symbol of man searching for his destination. It is told that a Chassidic Rebbe, impatient at the sad, mad state of the world (sound familiar?) and overcome with longing for the happiness of mankind, prayed to God: ?If Thou cannot redeem Thy people Israel, then at least redeem mankind!? May we reach the promised land in our lifetime! rw ?Ay me! sad hours seem long.? William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 19:00:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:00:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "Krias Moshe Leynen"? Message-ID: <7c27ddbf-5df2-526c-c8bd-dbfd5a94b96e@sero.name> Has anyone heard of such a thing? I came across it in a Munkatcher publication. If it were buried in a block of text I'd take it for a typo for "Krias Sh'ma Leynen", referring to the children who come on the vach nacht to say Krias Sh'ma for the baby. But it's in a prominent position where I think surely someone would have noticed such a blatant typo and corrected it before it went to print, so my current working theory is that it's some minhag that neither I nor anyone I've asked so far have heard of. So I'm throwing it to the wider Avodah community; does anyone know what this is? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 23:08:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 02:08:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah at the Age of 12 In-Reply-To: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> References: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 20/05/17 05:14, David Havin via Avodah wrote: > My maternal grandfather, who lived in Lithuania until his late teens, > told me on a number of occasions that he celebrated his bar mitzvah when > he was 12 years old, as his father had died and he was considered to be > an orphan. > > Some years ago I recalled this and decided to learn more about the > custom, but each of the rabbis I asked had never heard of it. Recently, > however, I was re-reading A Tzadik in Our Time: The Life of Reb Aryeh > Levin and, at page 95, he recounts that he attended a bar mitzvah of an > orphan in Jerusalem on his 12^th birthday. > > Does anyone know anything of this custom? There is, of course, no such custom of becoming a bar mitzvah early. But it was a common custom that a child with no father would begin putting on tefillin a full year before his bar mitzvah, rather than a few weeks or months as is the usual custom. See Aruch Hashulchan 37:4, who says this is "murgal befi hahamon", but he knows of no reason for it, and disapproves of it. See: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=374&pgnum=295 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 14:40:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 17:40:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts In-Reply-To: References: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Message-ID: <2B3DC5BF-D4C8-4C0D-A9B0-01AE8A89E41E@cox.net> > "Yishmael", the name, is also in future tense ...which means "he WILL hear or listen" which fits in with his personality and character. Presently he doesn't listen and does what he pleases. When he gets old, he will then listen. > And while "Yishmael's" name is about listening, not tzechoq, is not > listening MORE fundamental to a healthy relationship? A healthy relationship is fundamental with many elements: one of which is certainly listening NOW, not in the future. Can you imagine telling your child to do something and he says I'll do it in the future. He isn't even listening because as you point out "He WILL listen -- a lot of good that does for the present. And psychologists will tell you that a healthy relationship must have laughter and humor which can only increase the health of a relationship. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 22 07:47:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 10:47:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag Baomer in pre WWII Mir Yeshiva in Europe In-Reply-To: <1494871334409.64146@stevens.edu> References: <1494871334409.64146@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170522144737.GB29499@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:02:36PM +0000, Prof Yitzchak Levine posted on Areivim: : Please see http://mrlitvak.blogspot.com/ I can understand a desire to reaffirm the authentic Litvisher derkeh. But meanwhile, we have more learning than at any time in Litta's history, and kids are still uninspiring and fleeing in horrendous numbers. How often do people mention the RBSO? How much do we discuss or base decisions on the kelalim gedolim baTorah (cf RBW's recent review of RJB's The Great Principle of the Torah -- ve'ahvta lerei'akha kamokha, de'alakh sani, eileh toledos ha'adam, shema Yisrael, tzadiq be'emunaso yichyeh, etc...)? So, Lag baOmer may not be more than cheap sentimentality. But even if I were to agree this was true, I would still argue that we are in desperate need of sentimentality -- and will settle for the cheap kind rather than letting the pursuit of perfection become excuses for less emotional expression. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 10:54:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:54:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? Message-ID: We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that are on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv is al pi din. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 12:38:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:38:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Added textual mar'eh meqomos alongside the links. -micha] On 23/05/17 13:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would > like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. > Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that > are on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv > is al pi din. These would seem to be dispositive: [Rambam, Hilkhos Shekheinim 10:11:] http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/c310.htm#11 [SA CM 155:26:] https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9F_%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9A_%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9F_%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98_%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%9B%D7%95 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 13:35:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 16:35:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170523203556.GC10104@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 08:54:41PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would : like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. : Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that are : on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv is al pi : din. Related question, really came up last week. Someone had a tree that neighbors were complaining about, that it looked like it was dying and might fall on the neighbor's roof. On a windy day recently it actually snapped -- but not falling on the roof, instead the tree brought down the power lines. A number of people on the block lost food before power was restored and other expenses were incurred. Is the owner of the tree liable al pi din? What if the neighbor hadn't warned him, so that we cannot know if the owner was aware of an issue or not? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 42nd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliability crucial for universal brotherhood? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 13:37:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:37:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'Note found interesting was that R' Yosef Greenwald assumes that venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem isn't about preserving life, but preserving one's ability to pull the ol mitzvos. (That sounds weird, but an animal "pulls a yoke", no?) Which includes preserving life. And thus includes intoxication and other mind- or mood-altering chemicals that could hamper one's ability to function.' The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it either as far as I recall. So that leaves us fairly free to guess what it means, I suppose. I'd assumed it means preserving health, inasmuch as nefesh usually refers to life force, and we wouldn't need it to refer to preserving life itself, since that's covered by a) prohibition of suicide and b) al taamod al dam reyecha. And preserving health would presumably be in order to keep mitzvos the better, no? And I think an animal bears a yoke and pulls a plough. Lashon Hakodesh is always 'nosei ol'. Which corresponds better to bear than pull. So we carry/bear the ol mitzvos I think. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 14:25:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 07:25:01 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away - Mashkon Pikadon Message-ID: In Siman 440 chametz foods owned by a G in the care of a Yid (a ?shomer? / guardian) Siman 441 chametz foods owned by a G left in the care of a Yid as a ?mashkon? (lit. collateral) for guarantee of a loan from the Yid Pesachim 5b Two pesukim Shmos 13:7 ?Chametz shall not be seen to you and leaven shall not be seen to you in all your borders.? You may not see your own (i.e. keep in your possession), but you may see that of others (i.e. non-Jews)? Shmos 12:19 ?For a seven-day period leaven shall not be found in your homes.? a Yid may not accept Chamets deposits from non-Jews.? there appears to be an inconsistency Gemara Pesachim 5b If a Yid may see Chamets of non-Jews why does the Beraisa prohibit the chametz deposit of a non-Jew? It depends upon whether the Y has (monetary) responsibility for the Chametz, When a Y accepts monetary responsibility for the chametz he is considered to be owner to the extent that he is Over BYBY Mishnah Berura discusses whether the Y can sell the ?pikadon?. concludes yes If the Y has no monetary responsibility (i.e. for loss, theft or negligence) it may be kept in his house during Pesach but to ensure it is not mistakenly eaten must close it in a room The ?shomer? who assumes monetary liability becomes a part-owner therefore, a Jew's chametz with a non-Jewish ?shomer? does not absolve the Y he is Over BYBY A visiting non-Jew who brings his own chametz into the home of a Jew need not ask the non-Jew to remove the chametz and may even invite him into his home and eat the chametz right at his table provided the Y does not eat together with the G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 13:42:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:42:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim Message-ID: > > > > I am not expressing an opinion here on the permissibility of maharats, or > of women's ordination. I merely wish to express my respect for those on > both sides of this important question, and my hope that the dispute will > remain on the level of a machloket l'shem shamayim and that ultimately all > of us will benefit from this challenging and passionate conversation. > > ---------------------- Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilana. I have found that discussions about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven ... and of not having a recognized posek to support their halachic position. The discussions rarely focus on the relevant halachic issues. It's nice to hear someone who is willing to respect the other side...and recognize that the discussion is a machlokes l'sheim shamayim. -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 17:37:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 20:37:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170525003710.GA22308@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:42pm EDT, R Michael Feldstein wrote: : Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilana. I have found that discussions : about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because : those who support : shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven ... and : of not having : a recognized posek to support their halachic position. The discussions : rarely focus on : the relevant halachic issues. A discussion on Avodah can focus exclusively on the relevant halachic issues. A decision of what to do in practice has to include deferring to the position that actually is backed by recognized posqim. And one side's unwillingness to ask the question on this level itself becomes a relevant halachic issue. However, the following is true anyway: : It's nice to hear someone who is willing to respect the other side...and : recognize that : the discussion is a machlokes l'sheim shamayim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 20:03:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 05:03:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly accused of being agenda driven. Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. Ben On 5/24/2017 10:42 PM, Michael Feldstein via Areivim wrote: > I have found that discussions > about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support > shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 04:57:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 11:57:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> On 5/24/2017 10:42 PM, Michael Feldstein via Areivim wrote: > I have found that discussions > about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support > shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven _______________________________________________ Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:28:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:28:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? Message-ID: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:30:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:30:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shoftim-Mesorah Chain Message-ID: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&st=&pgnum=484 Fascinating article on the mesorah chain-were the shoftim really part of it ?(doesn't deal with broader question of why we don't see Sanhedrin in Nach). KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:46:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 10:46:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shoftim-Mesorah Chain In-Reply-To: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170525144620.GA16912@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:30:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&st=&pgnum=484 : Fascinating article on the mesorah chain-were the shoftim really part of it ?(doesn't deal with broader question of why we don't see Sanhedrin in Nach). Is this the right link? The article appears to be about the revalation of Tanakh "Dargot haNevu'ah baTorah, Nevi'im uKhtuvim", starting with Devarim vs the other 4 chumashim, then Navi vs Kesuvim. By R Moshe Menachem haKohein Shapira. I think you mean an earlier article, MEsoret haTSBP beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah Neustadt. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252pgnum=474 Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:26:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:26:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minhagei Nashim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526012654.GA29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 06:51:56AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I am NOT talking about a machlokes haposkim, where the wife was taught one : thing and the husband was taught something else. In that case, there is : much common ground, and they (or their rav) can go to the sources to figure : out what the couple should do. I'm talking about a much more fundamental : problem, where generations have passed on different traditions, without : anyone ever realizing that there was a mismatch. Is this really a problem? I highly recommend learning AhS. One of the things you get to watch is how much this conflict drives the dialectic of halakhah. Unlike the clean-room approach to halachic theory one gets from lomdus. You get a sense of how much acceptance of a practice in the field drives how much willingness to accept or draft a dachuq theory to explain how it could be justified in theory. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:43:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:43:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'midbar In-Reply-To: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> References: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170526014307.GC29809@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:37:34PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has : been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced : the monotheistic faith... But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged during the Exodus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:39:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526013946.GB29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, : and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying : observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes : when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ... : [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is : outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be : factionalized like that. .... : help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, : despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it : is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to : the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply : to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. : I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 : consistent with 493:8? Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag, as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin on ch"m either. It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the local court(s) or inherited. Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag side of the AhS's chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 20:53:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 23:53:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes Message-ID: R' Ben Bradley wrote: > The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is > that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui > which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in > fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha > nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it > either as far as I recall. This surprised me so much that I looked it up. Here's what I found: These words are from Devarim 4:15. The only comment of the Torah Temimah is: "This is brought and explained above, in the pasuk Ushmor Nafsh'cha (#9)." So I look at Devarim 4:9, and the Torah Temimah quotes a lengthy story from Brachos 32b, which references both pesukim (4:9 and 4:15). The comments of the Torah Temimah that I found particularly relevant to RBB's comment are found in the second and third paragraphs in Torah Temimah #16, and I will quote them here: > The Maharsha writes here, "This pasuk is about forgetting > the Torah, and these pesukim have nothing at all to do with > a person protecting his own nefesh from danger." According > to him, the tzadik of that story said what he said to the > government official merely to get out of the situation, > because the pasuk is really not about Shmiras Haguf. Further, > the fact that it is a common saying, for people to quote the > pasuk V'nishmartem Me'od L'nafshoseichem for any physical > danger - according to the Maharsha that's a mistake. > > But isn't it the explicit opinion of the Rambam, who wrote > in Rotzeach 11:4, "It is a Mitzvas Aseh to remove any > michshol which could be a Sakanas Nefashos, and to be very > very careful about it, as it is said, 'Hishamer L'cha, > Ushmor Nafsh'cha Me'od.'" So it is explicit that the language > of these pesukim *is* about protecting one's body. At first glance, this seems to go against what RBB wrote. BUT: Even according to the Rambam as cited by the Torah Temimah, it seems to me that the most one can say is that Ushmor Nafsh'cha (Devarim 4:9) talks about physical danger; we don't necessarily know that about V'nishmartem (Devarim 4:15), and it is not clear to me why the Torah Temimah closes that paragraph referring to "THESE pesukim" (hapesukim ha-ayleh). Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 03:18:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 13:18:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Bmidbar Message-ID: Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has : been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced : the monotheistic faith... But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged during the Exodus >> However, the avot were shepherds and it has been suggested that being alone with the flock and nature helped them perceive monotheism. BTW I am now reading The exodus you almost passed over by Rabbi Fohrman who demonstrates that the debate between Moshe and Pharoh and the 10 plagues all revolve about monotheism versus polytheism -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:39:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526013946.GB29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, : and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying : observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes : when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ... : [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is : outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be : factionalized like that. .... : help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, : despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it : is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to : the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply : to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. : I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 : consistent with 493:8? Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag, as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin on ch"m either. It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the local court(s) or inherited. Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag side of the AhS's chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 19:22:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 22:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government Message-ID: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> There is a popular theory that the positive description of the gov't found repeatedly found in the AhS is self-censorship and an attempt to make sure his works make it through the government censorship and approval process. But there are times he goes far beyond this, complimenting them in ways no censor would have expected, never mind demanded. For example EhE 42:51, the discussion of marrying in front of witnesses \who are pesulei eidus deOraisa -- eg converts away from Judaism. Rashi has a case of an anoos who got married with other anoosim, and they all returned. Rashi ruled that she needs a gett, because maybe they had hirhurei teshuvah and at that moment were valid eidim. Then he adds Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed. They would never force someone to convert. Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah, we don't have to be chosheish for it. So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus? In terms of timing, the first booklets of EhE started coming out in 1905. (After YD, which came out 1897-1905.) He stopped sometime during or before 1908, his petirah; but he could have written this well before 1905 -- I only know the publishing date. 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other things. Which then led to a new Russioan Constitution, a multi-party system, the Imperial Duma... and 11 years later, the Soviets. So, it's hard to believe he meant it, but it's hard to believe he would risk empty flattery with those stakes! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 04:50:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 07:50:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> On 25/05/17 22:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Then he adds > Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu > shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed. > They would never force someone to convert. He goes on far longer than that. So long that no reader could possibly miss his meaning. > Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he > continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's > converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah, > we don't have to be chosheish for it. > > So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he > suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO > obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up > to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus? This was a period when some publishers of siddurim felt it necessary to print "avinu malkeinu ein lanu melech bashamayim ela ata". He may very well have feared that including a practical psak about anoosim would arouse the censor's ire, especially since the censors were themselves mostly meshumodim. > 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which > was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other > things. Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would have been obvious to him too. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 07:57:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other :> things. : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would : have been obvious to him too. I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation audience. Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his contemporary readers. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 08:33:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 11:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2dc5d4d3-0686-0f3a-9692-24d0aa39595b@sero.name> On 26/05/17 10:57, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which > :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other > :> things. > > : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see > : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which > : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would > : have been obvious to him too. > > I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in > his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation > audience. candlesticks? I think you meant gelecther. But there's no false psak, just a false description of the metzius, which is so over the top that nobody could miss it. > Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining > qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting > them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his > contemporary readers. How could he possibly know what future conditions might be? Any reference in any sefer to "our times" has to be understood as about the author's times, not the reader's. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 07:53:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:53:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly : accused of being agenda driven. : : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response. Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality. Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a non-halachic agenda by making it look holy. (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:57:32AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post : modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all : agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid) But there are limits to eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. When in a halachic debate, one should be limiting oneself to the various answers that are objectively right. Thus presuming there is an objectively right, while still not being absolutist about it. And if we assimilated too much postmodernism to be able to see where eilu va'eilu ends (tapers off), we should be leaning on posqim who can. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 09:54:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 12:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Tvunah] St. Petersberg White Night Zmanim Message-ID: <20170526165420.GA22041@aishdas.org> >From the web site of R' Asher Weiss's pesaqim . I was told that they had a similar problem in the summer in Telzh. Motza"sh was havdalah, melaveh malkah, night seder, shacharis kevasikin, sleep. Tvunah in English Beit Midrash for Birurei Halachah Binyan Zion Under the Leadership of Maran HaRav Asher Weiss Shlita White Night Zmanim Questions: 1. During White Nights here in St. Petersburg we end Shabbat at midnight (2:00). This is also the time of alot ashahar. Accordingly, there is no opportunity to say a blessing on the candle and eat Seudat melawe malka. Question: Is it possible to rely on the opinion of rabbi Ovadiya Yoseph that alot ashahar is 72 dakot zmaniet before dawn, and accordingly there is a certain night after Chatzot for Bracha on the candle and melawe malka? 2. Can we finish fasts of 17 of Tamuz and the 9th of Av after tzet kahovim according Gaon (0:03 and 23:03)? Answers: 1. Since it is already the beginning of the light of the new day and hence Alot Hashachar, the bracha on the candle for havdala should not be said. However since it is still a few hours before Netz Hachama [sunrise] one could be lenient to eat Melave Malka. In fact, with regards to Melave Malka one could be lenient and eat before Chatzos, as long as 72 minutes have passed since shkiya [even though with regards to Melacha one should be machmir until Chatzos]. 2. With regards to ending Rabbinic Fasts, one could rely on the zman of Tzais Hakochavim according to Rabeinu Tam [according to the Pri Megadim that it is a set time in all places], waiting 72 minutes after shkiya. [Hebrew meqoros ubi'urim elided.] :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 45th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Malchus: What is the beauty of Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity (on all levels of relationship)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 27 12:11:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 22:11:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> On 5/26/2017 5:53 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly > : accused of being agenda driven. > : > : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. > > I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat > believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their > halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response. > > Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda > to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have > a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality. People keep using that word, "feminist". I don't think that's what feminism means. This is egalitarianism, which may overlap with feminism in some areas, but is a different ideology. And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to reality. That would imply that halakha comes first and responds to reality. I think that in the vast majority of cases, and if you want, I'll give you ample examples from the writings of JOFA/YCT people, it is a sense that egalitarianism is a moral imperative. That the egalitarian worldview is quite simply the *only* moral worldview, and that to the extent that halakha comforms to that worldview, it is a moral system, and to the extent that it does not, it is not. > Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means > of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a > non-halachic agenda by making it look holy. It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality that predates this entire debate. When the egalitarians want to try and read their ideology back into Jewish history, they often do so with things like Rashi's daughters laying tefillin, a fiction which is accepted as fact by Conservative and Reform Jews, but has absolutely no historical basis. There is a legitimate argument to be made that those on the side of tradition are afraid of change. But not that they are *only* afraid of change. Casual change of halakhic norms has caused enormous damage in recent history, and wariness or even fear of such things is both rational and reasonable. Again, there may even be something admirable about trying to equalize the two sides the way you're doing here, but it doesn't match the reality. One has only to listen to the types of arguments that are used by the two sides to see that they are operating on the basis of vastly different paradigms, where one *starts* with the Torah and one *starts* with egalitarianism. > (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about > fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" > a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos > that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, > etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or > resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and > general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha. The words of the Ramchal and Rabbenu Bachya are not as rigorously chosen as those in the halakhic areas of the Torah, and are far more easily "adapted" to foreign ideologies. I don't say that they are unimportant, but let's not let the tail wag the dog here. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 27 20:44:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 23:44:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: To quickly review an old question: If Rus and Orpah converted at the *beginning* of the story, then how could Naami send Orpah back to her people? But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews? Some answer this question suggesting that there was a sort of "conditional" conversion at the beginning, and while Rus later affirmed her conversion to be sincere, it was revealed that Orpah's was never valid to begin with. I have never understood this answer, because of the ten years that elapsed from the supposed conversion until it was retroactively nullified. (By analogy, suppose (chalila) that Jared and Ivanka would split up, and Ivanka would claim that she was only putting on a show all along. Who would believe her? Those who currently accept her geirus as valid, would anyone accept such a bitul of it?) Today I came across a different approach to the question. Like any other area of halacha, hilchos geirus has its share of halachic disputes. For example, which parts of the process require a beis din; perhaps a beis din is needed only l'chatchila, or is it me'akev? Or: If the conversion candidate admits that he/she has mixed motivations (such as being interested in a Jewish spouse, but also sincerely l'shem Shamayim), is this acceptable or is it posul even b'dieved? Pick either of those questions, or make up another one of your own. Let's say that both Orpah and Rus converted at the beginning of the story. Let's also say that everyone was up-front and sincere about whatever they claimed their motivations to be, such that no one was surprised ten years later. In other words, there was no disagreement about the facts of the situation. But there WAS a machlokes among the poskim of the time, about the halacha to apply to that situation. Machlon, Kilyon, Rus and Boaz all held like the poskim who said that the conversion was a valid one, at least b'dieved. But Naami held like the poskim who ruled it to be invalid, even b'dieved. Thus, Machlon and Kilyon were able to marry these women in good conscience. For ten years Naami held Orpah and Rus to be non-Jewish, but there wasn't much she could do about it, because their husbands held that they *were* Jewish. When the husbands died, Naami finally had the opportunity to express the view of her poskim. Orpah accepted Naami's advice (for whatever reason), but Rus was committed to continuing her new religion (for whatever reason). At this point, perhaps Rus had a second geirus to keep her mother-in-law happy, or maybe not. Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to speak of. A possible hole in my suggestion appears in pasuk 2:20, where Naami explicitly admits that Boaz is one of "OUR" relatives, and one of "OUR" redeemers. This would not make sense if Naami rejected the validity of the original conversion. However, this occurs AFTER pasuk 2:11, in which Boaz tells Rus (I am paraphrasing): "I know your whole story. Don't worry. I hold your geirus to be valid, and I hold you you be a relative." In the final analysis, Naami goes along. Maybe she decides to accept Boaz's shitah l'halacha, or maybe she merely goes along as a practical matter, given the fait accompli that both Boaz and Rus hold that way. Have I left any loose ends here? Previous approaches have focused on uncertainties of intention. This approach says that everything that happened in Moav was clear, and the only gray part was a machlokes haposkim, but we know which shitah was followed by each character of the story. I invite all comments. advTHANKSance Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 09:16:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 12:16:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0789e301-2374-0dd3-0f9e-8befc1c1052c@sero.name> On 27/05/17 23:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was > valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to > speak of. There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. What is the point of this mitzvah? It's to pay off his obligations and redeem his good name; Ruth -- whether Jewish or not -- was also his obligation, and had to be redeemed. Thus Boaz need not have believed that the initial conversion -- if there was one -- had been valid. But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:51:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:51:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Rut converted when Naomi tried to send her back, while Oprah chose not to convert. Ben On 5/28/2017 5:44 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without > Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 10:50:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 17:50:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> >From last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should always follow the local custom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:16:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:16:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mezonos After Kiddush Message-ID: <1495995457275.89387@stevens.edu> >From Friday's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. Must Kiddush be followed by a meal with bread, or is it sufficient to make Kiddush and then eat mezonos? A. There is a halacha that Kiddush may only be recited at the place of one's meal. This requirement is known as Kiddush b'makom se'udah (Pesachim 101a). If one does not eat a se'udah after Kiddush or recites Kiddush in a location other than where he eats the meal, he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of Kiddush and must make Kiddush again when and where he eats. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch (OC 273:5) quote the Ge'onim who hold that one can fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush without actually eating a full meal at the time and place that he makes Kiddush. Rather, a person can consume a mere ke'zayis of bread or even drink an additional revi'is of wine as his Kiddush-time "meal" to fulfill the requirement of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. The Magen Avraham (273:11) and Aruch Ha-Shulchan (273:8) explain that, according to the Ge'onim, one can eat Mezonos food (e.g. cookies, pastry, or cake), after Kiddush to satisfy the rule of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. This view has become widely accepted, and many poskim permit partaking of Mezonos foods after Kiddush but ideally advise against satisfying the mitzvah by merely drinking an additional revi'is of wine (see MB 273:25). Some halachic authorities, including the Chasam Sofer, as quoted by Rav Moshe Shternbuch, shlita (Teshuvos V'Hanhogos 5:80), have ruled that if one makes Kiddush and then eats Mezonos foods, he must make Kiddush again later at his actual se'udah. This was also the opinion of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l. In the next Halacha Yomis we will discuss whether cheesecake is a proper pastry for one to fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. For more on this topic please read Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer's excellent article "Eating Dairy on Shavuos" featured in the 5777 - 2017 Shavuos Consumer Daf HaKashrus. After eating pungent, strong-tasting cheese one should wait before eating meat, the same amount of time that one waits between meat and milk, regardless of the cheese's age. The following chart shows which cheeses require waiting: Aged Cheese List - Kosher -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:59:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:59:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros Message-ID: <1495998054786.63765@stevens.edu> I received the following response to my earlier email about this topic Sadly, you will always find 1 or 2 people in every shul who "sit" while the entire tzibbur stands. This strikes me as downright arrogant, and IMHO is done more to make a "statement" than to follow a minhag that might be prevalent in some communities. C'mon; if 100 or 200 people are standing, should someone stick out and sit because that's the way he was taught.....? To this I replied Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. And in light of this, may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed. I bet this never occurred to you. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:15:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:15:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> References: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> Message-ID: Some people look at this as purely a matter of minhag, and so criticize those who do not follow the local minhag, calling them arrogant. Well, the Rambam thought this was an issue of an incorrect hashqafa, and worth ignoring any minhag started in ignorance. Part of the problem with modern Jews is that everything to them is an issue of minhag. They do not understand that sometimes there are really important hashqafa issues from teh Torah involved. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels at ou.org ________________________________ From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 1:50 PM To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? >From last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should always follow the local custom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:34:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:34:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to : reality... It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem. ... : It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as : being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality : that predates this entire debate... True, as I wrote : >(My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about : >fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" : >a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos : >that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, : >etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or : >resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and : >general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) >From this perspective, those who are in favor of change are advocating a definition of Torah that includes only black-letter law. ... : It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of : Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha... Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that halakhah must conform to and the law itself. Not "primacy over halakhah", but a voice in resolving between two positions when black-letter law could be drafted to support either. It may only get a quieter voice, it still must have its say. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:16:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 16:16:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the rituals above the menshlichkeit. There's a story I've heard many times. This version comes from Rav Frand at https://torah.org/torah-portion/ravfrand-5755-naso/ > At the eulogy of R. Yaakov Kaminetzsky, zt"l, one speaker > related the following: There was a nun in Monsey, New York > who complained about the way the Jewish population related > to her: Everyone used to walk right past her... The "correct" > people ignored her, and the "super correct" people spat. This > nun then related that there was, however, one old Jew with a > white beard that used to say "Good Morning" every single day. > (That Jew was R. Yaakov.) That?s Kiddush Hashem and "looking > the other way" is Chillul Hashem. Such stories are NOT hard to find. The "frum" newspapers and magazines and parsha sheets are full of them. I don't know why so few people greeted that nun pleasantly. I hope that it changed when that story started to get around. If I write any more, I'll get even more depressed than currently. Suffice it so say that the only reason I'm posting this at all, is to clarify the point that I think RMB was trying to make, and to agree with it. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:52:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:52:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as kedoshim tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in the sense of being like aggadeta. Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos would be incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give the value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan pesukim and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos. Most often that's implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the gemara of value based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the expense of what looks otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular dracheha darchei noam is cited. I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic. Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not operate in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how the value system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We ignore meta-halachic pesukim at our peril. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:18:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:18:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Ben Waxman wrote: > I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their > very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, pages 48-52. R' Zev Sero wrote: > There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the > mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. > But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than > being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why > put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether > it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only > applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk > literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging > such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves. Good question, especially since my post explicitly allowed for "an unknown machlokes". The problem is that the machlokes would have to be one where Machlon, Kilyon, Ruth, and Boaz all held that Ruth's marriage was valid, with only Naami holding it to be not valid. My understanding is that Avoda Zara 36b allows for the *possibility* that it is muttar *d'Oraisa* to marry an Avoda Zara woman who is not from The Seven Nations. And Ruth, being from Moav, was *not* from those seven. But at the very most, that gemara would allow (on a d'Oraisa level) sexual relations, and even doing so "derech chasnus" - as a marriage. It does NOT go so far as to consider Ruth as part of the extended family such that Boaz would have any responsibility to her. I would want a source for that. Granted that there might be some "unknown machlokes" which would consider Ruth to be part of Boaz's family, even if she did not convert at the beginning of the story. But I think such a suggestion would be venturing into fantasyland. Here's why: Even if it is mutar d'Oraisa for a Jewish man to publicly marry an Avoda Zara woman (who isn't from the Seven Nations), the children from such a marriage would not be Jewish, and that's d'Oraisa. In other words, even if the marriage is legitimate, the children are not part of the man's family. And if the children are not part of his family, then kal vachomer, Boaz is certainly not part of his family. So unless you can show a valid source that Boaz held (or even *might* have held) by patrilineal descent, then I can't see RZS's suggestion as reasonable. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 15:07:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:07:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: "And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying, 'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them: May HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers 6:22-26] The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins between man and his fellow man. Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his or her face towards the offender. So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is equally important. Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 15:27:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: <4EECF03B-E505-4324-B37E-96A99F67F0A9@cox.net> "And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying, 'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them: May HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers 6:22-26] The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins between man and his fellow man. Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his or her face towards the offender. So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is equally important. Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 16:14:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 19:14:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170528231426.GD6467@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:16:38PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : : > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of : > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without : > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot : > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... : : I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and : more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly : does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But : for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the : rituals above the menshlichkeit. : This is why I wrote that the hashkafah is necessary in order to observe halakhos like qedoshim tihyu. But I realized the language problem, which is why when I replied to Lisa I used the idiom "black-letter halakhah", to refer to the kind of laws that can be codified in the SA. Which isn't only ritual. Eg the limits of ona'as mamon is black-letter halakhah. One of the saddest things about the writings of the CC (other than the MB) is that they represent the realization that shemiras halashon and ahavad chessed were going to continue to get short shrift unless someone made black-letter halakhah out of them. When in reality, HQBH would be "Happier" -- I am guessing, of course -- if we would do things things simply because ve'ahavta lerei'akha kamokha. At the Alter of Slabodka put it: I don't love mtself because there is a mitzvah to do so. So too, the mitzvah is to develop of love of others, and therefore all these things would come naturally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:31:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 14:31:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: It seems to me that the opponents of ordination of women are hiding behind conflation of terms. What is first needed is an understanding of what ordination is in this day and age. The plain meaning of the Shulchan Aruch YD 242:14 is that it is permission from a teacher to a student to instruct in issur v'heter. it is perhaps more instructive to go through the process step by step and see where those who object have a problem. 1. women learn the subject matter 2. the teacher thinks they are capable 3. if the teacher dies, according to SA YD 242:14, nothing further is needed 4. the teacher gives the student permission(to avoid transgressing on the prohibition of moreh l'fnei rabo) So, if there is a problem, which step is the problem and why? is it that a teacher cant give a women permission to be mora l'fnei raba? what is the source for that? Essentially what we use the term semicha today is a teacher giving the student immunity from transgressing a particular prohibition. If the issue is that of a woman giving hora'ah, then it is necessary to establish exactly what that is in this day and age. Is it just 'mareh mekomot'? is it more formal hora'ah? we should keep in mind that R. Schachter, in defining terms for converts, writes that hora'ah in issur v'heter is NOT serarah, and that according to some opinions, judging dinei mamanot is not serarah. Furthermore, he writes of a difference of opinion whether semicha is a din in dayanus, or a din in hora'ah. So, if semicha is a din in dayanus, and not hora'ah, then there is no reason to bring the restrictions from dayanus over to hora'ah. and, if semicha is a din in hora'ah, then the restrictions on dayyanus don't apply to semicha. I would add that the entire basis for the claim that women cant get semicha starts with the restriction on women being witnesses, then that being extended to judges, and then being extended again to semicha. It is not necessarily a given that these extensions should be made. We should note that there are a number of others who are prohibited from being witnesses- those who lend with interest, deaf, blind, etc. The internet reports that there are those who were deaf that recieved orthodox semicha. I dont have any information on semicha for the blind. However, it does not appear that the OU has taken a position on these, nor has anyone accused the deaf and the blind who are seeking semicha of being heretics nor have they been threatened with being kicked out of Orthodoxy. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 17:00:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:00:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529000002.GA17436@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:01:37AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Areivim wrote: : 'that a pesaq is by definition someone eligable to be a dayan,' : Which surely most community rabbis are not, since most have yoreh yoreh but not yadin yadin. 1- Eligable, not qualified. 2- Who said one has to have Yadin Yadin to serve as a dayan? Yes, to judge fiscal matters, we need someone who knows CM, but for someone to decide questions of YD? On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:21:20PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Areivim wrote: : I was thinking along very similar lines. In which case, the main : (only?) difference between the yoetzet and the community rabbi is that : the rabbi's job also includes "masculine" roles like leadership, while : teaching and paskening are neutral and shared. As I wrote in every other iteratrion of this question, there is a difference between teaching halakhah pesuqah and applying shiqul hada'as. Someone who follows a rav's pesaq is obeying lo sasur, and therefore did the right thing even if the rabbi's shiqul hada'as was faulty. Any hypothetical qorban chatos would be the rabbi's. If the person is not among those covered by mikol asher yorukha, then the qorban chatas is yours for listening to her, not the Maharat's. On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 02:31:52PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that the opponents of ordination of women are hiding : behind conflation of terms. What is first needed is an understanding of : what ordination is in this day and age. The plain meaning of the Shulchan : Aruch YD 242:14 is that it is permission from a teacher to a student to : instruct in issur v'heter... I cwould use the word "hora'ah" rather than the misleading "instruct". One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in the same town as one's rebbe. ... : 3. if the teacher dies, according to SA YD 242:14, nothing further : is needed : 4. the teacher gives the student permission(to avoid transgressing on : the prohibition of moreh l'fnei rabo) I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. IOW, we have no indication that when the Rama says that if the rebbe was niftar, nothing else is needed that he is talking about anything more than needed to satisfy kavod harav ONLY. IOW, one of these two criteria is necessary, but -- even assuming competency is a given -- are they sufficient? Semchiah could well be hetero hora'ah plus. Both R/Prof Saul Lieberman and RHS argued they are not. And so it appears from Taosafos. And since we have no indication that the Rama is disagreeing with Torafos... For that matter, since the form "yoreh yoreh" is peeled off of the formula for ordaining a member of sanhderin -- "Yoreh? Yoreh! Yadin? Yadin! Yatir bekhoros? Yatir bechoros!" -- there is sme connection to dayanus as per Tosafos implied in the traditional ordination text itself. ... : I would add that the entire basis for the claim that women cant get : semicha starts with the restriction on women being witnesses, then that : being extended to judges, and then being extended again to semicha. : It is not necessarily a given that these extensions should be made. We : should note that there are a number of others who are prohibited : from being witnesses- those who lend with interest, deaf, blind, etc. : The internet reports that there are those who were deaf that recieved : orthodox semicha... Deaf? To you mean cheireish, a caegory we rule refers to the uneducable and thus does not mean today's deaf mutes? Blind? Chalitzah has a special gezeiras hakasuv, "l'einei", specifically because a blind man is allowed to serve as a dayan. (And as RHS points out, geirim can be dayanim for other geirim, so we see their disqualification to serve in most courts is not athat they are outside of lo sosuru, but another issue.) But I do not think those who lend with interest are kosher rabbanim. Refardless of social ills which may cause that din to be largely ignored in practice. Our discussion here should not be about whether you or I agree with the OU's priorities, but whether the shitah they are supporting in the particular question at hand is well-founded in principle. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 16:53:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 19:53:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg cited a story with an apparent contradiction, and resolved the contradiction this way: > Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between > man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can > show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But > when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His > face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his > or her face towards the offender. > > So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the > Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately > towards other human beings is equally important. It seems to me that although religious or ritual behavior is important, Rebbe Yossi HaKohen is teaching us that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is EVEN MORE important. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 17:18:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:18:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 07:53:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that although religious or ritual behavior is : important, Rebbe Yossi HaKohen is teaching us that behaving : appropriately towards other human beings is EVEN MORE important. Look at the list of holidays in parashas Emor. 23:21-22 describe Shavuos. Look which mitzvos are associated with Shavuos. Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which mitzvos are listed specifically? Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice of Shavu'os reading. To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani. We really need a flavor of O that takes Hillel's "de'ealh sani", or R' Ariva's or Ben Azzai's kelalim gedolim, or for that matter the oft-quoted medrash "derekh eretz qodma ... leTorah" as one's actual first principle for life. And not just a platitude for the early grades, a truism repeated unthinkingly to get nods during the rabbi's sermon. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:11:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:11:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Someone who follows a rav's pesaq is obeying lo sasur, and > therefore did the right thing even if the rabbi's shiqul > hada'as was faulty. Any hypothetical qorban chatos would be > the rabbi's. If the person is not among those covered by > mikol asher yorukha, then the qorban chatas is yours for > listening to her, not the Maharat's. L'halacha, I totally agree. L'maaseh, it is critical to determine who is a "rav" and who isn't. That is, who is "covered by mikol asher yorukha" and who isn't. It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these teachers, because, after all, *Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! > I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. > IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that > anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. I agree that YD 242 is about kavod harav. And if the rav is niftar, then that permission is no longer necessary, but that's not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about who is covered by mikol asher yorukha. So why wouldn't the semicha place a musmach into that category? In other words: Suppose a certain person *is* in that category, and then gives semicha "yoreh yoreh" to another individual. Doesn't the semicha announce to the world that the second individual is now covered by mikol asher yorukha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:15:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 05:15:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> If "black letter law" is the criteria, then issues like womens Megila readings and women dancing with a Sefer Torah disappear. All the opposition because these practices are not "Torat Sabba" doesn't even begin if all we do is ask "Muttar? Yes? Fine". Ben On 5/28/2017 9:34 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of > : Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha... > > Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black > letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that > halakhah must conform to and the law itself. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:20:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 05:15:03AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : If "black letter law" is the criteria, then issues like womens : Megila readings and women dancing with a Sefer Torah disappear. All : the opposition because these practices are not "Torat Sabba" doesn't : even begin if all we do is ask "Muttar? Yes? Fine". I am totally at lost as to your intent. Megillah reading or dancing with a sefer Torah are reducible to black-letter law. In contrast to, for example, deciding how to triage my tzedaqah donations. Wehther that reduction can be done within vanilla halachic process or by appeal to metahalakhah, or by appeal to the general "feel" of halakhah -- like the Rambam's "li nir'eh" -- is a different question. But either way, the question exists. So, what do you mean? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:06:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:06:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat/R. Micha Message-ID: R. Micha, thanks for the response. so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah. And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't necessarily apply to anything else. But the OU authors claim that some of YD 242 is based on classic semicha, and therefore all the restrictions of classic semicha should apply. But that makes no sense of you are claiming that YD 242 ONLY applies to the teacher/student relationship. So your own argument works against your claim. There is not a single hint that anything else about classic semicha applies to what we currently call semicha. (Incidentally I wonder when the first claim of more extensive connections were made, and why, if there is such a close connection, we dont mandate that semicha be done only in Israel, and all the other attributes of classic semicha, it seems that the ONLY aspect of classic semicha that is being brought forward is the prohibition on women). You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much against that possibility. It states: ??????? ???????????? ??????????? ????????? ??????, ?????? ??????????? ???? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ????? ??????????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ???????????, ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????????. ????? ??????????? ?????, ????????? ?????????????? ??????, ????????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????????.(???''? ?????? ??''? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ?' ?????? ????????). ?????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ???????????, ???? ???????????? ???????, ?????? ??????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????, ??? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????. (???''? ?????? ??' ?' ?????''? ??' ?''? ???''?). ?????? ????????? ???????????(?????????? ???''? ?????''?). ?????????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????????, ????? ??? ????????? ?????, ???? ????????? ???? ?????????? ???????, ???? ?''?. ?????? ?''? ?????????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???????????? ????????, ????? ??? ???? ??????????? ??????????? ????????????? ????????????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????, ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????????? ????????. specifically, semicha IN THIS TIME, so that people know that....he has permission. So if his teacher died, there is no need for semicha. The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general" It is very forced to claim that there is more here. You basically have to read things into it that are not there. I am not sure if you are claiming that women cant have semicha? or that they cannot be moreh hora'ah. because it seems very clear here that those who can be moreh hora'ah can get semicha b'zman hazeh..And there is a long list of poskim who agree that women can be moreh hora'ah. Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable. And also, that even though the Talmud specifically states that someone in a particular category cant be a judge or witness, when the understanding of that person's abilities changes, there is potential for them to be witnesses and/or judges- essentially in some cases, where the understanding of the Talmud was at variance with what we know now, the restrictions on some categories is not fixed. If I am reading correctly, R. Herschel Schachter in b'din ger dan et chavero (available at YUTorah August 2002), seems to state that hora'ah in issur v'heter is NOT a issue of serarah. and, according to some opinions, being a dayan for dinei mamanot is similarly not an issue of serarah. Perhaps more to the point, In 'Kuntrus HaSemicha"(published in eretz hatzvi and it seems to be the basis for a talk given at an RCA convention- the talk is available at YUTorah(1985) Smicha in the talmud and today), if I understand correctly, R. Soloveitchik made a distinction as to whether Smicha was a din in dayanus or in Hora'ah. It would seem that such a distinction would indicate that restrictions on dayyanus via semicha do not automatically apply to hora'ah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 00:14:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:14:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 5/28/2017 10:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >: And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to >: reality... > It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are > other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem. I'm not sure that the views of Avodah's LW are the point. To the extent that they argue in favor of those with "other, less defensible, ideologies", it's reasonable to argue against those "other, less defensible, ideologies". And I would be willing to supply examples of where members of Avodah's LW do appear to see it that way, but I suspect such examples would be bounced as "adding more fire than light to the discussion". On 5/28/2017 11:52 PM, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of > Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' > I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as > kedoshim tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in > the sense of being like aggadeta. I don't see that. They are halakhic in the sense that they are commandments. > Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos would be > incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give the > value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are > part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan > pesukim and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos. Most > often that's implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the > gemara of value based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the > expense of what looks otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular > dracheha darchei noam is cited. There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what can be done today. When members of the left claim that brachot should be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old. > I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic. > Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not > operate in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how > the value system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We > ignore meta-halachic pesukim at our peril. The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum". If you mean that the system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to respectfully disagree. The ethics must themselves come from within our own cultural framework, based on our own traditions. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:32:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:32:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:11:37PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least : equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, : because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has : not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself : included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these : teachers, because, after all, *Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! I do not think the typical yo'etzet is qualified under mikol asher yrukha regardless of how capable she is. The term only applies to be elegable to recieve full semichah -- if the chain hadn't been lost, or could be restored. THat's the thesis of what I'm pushing here; that even the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services. And, since this seems ot be turning into a full reprise, even though we should all know the other's position by now, my third problem is with egalitarianism in-and-of itself. It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah. By justifying finding worth in this way, we are indeed teaching girls their traditional role is inferior and they can't reach equality. Rather than trying to find equal meaningfullness without egalitarianism. Second, the fact that we can't reach full eqalirianism implies something about the anature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely consistent with our religion. It should mean that we should really think through our even wanting to make halakhah more egalitarian, and how to balance that with the clear message of laws like davar shebiqdushah, talmud Torah, esrog, sukkah, shofar... Again: 1- Who can pasqen 2- Who was shul designed to serve 3- Trying to accomodate agalitarianism is both strategically and in terms of values, a bad idea. Notice the absense of the word "serarah". Trying to minimize or eliminate the role of serarah in our conversation won't do much to sway me, as it has little to do with my arguments to begin with. Now, back to R/Dr Stadlan's email: :> I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. :> IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that :> anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. : I agree that YD 242 is about kavod harav. And if the rav is niftar, : then that permission is no longer necessary, but that's not what the : discussion is about. The discussion is about who is covered by mikol : asher yorukha. So why wouldn't the semicha place a musmach into that : category? It could or couldn't -- I believe couldn't. (Following R/Prof Lieberman and RHS.) But SA 242 can't be cited on the topic either way, since the se'if is not on topic for our discussion. R/Dr N Stadlan brought it as the defintion of the role of semichah, so I wanted to dismiss taking this siman that way.` "Mikol asher yorukha" is written in the context of dayanim. The only reason why we say it applies to today's musmachim, despite the lesser kind of semichah and the lack of sanhedrin is that "yoreh yoreh" is framed as a splinter of dayanus (which is where the phrase "yoreh yoreh" comes from) and that they are appointed to act as the surrogate of the last (so far) sanhedrin. None of which pro forma can be applied to women. Only someone who could be a dayan, if the situation were such that they could become qualified and real semichah were available can serve as their fill-in. On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:06:06PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah. : And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't : necessarily apply to anything else. But the OU authors claim that some of : YD 242 is based on classic semicha... They note that the Rama in 4-5 is drawing from the Mahariq, and then explain that the Mahariq tells you he is basing his conclusion on the idea that what's true for classic semichah should be true for our current Yoreh-Yoreh (YY). They also cite the AhS 242:30, who assumes that only those eligable for classic semichah can be ordained YY. Those are the ony two mentions of siman 242 in the paper, neither of which refer to the se'ifim you did. And what you are attributing to the OU is actually the Mahariq and the Ah -- a source and an interpreter (who is for us a source in his own right) of the SA -- not their own take. : You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly : where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much : against that possibility. It states: ... : The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the : ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general" YD 242:14 isn't trying to define semichah. It's in a siman about kevod harav, not a siman about semichah. You are nit-picking in the wording about se'ifim that are only tangentially related, and ignoring the Rama's stated source. I disagree with how you read the se'if, since his "only" would be about kevod harav, not "semichah is only". But really that's tangential. Your read of the Rama contradicts one of the sources he names. ... : Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be : witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable... I do? Where do I say that? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 22:01:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 01:01:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the entire aliya in which the dibros appear. For those who feel the dibros merit standing, they are indeed standing. For those who feel that the dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria of the dibros begins. Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since their end is always the end of the aliya. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:04:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 23:04:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/05/17 15:18, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Ben Waxman wrote: >> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their >> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. > > Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that > Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent > introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, > pages 48-52. Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation that has such "gedolim". > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the >> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. > > It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it > something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus > and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus > then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. On the contrary. If it were a matter of yibum then it would depend on whether there was an original marriage. But then why would it be connected to redeeming the field? It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations would not be settled. Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz agreed with them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 00:10:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:10:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/28/2017 10:18 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Ben Waxman wrote: >> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their >> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. > Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that > Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." Yes, but the dor in question was one where "each man did what was right in his own eyes". So their being gedolei hador doesn't mean they were any better than, say, Yiftach. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:23:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:23:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation : that has such "gedolim". According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah Neustadt , this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam. Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim". But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el... If this is the Rambam's intent, it would fit a number of gemaros which refer to various shofetim as amei ha'aretz. See the article. OTOH, Tosafos's treatment of the question of how Devorah could serve as shofetes presumes the role includes being a dayan in the halachic sense (and then explains why Devorah is neither role model nor eis-la'asos exception), rather than only the serarah question of her being a civil leader. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:17:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:17:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29/05/17 01:01, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his > minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not > to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two > different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the > entire aliya in which the dibros appear. For those who feel the dibros > merit standing, they are indeed standing. For those who feel that the > dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up > specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria > of the dibros begins. Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since > their end is always the end of the aliya. Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. (Personally I stand for the whole leining so it's not an issue for me, but this is what I've seen.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:33:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:33:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <10c1c9ed-6b4e-cb90-8297-cdeb5a507e94@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <13c3a1e0-26da-f70b-7b13-b80c95bf5d1d@zahav.net.il> <58F44DE5-8AE0-4CF7-BC79-7048F752624D@sibson.com> <10c1c9ed-6b4e-cb90-8297-cdeb5a507e94@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: > Ok let's accept your presumption-Who that has the authority to determine which changes are with in the halachic system and which aren't. Can I say libi omer li if I have smicha and that's good enough? If not , how do you draw the line? ------------------------ I can't say that I can draw a clear line. Certainly someone who passes a 2 year smicha program (a change, BTW) shouldn't be doing this type of thing. It seems that change doesn't require unanimous agreement and very possibly it can be done even if the greatest rabbis disagree. My example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher. Ben ----------------------- Yup, as said, the wheel is still in spin with regard to this and the other current thread Maharat/smicha. Now "everyone knows" it was obvious that Chassidus would be accepted and Conservative not (see Kahnemaan Tversky on how we all do this) Anyone who thinks these or those are simply matters of black letter law discussions (hat tip R'Micha) IMHO is fooling themselves. Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 06:09:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 09:09:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in > the same town as one's rebbe. If the shiur-giver is very careful to merely read and explain the QSA, then I'd agree with you. But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require require semicha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 06:12:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 13:12:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] (no subject) Message-ID: "Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. And in light of this, may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed." Do you also sit for the musaf amidah on Rosh Hashana and Ne'ilah on Yom Kippur? And since there are those who cannot and do not stand for those because of physical infirmities, would you suggest that everyone sit for those teffilot so as not to embarrass the ones who truly must sit? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 09:41:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros Message-ID: <33c01f.93b651f.465da93b@aol.com> From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. YL >>>>>> I want to thank RYL for the reminder we all need -- myself very much included -- not to be too quick to assume we know other people's motives. Sitting during the reading of Aseres Hadibros may indeed be an indication not of arrogance but of arthritis. Let us be kind to one another, even in our thoughts. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 07:26:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 29/05/17 08:23, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation > : that has such "gedolim". > > According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP > beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah > Neustadt, > this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam. > > Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim > of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim". > > But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers > of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past > that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el... I actually had that article in mind, but was not taking Rashi's side. Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel Bedoro". So even if Machlon & Kilyon were considered "gedolei hador" that wouldn't seem to be sufficient reason to assume that they acted properly, even in the sense that they had an opinion which is one of the shiv'im panim and followed it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 09:46:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:46:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum," or you call it something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. Akiva Miller >>>>>> There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events in Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 13:01:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 20:01:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <92dae2a6-a1ea-f563-f350-cddd9a9fbade@starways.net> References: , <92dae2a6-a1ea-f563-f350-cddd9a9fbade@starways.net> Message-ID: 'There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what can be done today. When members of the left claim that brachot should be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old.' No argument there at all. The point was really to buttress the truism that halacha and Torah are not synonymous. Halacha works within the larger structure of Torah and is guided by principle and values. Your point that this idea is mangled and misused throughout heterodoxy is well taken though. I was not suggesting that someone can pick a favourite value, decide that it doesn't shtim with a particular halacha and proceed to mangle the halacha into submission. Not for a moment. 'The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum". If you mean that the system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to respectfully disagree. The ethics must themselves come from within our own cultural framework, based on our own traditions'. Again, agree 100%. Don't think I suggested otherwise. I'm a neo-Hirschian after all. What I was taking issue with was your contention that it is 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' That's true for the heterodox tendency to sidestep halacha (or worse) due to what they consider to be ethical issues. But it doesn't take into account the centrality of of values in the whole system of Torah, including underlying TSBP. Just for example, Pirkei Avos is not halachic but it's vital and has implications for halacha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 12:38:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:38:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> References: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> Message-ID: <2ba3e007-8860-37d6-2941-c41f1aac13bf@sero.name> On 29/05/17 12:46, RTK wrote: > There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events > in Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no > mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was. 1. How could anyone hold there was a mitzvah of yibum, when the Torah explicitly limits it to brothers? 2. If he held as a matter of halacha that Boaz was wrong, then he should have insisted on redeeming the field without marrying Ruth. The fact that on being informed of this requirement he backed out of the whole deal shows that he acknowledged Boaz's point. Therefore that point was not about yibum but about mitzvas geulah. Boaz pointed out that Machlon had an obligation to Ruth, and so long as it remained outstanding the mitzvah to discharge his obligations would remain unfulfilled. Ploni agreed, and since he could not do that he waived his rights. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 12:51:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:51:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel : Bedoro". The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah". Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so? Yes, it's dachuq. But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include the generation's gedolim. I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology, but that doesn't mean I share it. However, given Chabad's linking HQBH medaber mirokh gerono shel Moshe to Moshe bedoro keShmuel bedoro to yield the notion that every generation has a Yechidah Kelalis, a single tzadiq who is uniquely that generation's person in that role, I would think the notion that Yiftach as that person but not one of the baton-passers of mesorah to be even harder to fathom than within my own hashkafah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 13:25:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:25:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <46edbb0e-6394-3e98-a574-f1c53410f0bf@sero.name> On 29/05/17 15:51, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the > : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the > : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel > : Bedoro". > > The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing > Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah". Yes, precisely. And yet he was the "gadol hador". > Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our > obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring > whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so? > > Yes, it's dachuq. > > But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but > not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm > not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include > the generation's gedolim. Your unstated but clear assumption is that "gedolei hador" means "gedolei *hatorah* shebador". I am challenging that assumption. I am saying that when Machlon & Kilyon are described as "gedolei hador" it does not mean that they were talmidei chachamim, any more than it means that when Yiftach is described as "kishmuel bedoro". It just means they were the generation's leaders, and thus if they did wrong everyone else would follow their lead. Meanwhile Pinchas was still the gadol hatorah. Remember, "Yiftach bedoro" is an explicit gemara, so the Rambam can't dispute it. So how can this machlokes between Rashi & the Rambam, that the article posits, exist? This is how. The Rambam accepts Yiftach bedoro, that Yiftach was indeed the "gadol hador", but that is irrelevant to his topic; he is listing who passed the Torah down from that generation to the next, and that was not Yiftach but Pinechas. > I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I > think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology, Wow. Just wow. No, it has nothing to do with Chabad *or* theology. It's an explicit pasuk and gemara. Yiftach was the one and only gadol hador, because the pasuk says so, and he had the same authority as Shmuel because the gemara says so. But one wouldn't ask him a shayla about "an egg in kutach". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:03:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing. Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R. Micha's interpretation: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/ Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to understand the Rama, but one of them is: " The first and simplest view, drawing the logical conclusion from the above depiction of semikhah and adopted by Rama in both the Darkhei Moshe and Shulh?an Arukh, concludes that anyone is eligible to receive semikhah when their teacher certifies they have acquired requisite knowledge and licenses them to issue halakhic rulings. The scope of this license may be limited to certain areas of law (depending on the studentVs actual knowledge and qualifications) and may be granted to one who is ineligible to receive Mosaic ordination that was present in Talmudic times. As such, basic contemporary semikhah is based on oneVs knowledge and competence to answer questions of law". the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have sources to rely upon. I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong with semicha for women. The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 05:08:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 08:08:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am going to revise and restate my original post, which got sidetracked onto issues of marriage to a non-Jewess, and of the role of a "redeemer", which I confess to knowing very little about. But it is very clear to anyone who has looked at it (again, pages 48-52 of ArtScroll's Ruth is an excellent summary) many of Chazal were uncomfortable with the possibility that Machlon and Kilyon would marry women who had not been converted at all. At the same same, they are also very uncomfortable with Naami telling women who *had* converted that they should leave. Some have tried to resolve this by suggesting some sort of "tentative" conversion, but I cannot imagine that we'd allow such a conversion to be cancelled after ten long years. Instead, my solution is that there was a genuine halachic machlokes involved, such that Machlon and Kilyon held the conversion to be valid (at least on some minimal b'dieved level), while Ruth held it to be totally invalid. This simple approach answers all the problems listed above. (It also allows you to think whatever you like about the level of Machlon's and kilyon's gadlus.) I will leave it as an open question whether Ruth reconverted to satisfy Naami's shita, or whether Naami resigned herself to accepting the first geirus. I also retract all my comments about Boaz, as they will turn on topics that I am woefully ignorant about. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:32:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 17:32:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging > Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an > obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he > owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations > would not be settled. > Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages > were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz > agreed with them. I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a related question which is probably simpler: What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then there was no kiddushin. I'll repeat that: Even if it is mutar to marry a woman AZ-nik (not from the Seven Nations) that marriage is one of convenience, maybe even love, but not of kiddushin, and I'm not aware of any halachic obligations that the husband has toward such a wife. I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have towards the husband himself, and we see in pasuk 4:4, that Ploni Almoni was willing to buy the field from Naami in order to meet those obligations to Elimelech. But in 4:5, Boaz pointed out that buying it from Naami would be insufficient. He'd have to buy it from both Naami and Ruth, at which point Ploni declined and Boaz himself accepted the responsibility. My question is: *What* responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid? (I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so, then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech left. Why did they wait ten years?) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:51:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 23:51:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > RMB: the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. > All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and possibly the latter. > > RMB: Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of > shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use > to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi > in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services. > On the one hand, I completely agree with you. One of the things I love about Orthodox Judaism is the all-women spaces - women's shiurim and batei midrash and tehillim groups and ladies' auxiliaries and all-girls schools. I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have comfortable space for women as well. I understand that the "men's club" gets to run the tefillot and be the gabbaim and the ba'alei tefillah and ba'alei korei and rabbi - and that losing that space would not be good for men. But I hope that having an ezrat nashim open for all tefillot (during the week, Shabbat mincha) would not ruin the mens' club atmosphere. Does having a woman give the drasha go too far in this regard? I think it depends on the community. > > > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah.... > Second, > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about > the > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely > consistent with our religion.... > Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. I think you have presented some compelling reasons for declining to endorse or promote the institution of maharats. I see no reason for maharats to be universally accepted. However, I believe that the maharats personally, and the communities they serve, remain clearly within the Orthodox community. We can disagree strongly with another Orthodox sector's practices (Hallel on Yom Ha'Atzma'ut comes to mind) without declaring them out-of-bounds. Finally, a perspective from Israel. Women rabbis/maharats are a particularly contentious issue in the US, because (a) it is similar to changes made by the Conservative and Reform movements, (b) a very common career path for American male rabbis is the shul rabbinate, which is particularly problematic for women, and (c) it seems to have perhaps been instituted in a manner designed to provoke controversy. In Israel, Conservative and Reform are a small minority with little influence. Most male rabbis work in education, writing/translating/publishing, or computer programming - all perfectly acceptable careers for learned women. Full-time shul rabbis are almost unheard of. And I can think of three or four respected, mainstream, dati leumi institutions that are essentially giving women the equivalent of smicha, without a lot of fanfare. Some people think this is great, some people think this is awful, and many people have not really noticed - but there isn't a big brouhaha and questioning of Orthodox credentials. Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it seems to be shaping up as the latter. Chag sameach, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 03:10:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 06:10:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170530101006.GA10791@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have : sources to rely upon... Again, the Rama cites the Mahariq... So, so rule leniently is to read the Rama and ignore his source. : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the : specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. Well, in the case of Maharat in particular, the big bold print in the middle of the certificate reads "heter hora'ah larabbim". http://www.jta.org/2013/06/17/default/what-does-an-orthodox-ordination-certificate-look-like Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 49th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 7 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 goal of perfect unity? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 04:51:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 06:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R Micha. You did not answer my question. When you and/orthe OU panel use the word semicha when you forbid it to women, what exactly does it mean? Heter hora'ah? Something more? Something different? Clarity please. Thank you Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 07:27:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shavuos (Lifeline) Message-ID: <448A28D9-D7AC-47C4-807C-08E3C10A0318@cox.net> The Rabbis tell us the Book of Ruth teaches neither of things that are permitted or forbidden. Why then is it part of Holy Scriptures? Because its subject matter is gemilus chassodim. Along the same line, three times a day we recite ?God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob.? However, we conclude the blessing ?mogen Avraham? ? only with Abraham. Why? In explanation, a Chassidic Rabbi explains that each of the patriarchs symbolizes one of the three essentials as articulated in Pirkei Avos 1:2). Jacob represents Torah; Isaac, Avodah; and Abraham, gemilus chassodim. Though all three principles are vital, kindness is sufficient to stabilize the world (how we need it now more than ever!). An interest in the performance of good deeds was the quality that marked Abraham ? a quality which can be a shield and support to us even when other qualities in our nature are weak ? hence, MOGEN AVRAHAM. Ruth was no ordinary convert. Her name gives us a clue to her essence. In Hebrew, Ruth's name is comprised of the letters reish, vav, tav, which add up to a numerical value of 606. As all human beings have an obligation to observe the seven Noachide commandments ? so called because they were given after the flood ? as did Ruth upon her birth as a Moabite. Add those seven commandments to the value of her name and you get 613, the number of commandments in the Torah. The essence of Ruth, her driving life force was the discovery and acceptance of the 606 commandments she was missing. Another lovely aspect is the meaning of the name "Ruth." In Hebrew the name is probably a contraction of re'ut, ' friendship,' which admirably summarizes her nature. The meaning in English is also very apropos: ? Compassion or pity for another ? Sorrow or misery about one's own misdeeds or flaws. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 15:46:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 01:46:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Naso In-Reply-To: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> References: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos > 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which > mitzvos are listed specifically? > > Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice > of Shavu'os reading. > > To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms > of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of > observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani. > Barukh shekkivanti. I made exactly this comparison in a Tikkun Leil Shavuot this time last year, and a parallel observation in a shi`ur last Shabbat: when the Zohar needs an example of how Basar veDam can make a hit`aruta dil'tata which will cause a hit`aruta dele`ela and kickstart the process of atzilut shefa from the upper to lower worlds, it typically says something like "hoshiv ani al shulhanecha". Because for Hazal, the Torah is above all Torat Hesed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 06:06:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:06:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. ---------------------------------------------------- Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the debate on black letter law? KT Joel Rich (full disclosure-kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-not everything that is permitted to you should be done) THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 07:22:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:22:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Probably the best and most succinct historical analogy I've seen for this question. Ben On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > > Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women > rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the > vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it > seems to be shaping up as the latter. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 13:59:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:59:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation. Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. How can this be? Dare we imagine that he did such things unauthorizedly? Certainly he must have had/received some sort of Heter Hora'ah. If so, then when and how did he get it - and without getting semicha at the same time? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 10:22:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] matched soldier and praying for them In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014801d2d969$41c5c800$c5515800$@com> A while ago on Avodah, a well known (chareidi) Baal machshava was quoted as disagreeing strongly with the concept of matching frum people with a nonfrum soldier in order to pray for them. "we have no brotherhood with secular Israelis" Recently, I posted to Avodah a link to a collection of 1400 short tshuvot from HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlitah (of Toronto) On the above topic, he writes there.. #600 Pray As They Go Q. There are two organizations here in Eretz Yisroel, one called; Elef LaMateh, and the other; The Shmirah Project. Basically, their intent is to match Israeli soldiers with Avreichim and bochurim learning. Each Avreich and Bochur who volunteers, receives the name of a specific soldier (his name and his mother's name) that he takes responsibility to daven for and learn specially for so that in the merit of the tefillos and learning, that soldier will merit to return home alive and well. (Is this a good idea) A. HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is a great mitzvah to pray, learn Torah and accomplish mitzvos for the benefit of all our brethren B'nay Yisroel in times of peril and need, especially for those who put their life in harm's way to save and protect others. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 00:39:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:39:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should be identical for each community and each generation? - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 20:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: . I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start farming? I suppose it was pretty desolate after a ten-year famine, but did she even try? She must have at least gone there to see the place, if for no other reason than to be sure that no squatters took over while she was gone. Without making sure of such things, how could she even hope that anyone (even a goel) would buy it? Maybe she expected to get a better profit from Boaz than she'd get from farming it herself, but maybe there are other answers? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 20:05:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:05:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the distinction? When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on this. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 02:14:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (ADE via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:14:59 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are still being machshiv some pesukim over others. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk > *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:32:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:32:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <510d4fd4-6c91-fb85-0c23-f6cdfa7ffcbf@sero.name> On 02/06/17 05:14, ADE wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one >> pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this >> reason. > Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are > still being machshiv some pesukim over others. There is no requirement to treat all pesukim exactly the same. One is entitled to stand or sit during KhT as one wishes, and has no obligation to choose one policy and stick to it. The problem is only with standing up for special pesukim, such as Shma or the 10D. Since there's nothing special about the pasuk before the 10D, there's no problem with deciding to stand for it. And when the special pesukim come along one is already standing, so one has no obligation to sit down. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 18:46:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:46:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> In our personal religious commitments there are those among us scrupulous in performance of the ceremonial mitzvot but at the same time displaying reckless disregard of our elementary duties towards our fellowman. Halacha embraces human life in its totality. One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social trait from our behavior! A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 08:31:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:31:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought In-Reply-To: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> References: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170602153131.GA15356@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made : a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study : of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social : trait from our behavior! Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, among the aphorisms of his listed in R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 21:28:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:28:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4dd6e4f1-2d00-a274-ace0-e5d2a803039a@sero.name> On 01/06/17 23:05, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I only see four instances of "Ruth Hamoaviah", three in ch 2, and only one in ch 4, in Boaz's description of the situation to Tov. Since his purpose was to scare him off, it made sense to mention her origin, so Tov would be reluctant to risk his future. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:20:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:20:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/2/2017 6:05 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I can't cite a source for it, but I remember once reading that Ruth HaMoaviah was intended to praise her, since she gave up her position in Moav to join us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:31:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:31:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Actually if the land had lied fallow for 10 years, it should be in good shape. Granted it needs weeding but the soil should be good. It only requires a relatively small amount of rain for grass to grow and re-invigorate the soil. Maybe she was too old to work the land and figured that a sale would provide her with enough money to live out the rest of her days in dignity? Ben On 6/2/2017 5:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 00:04:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 09:04:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? They came back on Pesach, at the beginning of the barley harvest. Nothing was growing on their land, presumably. Planting is after Sukkot, at the beginning of the rainy season. If they planted, it would be a full year until they could harvest the first barley. As we see from Megillat Rut, the barley then had to dry and wasn't threshed or winnowed until after the wheat harvest (early summer?). When they come back, they have nothing. They need to eat. And two women alone will not be able to do all the work of planting and cultivating in the fall. They would need money to hire workers and probably buy or rent an animal to help with plowing. And to buy seed. They didn't have the capital to go back into farming, or the means to support themselves until the first crop. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 21:17:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:17:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <272b8698-d5c1-55a1-560b-2bc6d0c39b74@sero.name> On 01/06/17 23:01, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? It seems to me that finding a buyer for the property was not at all important to her, and in fact she had shown no interest in doing so until she saw how she could use it to get Boaz to marry Ruth. It was Boaz who spun the story out for Tov in order to scare him off; first he drew him in with the prospect of an easy transaction for Naomi's portion of the field, but then he threw in the Ruth monkey wrench. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:18:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:18:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/2/2017 6:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the > halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I > think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: > > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? In the set of priorities that we had back then, the principle of yerusha was more important than simple economics. As I understand it. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:21:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:21:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22efff8f-5ee7-d47e-8701-b1541a7a8e41@zahav.net.il> And of course the irony is even greater in that many yeshiva rabbis will tell their guys to go to a community rav because they, the yeshiva rabbis, don't deal with shailas. Ben On 5/29/2017 4:11 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least > equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, > because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has > not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself > included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these > teachers, because, after all,*Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:16:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:16:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> On 6/1/2017 10:39 AM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly > egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the > experiences of women and couples and families and communities to > affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian > direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. > > RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument > is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically > permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically > forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without > asking whether HKB?H prefers it? > > Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should > be identical for each community and each generation? > I'm not sure that's the question. The problem is, as I see it, that when one adopts an external -ism as an ideal, and try and "move in a somewhat more -ism-friendly direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted", they're essentially saying that their motivating principle is that -ism. That halakha isn't the motivating principle, but merely bookends. Limits to how far they can push the -ism that's important. It's the difference between a static principle and a dynamic one. What you're describing has egalitarianism as the dynamic force, and halakha as a static one. A fossil. And there's no way to maintain that worldview for long without starting to chafe against the static limits. At which point, people put their shoulders into it and *push* those limits a little bit further. And then a little further than that. And they feel frustrated by those limits. That's probably the biggest problem. It turns halakha into shackles and frustration. And you only have to read articles written by certain YCT teachers and grads to see the hostility that comes out of that. Yes, there are people who can manage to walk the tightrope and not fall into that kind of frustration, but they are few in number, and not representative of the "movement", as such. And many of them, in my observed experience, eventually fall off. Permit me to illustrate this mindset with something that just happened *as* I was writing this. My 17 year old daughter was reading a comic book from the early 1990s. In the comic, the hero (Superboy) is 16, but all of the women he dates are in their 20s. Today, we call that statuatory rape, and have little to no tolerance for it. But if you recall the early 90s, that idea was rather new, and while the writers of the comic gave lip service to the idea, even having characters laughingly calling Superboy "jailbait", it wasn't nearly as taboo as it is today, at least when the younger person was male. But my daughter is livid about it. Appalled. And she isn't able to imagine a world in which that was the way people thought. Similarly, people immersed in the egalitarian ethos so prevelent in the Western world today cannot *imagine* a world where that isn't the universally accepted ideal, except for barbaric and backwards societies. It's a given that egalitarianism is the more advanced worldview. The more civilized worldview. That to the extent that a worldview is less egalitarian, it is less civilized. More backwards. So now consider what it means to say, "I want to be as egalitarian as possible, within the bounds of halakha". It means "I want to be as civilized as possible, within the bounds of the less civilized and more backwards system of halakha." How can that help but breed disrespect, discomfort, and eventually contempt for halakha? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:50:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:50:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> Message-ID: > > LL: The problem is, as I see it, that when one adopts an external -ism as > an ideal, and try and "move in a somewhat more -ism-friendly direction > WITHIN what is halachically permitted", they're essentially saying that > their motivating principle is that -ism. That halakha isn't the motivating > principle, but merely bookends. Limits to how far they can push the -ism > that's important...... > > Similarly, people immersed in the egalitarian ethos so prevelent in the > Western world today cannot *imagine* a world where that isn't the > universally accepted ideal, except for barbaric and backwards societies. > It's a given that egalitarianism is the more advanced worldview. The more > civilized worldview. That to the extent that a worldview is less > egalitarian, it is less civilized. More backwards. > > So now consider what it means to say, "I want to be as egalitarian as > possible, within the bounds of halakha". It means "I want to be as > civilized as possible, within the bounds of the less civilized and more > backwards system of halakha." How can that help but breed disrespect, > discomfort, and eventually contempt for halakha? Yes, if one defines one's ideology and worldview primarily as feminist, one is going to struggle with halacha. Some people struggle and still maintain Orthodox practice. Some become "halachic egalitarian." But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah live in an increasingly egalitarian society. Even women who would never dream of making a women's zimmun (range of psak on this goes from obligatory to optional to assur) have their own credit cards and vote in elections and choose whom they want to marry. Halachic psak does not exist in a vacuum; it applies to a particular metziut in a particular time and place. I can certainly see room to argue that the institution of maharat is an example of an attempt to "push" halacha to evolve artificially to conform to feminism. But to some extent, increased involvement of women teaching and learning all areas of Torah, at all levels, is a natural halachic development in response to changing reality. Each posek will draw his own line as to what is a positive development (maharats? yoatzot? Rebbetzin Heller?), and what needs to be reined in. Halacha is dynamic. (This is true even if the Conservative movement also says it!) Obviously, there are boundaries, but there is also plenty of room for different opinions, and for development over generations. I am not advocating always choosing the most feminist interpretation possible within the bounds of what is mutar. I am pointing out that increasingly egalitarian psak within halacha reflects the reality in which we live. Shabbat Shalom, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 10:00:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Martin Brody via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:00:09 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat etc. Message-ID: "R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation" Did the Chazon Ish have semicha?.I think not -- Martin Brody -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 11:35:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:35:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <960df966-7387-baf7-202b-5a6624127fed@sero.name> On 30/05/17 16:59, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura > did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the > ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite > involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send them to the rav. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 11:46:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:46:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37d489e2-09cc-d836-f973-74d1b831ec0a@sero.name> On 29/05/17 17:32, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging >> Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an >> obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he >> owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations >> would not be settled. >> Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages >> were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz >> agreed with them. > I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to > respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too > complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a > related question which is probably simpler: > > What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then > there was no kiddushin. I don't see how this matters. Machlon was shacked up with this woman for ten years, and left her high and dry. She was now in Beit Lechem living in poverty, and everyone who saw her would say "there's Machlon's widow, poor thing". Thus seeing her settled was an unsettled obligation that Machlon had left behind, so taking care of it was part of the goel's duty, just like paying off his credit cards and returning his library books, so that nobody should be left with a claim against his memory. > I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's > relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have > towards the husband himself [...] My question is: *What* > responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might > be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid? Yes, the goel's duty is to his relative, not to the relative's creditors. But that duty *is* to discharge the relative's obligations, which he is himself unable to discharge, whether because of poverty (as in the Torah's example) or death (as here). Neither Tov nor Boaz owed anything to Ruth, but Machlon did. > (I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the > family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we > want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be > paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so, > then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech > left. Why did they wait ten years?) Redeem it from whom? At that point it still belonged to Elimelech. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 12:55:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 15:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170602195535.GA7359@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 09:09:10AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this : other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that : question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require : require semicha? Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also not an open question that requires decision-making rather than just reporting the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:51:26PM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: : > the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore : > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. : All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to : offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not : sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and : possibly the latter. I am missing something. My assertion was that "the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur" for the same reason that she could never give hora'ah as a dayan either. I wasn't denying the reality that there are women who know enough for their knowledge not to be a barrier to their pasqening. ... : I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the : other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have : comfortable space for women as well... I think there should be comfortable space for women too, and that it makes sense for it to be in the same building. Our topic was women rabbis. My first point was my belief that the Mahariq holds like Tosafos, the Rama like the Mahariq, and therefore we cannot ordain a poseqes. In this, my 2nd point, I was arguing that since shul and minyan as Anshei Kenses haGadolah invented them are men's spaces, we shouldn't want women speaking from the pulpit or otherwise making it a co-ed experience, a second element of the rabbi's job. : > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for : > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be : > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah.... : > Second, : > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about : > the : > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely : > consistent with our religion.... : : Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that : is highly egalitarian... And this was my third point. That the notion doesn't fit the gestalt built of numerous halakhos. I don't think our living in a world where opportunity is increasingly egalitarian changes that. The disjoin poses a challenge, not a license. : And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the : experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect : religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction : WITHIN what is halachically permitted. I tried to explain why that can't happen. You're not moving into a setting of greater equality; you are aiming women toward hitting a glass cieling. The implied message of "as much egalitarianism as allowed" is that it's the role traditionally given to men that is meaningful, and women can't fully take on that role. To my mind the long-term outcome, once there is little room for further innovation left, will be worse that trying to find different but equally valuable roles. Aside from the "minor" problem that that message about male roles is simply sheqer. On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 01:06:28PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that : as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted : (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by : r'mb's black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether : HKB"H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all : or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the : debate on black letter law? I don't think that's fair. We all learn in the early grades that derekh eretz qodmah laTorah, but we'll talk about frum theives, but not frum shellfish eaters. Our culture's focus on those mitzvos and dinim that can be reduced to black-letter is a problem we need to work on, and not a given to be leveraged further. On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:50:32AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: : But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah : live in an increasingly egalitarian society... Egalitarianism as metzi'us, the fact that gender roles are progressively becoming more similar, is different than eqalitarinism as a value -- the notion that they should. At the very least, halakhah is telling us there are a number of greater values that override egalitarianism. I argued that some of them actually impact who enters the rabbinate. But really the burden of proof lies in the other direction: It is change that needs justification. One has to prove that whatever those conflicting values are -- and I guess this would require identifying them -- they are not issues that impact the desirability of ordaining women. So, to get less abstract, here's an example. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting : R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing. : Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid : muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R. : Micha's interpretation: : http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/ But lemaaseh he wrote a letter against ordaning women that held up JTS changing policy until after R/PSL's passing. has a complete translation by Rabbi Wayne Allen. The issue isn't how RGS read the letter, but the letter itself. And I understood your father-in-law differently than your (and your wife's, judging from her choice of subject line) take. He writes: Professor Lieberman might have been opposed to any clerical role for women. Nevertheless, he only cited the classical sources that indicate that only men may be dayyanim or even serve on a bet din as laymen (hedyotim). Since Yeshivat Maharat is careful to remain within the bounds of Halakhah by not ordaining women to roles that are proscribed by Halakhah, Professor Liebermans responsum does not apply to the yeshivah or to any of its graduates. So he agrees with RGS that R/PSL was opposed to orgaining women as rabbi. After all, most of the letter is about what we mean today by "Yoreh Yoreh", and how it's NOT dayanus. It was about admitting women to JTS's semichah program, to "being called by the title 'rav'", not "dayan". It would seem that minus the political pressures within JTS, R/PSL's letter would at most permit "Rabbah uManhigah". Your FIL writes that R/PSL only cites sources about dayanus, not that his point was only about dayanus. And as we saw, there is a connection made between who can become a dayan and who can give hora'ah. His only mention of the political dynamics at JTS at the time is to explain his own position -- why he was against ordaining women when he was among those starting UTJ, but is in favor of Yeshivat Maharat. His letter to your wife does not speak of this issue in terms of his rebbe's position. For that matter, his description of R/PSL's lack of proving his point WRT non-dayan rabbanim reads as explaining why his own position was justified despite R/PSL's letter, rather than justified by that letter. He doesn't say RGS is wrong, he says it's "beside the point". : Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and : Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to : understand the Rama, but one of them is: But the burden or proof is on the innovator. You can't simply say your read is possible -- and given the aforementioned citation of the Mahariq, I don't see how this se'if can be, you would have a self-contradictory siman. But in any case, you have to prove your read is the Rama's intent; saying "it's possible" is not enough to justify a mimetic rupture. ... : the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have : sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have : sources to rely upon. I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and : Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong : with semicha for women. "Rather than nitpicking"? How do we learn a sugyah without nitpicking? In any case, you jumped from "could be read as someone to rely upon" to "someone to rely upon". : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the : specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. Sorry I made you wait long enough that you felt a need to re-ask this question. Semichah today may well be a heter hora'ah, but that doesn't mean that it's the only barrier to hora'ah. And if one's rebbe passed away, there is no need for heter hora'ah -- and yet still other barriers could exist. Tosafos, and the Mahariq cited by the Rama link the authority for hora'ah with being eligable to gain the qualifications and become a dayan. That's a barrier to hora'ah even if someone's rebbe wrote them a "qlaf" or passed away. We would have to find another shitah about hora'ah, show it's not dekhuyah -- and given we're talking about an opionion that disputes 3 pillars of Ashkenazi pesaq (if I include the Rama's se'if 4), for someone of Ashekazi background, that's a tough row to hoe. And then there are my other two problems.... Both of which would also reflect on Rabbah uManhigah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 3 20:23:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 23:23:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . Is semicha required for hora'ah? To illustrate the possibility that it is *not* required, I wrote: > Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura > did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the > ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite > involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. R' Zev Sero responded: > Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, > and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send > them to the rav. And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression of his personal opinion. Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"? I had written that a non-semicha person could give a shiur in Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, provided that he is careful to merely read and explain the text, but ... ... > But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this > other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that > question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require > require semicha? R' Micha Berger responded: > Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also > not an open question that requires decision-making rather than > just reporting the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community. "Black-letter halacha" is often not as black as we might think. Who gets to decide which shita is the dominant one? If the community has a recognized rav who issued a ruling on this exact question, then I can quote that. But in the great majority of cases, there are two or more shitos, and I have no idea which is "dominant". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 3 22:51:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 07:51:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c3c1e25-04b7-878e-d93b-d6b5edc10a0f@zahav.net.il> My intent, or my desire, is to reduce the number of issues on which we decide to break Torah community into even more pieces. If these issues are meta halachic, or have a bad feeling, then let's take the argument between the RWMO and LWMO down a notch or two. Let's lower the tones. For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi community consider to be kefira. If so, than kal v'chomer many of the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in getting hung up on multiple non-issues. Ben On 5/29/2017 4:20 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I am totally at lost as to your intent. Megillah reading or dancing with > a sefer Torah are reducible to black-letter law. In contrast to, for > example, deciding how to triage my tzedaqah donations. > > Wehther that reduction can be done within vanilla halachic process or > by appeal to metahalakhah, or by appeal to the general "feel" of halakhah > -- like the Rambam's "li nir'eh" -- is a different question. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 04:36:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 07:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a0d51cd-f693-b8a0-f2bd-a23a15a3e44a@sero.name> On 03/06/17 23:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > >> Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, >> and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send >> them to the rav. > And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to > find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim > wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us > which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other > expression of his personal opinion. > > Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"? AIUI no, it is not. Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a specific shayla for a specific person. Writing books does not involve any shikul hada`as, it merely involves setting down the halacha as one understands it, including, if applicable, the range of options available to a moreh hora'ah when applying his shikul hada`as. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 09:40:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 12:40:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170604164052.GA8050@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 11:23:05PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to : find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim : wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us : which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other : expression of his personal opinion. Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone know what has been said in the years since the standardization of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh. I argued that the difference between the AhS and the MB was not that one was a mimeticist and the other a textualist, but that the AhS was out to justify accepted pesaq, and the other is a collection of texts, a tool for the poseiq -- not pesaq. The personal opinion is just that, advice, not hora'ah. Or, other assumed you need to dismiss the MB's self-description as reflecting the CC's anavah, and not to be taken at face value. But then one has to explain the numerous stories of the CC personally not following the MB's conclusion -- the size of his becher, his tzitzis were tucked in, he supported the building a a community eiruv, etc... (Something is broken on my blog right now. It may take a 3-4 refreshes before getting anything but the AishDas "page not found" page.) In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable. And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving R Ploni answering questions. (The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the model.) This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads -- or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her rebbe's license? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 08:48:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:48:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you understand the OU panel as defining it. Otherwise you are just using a nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning. The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here: http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah ). There was a period when leaders did not have semicha, The Tzitz Eliezer points out that Sephardim for a long time did not have semichah, yet communities had religious leaders. So one does not need semikhah to be a communal religious leader(in keeping with the Rama in 242:14). Furthermore, R. Lichtenstein points out(Leaves of Faith vol 2 293) "originally a samukh would pronounce a decision that was binding by don't of his authoritative fiat. ...Now, he essentially serves as a reference guide, providing reliable information about what the tradition and its sources, properly understood and interpreted, state; but it is they, rather than he, that bind authoritatively." (quoted in the name of the Rav, in the name of his father, Rav Moshe.) Furthermore, as R. Lichtenstein points out, the Rambam viewed that Smikhah applied to hora'at issur v'heter as well as din. However, as R. Schachter himself points out, (see Kuntrus Ha semicha in Eretz Hatzvi chap 32) the other Rishonim hold that Semichah is a Halacha in beit din, NOT Hora'ah. AND, there are lots of authorities who clearly state that women can give Hora'ah. So you really need to define exactly what you mean by Semicha and how you are using it So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that apply to beit din. That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist. The semikhah for that type included wearing a specific garment, only being given in Israel, and according to most(but not all), prohibited to women. According to most Rishonim, that category did not apply to Hora'ah, just beit din. And, R. Lichtenstein illustrates that there is a clear and gaping difference in authority. There have been many years and many communities where leaders did not have any formal semikhah. But obviously there was some sort of Hora'ah going on. So it is clear that Hora'ah doesn't require semikhah, unless you want to argue that they were doing it all illegitimately. granting a degree of ordination was re-established(perhaps in response to universities, perhaps other reasons, see "The Emergence of the Professional rabbi in Ashkenzic Jewry by Bernard Rosensweig in Tradition, especially references in note 6) and the word Semikhah was used(although not always and not always exclusively). But you are arguing that somehow someway the restrictions from ancient Semikhah still apply- well, actually you are only arguing that the restrictions on women still apply, you have conveniently neglected to argue for the restriction of semikhah to Eretz Yisrael, for the wearing of special clothing, and all the other restrictions that were in place on ancient Semikhah. I have not had a chance to see the Maharik inside. But just because he applies halachot of relationships between teacher and student doesn't seem to be a reason to generalize that everything that applied to ancient Semikhah applies to today's neo-semikhah. That logically makes no sense. Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus tradition trope. It is a false dichotomy. First of all, as R. Shalom Carmy wrote, the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism. More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of our Masoretic values has changed over time. We don't value slavery or polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more. And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah. Furthermore, our Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a women. L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 07:40:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:40:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is becoming increasingly clear to me that I need a very basic lesson in the concepts of "redemption" and a "redeemer's" responsibilities. In my experience, we find two different sorts of redemption in Judaism. (I was going to write "in Halacha", but it seems that Boaz's actions were more sociological and ethnic than halachically mandatory.) One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and "redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many others. The other sort of kedusha has nothing to do with kedusha, but rather ownership of land. If I'm not mistaken, we find this in Shmitta, Yovel, and ordinary land sales in a walled city (and maybe elsewhere too?). In these cases, land has been sold outright, but under certain circumstances, the original owner has a right to buy it back from the new owner. AFTER WRITING THE ABOVE, I remembered another sort of redemption, that of the Goel Hadam. That seems irrelevant, because even though Naomi is now destitute, and her husband and sons are dead, no murder was committed. I also found yet another kind of Goel, described in Vayikra 25:47-54: If a person became poor and sold himself, then close relatives are obligated to redeem him and purchase his freedom. Although Naomi and Ruth did not reach that level (slavery), I can easily imagine that a social sort of redemption would require Tov or Boaz to help them out. I would call this "tzedaka" (not geula) but I suppose this might be the origin of the rule that one's primary obligation in tzedaka is to relatives. Many thanks to all who wrote to me (both on- and off-list), who put so much effort into helping me learn this subject. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 03:01:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:01:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= Message-ID: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a commentary how do you read it? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 02:59:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 09:59:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] support? Message-ID: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah restrictions are generally not observed (e.g., hello includes a social hug between the sexes), although Reuvain is meticulous in his observance of them. He is in his office in a conference with two colleagues when Miriam, the wife of a third tier social friend, also well past childbearing age, comes to the office door and says with a tear in her eye, "Reuvain, I hate to do this to you." Reuvain quickly asks his colleagues to excuse them, and Miriam blurts out, "David (her husband) just passed away," and she begins to slump, crying. Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to comfort her and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not make any request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but she did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion of the community which did not presume a social negiah restriction. Was Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, what should he have done? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:23:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 15:23:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:01:10AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a : commentary how do you read it? I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq venimtza qal" were written out. That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:43:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 22:43:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?va=E2=80=99v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <30b106b1-2a2d-f8dd-e692-4af1979063c9@starways.net> v'doke On 6/4/2017 1:01 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a > commentary how do you read it? > Kt > Joel rich > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:33:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 15:33:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] support? In-Reply-To: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170604193342.GA24739@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 09:59:23AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a : Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah : restrictions are generally not observed... A real maaseh shahayah, which would liely garner the same thoughts. One day, around 10am, the woman sitting in the cubicle next to mine gets a call on her cell, and after a few moments had her screaming and crying. It was the Salvation Army, where her son volunteered and lived. He didn't wake up that morning. Another co worker of ours, a yehivish guy who grew up in Israel but lives in Lakewood, got us a conference room, dialed some phone calls for her -- the coronor's office and the like. He was clearly cfrom communities in which persumed social negi'ah restrictions are fully observed. But when our co worker broke down in a fresh round of crying, he put his arm around her. I think to do anything else is to be a tzadiq shoteh. But I never asked a she'eilah; that was just my gut reaction at the time. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:01:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 23:01:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Noam, It's not a "trope". While there can be situations in which egalitarianism vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them. Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not. It seems a poor argument, as well. I don't believe there is anyone who, without the impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical concepts of justice demand that we ordain women." Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Distinctions are one of the hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and non-Jews or men and women. We have never viewed having different roles as indicating superiority and inferiority. That judgment is foreign to our tradition. Foreign to halakha. Foreign to the Torah. Please note that I'm not talking about whether, given the assumption that having different roles conveys inferiority, one could argue in favor of equalizing roles in the name of justice. I am talking about that assumption itself. It is an assumption that comes from egalitarianism, and cannot be found in Jewish tradition, which is not subject to Brown v Board of Education. Different does *not* necessarily mean unequal in Judaism. Polygamy was never a "value". To Mormons, perhaps. Not to us. It was simply something permitted. Slavery is out of the question purely on dina d'malchuta dina grounds. Were that not the case, we might still engage in it. We certainly haven't changed the halakha pertaining to either kind of avdut (K'naani or Ivri). You say that modern values have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in our Mesorah. Can I ask where the need for such a re-evaluation comes from? It was my understanding that we value all of our Mesorah, and do not sift through it, deciding what parts of it we value and what parts we do not. Also, please note that I have specifically referred to egalitarianism, and *not* to feminism. I don't believe that feminism requires egalitarianism, and the moves by the left to try and force Orthodox Judaism into an egalitarian framework have nothing to do with the basic idea that women are fully competent adult human beings, which is what feminism was originally about. On 6/4/2017 6:48 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus > tradition trope. It is a false dichotomy. First of all, as R. Shalom > Carmy wrote, the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to > Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism. > More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of > our Masoretic values has changed over time. We don't value slavery or > polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more. > And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for > us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah. Furthermore, our > Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna > in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a > women. L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:53:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:53:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . I wrote that the Mishneh Berurah, despite a lack of semicha, > frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the > ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression > of his personal opinion. R' Micha Berger responded: > Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed > this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone > know what has been said in the years since the standardization > of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh. Yes, he does self-describe as a summary and teaching/learning tool. But he does *not* specifically disclaim being a posek for halacha l'maaseh. The Igros Moshe and many other recent seforim do that, but I do not see it in the Mishneh Berurah. As an example, let's open to the very first page. He writes in MB 1:2 (near the end) about Netilas Yadayim upon waking in the morning: "Some say that for this, the entire house is considered like four amos. But (4) do not rely on this except in a shaas hadchak." Let's analyze that: He cites an unnamed lenient opinion, and clearly tells us not to rely on it. Note 4 leads us to his own Shaar Hatziun, where he gives his source, the Shaarei Teshuva. The Shaarei Teshuva, fortunately, is printed on this same page, and I direct your attention to the last four lines of #2, where the lenient opinion is named as being the Rashba. It is not clear to me whether the psak to *not* rely on that Rashba comes from the Shvus Yaakov, or whether it is from the Shaarei Teshuva himself. But either way, it is clear to me that the Mishne Berurah is taking sides, and IS PASKENING TO US that we should be machmir unless it is a shaas hadchak. > In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in > every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, > which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise > unreachable. Then we need to figure out what *is* required for hora'ah. Because it seems clear to me that the Chofetz Chaim felt that he met the criteria, and (perhaps more importantly) Klal Yisrael agreed. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:58:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 19:58:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2F566ED7-C27E-4141-9BAA-E81C69F30CE1@sibson.com> > > I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq > venimtza qal" were written out. > > That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. > > HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" > -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. ------------ I had always been taught the latter. The bar Ilan data base uses the former. I suppose one could rationalize one person's try and it will seem easy is another's it's a bit of a stretch. Then again Kuf lamed could be kal lhavin or kasheh li. :-) Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 15:56:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 17:56:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > It's not a "trope". While there can be situations in which egalitarianism > vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them. > Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to > the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not. It seems a poor > argument, as well. I don't believe there is anyone who, without the > impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical > concepts of justice demand that we ordain women." > Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Distinctions are one of the > hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and > non-Jews or men and women. We have never viewed having different roles as > indicating superiority and inferiority. That judgment is foreign to our > tradition. Foreign to halakha. Foreign to the Torah. Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" It isn't an issue of being like men, it is an issue of fairness and justice. Regarding 'modern values' and Mesorah. please read Rabbi Walter Wurzburger, regarded as one of R. Soloveitchik's most prominent students here: http://download.yutorah.org/TUJ/TU1_Wurtzburger.pdf Since chazal owned slaves and the Gemara didn't outlaw them, obviously owning slaves was not seen as odious as it is now. I doubt that current rabbis have the same positive view of slavery as you do. in fact, one published author does not. see R. Gamliel Shmalo here: http://download.yutorah.org/2013/1053/798326.pdf Similar to polygamy, I doubt that any current rabbinical authority thinks that polygamy should be instituted(except in the very rare situations of heter me'ah rabbonim when in practicality there is only one wife) Many authorities, including Rav Lichtenstein, R. Nachum Rabinovitch(and see R. Wurzburger's article for citations to classic authorities of the past) and others state clearly that encountering 'modern values' helps us figure out which how to better balance the values already in our Masorah. And, as I pointed out, our Masorah has already moved towards egalitarianism, as demonstrated that most MO poskim don't hold by the Mishna in Horiyyot. And who was denying that there are different roles? no one denies that there are different roles for the genders. But Halacha should be the determinant of what those differences are. Not someone saying, "well, there have to be differences, and I am going to tell you what those differences should be." If there are no good Halakhic arguments against women's ordination(and there aren't), then claiming that there should be different roles for different genders is not a coherent argument. Basically you could use the same argument for everything and anything, since there is no Halachic basis for it. You could say that women shouldn't ride bikes because gender roles have to be different. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:47:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <6736acd1-ba2d-c1bc-1762-d8e55bb8e473@sero.name> On 04/06/17 06:01, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a > commentary how do you read it? Vest du velen kvetchen, kadoches vest du vissen On 04/06/17 15:23, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. > HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" > -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. Or "vedayeq vetimtza qashe" -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 20:38:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 23:38:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605033858.JVPC32620.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a >specific shayla for a specific person. I guess the question is: is that related to semicha? Note the following (by Joel B. Wolowelsky, from that Tradition issue last year that focused on women's leadership issues) The standards of the semikha might vary from yeshiva to yeshiva even though the text of the klaf certificate is generally the same. I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters of grave import. Very few rabbis are viewed as posekim, and their authority surely does not rest on any formal semikha they were awarded at an early stage in their professional career. Most rabbis even most pulpit rabbis are relied upon to relate what the accepted halakha is, not what it should be. They are not assumed to be posekim. Rabbi Menachem Penner, Dean of RIETS, recently made this clear when he stated that: not all individuals given the title of rabbi are entitled to serve as decisors of Jewish law... Following the halakhic opinion of a scholar or rabbi who is not recognized as a posek would represent a fundamental breach in the mesorah of the establishment of normative halakha... Musmakhim of RIETS, along with all learned individuals, are entitled to their personal opinions on halakhc matters and the halakhic system as it functions today and may publicize their views as opinions that are not halakhically binding. If this is true of musmakhim of RIETS, who have completed many serious and demanding years of study, all the more so for the myriads of rabbis who earned their semikha by simply sitting for a less-demanding final exam after self-study or learning in a beit midrash up until their wedding, at which time they received semikha. We should quickly note that this is not intended to imply a diminution of the value of semikha. Rather it reflects an unprecedented expansion of Torah study in our community. Which raises the obvious question: if so many men have semicha that shouldn't engage in hora'ah, what's the problem of having a woman in a similar position? [Email #2.] Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that in Israel, this doesn't seem to be so much of an issue. May I recommend an utterly fascinating article on this: A VIEW FROM THE OTHER SIDE By Rachel Levmore, Ph.D. - Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 05:42:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 12:42:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" ----------------------------------------------------- As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question (chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", on what basis are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" I'd say the debaters on this issue would be well served to read J Haidt's The Righteous Mind https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj_nMSM3abUAhUG7CYKHRfcAJgQFghZMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Frighteousmind.com%2F&usg=AFQjCNH2OB9Ny75lbVswde2ndpkNKXvilQ&sig2=hBXRmEu1I6x-J0radUdXqA to better understand why they aren't convincing each other KT Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 12:00:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lo Taamod In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605190033.GD3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:54:06AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Asher Weiss discusses in parshat Vayeitzeih on lo taamod al : dam reiacha that one would have to give up all his assets to save a : single life if he is the only one who can do it. However, "it's pashut" : that if others can also do it, that he doesn't have to give up all his : assets. Why is it so pashut if others refuse? (i.e. why isn't it a joint : and several liability?) I am not sure halakhah has the concept. The nearest I can think of is a zeh vezeh goreim, such as if a shor tam pushes another ox into a third party's bor bereshus harabbim. SA CM 410:32 rules that the baal habor must pay 3/4. Hezeq by a shor tam need only be reimbered 50%. So, the owner of the shor tam only has to pay 50% of his half of the guilt -- 25%. The baal habor therefore would cause the loss of the other 75%, so he has to reimberse it. But there is a machloqes about what happens when one of the two doesn't have the money -- does the other have to pick up the difference, or not? If not, then wouldn't that mean halakhah doesn't have a notion of joint and several liability?" But even if he does have to pay what the other can't... One may still be choleiq between someone who did something that incurs a fine and a chiyuv to spend money. It's not really a "liability". And this is beyond the usual limits of a chiyuv.... If there are others who can save the guy, RAW says I'm not chayav to spend all my money, but what about spending up to a chomesh, like for any other chiyuv? Maybe even if there is joint and several liability, it stops at 1/5 rather than 100%. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 12:33:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:33:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? In-Reply-To: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim : b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman : shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? The SA says "yekhavein lehispalel besha'ah shehatzibur mispallelim". Your question is why the Rama -- or is the Semag, I couldn't find the citation -- doesn't mention minchah. I think the MB s"q 31-32 *implies* that the emphasis is on Shacharis and Maariv since the solar landmarks vary the most, and therefore the minyan is more likely to have their own idiosyncratic time -- late Shacharis or early Maariv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The waste of time is the most extravagant micha at aishdas.org of all expense. http://www.aishdas.org -Theophrastus Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 11:49:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:49:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170605184905.GC3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 10:00:22PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : Can I burn something that was hefker without acquiring it? If I declare : something hefker (I'm not sure the legal implication of batel), and then I : burn it, wouldn't that imply I'm koneh it? Which makes things much worse. We might argue whether bitul chameitz means something other than hefqer. But even if it does, how can a formula that ends "vehefqer ke'afrah de'ar'a" not render it *also* hefqer? I am not sure what kind of qinyan burning would be. (Shinui? but shinui to something worthless is back to not having anything shaveh perutah to own.) Taking from hefqer means there is no maqneh, does that mean there is no qoneh? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 11:37:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:37:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a : conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of : YaVY... Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because there is no actual issur la'avor. : Since when is conversation : hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes : the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation : carries the din YvAY. I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from hirhurim. And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA: : That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, : causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of : hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and : certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? : : The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya : due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the downward character spiral. Tie'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:13:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? In-Reply-To: <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> References: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5424769a-057e-b1d6-87b8-130dad06850d@sero.name> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > : S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim > : b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman > : shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? It seems to me that "shacharit v'arvit" here may not mean the tefillot but the times: they should daven each morning and evening when they know the minyan in the city is davening. The city minyan presumably does mincha and maariv together in one evening session, so that's what individuals should do. This is so especially if this is from the Smag, and we know from Rashi and Tosfos Brachos 2a that the minhag in France at that time was to daven maariv immediately after mincha, while it was still daylight. We also know from elsewhere that minhag Ashkenaz at a later time was similarly to go straight from the Kaddish Tiskabel after Mincha to Vehu Rachum and Borchu, with no Aleinu or Shir Hamaalos/kaddish (or Ledavid in Elul) in between. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:55:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:55:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:40:56AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and : "redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually : to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many : others.... I think that bringing up pidyon and temurah just cloud the issue. IMinsufficientlyHO, it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that strikes me as a progression): - the go'el hadam - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) - and of people (ibid v 48) - the end of galus To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on its nachalah. But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first -- "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why there are different words in lh"q. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 14:06:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:06:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605210617.GB23709@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 03:18:13PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that : Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent : introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, : pages 48-52. Which ties to the other thread about how we're to view Yiftach or Shimshon -- baalei mesorah or amei ha'aretz? It's possible that at the nadir points in the days of shofetim, being the gadol hador didn't rule out also having fundamental flaws. : R' Zev Sero wrote: :> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the :> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. : It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it : something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus : and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus : then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. If it was some general Semitic notion of ge'ulah, then perhaps being common-law spouses in a 7 Mitzvos b' Noach sense would be enough to trigger ge'ulah, even if yibum would require real qiddushin. After all, the basis for ge'ulah was likely that the woman came to depend on the family for her support, and it would be wrong to let her down. Which is true of a Moaviah intermarrying into a Jewish family, even if the marriage only seemed real to her. I am also reminded of the Rambam IB 13, discussed hear repeatedly ad nauseum. Shimshon's and Shelomo's wives were p[resumed Jewish until their actions showed that they not only had ulterior motive, they lacked a true motive (qabbalas ol mitzvos) altogether. Geirei `arayos all are in that boat -- if we think they were mequbalos al mitzvos along with wanting to convert to marry, we presume they're kosher Jews but suspect and watch whether behavior matches presumption. Rus would be in a similar situation, no? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 14:55:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:55:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> References: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4674ee8c-5f5e-c740-051a-00191c18b4fb@sero.name> On 05/06/17 16:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > IMinsufficientlyHO, it pays to just stick to trying to find a common > theme to all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that > strikes me as a progression): > > [...] > > - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's not an > actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) Where is the word found in this context? My position is that the use in Megilath Ruth is an instance of the next meaning. > - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) - and of people (ibid v 48) This one. AIUI the underlying theme of this mitzvah is discharging ones own obligations, or those of a relative who is unable to do so himself. When one has sold the family patrimony, one must buy it back so that people will no longer look at one as someone who had to do that. If one can't, then whoever in the family can afford to do so must buy it back, to clear ones name. Included in this is a sub-obligation that if one is aware that a relative has to sell family land, and one can afford to buy it, one must offer to do so, so he is never subjected in the first place to the ignominy of selling it out of the family. (That, as near as I can tell, is what was happening in Ruth. Naomi and Ruth, having claimed Elimelech's property for their ketubot, were now purportedly looking for a buyer, and turned to the family to give them first refusal.) By extension this also includes discharging other obligations, not to do with the family land, such as ones obligation to a woman whom a relative has left destitute, so that her state will not be a disgrace to the family. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:56:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 20:56:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to comfort her > and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not make any > request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but she > did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion > of the community which did not presume a social negiah restriction. Was > Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, > what should he have done? I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to include any contact in any social situation in addition to more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly consistently not included are professional scenarios where your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors, nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says there that even in his generation he was unique in being able to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for this situation. But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei aveira then there is no issur of negia. I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred option. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 03:08:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 10:08:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? I heard from Rav Matis Weinberg that the final reference to Ruth Hamoavia emphasises that, despite the way we usually think of geirus, and despite everything she's gone through, she remains a Moavia. Meaning that she retains her Moavi roots and personal context, and brings the positive from that into Klal Yisrael. I understand him as polemicising against the tendency to destroy ones previous identity, consciously or otherwise, in order to join the Jewish world either as a ger or a baal teshuva. Ben ________________________________ From: Avodah on behalf of via Avodah Sent: 02 June 2017 03:34 To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 72 Send Avodah mailing list submissions to avodah at lists.aishdas.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org You can reach the person managing the list at avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." A list of common acronyms is available at http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms Avodah Acronyms ? The AishDas Society www.aishdas.org Here?s a hopefully useful but incomplete list of acronyms that are standard to Avodah, but aren?t in common usage. I marked each either ?A? for those specific ... (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) Today's Topics: 1. Re: Maharat (Rich, Joel via Avodah) 2. Re: Maharat (Ben Waxman via Avodah) 3. Re: Maharat (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 4. matched soldier and praying for them (M Cohen via Avodah) 5. Re: Maharat (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) 6. Elimelech's land (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 7. Ruth Hamoaviah (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 8. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (ADE via Avodah) 9. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (Zev Sero via Avodah) 10. A Holiday Afterthought (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) 11. Re: A Holiday Afterthought (Micha Berger via Avodah) 12. Re: Ruth Hamoaviah (Zev Sero via Avodah) 13. Re: Ruth Hamoaviah (Lisa Liel via Avodah) 14. Re: Elimelech's land (Ben Waxman via Avodah) 15. Re: Elimelech's land (Zev Sero via Avodah) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:06:28 +0000 From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" To: 'Ilana Elzufon' , "'The Avodah Torah Discussion Group'" , Micha Berger , "Akiva Miller" , Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05 at VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. ---------------------------------------------------- Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the debate on black letter law? KT Joel Rich (full disclosure-kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-not everything that is permitted to you should be done) THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:22:13 +0200 From: Ben Waxman via Avodah To: Ilana Elzufon , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Micha Berger , Akiva Miller , Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Probably the best and most succinct historical analogy I've seen for this question. Ben On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > > Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women > rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the > vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it > seems to be shaping up as the latter. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:59:33 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation. Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. How can this be? Dare we imagine that he did such things unauthorizedly? Certainly he must have had/received some sort of Heter Hora'ah. If so, then when and how did he get it - and without getting semicha at the same time? Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:01 -0400 From: M Cohen via Avodah To: , Subject: [Avodah] matched soldier and praying for them Message-ID: <014801d2d969$41c5c800$c5515800$@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A while ago on Avodah, a well known (chareidi) Baal machshava was quoted as disagreeing strongly with the concept of matching frum people with a nonfrum soldier in order to pray for them. "we have no brotherhood with secular Israelis" Recently, I posted to Avodah a link to a collection of 1400 short tshuvot from HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlitah (of Toronto) On the above topic, he writes there.. #600 Pray As They Go Q. There are two organizations here in Eretz Yisroel, one called; Elef LaMateh, and the other; The Shmirah Project. Basically, their intent is to match Israeli soldiers with Avreichim and bochurim learning. Each Avreich and Bochur who volunteers, receives the name of a specific soldier (his name and his mother's name) that he takes responsibility to daven for and learn specially for so that in the merit of the tefillos and learning, that soldier will merit to return home alive and well. (Is this a good idea) A. HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is a great mitzvah to pray, learn Torah and accomplish mitzvos for the benefit of all our brethren B'nay Yisroel in times of peril and need, especially for those who put their life in harm's way to save and protect others. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:39:53 +0200 From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah To: "Rich, Joel" Cc: Avodah , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Micha Berger , Akiva Miller Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should be identical for each community and each generation? - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:01:50 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" . I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start farming? I suppose it was pretty desolate after a ten-year famine, but did she even try? She must have at least gone there to see the place, if for no other reason than to be sure that no squatters took over while she was gone. Without making sure of such things, how could she even hope that anyone (even a goel) would buy it? Maybe she expected to get a better profit from Boaz than she'd get from farming it herself, but maybe there are other answers? Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:05:01 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the distinction? When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on this. Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:14:59 +0100 From: ADE via Avodah To: Zev Sero , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are still being machshiv some pesukim over others. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk > *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:32:23 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: ADE <9006168 at gmail.com>, The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: <510d4fd4-6c91-fb85-0c23-f6cdfa7ffcbf at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 02/06/17 05:14, ADE wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one >> pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this >> reason. > Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are > still being machshiv some pesukim over others. There is no requirement to treat all pesukim exactly the same. One is entitled to stand or sit during KhT as one wishes, and has no obligation to choose one policy and stick to it. The problem is only with standing up for special pesukim, such as Shma or the 10D. Since there's nothing special about the pasuk before the 10D, there's no problem with deciding to stand for it. And when the special pesukim come along one is already standing, so one has no obligation to sit down. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:46:10 -0400 From: Cantor Wolberg via Avodah To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50 at cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In our personal religious commitments there are those among us scrupulous in performance of the ceremonial mitzvot but at the same time displaying reckless disregard of our elementary duties towards our fellowman. Halacha embraces human life in its totality. One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social trait from our behavior! A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:31:31 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Cantor Wolberg , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <20170602153131.GA15356 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made : a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study : of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social : trait from our behavior! Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, among the aphorisms of his listed in R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I. :-)BBii! -Micha ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:28:00 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Akiva Miller via Avodah , "akivagmiller at gmail.com >> Akiva Miller" Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: <4dd6e4f1-2d00-a274-ace0-e5d2a803039a at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 01/06/17 23:05, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I only see four instances of "Ruth Hamoaviah", three in ch 2, and only one in ch 4, in Boaz's description of the situation to Tov. Since his purpose was to scare him off, it made sense to mention her origin, so Tov would be reluctant to risk his future. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:20:16 +0300 From: Lisa Liel via Avodah To: Akiva Miller , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 6/2/2017 6:05 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I can't cite a source for it, but I remember once reading that Ruth HaMoaviah was intended to praise her, since she gave up her position in Moav to join us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus [https://static2.avast.com/11/web/min/i/mkt/share/avast-logo.png] Avast | Download Free Antivirus for PC, Mac & Android www.avast.com Protect your devices with the best free antivirus on the market. Download Avast antivirus and anti-spyware protection for your PC, Mac and Android. ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:31:41 +0200 From: Ben Waxman via Avodah To: Akiva Miller , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Actually if the land had lied fallow for 10 years, it should be in good shape. Granted it needs weeding but the soil should be good. It only requires a relatively small amount of rain for grass to grow and re-invigorate the soil. Maybe she was too old to work the land and figured that a sale would provide her with enough money to live out the rest of her days in dignity? Ben On 6/2/2017 5:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:17:52 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Akiva Miller via Avodah , Akiva Miller Subject: Re: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: <272b8698-d5c1-55a1-560b-2bc6d0c39b74 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 01/06/17 23:01, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? It seems to me that finding a buyer for the property was not at all important to her, and in fact she had shown no interest in doing so until she saw how she could use it to get Boaz to marry Ruth. It was Boaz who spun the story out for Tov in order to scare him off; first he drew him in with the prospect of an easy transaction for Naomi's portion of the field, but then he threw in the Ruth monkey wrench. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/avodah http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org ------------------------------ End of Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 72 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 04:24:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:24:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <545028A09009CEB1.0C33F862-E0BD-4F09-B72B-2B14A928A471@mail.outlook.com> I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter, the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat, is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin and relay the answer. We have fine female educators like Shani Taragin etc and we have Yoatzot Halacha as above. I consider this ordination movement as a Western valued and inspired institution. Indeed, these days I know Shules look for husband *and* wife teams. The Rebbetzin occupies an increasingly important place. This is most certainly also true of successful Chabad Houses, and here I speak of people like Rivki Holtzberg hy'd whom I knew well personally and I watched as the women gathered around her and the men around her husband. This is the mimetic tradition not withstanding exceptions. That, I believe is the thrust of the OU proclamation and it is dead on the money. Judaism certainly adapts but it is not the plasticine for Western values and aspirations. Even at a funeral, where one expects little hope for Yetzer Hora, the Halacha mandates the Shura to be separate for males and females. This category of notion underpins our Mesora and always did; right back to the days when our tents were arranged with Tzniyus in mind. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 07:26:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:26:41 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap Message-ID: can anyone explain and show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from non-Kosher fat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 07:23:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:23:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh Message-ID: regarding Chamets buried under a collapsed building where we remain the owner - we intend to salvage it after Pesach but are not transgressing BY and BY without needing to make Bittul I explained that Halachic ownership is determined by ones perception of control and explained this is the reason that YiUsh means one is no longer an owner for example you forget your wallet holding your ID and some money in a restaurant even though you go back in the HOPE of finding it or are HOPING an honest person will return it this is nevertheless YiUsh you no longer believe you are in control although RaMBaM encourages that the finder return it Halachically the finder is entitled to tell you Once upon a time this was yours - but you were MeYaEsh so it is no longer yours and I picked it up AFTER you were already MeYaEsh This is the foundation for the Pesak of R Y E Spektor that money lost by a woman at a trade fair MUST be returned because there was NO YiUsh the money had been found and taken to the local Rav it matched perfectly the description given by the woman who lost it but the finder insisted he wants to keep the money unless he is obliged to return it even though the woman had Simanim Muvhakim there was no doubt the money found was the money she lost she was certainly MeYaEsh she is not the owner Reb Y E Spektor Paskened that there was no YiUsh her husband is the owner and he, sitting many miles away was unaware of the loss of the money so there was no YiUsh R Micha argues that this is not correct he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost so there is no YiUsh however if they would know it is lost they would be MeYaEsh I would suggest that there is no problem the Machlokes is simply a dispute about ACTUAL belief one is in control versus POTENTIAL belief one is in control for example walking behind a fellow Yid you notice a diamond fall off his ring he would be unaware of his loss if we say YiUsh requires DaAs then there is no YiUsh yet you would have to wait until you see the fellow stop and look around for something then you can take your foot off the diamond and take it home [BTW is such a person a Rasha? or worse, not a Mentsch?] If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs then you can take the diamond straight away because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 10:48:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:48:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> , <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a : conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of : YaVY... Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because there is no actual issur la'avor. I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where there's an issur involved? That's why I'm suggesting that since it's on pain of yeihareig then we know there must an issur la'avor so the point of the sugya is to work out what that is. The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below. : Since when is conversation : hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes : the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation : carries the din YvAY. I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from hirhurim. >From hirhurim? Chazal were gozer yeihareig on hirhurei aveira? If that were true we'd find the same din in a lot of other places. Which is why is seems to me we must be dealing with something else here. And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA: : That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, : causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of : hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and : certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? : : The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya : due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the downward character spiral. Me'heicha teisi that we're dealing with Hilkhos De'os here? Where do you find a din of yeihareig in Hilchos De'os? Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does. Your partially stated assumption is that this din in both man d'amrim is d'rabanan. Rambam strongly implies otherwise. Kol tuv Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 09:19:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha wrote: "In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable. And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving R Ploni answering questions. (The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the model.) This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads -- or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her rebbe's license?" me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using. They are hiding behind ambiguity. if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do hora'ah. AND, you cant use the model of semicha to prohibit women from hora'ah, becuase in the Venn diagram of the topic, there is hora'ah outside the lines of semicha. So R. Micha et al need to provide some other basis for their issur of hora'ah, AND, address all those who write that a woman can provide hora'ah. AND, address the quote from R. Penner that the semicha for REITS graduates is not one to pasken(or perhaps even to give hora'ah). AND, address why(rather than simply say) the Rabbanut semichah test system, perhaps the most popular semicha in Orthodoxy, does not undermine his entire thesis. One can give a woman 'heter hora'ah l'rabbim' because there has not been a cogent argument presented not to do so, and there are many poskim who write that a woman can give hora'ah. The argument regarding 'what would HKBH' want is interesting. Does he want us to restrict women from doing things just so that we can say there are differences between men and women? Or, did He establish Halakha to help us sort out those that He wants, rather than ancient ones that and are gradually being re-evaluated, similar to how we have gradually moved away from embracing slavery, polygamy(in the vast majority of instances), restrictions on the deaf/dumb, the devaluation of women(see Mishna in Horiyyot 'men's lives are saved prior to women....), the idea that a women's wisdom is only with the spindle, one who teaches his daughter Torah has taught her tiflut, etc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 11:28:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:28:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/6/2017 7:19 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all > those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to > clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using. They are > hiding behind ambiguity. if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then > saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do > hora'ah. Are you suggesting that the burden of proof is on those *opposed* to a radical change in Jewish practice? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 11:18:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:18:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> (And also some "Re: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim".) On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:48am CDT, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you : understand the OU panel as defining it. Otherwise you are just using a : nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning. To me, "semichah" is a secondary concept. My focus was to assert whose halachic decision-making can qualify as hora'ah. That question involves semichah in the discussion. We were discussing the Rama YD 242:14. The Mechaber writes in strong terms that a higi'ah lehora'ah is obligated to actually provide hora'ah. The Rama there adds that this is only if there is no barrier of kevod harav -- his rebbe passed away, gave him semichah, is a rebbe-chaver, or the like. He doesn't make semichah a definition of magi'ah lehora'ah, but only a removal of a barrier, a necessary condition in the usual circumstances. Not a defining feature. If we look at the Rama in se'ifim 5-6, he tells you he is basing himself on the Mahariq (113.3, 117 [and the OU panel adds, cf 169). The Mahariq's position is based on assuming that what was true for classical semichah is still true for modern day semichah. The Rambam (Sanhedrin 4:8) agrees with that comparison -- he derives the need today for netilas reshus from Mosaic semichah. IOW, who needs reshus for hora'ah? Someone who is magi'ah lehora'ah and has kevoad harav issues in giving hora'ah without one. A magi'ah lehora'ah can only be someone eligable to sit on a BD of [Mosaic] musmachim (or according to the Rambam, other mumchim). Not because "rabbi" is defined by "has semichah", but because "yoreh yoreh" or Yesivat Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim" declares someone to be a hegi'ah lehorah. I find the OU's argument compelling, fits the words of R/Prof SL's letter and is probably his intent, and how I understood the sugyah in general before the notion of an O woman as rabbi became a topic people would seriously discuss. I am interested to know if you asked R/D Novak which one of us understood his intent. Did he mean to explain R/Prof SL's position or explain why he differs with it in ways that makes Yeshivat Maharat an option? Agreed that few rabbis pasqen, and that we could have female clergy that avoid this first issue that I have even if a Maharat's semichah read "Rabbah uManhigah" instead of "heter hora'ah lerabbim". : The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship : between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah : to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here: : http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah ... : So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that : apply to beit din. That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist... And yet the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama all think that one continues enough of the other that we can draw conclusions across that bridge. It's not me doing the category taking, it's the Rambam and the SA. What greater authorities do you need? While on the topic of magi'ah lehorah... On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 11:24am GMT, Isaac Balbin wrote: : I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his : students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the : aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was : a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter, : the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat, : is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is : 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin : and relay the answer. There is a difference. Hopefully, someone who get "Yoreh Yoreh" is first magi'ah lehora'ah. But that's a sliding scale. They could get reshus to pasqn because there are less weighty or less involved questions they can and should be answering, while still being aware when they are in over their heads and should call RMF. Whereas the impression I got from RYHH's posts here on Avodah is that a Yo'etzet isn't supposed to ever be giving pesaq; only answering questions that the community has definite answers for -- reporting halakhah pesuqah. But then there's the second and third issues.... 2- How do we know shul is no supposed to be a men's club? Men's clubs work, or at least the Rotary and the Masons have for centuries. Movements that went egalitarian now have issues getting male participation in shul; this is a big topic in Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs (C umbrella organization) discussion. And more fundamentally, how do we know that this social dynamic was not Anshei Keneses haGdolah's intent? I would assume indeed it was. This would rule out having a woman for much of the congretational role of rabbi. 3- Halakhah is inherently non-egalitarian: a- Importing an external value over those implied internally. And more functionally, we are telling women that indeed, the traditionally male role is the better path to holiness -- let us help you run at that glass ceiling. b- This is bound to lead to greater frustration as soon as LWMO has gone as far as it could up to that halachic limit. and c- It is making a claim that is false. One is sacrificing Judaism's model of equal worth despite hevdel for the sake of egalitarianism and erasing havdalah. The last being more of a perceptual issue. And this may explain why you can get a bit further not using the word "rabbi". It's not merely a word game, there is an issue at stake; are we trying to be egalitarian, or to accept a system in which kohanim not only defy egalitarianism, but apparently start out holier than I am. Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW. On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 7:51am IST, Ben Waxman wrote: : For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community : that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like : Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi : community consider to be kefira. Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'" (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not! : If so, than kal v'chomer many of : the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are : some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in : getting hung up on multiple non-issues. There are two possible sources of division here. 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators, and therefore in practice will be a separate community. Comfort zone isn't only a psychological issue. it nostalgia, mimetic tradition, Toras imekha or minhag Yisrael sabba, communal continuity is a big issue. 2- The ideological problem isn't in the bottom-level issues but in how they highlighted the loss of common language. The opposition to these changes are talking about Mesorah, values, etc... and the proponents just see the issue as "if it's halachically allowed, why are you giving us a hard time?" This lack of common language, more specifically, the lack of a notion of metahalakhah* is disconcerting. So to my mind the schism-level battle isn't over ordaining women, Partnership Minyanim, or whether Document Hypothesis is a viable option without O as much as these decisions are apparently being made by a different set of rules. And that could quite validly be a schismatic level issue. (* In this sense of the "word" "metahalakhah". We on Avodah have also used "metahalakha" to refer to the halachos of making halakhos, even when the rules are more black-letter. Such as discussions of when we say halakhah kebasrai, or whether there is acharei rabbim lehatos in this post-Sanhedrin era.) Back to R/Dr Noam Stadlan... I believe in a role for women in the clergy that isn't that of poseiq, part of minyan, nor claiming to be egalitarian. The OU thinks that categorizing the resulting role set as "clergy" is itself too egalitarian. Again, I see that as a perceptual issue. But they too end calling for finding more venues for women to contribute communally and to be visible role models. (An Areivim-esque tangent: It would be interesting to see if the OU acts on these closing remarks as rapidly as they did about the 4 member shuls that already have Maharatos.) But then, the only difference between the position now taken by Aish or Chabad kiruv today and the actual permission granted in the driving responsum is perception as well. In terms of dry facts, both were premitting causing the non-observant to drive on Shabbos rather than let them remain disconnected. They only differed in how they let the person perceive his own driving. And yet one was a major part of a broad collapse of observance, and the other is apparently increasing observance. Presentation and perception matter. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:03:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:03:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606150330.GB26549@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:23:51AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : R Micha argues that this is not correct : he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control : then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs : i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost : so there is no YiUsh : however if they would know it is lost : they would be MeYaEsh Rather, I was saying ownership hinges on responsibility, which I suggested was both a consequence of and license for having actual control. : I would suggest that there is no problem : the Machlokes is simply a dispute about : ACTUAL belief one is in control versus : POTENTIAL belief one is in control It would help if you can find a case where somone has potential of believing they control an item for reasons other than having actual control, and has the din of ba'al, OR someone has potential to believe they lost control of an item for reasons other than actually losing control, and does not have ba'alus. Yi'ush is giving up on finding it again, not knowledge of loss of control, real or potential. Let me use your example to explain how I see it: : for example : walking behind a fellow Yid : you notice a diamond fall off his ring : he would be unaware of his loss ... : If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs : then you can take the diamond straight away : because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss But this is a case where he loses actual control. The yi'ush shelo mida'as is more of an expectation not to regain it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:06:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606150633.GC26549@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:26:41AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : can anyone explain and : show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim : to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from : non-Kosher fat "Preferable"? Because we make a point of using dish soap that is ra'ui la'akhilah. So, using a treif one means taking a position on akhshevei. I believe the OU knows they are just pandering to the market when they give such a heksher, though, and don't lehalakhah require it. (But you did say "preferable", and avoiding even a shitah dechuyah could be deemed preferable.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:55:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 09:53:30PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil : Siman 199, the Maharil writes: ... :> And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive :> commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we :> should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut ... :> And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible :> to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules :> and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in :> our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and :> hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by :> way of tradition from outside, I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather than knowledge of abstract ideas. However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. There I ass more promise. he quotes the Rambam (which you already discussed) and the Sema"q's haqdamah (from near the end). There the Maharil talks about oseiq beTorah as in kol ha'oseiq beparashas olah kei'lu hiqrivu qorban, and that this should apply even to mitzvos in which they are NOT obligated (like qorbanos). Is this exclusively TSBK? It might; the Maharil talks about men saying birkhos haTorah before reading pesuqim they do not understand. Ayin sham. : And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in : Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous : generations: :> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their :> upright fathers. Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. Which the Maharil you cited appears to be doing as well. I place more hope on the second Maharil. Which is why I disagree with: : But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the : ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach : women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was : taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in : the form of the Mishna?... Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an example to imitate. (Tosafos believe Rabbe compiled the mishnah; writing down didn't happen for centuries. So what the mishnah was to the amora'im was an official text to memorize and repeat. As in "tani tana qamei deR' ..." Not that it really touches on our discussion.) : So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what : the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women : to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al " peh... True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask why, etc... but it's not an "education" setting. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 16:57:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men gather. Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis. So that women can gather around women rabbis. certainly it is not an argument against women rabbis. And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals does not apply either. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 18:50:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:50:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: - R' Shalom Simon wrote: > I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value > as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters > of grave import. No one?!? I imagine this might be true about people who are relatively learned, and relatively savvy in the ways of certain yeshivishe circles. But I can testify that it is certainly not true of a typical less-learned nominally-Orthodox person. Towards the end of my first year in yeshiva in Yerushalayim, as I made my plans to returns back to the USA, my friends were nudging me to stay for a second year. I felt that the proper thing for me to do was to return, as per my plans. But their annoying reached a certain level, and I felt the most effective response would be to ask my gemara rebbe (who I was very close with), and then I'd be able to tell them to keep quiet. Surprise! He answered me honestly, that leaving the yeshiva would be a mistake, I needed a second year of chizuk, etc etc etc. I was devastated, having to choose between his p'sak and what *I* felt to be right. In the end, I wasn't strong enough to follow Hashem's halacha. I left the yeshiva, returned to YU for the one remaining year to get my degree, and then returned to my yeshiva in Yerushalayim. All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha. Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 19:25:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 22:25:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support? Message-ID: - R' Ben Bradley wrote: > I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur > derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what > consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to > include any contact in any social situation in addition to > more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly > consistently not included are professional scenarios where > your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors, > nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who > can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like > the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says > there that even in his generation he was unique in being able > to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for > this situation. > > But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively > certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei > aveira then there is no issur of negia. I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses, physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her, she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia. But in the case at hand, the physical contact is not incidental. It is the goal. Nay, I would argue even more strongly: The mere physical contact isn't the goal -- The EMOTIONAL RESPONSE to the contact is the goal! The whole point of hugging this person is for emotional support. I certainly agree that this sort of hugging is on a lower level that the sort of hugging that leads to sexual relations. But at the same time, it *IS* more intimate than the examples you cited. A person will choose a doctor, nurse or therapist, based on their medical ability -- but the sort of hugs we are discussing here are valued more when from a friend than from a stranger. > I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And > preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in > sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved > in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred > option. "The need to comfort the bereaved..." Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor" regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this "needed" comfort from someone else. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 20:28:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 03:28:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R Meir Rabi asked for mekoros. I suggest Yechaveh Daas 4:43 Although Chacham Ovadya is Meikel he does bring Rishonim who would hold its an Issur Derabonnon as in Pesach for 'off' Chametz. This is probably the place to look but I don't have the Sefer in front of me at the minute. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 03:38:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 06:38:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607103838.GC10990@aishdas.org> There are also sources in RAZZ's column in Jewish Action https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_kosher_soap (He sent me the link privately. Perhaps R/Dr Zivitofsky wanted to spare me being corrected in public.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 06:35:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:35:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> >Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed >incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis >are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community >in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to >do so?" >----------------------------------------------------- >As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question >(chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", >on what basis >are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a >Halachic reason to do so?" But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no? We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni or Tzlophad's daughters. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 06:49:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 08:49:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maharat Message-ID: R. Micha- if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL). It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is one of them. You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get semicha. You obviously hold that a woman cant be a judge, and the barrier to the woman is actually not semicha, but her not being qualified to be in the category of hl. Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness. There are others in that category. Since there is no reason to differentiate between those in the category, you are saying that all those others in the category also are forbidden, not from semicha, but from being in the category of HL. We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be dayyanim in some cases. So, the disqualification of women from HL actually wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot. So your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not claiming to be eligible for semicha. I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive lomdus. Is there a source that specifically states that women are forbidden from being HL? The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age. It seems that you may be distinguishing between hora'ah, and HL, there being hora'ah that is not in the category of being given by someone that is HL(if not, you have to deal with the myriads of sources that state specifically that women can give hora'ah). So you and the OU authors may be referring to HL in the mosaic understanding, and moderns, including YM, are using it in a different fashion, to refer to non-formal HL. Because if there is hora'ah that is not part of the formal HL, there is no restriction on women. And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? what is the basis for that? It seems that even assuming that you are correct(for which I have not found any support in any references), there is no basis for excluding women from having non formal hora'ah, someone acknowledging that they are capable of that non-formal hora'ah, and them functioning as a rabbi and doing what rabbi's do in shuls and elsewhere. Your restriction only keeps them from occupying a formal title which is not neccessary or needed for the job description. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 07:05:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 14:05:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> References: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> Message-ID: <94258eaf26e94a0ea0c49de3630ef2ce@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no? We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni or Tzlophad's daughters. ========================= So just to complete the loop-the question is who gets to answer this request for whom Kt Joel rich _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rn0JnHwKAKxEU5lYbmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGWm5q4mhsFBBsamlgbGDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAF5osAg&Z THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 09:38:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607163850.GA12495@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:49:45AM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL). It's not me positing it. Look again at YD 242:13-14, warning against the talmid shelo higia' lehora'ah against giving any, and the chakham who did higi'ah lehora'ah and was not moreh, applying condemnatory pesuqim to each. The SA is based on R' Abba amar R' Hunah amar Rav on AZ 19b. : It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can : give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is : one of them. So yes, it is clear. The SA says so outright. : You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get : semicha... Again, not me, Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq all assume comparability between the two. A Mahariq the Rama then cites (se'if 6) as the basis for his concluding how a musmach should behave toward the rav who gave him semichah, when not his rebbe. So it would seem the Rama buys into the notion that our "semichah" of declaring someone a hegi'ah lehora'ah (and in the case of a rebbe, implicitely that he has permission to be moreh) follows the rules of Mosaic semicha for beis din. So, thinking you are arguing against me, rather than centuries of dissentless precedent, you propose a line of reasoning at odds with the Rambam and Tosafos: : Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for : those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness... The Sema and Be'eir heiTev (on CM 7:4) does say yalfinan lah mei'eidus. See Nidah 49b But see the Y-mi, Shevuos 4:1 (vilna 19a) brings several derashos. One of them (R' Yosi bei R' Bun, R' Huna besheim R' Yosi) does learn is from a gezeira shava from eidus. ... : We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be : dayyanim in some cases. So, the disqualification of women from HL actually : wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot. So : your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not : claiming to be eligible for semicha. One thing at a time. Eligability for true Mosaic semichah and how it reflect on who can give hora'ah is what's relevant now. Not who can serve in other judicial roles that did/will not require semichah. : I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive : lomdus. Is there a source that specifically states that women are : forbidden from being HL? There are numerous sources that say women can't get real Mosaic semichah, and numerous sources that say that the laws of today's "semichah" are derived from those. The fact that I don't know anyone before the current dispute actually connect the two to deny something no (O and pre-O) observant community considered a plausible question even as recently as the late 1990s (including a statement by R' Avi Weiss) really doesn't make the argument less compelling. If you have A =/= B and B = C, do you really demand a source telling you that A =/= C? : The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara : and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age... No, that HL in the SA is the same. ... : And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the : requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? ... Never claimed that. I separated my problem with declaring a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" for women from my problem with a woman serving during services and from my 2 or 3 problems with giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings in halakhah. You have only responded to the first. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 10:33:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:33:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607173338.GB9596@aishdas.org> As I see it, the question WRT hora'ah is whether we follow the Rama's lead and hold like the Mahariq, or the Birkei Yoseif CM 7:12 a viable shitah -- and then, does "viable" mean "advisable"? (We aren't heter shopping, after all.) The Birkei Yoseif says Af de'ishah besulah ladun, mikol maqom ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah basing himself on one of the opinions in Tosafos (Yevamos 45b "mi", Gittin 88b, ve'od) about what it means that "Devorah melamedes lahem dinim". (Devodah vs. ishah asurah ladun is the topic of 11.) It seem to me that "melameid lahem dinim" is a different use of the word "hora'ah" than the SA is using in YD. And thus it seems to me that Birkei Yoseif would explicitly permit a yo'etzet, who is teaching established halakhah and defering questions that require shiqul hada'as to a rav. But he is not describing hora'ah as assumed in a Maharat's heter hora'ah lerabbim and the YD 242 sense of magi'ah lehora'ah and who needs such a heter when he does. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 10:12:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:12:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607171230.GA2858@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:25:57PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses, : physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a : "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one : will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so : too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked : her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her, : she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia. "Melakhah she'inah tzerichah legudah" is specific to the 39 melakhos, so "sort of" indeed. Besides, might be more of a pesiq reishei. In any case, when a professional violates negi'ah, the heter is ba'avidteih tarid (BM 91b). And it's specifically to professionals and the air of professionalism. (As well as the lowered odds of a problem for someone who has a license at risk.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 12:22:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 21:22:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/7/2017 3:50 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I > will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I > *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for > disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi > Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha. > > Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar > things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent. I would agree that this is an extreme example. I don't know you so I can't say anything about you in particular (not that I would anyway, not on a forum) but I would expect a yeshiva guy who had been learning with a teacher/rav for a year to take the teacher/rav's words much more seriously than the average ba'al habayit. The first thing a ba'al habayit would do is say "Well, I went to him for advice, not psak, so I don't have to listen to him". >I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value >as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters > of grave import. I don't know what constitutes grave import - an abortion? learning Biblical Criticism? Marrying someone of questionable yichus? Whether or not a particular business maneuver constitutes fraud in the eyes of halacha (or if it isn't but is illegal)? Accepting charity from criminals? Would the average MO Jew speak a rav and get his psak on these issues? Or do people limit themselves to strict Orach Chayim issues like eating on Yom Kippur? Are there issues that people will do whatever the rabbi says and ignore what he has to say about other things (obviously people ignore what rabbis have to say about a lot of issues, but I mean a straight psak)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 11:57:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maharat Message-ID: R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress. You are engaging in a theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls. (they were not arguing against specific wording on a claf, they were arguing against holding a specific position). Given what you wrote, we both agree that the OU argument against does not hold water. Even if they are technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are capable of doing so(even if according to you they actually do not need permission from their rav). Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R. Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and others. Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav) have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and the authority is in the sources, not the person. You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments. You have admitted that the issue of women semicha has not been considered until recently. So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong. (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an arguement, that it be consistent. So if you are claiming that the reason women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot. you cant have it both ways). Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.' Please read the article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier. He makes it very clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that external 'modern values' are an important part of that. Modern values are neither positive nor negative. Those that find resonance in the Mesorah are elevated. R. Nachum Rabinovitch and R. Lichtenstein point out that our goal is to make moral progress. You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'. It isn't about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion. As R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice. I happen to be married to a Maharat student and personally know many of them and their teachers. It is the ultimate in hubris and mansplaining for you and the others to claim to know what their motivation is. It was reprehensible of the OU panel to claim to know what the motivation is when they failed to talk to anyone actually involved in the enterprise. Even if we incorrectly grant that it is due to 'egalitarian yearnings,' is that wrong? I suggest that our Mesorah has incorporated egalitarian yearnings. The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way, and those that would probably would give all sorts of apologetics and rationalizations for it. (I am aware of the different shitot, and know that RSZA for example gave so many other rationales to decide that even though l'halacha he held this, there were so many other bases for deciding ahead of gender that practically it never would have been applicable.) Even the OU panel said that we value women the same as men. Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women. The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large or as small as possible? Because as we have decided above, if we go by strict halacha, there is no problem with women serving as shul rabbis. is it a value to have differences, and because you want to have differences, you are going to prohibit women from doing things? Just to have differences? There are differences between Jews and Converts. Is it a Halachic value to maximize the differences, or minimize the differences between Jew and Gerim? R. Moshe wrote that a convert can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah is not a problem. Would he have agreed that a women can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah is also not a problem for her? (rosh yeshiva does not require semicha). Mishpat echad yehiyeh lachem, ka-ger ka-ezrach. The OU paper brought up tzniut. I do not think that the MO community thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a violation of tzniut. So there is no violation of tzniut when women or men perform the functions of clergy on their side of the mechitzah(one could designate a man to take of things on the men's side of the mechitzah if you were worried about interactions across the mechitzah). if you are claiming that this is a tzniut problem, then it applies to every interaction of women and men, inside the shul and outside. The OU paper claimed that a synagogue required greater tzniut, and therefore women cant perform rabbinical duties. That is a non-sequitor. First of all, it hasnt been demonstrated that appropriately dressed and acting people are a problem with tzniut. and, why is this particular action the one picked to fulfill the mandate of more tzniut? perhaps the men fulfilling EH 21 would be a better starting place. I understand you and others not being comfortable with ordination for women. no one is asking for you to be comfortable with it. If you dont think it is a good idea(halacha v'ain mori'in kein), that is fine to say. But it isn't fine to say that Halacha bans it when it doesn't, and it isn't ok to try to kick people who are shomrei Torah u'mitzvot out of the tent because of your comfort or lack of comfort. I would hope that you are at least as uncomfortable with some of the people on the far right wing. No one is asking for you to go to their shul, ask them a shailah, or learn their Torah if you dont want to. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:10:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:10:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:57:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress. You are engaging in a : theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU : rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls... Well, my first point is a discussion of hora'ah, and consequently for whom is semichah meaninful. But my argument on this point is a subset of the OU's argument on that point. See their paper, pp 8-9 : Given what you wrote, we both agree : that the OU argument against does not hold water. Even if they are : technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give : hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are : capable of doing so (even if according to you they actually do not need : permission from their rav). HOW do you get from what I wrote an implication that we have agreement on that? I think it's firmly established by aforementioned rishonim (plus others in the OU's footnotes) that if someone is ineligable for Mosaic semichah they are ineligable to give hora'ah and therefore have no use for today's yoreh-yoreh. Or the Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim"? : Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch : who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R. : Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a : later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't : invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and : others. Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav) : have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and : the authority is in the sources, not the person. Asked and answered, although in a post after the one to which you replied. Some use the word hora'ah to mean "melameid lahem dinim". Which is not hora'ah as the Rama is discussing it. I pointed you to the Birkei Yoseif. The Chinuch is similar; his : You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments... Another? What's the first? : So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only : poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong. The OU paper doesn't make that argument. Not that I see everything the way the OU panel does. (But halakhah lemaaseh, I would be more likely to follow their opinion than my own.) Nor did I find RJF's analysis of this claim in neither (his general position on ordaining women) nor the only place where I saw him discuss the OU panel on Lehrhaus. As an activist on the subject, I'm sure you've spent more time reading up on it than I. Could you kindly provide more specific references? But let me deal with what you wrote: IOW, you are saying that because our ancestors thought the idea was absurd, we ought to go ahead? What such an argument would say is that we historically had numerous women capable of being rabbis and even so no one even considered making any of them one. The OU's section on mesorah should explain why such attitudes have precedential authority. But again, none of this reflects on what I myself was arguing : (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an : arguement, that it be consistent. So if you are claiming that the reason : women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from : being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including : that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot. you cant : have it both ways). I argued the opposite causality. Lo sosuru mikol asher YORUKHA refers to dayanim. So, someone who is excluded from becoming a dayan can't be the subject of the pasuq, and their decisions don't fall under the halakhos generated by this pasuq. Their decisions are not hora'ah, in the pasuq's sense. (YOu had me saying: Can't give hora'ah implies can't be dayan. I am really saying: Can't be dayan implies can't give hora'ah.) : Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.' Please read the : article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier. He makes it very : clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that : external 'modern values' are an important part of that. Modern values are : neither positive nor negative... Not because they're modern, no. But obviously some are positive, some negative. We can judge them. Mesorah and its values are logically prior to modern values. Numerous halakhos are unegalitarian. Even if egalitarianism is a good idea for benei noach, as a perspective it is inconsistent with that the Torah expects of Jews. : You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'. It isn't : about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers : to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion. As : R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice... The motive I attributed, really echoed back from what I heard in prior iterations, is not that anyone is about making halakhah more egalitarian, but a desire to make halakhah fit a more egalitarian reality. So I don't know what you're rebutting. I argued that some realities reflect values that must be resisted rather than accomodated. We can talk about the end of inequality in the workplace as a good thing, but can we talk about reducing the differences in avodas Hashem, differences that can't be eliminated because halakhah demands they're there, as a good thing? Good point here to address RSSimon's post. On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 09:35:14AM -0400, Sholom Simon wrote: : But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight : halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's : education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent : this", no? To avoid making this a false dichotomy, you have to define halakhah broadly, to include the obligation to live according to the values and general guidelines of aggadita -- mitzvos like qedoshim tihyu, vehalakhta bidrakhav, ve'asisa hayashar vehatov (a/k/a Chovos haLvavos or Hil' Yesodei haTorah and Hil' Dei'os). I think this is what the OU is trying to get to with the concept of "Mesorah". But if I may be frank, they are handicapped in their ability to discuss the aggadic by too many of them seeing the world with Brisker eyes. Back to R/Dr Stadlan... In addition to the question needing to be asked about the Torah's evaluation of a modern value before we simply adopt it (rather than tolerate, limit the scope, or entirely reject).... Second, I do not think justice is served by telling women to find their religious meaning in a headlong rush toward a glass ceiling. I think it's more just to teach them how to find meaning in ways that aren't dead-ended for them. More equal, if less egalitarian. ... : Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women. : The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large : or as small as possible?... That decision should be made by starting with "why does halakhah have those differences"? And what do our aggadic sources say? As I said above, we judge whether to adopt, tolerate or resist new values based on TSBP. : The OU paper brought up tzniut. I do not think that the MO community : thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a : violation of tzniut... Tzenius isn't about clothes. I don't agree with their argument, but don't fight strawmen. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 13:55:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:55:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a > woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken > that way I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:21:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 23:21:05 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB writes: >I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" >in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather than knowledge of abstract ideas. No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these were not "textual" sources - how would you translate ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? better though, to keep the flow and that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? >However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult to understand them as having been written by the same person. Indeed the Birchei Yosef, who seems to have only seen the first one inside, and seen the second one referred to in other sources, particularly the Beis Yosef,( who himself seems to have had the second on but possibly not the first) challenges the quotations from the second teshuva on the basis of the first, and seems to suggest (in the politest possible way) that the Beis Yosef got it wrong, because they just do not match. I do not know any real way to reconcile these two, and can only note that the two compilations of teshuvos were compiled by different students of the Maharil . : And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in : Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous : generations: :> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their :> upright fathers. >Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk, it is about actively teaching (albeit oral). Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting up of schools), but it is a strange pasuk to use if he was talking purely about mimeticism. >Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at all the experiential aspect. When the gemora cites a ma'aseh rav, is this *not* TSBP because it would seem to be mimetic? >I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an example to imitate. The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two types of TSBP. And the other alternative would seem to be to write this kind of teaching out of TSBP. But is not a lot of TSBP, even though by no means all of it, this kind of teaching. Is not the gemora etc filled with this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. : So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what : the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women : to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al " peh... >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting. But the Rambam doesn't say either - "but with regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she ba'al peh taught in a formal educational setting, but that not taught in a formal education setting is fine". And note of course that one cannot just observe Mum taking challa, one also needs to be told about the correct shiur. It is highly unlikely that anybody would necessarily conclude, by watching week after week, exactly what the correct shiur for taking chala and the bracha is by mere observation. That has to be communicated as a form of rule. Ok a situational rule, - taught in context, but the tradition would be lost in a generation if it was left for every generation to guess the correct shiur by watching closely enough week after week. >-Micha Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:53:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:53:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we have now is historically completely wrong. From "b'inyan semichat chachamim' published in Or Hamizrach: 'At this time when semicha is batel, all the mishpatim from the Torah are battel..based on lifneihem- and not lifnei hedyotot. And nowadays we are all hedyotot. And the only way it works is that we act as shlichim of Mosaic beit din' So everyone is a hedyot. More to the point in section five there is a detailed examination of semicha included what was required in various areas. 'The Chatam Sofer writes...that this semicha of morenu and chaver has NO BASIS IN SHAS but is a ashkenazi minhag and does not contain anything real'. 'They issue of semicha that they estabkished(tiknu), according to the Rivash, because it is forbidden for a student, even one who is hegiah l'hora'ah, to give hora'a or to establish a yeshiva(note that this obviously is not hora'ah)while his teacher is alive....therefore they had the PRACTICE of semicha...that he is no longer a student but can teach others(the word is l'lamed, not hora'ah)' There is a lot more. But it is quite clear in the sources brought in this article that the historical record clearly shows No connection between Mosaic semicha and what was begun in the Middle Ages. Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:53:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 22:53:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> References: , <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> Message-ID: <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 7, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > >> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: >> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way > > I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this Not really. They basically say either that there are other tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why.specific citations available upon request Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:07:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:07:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> References: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> Message-ID: On 07/06/17 18:53, Rich, Joel wrote: >> I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that >> this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this > Not really. They basically say either that there are other > tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it > would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why. That's what I thought too. I was surprised to read RNS not only insisting otherwise but deducing an entire shita from this supposed fact. In practise I doubt it was ever meant to be implemented kipshuto, because even on its own terms it applies only when all else is equal, and it rarely is. But it seems to me that when all else *is* equal, i.e. when we have no other information so all else is zero, and we are free to set our own priorities without fearing negative consequences (that too constitutes additional information which makes all else not equal), then the halacha must still apply. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:51:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:51:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170607225122.GA14289@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 05:48:13PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : > Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because : > there is no actual issur la'avor. : : I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on : pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where : there's an issur involved? Red shoelaces? : The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that : yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below. No, it could be preservational and still deOraisa. Like my example of a ben soreier umoreh, who Chazal say dies al sheim ha'asid -- we're also preventing the continuing deteriation in a downward spiral. This "downward spiral" was what I was calling Hil' Dei'os. Hirhurim and hana'ah -- devarim sheleiv in general -- aren't even punishable altogether, how could they allow a court to decide yeihareig? Most dinei nefashos don't even qualify. : Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context : of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must : be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as : issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does. And qiddush hasheim could involve avoiding something that is not assur either. (Agian: red shoelaces.) That too is death to preserve an attitude. I am just saying that your desire to make this yeihareig ve'al ya'avor is putting an overly formal halachic box. Whether or not something is a qiddush hasheim or otherwise worth dying for is not necessarily reducible to a Brisker chalos-sheim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:17:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:17:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we : have now is historically completely wrong... And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah? The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up to imitate the other with no continuity between them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:58:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> Message-ID: The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way, and that saying that modern semicha was set up to imitate ancient semicha(to such an extent that the same prohibitions apply) is a distortion of history and Halachic history. Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources. The Rama makes more sense when read in the context of the quotes that I provided from the Chatam Sofer et al. The Rambam, could well be discussing ancient semicha in the sources you describe........ On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun > 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: > : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we > : have now is historically completely wrong... > > And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based > on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical > study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah? > > The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up > to imitate the other with no continuity between them. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 23:40:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 09:40:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> References: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> Message-ID: <5938F16E.9010705@biu.ac.il> the topic is addressed in this article: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0048-0068.pdf ?A MAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER from Tradition in 2014 Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > >> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a >> woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken >> that way > > > I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this > is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? > What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument > is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the > question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O? > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 06:14:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:14:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check Message-ID: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> [RJR poses these questions at the start of his Audio Roundup column on Torah Musings . I prodded him to share them here as well, as questions work better in an actual discussion venue. But I didn't think he would do so without plugging his column! So, here's my plug: Worth reading, and if you have one -- pointing subscribing to on your news agreegator / RSS reader. -micha] A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled the commandment to wear tfillin. In fact, many pasul tfillin were pasul from the start (e.g., missing a letter). The Rav later reported that a listener heard the shiur and had his tfillin checked and found such a psul, even though he had bought the tfillin from a reputable sofer and had them checked earlier by another reputable sofer. The Rav was pleased with this result. Two questions: 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status) appropriate? 2) As a societal issue, how should current rabbinic leadership view the tradeoff of now requiring (suggesting) frequent checks? We will have some who will have the listener's result. OTOH, we will also have those whose tfillin will more likely become pasul due to uncurling the klaf and the increased costs of checking. BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan checking be appropriate? Kt Joel rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 06:15:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:15:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Parenthesis Message-ID: <1c9fcdd2c38f43e7af59d24ffe246c8b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> [See my plug of RJR's column in the previous post. His question about a distraught new widow and negi'ah as well... And that's just the column's *padding*! Extra credit if you answer the question about parenthesis while "vayehi binsoa'" and its upside-down nuns is still in parashas hashavua. -micha] 1. In the Shulchan Aruch -- who is the author of the statements in parenthesis in the Rama like print that don't start with Hagah? 2. In Rashi (or Tosfot), who decided to put certain words in parenthesis and why? (e.g., differing manuscripts, logic, etc.) Kt Joel rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 04:31:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 07:31:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . I would like to start a new thread to discuss exactly what we mean by "redemption". I will begin by quoting most of R' Micha Berger's recent post from the thread "Elimelech's land": > ... it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to > all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that > strikes me as a progression): > > - the go'el hadam > - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's > not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) > - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) > - and of people (ibid v 48) > - the end of galus > > To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even > something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on > its nachalah. > > But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more > to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first -- > "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of > redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why > there are different words in lh"q. Several years ago I tried working on this as part of my preparations for Pesach. The first obstacle I encountered was (as RMB mentioned in the last line here) that there are so many interchangeable synonyms. The first two that came to my mind are "geulah" and "pidyon", such as in Yirmiyahu 31:10: > Ki fadah Hashem es Yaakov, > Ug'alo miyad chazak mimenu. I agree that a good starting point, as suggested by RMB, is "restoration". This carries over to English as well, and I could cite several pieces of literature whose theme is "the chance to redeem myself," where someone suffered a significant loss of status (justified or not) and is trying to correct that loss, and restore himself to his prior status. This is very much what Naomi was trying to accomplish. But I'm not so sure how relevant it was to Mitzrayim, where the problem was not merely social status, but physical danger. And that brings more synonyms into the mix: yeshuah and hatzalah. A useful tool for distinguishing synonyms is when they occur near each other in the same context. I brought an example of pidyon and geulah above from Yirmiyahu, and here is a case of hatzalah and geulah: Shemos 6:6-7: "V'hotzaysi... V'hitzalti... V'gaalti... V'lakachti..." On this, Rav SR Hirsch explains: "Whereas hitzil is deliverance from a threatening danger, gaal is deliverance from a destruction which has already occured." In Shemos 8:19, RSRH seems to say that "padah" refers to redemption when "anything has fallen into the power of someone else, to bring it out of that power." I suppose that relates to kedushah (Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, etc) because the redeemed object is no longer encumbered by the halachos that applied before. On the other hand, Vayikra 25:24-54 teaches about using money to redeem land, or a house, or an eved. In those pesukim, the word "redeem" appears as some form of geulah 17 times, but as pidyon not even once. How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? Looking forward to your thoughts Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 04:49:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:49:29 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500 From: Noam Stadlan via Avodah > R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men > gather. Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis. So that women > can gather around women rabbis. I'm sorry this does not compute halachically or logically. The men don't gather around the Rabbi either, and I have never seen a problem when the Rav who has been directing everything requests women on one side and men on the other. > certainly it is not an argument against > women rabbis. It was a comment that even in a place where the Yetzer Horah is least likely to have an influence, we are asked to be separate from each other. > And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like > the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly > dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual > immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals > does not apply either. Ger does not make that their focus. They have Gedorim for their own wives even if dressed Tzniusdikly etc One doesn't have to be modern orthodox to encounter women in the workplace either. It would be good if there were more women asking shaylos period. For Nida shaylos there have always been ways to treat a matter discretely. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 07:30:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of > any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even > punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of > the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? Yes, it's what the victim's blood needs and deserves, and the victim is unable to provide it for himself, so as the closest relative it's his duty to provide it for him. The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. Ya`akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because Kel Nekamos Hashem. We are commanded to love our fellow Yidden so much that we forgive them and *forgo* our natural and just desire for revenge, just as we would do of our own accord for someone we actually loved without being commanded. Even the neshama of a murder victim is expected to forgive his Jewish killer, and Navos was punished for not doing so. But we can't forgive on someone else's behalf, especially on our father's behalf, or assume he's such a tzadik that he must have forgiven his killer. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 09:13:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:13:39 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Psak of a Musmach Message-ID: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> The Maharat thread got me thinking about this, but it is a bit of a tangent, hence the new thread. It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don?t recall that it is mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 07:23:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 10:23:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170608164150.ETSG4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> At 09:43 AM 6/8/2017, via Avodah wrote: > >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather >than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she >noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask >why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting. Surely, *some* of it is. Rn Ch L gave the example of a shiur, but there's an awful lot that goes on in the kitchen, and I would guess (I don't know, as I've never been a mother or a daughter) that the mother would be almost negligent if she didn't actually explain some various rules. (I'm using a slotted spoon here, but in cases x, y, z, I can't use a slotted spoon; or: when I do this it's not considered borer because x, y, z; or: if I want to return the pot to the blech, I have to have in mind x,y,a; or: this is how you make tea, and this is how you make coffee, and this is why I can't melt the ice in a cup, and this is why you can defrost the orange juice, etc etc etc). I have a teacher who told me that any women who is doing a competent job in the kitchen has to have learned TSBP. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:28:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:28:47 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> Message-ID: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of >> any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even >> punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of >> the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? > > The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like. Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:45:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 14:45:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <3c673353-b5e9-d704-9cb0-52aff2f213c7@sero.name> On 08/06/17 14:28, Daniel Israel wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not >> Jewish. > An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. > Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos > chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an issur on doing so againstyour own people, because you are commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in itself does not come from any Jewish source. > That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like. > Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam > should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise > above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes. He's not go'el ha'emes, he's go'el hadam. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 13:43:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 20:43:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? ------------------------- The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an extension of the beit din. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:40:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 18:40:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Psak of a Musmach In-Reply-To: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> References: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <70d0ce58d48443a8a6b7fb558f001745@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From: Daniel Israel via Avodah Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 12:14 PM > It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, > then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying > on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or > her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not > obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don't recall that it is > mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha. Good starting point is first Mishna in horiyot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 14:01:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:01:33 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> References: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2D819FCB-5A0D-497C-8E21-EE99A6A9069A@kolberamah.org> A few points that have been swirling around my head reading through this thread. 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? Let?s concede, for sake of argument, that there are halachically permissible ways for a woman to do much of what communal rabbis actually do in practice. Not everything that is mutar is advisable. I don?t see why we should be embarrassed that community policy is being set by Torah principles which are not purely halachic. And while we are all entitled to our own opinions, community policy must be set by gedolei Torah of a certain stature. I don?t believe any of the Rabbaim who are supporting these ventures, with all due respect to their legitimate scholarship and accomplishments, are among the select few who a significant portion of the Torah world look to for answers to these kinds of questions. They were never among those who set gedarim for the community before they become involved in this issue, and so it should be no surprise that their taking the initiative on this issue is widely not accepted. 2. As far as hora?ah, we are discussing it like there is a clear line: halacha p?sukah and hora?ah. (And some comments make a third distinction, between what a local Rav can pasken, and what requires phone call.) But every case requires some amount of shikul hada?as. Sometimes it is so trivial we don?t notice it (?is this specific package of meat marked ?bacon,' treif??). But there are lots of questions we essentially MUST pasken for ourselves. Things like, ?is my headache painful enough to justify taking asprin on Shabbos??. OTOH, most of the questions we ask a Rav (?is this spoon okay??) aren?t really about shikul hadaas, they are more about his knowing all the relevant sugyos. I.e., they are topics that we could (should?) learn enough to answer for ourselves. Note also that any responsible Rav is continually evaluating which questions he feels capable of answering on his own. Just to be clear, I?m not saying there is no distinction to be made. Given that hora?ah lifnei Rabo is assur, clearly there is such a category. But what it is is not so clear cut. Also, I?m not pointing this out to support Rabbanus for women (although one could formulate such an argument), rather to suggest that hora?ah is not this place this needs to be argued out. 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher.? I think this is a good model. First, I would note that there are definitely still circles which strongly disagree with aspects of the chassidic approach. What has changed is that no one is seriously concerned that it will degenerate into widespread k?firah. (Keep in mind there was precedent. Chassidus arose soon after exactly that happened with regard to the Sabbateans.) That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, much as happened with the Conservative movement. Fifty years from now, if that happens, the question will be answered. If it doesn?t happen, then those who are still opposed may be willing to make their peace with it as part of Orthodoxy, even they don?t themselves hold that way. Given this long term view, perhaps the vehement opposition is an important part of the processes (as it may well have been with regard to chassidus). 4. Related to the prior point, RnIE (I think) suggested that this is less of a big deal in E?Y. And RSS posted a link to an article by Dr. Rachel Levmore that concludes with a list of reasons the situation may be different in E?Y and the US. For myself, WADR to those involved, who I am sure really feel they are acting l?sheim shemayim, I share RMB?s concern that they are aiming at a glass ceiling (extremely well put!). And, consequently, I suspect that there will eventually be a schism with at least some of that camp transforming into a neo-Conservative movement. After reading the above mentioned article by DrRL, perhaps another reason for the difference is that in E?Y these developments are fundamentally a response to a need. That is, there are specific issues having nothing to do with female clergy which are creating a need, and in some natural way it has come out that the best solution is the creation of these new roles for women. Whereas, in the US, the driver seems to be a conviction that there should be some form of female clergy, in and of itself. Which leads to a concern I?ve long had about many issues where people point to historical halachic change to justify contemporary changes. Perhaps certain changes are okay if they happen on their own, but we really shouldn?t be pushing for them to happen. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 14:25:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 17:25:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170608212546.GB25737@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 06:58:57PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam : Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way... But you neither explain 1- If it is a "distortion of history and Halachic : history" to claim that current yoreh-yoreh is an imitation of the elements of true Mosaic semichah that are still meaningful, how and why the Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq the Rama quotes lehalakhah all derive laws of yoreh-yoreh from Mosaic semichah for dayanus? Nor 2- How the CS's claim -- citation would be helpful -- that today's semichah is "merely" an Ashkenazi minhag means that this minhag was not set up to certify who is standing in the shadow of the true Mosaic musmach? Don't we need something explicit from the CS before we can just assume he would not deduce the rules of the minhag from the rules of true semichah. After all, you're setting him up against the precedent of doing just that (in Q #1). See the AhS YD 242:29-30. He explains that contemporary "semichah" is to announce to the nation that (1) he is higi'ah lehora'ah, and (2) his hora'ah is by permission of the ordaining rabbi. (He also requires a community to have a rav ha'ir, and others need the RhI's reshus to pasqen in his town as well.) This is much like what you said the CS says, as well as the Rivash. And the Rivash, which appears from your quote is the CS's source, talks about hora'ah -- just as the AhS does. In any case, I am looking for the Tzitz Eliezer's discussion of Sepharadim and their not accepting the notion of contemporary "semichah". Because IIRC, his discussion about semichah, not higi'ah lehora'ah. Recall, AISI the real question isn't the nature of a semichah, but how can be higi'ah lehora'ah. Semichah is only a good belwether, because it's not meaningful to say yoreh-yoreh to someone who can't give hora'ah with or without that permission. And it's semichah the CS dismisses as minhag; the extra gate can be minhag without changing who is allowed to enter. The discussion of semichah doesn't touch on who can give hora'ah, it is just out one precondition before actually doing so. : Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of : the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the : Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources... I don't know what you mean. Does the Rambam derive halakhah from dayanim musmachim with Mosaic semichah to today's morei hora'ah or not? Does Tosafos? Do they not take it for granted that the laws are consistent between the two, without which those derivations would not work? What exactly is your other understanding? (To reword Q #1.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 19:36:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:36:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will bow out. A few details: I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look up the underlying sources to be sure. The article is in Or HaMizrach 44 a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski(I hope the transliteration does him justice). There are other sources on the the Halachic/ historical aspects of semicha including one by R. Breuer in the journal Tziyon. and many others. I do not have time to find and read them all, but I think the point is clear in the article cited above. In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may explain my difficulty in finding it. I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot both of which are not applicable(or have not been applied) to modern semicha. So it is a stretch to state that this Rambam implies anything about current Hora'ah or semichah. I have not found any specific statements that a woman is not qualified to reach the state of 'hegiah l'hora'ah', and certainly not in the modern(non-Mosaic) context. I am not arguing that some of the sources cant be read to come to this conclusion, but it seems to be a novel halachic statement(similar to the OU rabbis making a new halachic category of "stuff that a shul rabbi does") and the only characteristic is that women are forbidden from it. I suggest that if someone on the left had made a similar claim, they would be accused of pretzeling the Halacha to support a pre-existing mahalach. I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable understanding of the Halacha. And perhaps even that those who oppose are the ones who are trying to find arguments when a fair reading of the sources indicate that there really is none specifically applicable to the issue at hand. Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical Ethics on the topic of triage. thanks Noam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 20:55:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 05:55:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Cherlow's Post Message-ID: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> https://www.facebook.com/RabbiCherlow/posts/1442987509096046 In response to a question regarding a psak that supposedly allows women to recite Sheva Brachot and an accusation that certain rabbis are distorting the halacha because of feminism, Rav Cherlow wrote a response. I am summarizing a few points. Full text is in the link above.. Introduction: Your words are a perfect example of how someone can break the Torah's most serious commandments and yet act as if he is a yirei shamayim. 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah. 2) Never mock rabbis (or anyone) because you disagree with their opinions. Mocking people publicly is one of the most serious aveirot. 3) Never use a nickname for others, in this case "Dati Light". 4) Always be careful about generalizing. 5) Never accuse someone of being guilty of what you assume to be their hidden motivations. You don't know and accusing someone violates "M'devar sheker tirchaq". More importantly, you're assuming that you're a tzaddiq and don't have an agenda. 6) Never use a group name to mock someone. The Torah world owes feminism a great debt for things its done (Talmud Torah for women, leading the fight against sexual harassment, etc) along with strong criticism for other things done in its name. 7) Always try and live according to Halacha as it is written. Don't have other gods, like opposition to chiddushim. 8) Bring halachic arguments to halachic discussions. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 02:15:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:15:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: On 6/8/2017 9:28 PM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah > > wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. > > An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. > Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos > chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. > Where is there any issur on taking revenge? Against fellow Jews, yes, of course. But generally? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 04:21:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:21:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Cherlow's Post In-Reply-To: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> References: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <9f3eaf48-0c03-fc88-cc90-e84a27b77ea9@sero.name> On 08/06/17 23:55, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in > Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to > do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you > guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah. And yet in this case the newspaper seems to have got it right, and R Cherlow's correspondent simply hadn't bothered to read it before fulminating. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:06:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:06:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption Message-ID: Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it. Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time before they went into exile was simply waiting time? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 07:32:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 17:32:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern > day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? Who says it was? > What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin > (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah > tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work > to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It > doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it. Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite. But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. I don't think their much more lengthy exile was a punishment. I think it was simply necessary. Had they rejoined us, by which I mean all of them, and not just those who Jeremiah brought back, and we had been exiled as a single nation, things would have been different. But viewing themselves as a separate nation from us, how would you envision things having worked in the ancient world? I don't think it would have been significantly different from what happened with us and the Samaritans. In fact, the Samaritans called themselves Israelites; not Samaritans. (That's the root of the mistake in the Christian "good Samaritan" story, btw.) > Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time > before they went into exile was simply waiting time? Not at all. Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 07:50:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:50:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 09/06/17 11:06, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern > day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? Assuming that it was, and that Yirmiyahu didn't bring them back. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:20:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:20:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <019f7de8-108b-d533-3e11-4556470c1c43@sero.name> On 08/06/17 22:36, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is > that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the > time of the Gemara. I think that is obvious, and it didn't occur to me that this could be what R Micha was referring to. I thought there must be some other Rambam, perhaps a teshuvah, where he discusses "modern" semicha to whatever extent such a thing even existed in his day and place. BTW I have seen it suggested that the original semicha was kept alive at the yeshivah in Damascus (they would cross into the borders of EY to confer it) until it was destroyed in the 2nd Crusade, which, if true, would mean there may still have been living musmachim in the Rambam's day. > Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. > That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar > statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical > Ethics on the topic of triage. But that article doesn't support the claim you made, that there exist poskim -- and in fact that it is the unanimous position of MO poskim -- that this halacha is no longer operative. The article cites sources relevant to the entire topic of triage, in all circumstances, including the mishneh and gemara in Horiyos, and I didn't see any suggestion that they are less authoritative or applicable today than they ever were. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:00:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1af6febd-3d16-f901-472d-92f0a5cd66e7@sero.name> Another idea: To expect a redeemer from the House of David one must first subject oneself to that House. Those who reject its sovereignty can't (by definition) expect one of its members to save them, so on being exiled they would naturally assume that this would be their new home and these their new neighbors, with whom they must assimilate. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 11:08:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 05:32:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: :> Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any :> modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? : Who says it was? First, I think we concluded among ourselves that the 10 lost tribes are really 9+1 lost tribes, with Shim'on, living in Malkhus Yisrael, being a separate case. With, perhaps, it's own spiritual malais. They lived amongst sheivet Yehudah; is it likely their culture was more like Yisrael than their own neighbors? With that tangent out of the way... It's a machloqes tannaim in Sanhedrin 10:3 (110b), no? "The 10 shevatim are not destined to return, 'Vayashlikheim el eretz achares kayom hazah' (Devarim 29) [derashah elided]... divrei R' Aqiva. "R' Eliezer omer: [his own derashah] ... even as the 10 shevatim went through the darkening, so too it will grow light for them. The gemara's discussion focuses on the previous part of the mishnah's machloqs -- their olam haba. But Rebbe says they do have olam haba and seems to be implying that the kaparah is total -- so they will return to EY. The Sifra (Bechuqosai 8:1) has R' Aqiva saying they won't return, but based on (Vayiqra 26:38), "vavadtem bagoyim..." And it has R' Meir as the one disagreeing with R' Aqiva. In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman, we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim. Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. R' Chaim Brisker uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. Which R' Aharon Lichtenstein uses as a snif not to support giving them Israeli citizenship in "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity." :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:19:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:19:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema Message-ID: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in the famous midrash about Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry halacha guide demands that they be sourced? Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 09:39:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:39:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170609163954.GA24832@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:36:08PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will : bow out. A shame, as we went in circles on one issue and didn't touch the others. Including my assertion that the Chinuch (142) speaks "ishah chokhmah hare'uyah lelhoros" and "assur lo leshanos letalmidav" -- whether someone who has the skills to give hora'ah shouldn't be teaching when drunk. No mention of hora'ah, but ra'ui lehora'ah and teaching. Because, he explains, their teaching will be accepted by those who look up to them, as if it were hora'ah. Similarly the Chida (Birkei Yoseif, CM se'if 7:12) rules out ordaning women, following the example of Devorah. People can voluntarily listen to Devorah (or, it would seem, to a yo'etzes), but she cannot be appointed a rabbi nor ordained as one because her opinion could not be imposed. Picture the town hiring a rabbi that any chazan can say, "Well, I don't follow him" and therefore can break from the shul's norm, or even "I don't follow him on this one." But more to the point, following the Chinukh (who is cited), he says "deDevorah haysah melamedes lahem dinim." R' Baqshi Doron mentions this problem in his letter, which RGS has scanned at http://www.torahmusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Rav-Bakshi-Doron-on-Women-Rabbis.pdf#page=2 REBD concludes that because of this, women should not be tested or given semichah, as that would be an appointment rather than voluntary acceptance of a particular teaching. And, while the Chida (and thus REBD) says "ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah", he is defining this as teaching law, not interpresting law -- nidon didan. Which is consistent with the Chinukh the Chida is building on. Nor did we get to my non black-letter-halakhah concerns. Including my concern that the whole project reflects a misrepresentation of Judaism's demands by thinking that anything that can fit the black letter of the law is in compliance with the Torah. That there is none of the more nebulous side of the law; an obligation to pursue a given value system and ethic. The fact that "Mesorah" is dismissed as political rather than a real Torah issue is to my mind a blunder; and your disinterest in discussing this aspect actually hightened those concerns. Nor the question of telling women that they are correct to seek value in a manner that has a glass cieling for them. Nor the question of whether a woman belongs in shul service, or whether it was designed to be a Men's Club. And if not designed, whether its function as a Men's Club is too useful to be sacrificed. As one example, but not the whole problem: Will male attendance lessen if we lose that character; will Tue, Wed and Fri (workdays with no leining) Shacharis attendance among O men go the way of Shabbat attendance among their C counterparts? But on, the topic we did discuss... : I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing : certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look : up the underlying sources to be sure. The article is in Or HaMizrach 44 : a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski... But having a reference in the CS itself would have been more ... : In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of : the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may : explain my difficulty in finding it. It's the Rama who says 113. (It's either that the copy in OhC is idiosyncratic, or, the OU copied a typo in the Rama and didn't check. I know that's what I did.) : I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he : is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the : Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz : Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot ... Limnos ledavarim yechidim is not always to be a dayan. One can get reshus lehoros be'issur veheter or lir'os kesamim but not ladun. It's the same process as geting reshus ladun or ladun dinei kenasos, or... Do you think "lir'os kesamim" was ever limited to dayanim? The fact that the Rambam treats reshus lit'os kesamim and reshus ladun as one topic that's the whole point! (And that addresses Zev's recent post, which I approved while this one was sitting around mid-edit.) Now that you found the Mahariq that the Rama se'if 6 says he bases himself on, I would have like to have heard if you disagree that he too is treating the rules for yoreh-yoreh and the rules for Mosaiq semichah as one topic. And Tosafos? : I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the : discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very : least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of : women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable : understanding of the Halacha... I haven't heard a complete defense, but I didn't see at all a positive case for. After all, the burden of proof is on the innovator. We didn't touch the whole conversation of proving that the innovation is positive enough *in Torah values* to justify settling for just what could be read as a not 'beyond the pale' understanding. On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 03:01:33PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? ... : 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My : example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were : huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are : today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher." ... : That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two : camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that : this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically : okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, : much as happened with the Conservative movement... My own concern is (as Avodah long-timers should expect) more meta. Why is the only quesiton that of black-letter halakhah? Why the ignoring of -- what do I call it, "gray-letter halakhah"? -- laws that don't codify cleanly, that require a feel for what seems in line with the Torah, that which RHS calls "Mesorah"? (Although "mesorah" has become an ill-defined concept, including both Torah-culture values and mimetic practice. For that matter, I find that R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's use of "mimeticism" also blurs both, as both are transmitted culturally.) To me, that's a critical meta-innovation that warrants asking if we're still all playing by (evolving our practice with) the same rules. I am not worried about a slippery slope to C. To my mind, that's worrying about when the problem, if there is one, becomes symptomatic. To me the question is whether procedurally, the process R/D NS is defending is already unlike the rest of O IN A DEFINITIONAL WAY. After all, once you define MO to include an openness to modern values, following the Torah becomes just using the halakhah as a test -- can this new idea fit black-letter law or do we have to do without? But also our test itself changes. Deciding which shitah to follow depends in part on our priorities, and in LWMO, those modern values also define the priorities. As R/Dr Stadlan put it: : ... I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very : least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of : women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable : understanding of the Halacha... Thinking something is okay to do as long as one can find understandings of shitos that can combine to show the idea is plausible and not "beyond the pale" is to my mind itself beyond the pale. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 12:07:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:07:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> On 09/06/17 11:19, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in the famous midrash about > Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem > Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a > source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry > halacha guide demands that they be sourced? > > Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice? I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. When we say the Rambam doesn't give his sources, we mean that he doesn't tell us where in the gemara he derives the halachos. He doesn't expect his audience to be familiar with the gemara, and he's not interested in convincing those who are, or in defending himself to them. But he always gives the pasuk where a mitzvah or halacha is stated, or tells us that it comes "mipi hashmuah", or was instituted by chazal or by the geonim. When he gives a psak which doesn't come directly from the gemara he says "ken horu hage'onim", "ken horu rabosai", or "ken nir'a li". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 12:51:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:51:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> On 09/06/17 14:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman, > we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim. Only if he's from the countries where they were taken. > Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his > day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact; the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. As for the men's descendants by nochriyos, according to the first lashon Shmuel derived from the pasuk that they're nochrim, and according to the second lashon it's a halacha pesukah ("lo zazu misham"). But according to either lashon the problem of the women was solved. Also, there's no "by his day". Either the problem was solved within one generation, or it was never solved at all. Not by his day. By at latest the 2nd BHMK. Either Yirmiyahu brought them back, so they're not there any more, or the first generation had no children so they died out then and there, or the Sanhedrin decreed them to be goyim. > R' Chaim Brisker Where is this R Chaim? > uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not > halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. On what basis? Unlike the ten tribes' descendants, these children exist. How can they not be Jewish? Even if you want to say the second lashon applies to both the men and women, and it means they lost their Jewish status, this was not a gezera, it was derived from a pasuk, that Hashem took away their Jewish status, so in the absence of any pasuk about other people how can it be extended? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:03:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:03:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >In Yevamos... : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. : : Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke; he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...") : the : women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there : never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. That's Ravina. Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu". Which is inconsistent with Ravina. Whom I forgot about entirely. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 11:31:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:31:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check In-Reply-To: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 01:14:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is : needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without : knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled : the commandment to wear tfillin... : Two questions: : 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha : by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status) : appropriate? We're discussed variants of this question before. Usually WRT whether a person in the same situation buit with their mezuzah will get less shemirah. My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was really cheilev. And if that is true of cheilev and timtum haleiv, why not the protection of mezuzah or the effects of wearing tefillin? But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely, are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome. And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... If someone is doing everything they're supposed to, and we're not talking about the teva necessary to allow for human planning, then why wouldn't Hashem just give a person as per their deeds. Why have a whole metaphysical causality if it doesn't aid bechirah, nor Din, nor Rachamim? .... : BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has : changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan : checking be appropriate? I take this as evidence of the "Litvisher" answer. If it were really a problem, why wouldn't halakhah reflect a greater need to check? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:33:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:33:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 12:15:04PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos : >chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. : Where is there any issur on taking revenge? Against fellow Jews, : yes, of course. But generally? "Revenge is bad" is not the same as "revenge is assur". The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim. In which case, he would hold that only lo siqom would hold for them, whereas only lo sitor would apply to a yisra'el chotei. But Shabbos is coming, so I can't check about "chaveirim". But in any case, the notion that hene'elavim ve'inam olevim shome'im cherpasam ve'einam mashivim, aleihem hakasuv omeir, "ve'ohavav ketzeir hashemesh bigvuraso" (Shabbos 88b) has nothing to do with who the counterparty is. Not a chiyuv or issur in and of itself. But the person who doesn't take offense nor act on taking offense is among "ohavav". Similarly, the Rambam (ibid) talks about lo siqom in terms of "ma'avir al midosav al kol divrei ha'olam", not just offenses by chaveirim. This appears to be included in his "dei'ah ra'ah hi ad me'od". :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:26:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check In-Reply-To: <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> References: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <781fc94e-241d-e738-5060-522eeeb4f325@sero.name> On 09/06/17 14:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When > something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell > the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about > the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was > really cheilev. But if it's nisbarer afterwards that it really was chelev the kelim need to be kashered. Ditto if it's nisbarer after someone toveled that the mikveh was pasul all the taharos he touched since then are retroactively tamei. In fact if a mikveh is found to have been pasul all the taharos touched by all the people who used it since it was last known to be kosher are retroactively tamei. > But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely, > are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk > to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the > case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome. That's not a mystical position, it's a plain rational Litvisher position on risk assessment. > And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... Now *there's* mysticism! To a Litvak that shouldn't be a consideration. The din is the din, and it's not up to us to justify it. But IIRC you never deal with the explicit gemara about mikvaos. A gemara that explicitly distinguishes the case of kohanim who were found to be pesulim from *every other case* in the Torah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:40:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:40:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <81e3d31e-aa58-5f1a-fefb-bdc0297298a2@sero.name> On 09/06/17 16:03, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : >In Yevamos... > : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his > : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. > : > : Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact > > "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke; > he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the > issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...") No, he wasn't. Lo zazu misham has no connection to finding a solution to any problem, and there's no indication that "they" were even thinking of this problem. It's simply a statement that it was agreed upon by all that the pasuk makes the ten tribes (or at least their men) nochrim. No connection to any practical problem. > : the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there > : never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. > > That's Ravina. No, it isn't. It's Shmuel himself, answering why the womens' descendants are not a problem -- they didn't have any. Ravina is the one who says the halacha we all know, that the child of a nochri and a Yisre'elis is a Yisrael. > Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu". > Which is inconsistent with Ravina. It's irrelevant to Ravina, because in this lashon he isn't citing the general halacha about the child of a Yisrael and a nochris being a nochri, but instead says those children (of the men with nochriyos) were ruled to be nochrim from the pasuk. The women's children still aren't a problem, because there weren't any. But even if you say that according to the second lashon Shmuel didn't say the women were sterile, and he meant the pasuk to apply to both the men and the women, still it's specifically about them, not meshumadim in general. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:51:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:51:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: > The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any > Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different objects. > I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only > those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim. I don't believe so. The only non-Jewish "chaverim" I can think of are the sect that ruled in Persia in the Amoraim's times -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 15:36:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 18:36:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not > Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, > but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min > ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world. Me'am Lo'ez (R' Aryeh Kaplan's The Torah Anthology, pg 293) explains: "You must realize that your brother is suffering very much because he has no place to go. If his soul comes to heaven, it will be all alone, since no one else is here. If it comes down to earth, it feels great anguish when it sees its body's blood spilled on rocks and stones." > Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source? > And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because > Kel Nekamos Hashem. I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples, but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than "yikom". In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean it's appropriate for us. RZS continues in another post: > But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an > issur on doing so against your own people, because you are > commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want > revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in > itself does not come from any Jewish source. Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 14:07:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:07:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> Message-ID: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other places. I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? This one stands out. On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and > sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the > previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons > for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third > parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha > four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 14:16:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:16:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' AM wrote: 'Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor" regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this "needed" comfort from someone else.' Halachos of contact between husband and wife are more strict than with strangers, vis all the harchakos during nidda which are unique to a spouse, due to the familiarity of pas b'salo. So I wouldn't be as surprised. Although just to return my theme for a moment, If I'm right then the act is one of outright mitzva, probably including kiddush hashem. If I'm wrong, then the act is one of aveira lishma. Now I realise that we don't hold with aveira lishma these days, but when the overall cheshbon is as stated, I think I'd be willing to chance it. Especially when you add the possibility, as R'MB mentioned, that if you don't do it you're a chasid shoteh. Because then the cheshbon becomes tzadik or chasid shoteh for not doing it vs big mitzva or aveira lishma for doing it. Given that in any given circumstance we wouldn't be able to be clear about which of these would apply, I think the worst of those four options is probably the chasid shoteh. If this was on Areivim I'd sign off with :) Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 19:04:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:04:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170611020429.GA20848@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: : >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any : >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. : : Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase : with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei : amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different : objects. See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. Gut Voch! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 20:45:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:45:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <720f24ed-7e17-74ae-afc7-3e7d2a0f3a7b@sero.name> On 10/06/17 17:07, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and >> sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the >> previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons >> for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third >> parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha >> four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. > Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the > Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other > places. > > I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he > often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat > haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? > This one stands out. He has to give the source, explain why we do this, and he uses as few words as he needs to. He says mesorah hi beyadeinu; what else could he say? How could he express that any more concisely? BTW he cites medrash all the time; that's where halachos come from, after all. But here he doesn't mention any medrash, just this mesorah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 22:39:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 07:39:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Who says it was? As was stated in other posts on this thread, it is a machloqet in the Gemara if they will or won't come back. That more or less proves my point - their return, if it happens will be something completely different than what happened with the rest of the tribes. Even if we take the claims of various people claiming to be descendants seriously, they still have to convert. Their return will be tipot-tipot, individuals, that have to be re-integrated and not whole groups. > > Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of > assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where > they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite. But > even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . . Not at all. > Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were people from the > northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first > posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two separate exilic > populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our exile to have ended successfully? The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, it doesn't speak well of our history. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 23:54:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 09:54:49 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03c78b43-410c-30ec-c2bf-33691b72f348@starways.net> On 6/10/2017 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > > R' Zev Sero wrote: > >> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because >> Kel Nekamos Hashem. > I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. > Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is > intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. You're mistaken about the Hebrew. Yikom is not "uphold". That would be yakim. Yikom has a dagesh in the quf because of the dropped nun. There is literally no question whatsoever that Hashem yikom damo means may God avenge his blood. > It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples, > but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an > experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh > apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem > mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 > hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both > numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than > "yikom". Yinkom is a mistake. Just like the future of nosei'a is yisa and the future of nofel is yipol, the future of nokem is yikom. > In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean > it's appropriate for us. Consider Bamidbar 31. In the second verse, Hashem tells Moshe: Nekom nikmat bnei Yisrael me-ha-Midyanim. Take the vengeance of Israel against the Midianites. In the next verse, Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael latet nikmat Hashem b'Midyan. To take the vengeance of Hashem against the Midianites. Moshe isn't arguing with Hashem here. When we take vengeance upon our enemies, it *is* Hashem's vengeance. I recommend that you watch the video of Rabbi David Bar Hayim debating Jonathan Rosenblum at the Israel Center back in 1991 (I think). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYefNy1D0DY They both bring sources for their arguments on the subject, and rather than repeat all of them here, have a look. > RZS continues in another post: > >> But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an >> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are >> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want >> revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in >> itself does not come from any Jewish source. > Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo > sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) It doesn't just say lo tikom v'lo titor. It says lo tikom v'lo titor *et bnei amecha*. Do not take vengeance or hold a grudge *against* your own people. Detaching the first part of that from its object is unjustifiable. It would be like taking lo tochal chametz, dropping the object, and saying that we're forbidden to eat. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 02:02:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:02:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. > Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is > intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. > "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will avenge". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 20:40:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:40:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68dacd1f-f6c7-8792-daad-b5b21531f3bc@sero.name> On 09/06/17 18:36, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not >> Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, >> but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min >> ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. > Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in > pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world. Interesting, I'd never heard that. But in that case why "eilai"? That implies wanting something from Me. >> Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. > I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source? Yismach Tzadik ki chaza nakam, pe`amav yirchatz bedam harasha. When Chushim knocked Esav's head off, his eyes fell onto Yaakov's feet and Yaakov sat up and smiled. >> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because >> Kel Nekamos Hashem. > I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. Yikkom does *not* mean uphold, it means avenge. There's no such word as "yinkom"; the nun disappears into the kuf and becomes a dagesh. Perhaps you are thinking of yakim. > experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh > apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem > mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 > hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both > numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than > "yikom". For a non-existent word that's pretty good. I'm relieved that it doesn't outnumber the correct word :-) > In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean > it's appropriate for us. It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not something to be ashamed of. >> But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an >> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are >> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want >> revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in >> itself does not come from any Jewish source. > Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo > sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) Es benei amecha. [Email #2. -micha] On 10/06/17 22:04, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: >: >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any >: >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase >: with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different >: objects. > See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. > This doesn't answer the question. Lo sikom has the same subject as lo sitor. It's not even the identical object, it's literally the *same* object. So how can we pry them apart? Beside which, if netira is forbidden against a Jewish non-chaver, then how is nekama against him even possible? Netira would seem to be a necessary prerequisite for nekama (which is why the pasuk lists them as lo zu af zu). [Email #3 -mi] On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" > (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will > avenge". Is yinkom even a valid form? AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that have it in Av Harachamim are in error. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 09:11:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:11:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <83aef0cf-edbb-3ac8-3727-cc086f348ffa@sero.name> References: <83aef0cf-edbb-3ac8-3727-cc086f348ffa@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > >> >> "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" >> (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will >> avenge". >> > > Is yinkom even a valid form? AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that > have it in Av Harachamim are in error. > > It's irregular, but I would hesitate to say it's a mistake: there are a few exceptions to the rule that the initial nun assimilates, e.g. yintor in Yirmiahu 3:5; yinkofu in Yeshayahu 29:1; or tintz'reni in Tehillim 140:2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 11:29:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <2f8fdb3a-11ac-11d2-eea8-d064a7265bda@sero.name> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> <20170611020429.GA20848@aishdas.org> <2f8fdb3a-11ac-11d2-eea8-d064a7265bda@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170611182926.GA20138@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:56:06PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase : >: with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei : >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different : >: objects. : : >See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. : > : : This doesn't answer the question... But you didn't ask the question. You asserted that what I said was "not true". Since the Maharshal and Avodas haMelekh said it, and I don't know of a dissenting interpreter of the Rambam, I would assume it is indeed true. This was a bit of a hasty judgement on your part. But you said a great question, and worth exploring. Doesn't change that the Rambam apparently does hold what I said he did: > The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any > Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 12:32:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 22:32:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> References: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 6/11/2017 8:39 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of >> assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point >> where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were >> Israelite. But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . >> . Not at all. Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were >> people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards >> that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two >> separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been >> disastrous in very many ways. > That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our > exile to have ended successfully? Why harsh? Causes have effects. > The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of > (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them > (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal > with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this > feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, > it doesn't speak well of our history. Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind. And we don't gloat over their downfall. Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, which they were. And what kind of attempts would you have wanted? Jeremiah brought some of them back. I'm sure others joined us in Bavel after we were exiled. But their exile was their own doing. Though it affected us as well. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 16:18:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:18:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170611231815.GA29585@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:32:22PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind. And we don't gloat over : their downfall. Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, : which they were. (Quibbling about the orogin of the word "Jews" and whether or not Malkhus Yisrael and their descendents qualify aside. We all know we mean "Benei Yisrael", right?) Actually, one of the topics raised was whether the descendents of Malkhus Yisrael exist, bdyond the refugees absorbed into Malkhus Yehudah. And if they do, R Chaim Brisker takes the gemara as concluding the descendents are not part of the community of Beris Sinai. Yes, but in either case, as we cited numerous source showing in the past, "binfol" is not only about the fall of fellow Jews... Which I then collected into a blog post : The most common reason we pass around [for spilling wine at the mention of the makkos at the seder], however, is that we're diminishing our joy out of compassion for the suffering of other human beings, even the Egyptians. This reason is relatively new, but it is found in such authoritative locations as the hagaddah of R' SZ Aurbach and appears as a "yeish lomar" (it could be said) in that of R Elyashiv (pg 106, "dam va'eish").... ... The Pesiqta deRav Kahane (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a) gives us a different reason [for chatzi hallel (CH) during the latter days of Pesach]. It tells the story of the angels singing/reciting poetry at the crossing of the Red Sea... ... This is midrash is quoted by the Midrash Harninu and the Yalqut Shim'oni (the Perishah points you to Parashas Emor, remez 566). The Midrash Harninu or the Shibolei haLeqet ... The Beis Yoseif (O"Ch 490:4, "Kol") cited the gemara, then quotes the Shibolei haLeqet as a second reason... Sources from RAZZivitofsky (same blog post): The Taz gives this diminution of joy as the reason for CH on the 7th day (OC 490:3), as does the Chavos Ya'ir (225). The Kaf haChaim (O"Ch 685:29) brings down the Yafeh haLeiv (3:3) use this midrash to establish the idea that we mourn the downfall of our enemy in order to explain why there is no berakhah on Parashas Zakhor (remembering the requirement to destroy Amaleiq). Amaleiq! R' Aharon Kotler (Mishnas R' Aharon vol III pg 3) ... Then I listed others' suddestions here: ... R' Jacob Farkas found the Meshekh Chokhmah ... R' Dov Kay points us to the Netziv's intro to HaEimeq Davar... (Since we're going from Maharat was to ethics wars, might as well play the game to its fullest...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 16:27:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:27:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170611232725.GB29585@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 06:36:45PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" : actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is : often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. : Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is : intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. : Hashem yiqqom damam does indeed refer to revenge. : In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean : it's appropriate for us. Keil neqamos H'. (A little obvious this discussion didn't span a Wed yet.) But the whole point, to my mind, for sayibng HYD is a longing to see Divine Justice in the world. HYD undoes the chilul hasheim of the wicked prospering. Hinasei shofit ha'atzetz... Ad masair recha'im ya'alozu... If we were to take neqamah (qua neqamah; pre-empting a repeat attack is a different thing) we rob most of the possibility of that happening. Even the Six Day War gave people the opportunity to say it was luck or human skill -- "Kol haKavod laTzahal" Implied in HYD is that revenge is G-d's, not ours, to take. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 19:49:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 22:49:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . When I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong. I was wrong, and I thank all the chevreh who pointed out my error. "Yikom" does mean to avenge. Thank you all. But the main question is our attitude towards revenge in general. R' Zev Sero wrote: > It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not > something to be ashamed of. He seems to feel that there's nothing wrong with wanting to take revenge in general, except that we're not allowed to do it if the object of the revenge is a fellow Jew. I suppose he might compare vengeance to eating meat: right and proper in general, but sometimes forbidden. (Pork in the case of meat, and Jews in the case of revenge.) Exactly *why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew? RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct source. But either way... I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be in the "Ribis" category. There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a non-Jew.) Setting Nekama aside for a moment, does anyone know of a source which goes through the various Bein Adam L'chaveiros, and categorizes them in that manner? (I can easily imagine that most people would avoid publishing such a list, to avoid supplying the anti-Semites with ammunition, but I figured I'd ask.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 20:07:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 20:07:35 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists Message-ID: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into hashem's business. And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the future even though they were right. One surmises he would not have been surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land... Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 22:57:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:57:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> References: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9b2f0d53-8794-4b0d-43b7-3bb0ee4d6e3c@zahav.net.il> On 6/6/2017 8:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW. > > Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'" > (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL > Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not! However one defines the Chareidi opposition to Zionism and Zionists, the former wrote book after book justifying it and explaining why Zionism is so awful and why it is so wrong to participate in the Zionist enterprise. It is still going on today. Back in the 20s, people used extremely strong language about Rav Kook, language which was much worse than anything used today, not to mention what the Satmar Rebbe wrote about RK. > There are two possible sources of division here. > > 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were > only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My > predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply > de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators, > and therefore in practice will be a separate community. Here I have a couple of questions. 1) Like my wife always tells me, if someone is triggered by something he has to ask himself why. I know people who would walk out of shul if a woman gave the dvar Torah on Friday night. Yet the same people are perfectly OK having a Rosh Hashana tefilla that incorporates a lot of Sefardi piyuttim. Completely different prayers, tunes, flavor. But in order to have an experience of "b'yachad" we do it. 2) What what exactly would change? Does one see more women in shuls that have a maharat? Do the maharats come to Tuesday afternoon Mincha? If they do they're behind the mechitza, yes? What changes are people talking about? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 03:09:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 06:09:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:49:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" : only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of : morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be : in the "Ribis" category. : : There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even : to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed : against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. : (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a : non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I : admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B : or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, : things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a : non-Jew.) IOW: (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited. (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition when you do them against your sibling. (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito neshekh vesarbit". As for neqamah, I argued from quotes like kol hama'avir al midosav and ne'elavim ve'eino olvin that it's in (B). I would add now that this is implied by the Rambam's inclusion of these two issurim (lo siqom velo sitor) in Hil' Dei'os p' 7 that he is considering the middah bad, not only the act wrong. Interesting to note, the Rambam puts them after LH. Also, I noted that the only commentaries on the Rambam that I could find that discuss his change in terminology between Dei'os 7:7 and 7:8 explain that he is prohibiting neqamah against all chaveirim but netirah "mei'echad meYisrael". Meaning you now need a B' and C' where the category is only observant Jews. (And I still have a nagging recollection that the Rambam's "chaveirim" in general includes geirei toshav and other observant Noachides.) And neqamah is in one of those. So, (B'). How you get such a distinction in two issurim that are written in the pasuq as verbs sharing the same object is a good one. But the Avodas haMelekh says that the Maharshal reaches the same conclusion in his commentary to the Semag, and I see the Semag uses the same difference in nouns. Lav #11 - "[Lo siqom.] Hanoqeim al chaveiro". #12 - "Kol hanoteir le'echad miYisrael". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 03:53:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:53:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> References: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> On 6/13/2017 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > IOW: > > (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited. > > (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition > when you do them against your sibling. > > (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family > nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito > neshekh vesarbit". I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews. Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 04:37:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal > judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C (Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 04:33:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:33:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> References: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170613113340.GA11269@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:53:18PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: ... : >(B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition : >when you do them against your sibling. ... : : I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an : outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly : doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against : non-Jews. Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal : judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. But there are things that are morally wrong and yet not prohibited. "Stretch goals" like the Rambam's take on ego and anger in Dei'os pereq 2, the Ramban's "hatov vehayashar". Here, the gemara talks about (1) a ma'avir al midosav, (2) taking insult and not responding, it even says (3) a tzadiq is one who never takes revenge -- which, if it were about neqamah when assur, would be heaping overly high praise on someone for just keeping the din. So, two or three times that I am aware of, the gemara talks positively of the middos that would avoid ever taking revenge. It seems neqamah in particular is a moral wrong even when the black-letter halakhah allows the act. The Torah does manage to relay to us goals beyond those it prohibit or demand in black-letter halakhah. (Something Chassidus and Mussar were each founded on...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 06:44:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:44:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] restaurants Message-ID: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From the OU: Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example, one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility. Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food. Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based? For example, in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in a treif restaurant, what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % threshold for concern? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 07:16:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 10:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6388500a-9329-9367-9de2-e75ed55d6022@sero.name> On 12/06/17 22:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Exactly*why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew? > RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that > "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct > source. But either way... It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. > There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even > to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed > against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh *re`ehu* basater". > (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a > non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I > admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B > or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, > things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a > non-Jew.) Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 19:11:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shelach Message-ID: " We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." (Numbers 13:32-33). One of the greatest teachers of Torah of our age, Nechama Leibowitz, zt'l, in one of her essays on this parsha, asks an important question: how did the spies know what the "giants" thought of them? If they really were giant beings, then one could understand the feeling that "we seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes," but how did they know if the "giants" even noticed them? Unfortunately, although Nechama Leibowitz posed this great question, she didn't give any hint as to an answer. The following is a Midrash in which God rebukes the spies: "I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11). On the other hand, Rashi says that the spies reported overhearing the giants talking to one another, saying that "there are ants in the vineyard that resemble human beings.? (Rashi is also quoting an ancient midrash from the Talmud). Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities and an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties. Harry S Truman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 09:10:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:10:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/13/2017 2:37 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R"n Lisa Liel wrote: >> Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal >> judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. > My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category > A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C > (Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)? I would have to say that, by definition, if it's permissible to speak LH against non-Jews, it isn't immoral. But of course there are numerous subcategories of LH, and it'd be interesting to see if all of them are mutar against non-Jews, and if so, why? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 10:49:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:49:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shelach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170613174946.GA24674@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 10:11:31PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The following is a Midrash in which God rebukes the spies: : "I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to : ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to : them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? : Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11). ... : Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear : not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies : but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon : His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, : and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). Good -- is the yeitzer hatov, *very* good -- is the yeitzer hara. But in any case, the spies are an imperfect example, because they had G-d's promise that this specific mission would succeed. We don't have such reason to be optimistic. Related: I wonder if the difference between Chassidic or the Alter of Novhardok's view of bitchon is related to history. The AoN said that sufficient bitachon generates success, to the extent that he felt that being a "baal bitachon is an objective reality provable by experience and he signed his name with a B"B without fear of it being bragging. The CI's view is that bitachon is not prognostic, but the attitude that everything is happening according to Hashem's plan. I may fail and suffer, ch"v, but knowing it is all for a purpose makes it easier to cope. The history that I think divides them -- the CI's Emunah uBitachon was written in the shadow of the Holocaust. (It was published in 1954, a year after the CI's passing.) Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:57:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:57:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists In-Reply-To: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> References: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> Or they were part of a self fulling prophecy. Instead of going in confident in themselves and in God's ways, they chose to second guess God. The Bnei Yisrael who had actually seen Yitziat Mitzrayim would have gone into Israel. Instead a weakened Bnei Yisrael went in and almost immediately got trapped in the lure of the local idol worship. Ben On 6/13/2017 5:07 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into hashem's business. And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the future even though they were right. One surmises he would not have been surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:53:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:53:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Does it make a difference that the woman in the hypothetical scenario is - unfortunately - no longer an eishet ish, and presumably at her stage of life also not a niddah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:22:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:22:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. Can one enter a non-kosher establishment to buy a can of soda or use the bathroom? Message-ID: <1497385351309.31544@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. Can one enter a non-kosher establishment to buy a can of soda or use the bathroom? A. Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example, one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility. Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 18:09:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:09:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists In-Reply-To: <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> References: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170614010904.GA6321@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:57:19PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Or they were part of a self fulling prophecy. Instead of going in : confident in themselves and in God's ways, they chose to second : guess God. The Bnei Yisrael who had actually seen Yitziat Mitzrayim : would have gone into Israel... Or not. After all, Hashem didn't pick that generation for a reason. Apparently they didn't just sin, but they sinned in a way that made working with them a bad idea. And even before that Vayehi beshalach Par'oh es ha'am velo nacham E-lokim derekh Eretz Pelishtim ki qarov hu, ki amar E-lokim, "Pen yinacheim ha'am bir'osam milchamah veshavu Mitzrayim" Remember, they were also stuck with a slave mentality. But I agree with your point, about the self-fulfilling prophecy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 18:33:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:33:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special > consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah > of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not > hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend > him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip > about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. I would think that killing and stealing are in this category too. But you would then point to the phrase "special consideration". In other words, there is a particular shiur of consideration. Some actions are below that shiur; they are so basic that they apply even to non-Jews. And other actions are above that shiur; it is "special" consideration that we extend to family, but not to outsiders. I would accept such a response, but it isn't very helpful. Exactly what is that shiur? Where do we put the line? I have always thought that *all* these things are basic menschlichkeit, and apply to everyone, Jewish or not. > Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? > The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh > *re`ehu* basater". That's just two pesukim. Sefer Chofetz Chayim brings a lot more than that - 31 if I remember correctly. Granted that one doesn't violate these particular mitzvos if the object of the Lashon Hara isn't Jewish. But the others aren't so simple. At the very least, you're gambling that the Lashon Hara will remain secret and not result in a Chilul Hashem. > Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. True. I have always thought of ribis in a class of its own, for the simple reason that the entire world considers it to be a generally acceptable business practice. This includes Chazal, who felt it important to find a way to structure certain business activities in ways that would skirt this issur. The point is that ribis is NOT inherently immoral. It *can* be abused and thereby *become* immoral. But if done properly, it is a neutral (or even benevolent) business tool. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 21:17:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:17:28 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Anyone have access to HaRav Sh Goren's Terumas HaGoren? Message-ID: Anyone have access to HaRav Sh Goren's Terumas HaGoren? I am looking for 3 pages to be copied [pictured?] and sent to me - meirabi at gmail.com Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 21:02:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:02:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ac357ec-2fb0-c5c8-e187-ccbd26cd60f9@sero.name> On 13/06/17 21:33, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special >> consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah >> of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not >> hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend >> him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip >> about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. > I would think that killing and stealing are in this category too. No, those are inherently wrong, no matter who is the victim. You don't need to love someone in order not to kill them, hit them, steal from them, damage their property, etc. They have the right not to have these things done to them, so you may not do so even if you actively hate them. They have the right to be treated with common decency. Or, in the lashon of libertarianism, non-aggression, i.e. not to have you initiate force or fraud against them. Whereas they have no right to any favors from you; you have no duty to lift a finger to help them or to give them anything. Doing favors for people is a gift which you naturally give only to those you love; the Torah therefore commands you to give it to those whom it wants you to love. > But > you would then point to the phrase "special consideration". In other > words, there is a particular shiur of consideration. Some actions are > below that shiur; they are so basic that they apply even to non-Jews. > And other actions are above that shiur; it is "special" consideration > that we extend to family, but not to outsiders. No, it's not a matter of degree but of kind. > I would accept such a response, but it isn't very helpful. Exactly > what is that shiur? Where do we put the line? I have always thought > that *all* these things are basic menschlichkeit, and apply to > everyone, Jewish or not. No, they are not. >> Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? >> The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh >> *re`ehu* basater". > That's just two pesukim. Sefer Chofetz Chayim brings a lot more than > that - 31 if I remember correctly. The hakama to CC is mussar, so he piles on pesukim, but it you look at them they all pretty much flow from a very few sources, all of which specify "re'echa" or "amecha", etc. > The point is that ribis is NOT > inherently immoral. It *can* be abused and thereby *become* immoral. > But if done properly, it is a neutral (or even benevolent) business > tool. So are all these other things. They're normal and natural behaviour between people who don't necessarily like each other, but one would never treat someone one genuinely loved like that, so the Torah tells us that we must not treat our fellow yisre'elim like that. [Email #2] Google produced this: http://www.havabooks.co.il/article_ID.asp?id=1046 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 00:50:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 10:50:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 241) explains the prohibition of lo sikom as follows (my rough translation): "A person should understand in his heart that everything that happens to him good or bad is caused by Hashem and between people there is nothing but the will of Hashem. Therefore when someone bothers or hurts you, you should know that your sins caused this and whatever happened is a gezera from Hashem. Therefore, you should not think about taking revenge because the other person is not the cause of your troubles, rather your sins are the cause. " Based on the Chinuch's explanation there should be no difference between taking revenge on a Jew or a Goy. In either case they are not the cause of your suffering they are just the instrument of Hashem and therefore there is no reason for revenge. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 06:44:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:44:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/06/17 03:50, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 241) explains the prohibition of lo sikom > as follows (my rough translation): > > "A person should understand in his heart that everything that happens to > him good or bad is caused by Hashem and between people there is nothing > but the will of Hashem. Therefore when someone bothers or hurts you, you > should know that your sins caused this and whatever happened is a gezera > from Hashem. Therefore, you should not think about taking revenge > because the other person is not the cause of your troubles, rather your > sins are the cause. " > > Based on the Chinuch's explanation there should be no difference between > taking revenge on a Jew or a Goy. In either case they are not the cause > of your suffering they are just the instrument of Hashem and therefore > there is no reason for revenge. That is the basis for Chazal's dictum that "Whoever gets angry [over *anything*] is as if he serves idols", but there is no actual mitzvah against anger. Obviously one who truly believes in and fully accepts what we on Avodah have dubbed "strong HP" has no need for either of these two mitzvos, because it will never occur to him to hold a grudge, let alone to take revenge; but one who *does* gets angry or upset at what a fellow Jew does to him, but doesn't hold a long-term grudge against him over it is not violating a mitzvah. One mitzvah is that even if you *do* feel upset you shouldn't hold it against the person who did it, and another mitzvah is that even if you do hold it against him you shouldn't punish him for it. Therefore despite the Chinuch's relating this mussar idea to these two mitzvos, it cannot be the actual reason. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 09:16:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:16:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Akiva Miller wrote: 'I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be in the "Ribis" category. There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a non-Jew, such as Ribis.' I think this categorisation may need refining. It assumes that the Torah doesn't want us to do unethical things to non Jews either by black letter law or by unlegislated preference. The problem with this is that the Torah assumes that non-Jews are ovdei Avoda Zara and some mitzvos are specifically intended to malign them as such. Take Lo Sechaneim - The gemara learns that we can't even praise a non Jew, never mind be kind in a more concrete way. Gerei Toshav don't have this prohibition but the pshat din of the Torah is that it applies to non-Jews stam. In other words the mitzvos of the Torah treat non-Jews as transgressors and so it's likely that at least some of thing the otherwise unethical things we are allowed to do to them are due to this status. So we need at least to distinguish between what is allowed to any non-Jew and what is prohibited to a Ger Toshav. For example Ribis is clearly allowed even to a Ger Toshav. It's not unethical per se, just prohibited to a family member viz a Jew. So we need possibly, categories of: A) forbidden to everyone B) Forbiden to Jews and Gerei Toshav but totally allowed to Ovdei Avoda Zara C) Technically allowed to non-Jews of whichever category but best avoided as a bad midda D) Forbidden to Jews but totally allowed to all non Jews Re nekama, I think, subject to correction, that it is only ever positive when by Hashem or on his behalf. The nekama on Midian is 'nikmas Hashem m'es HaMidianim'. We needed to be commanded in order to do it. Hashem is 'El nekamos Hashem' in Tehilim. If anyone has a source for it being a positive thing to take personal revenge then let's hear it. Not sure the agadeta of Yaakov waking and smiling fits that bill. Otherwise the Rambam's placing of nekama in De'os as a bad midda should tell us what we need to know about it. That would be consistent with nekama being forbidden against Gerei Toshav, although we haven't found a source for that (yet). Lisa Liel wrote: 'I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews. ' The Torah clearly allows things which it considers morally wrong - Shivya Nochris for example. And the gemara says that's assur to bring one's wife as a Soteh, yet it's a whole parsha in the Torah. And the Ramban's naval birshus haTorah. Seems to me the Torah sets a floor, not a ceiling, and prompts growth through the mitzvos. Isn't that the whole thrust of Hilchos De'os? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 12:45:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:45:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish optimism [was: Shelach] Message-ID: <23c6ce.6a161a0e.4672ec49@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah ... : Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear : not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies : but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon : His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, : and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). [--Cantor Wolberg] RMB wrote: >> ...But in any case, the spies are an imperfect example, because they had G-d's promise that this specific mission would succeed. We don't have such reason to be optimistic.... ....Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? << Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> I once heard a powerful and inspiring talk given by R' Joseph Friedenson a'h. He had survived a number of different concentration camps in hellish circumstances, and had lost all or most of his family. He said in his talk that the last time he ever saw his father, his father said, "I don't know if you and I will survive this war, but no matter what happens, remember this: Klal Yisrael will survive!" R' Friedenson said that he never saw his father again but he went through the war with an unshakeable optimism. That's what he called it, optimism. He underwent horrendous suffering, but nevertheless he had a firm conviction that the Nazis would ultimately fail. He always held onto his father's words, "Klal Yisrael will survive." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 13:25:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:25:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shoah Message-ID: <842320B8-8657-4A22-98E8-76CAA22765DC@cox.net> R? Micha wrote in regard to the Shelach posting: Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? Along the same lines there was a fascinating book written many years ago by a legitimate, authentic, respected orthodox rabbi who wrote that someone who was not a victim in the holocaust has no right to say there is no God. Here is what was really an astonishing and somewhat shocking statement he made: if someone was actually in the Concentration Camp, this person has the right to deny God. I can see many raised eyebrows, but I would greatly appreciate someone remembering this book. Since it was rather revolutionary to be coming from a musmach who is respected by other orthodox rabbis. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 15:39:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:39:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: <20170614223903.GA14026@aishdas.org> In some, more Zionist, circles, the Satmar Rebbe's position that Israel is a maaseh satan is often left not understood. Many of the RZ camp have summarily dismissed it as overly polytheist for their liking. However, it is possible -- even if I or you do not find it plausible -- that Zionism was a challenge to the Jewish People. To see if after the Holocaust we would be so desperate for political relief that we would stop working toward true ge'ulah. As per the title of the SR's response to the mood after the Six Day War -- Al haGe'ulah ve'Al haTemurah (About the Ge'uilah and about the Replacement; perhaps "Decoy"). And, there is a particular mal'akh charged with posing spiritual challenges for us to grow through overcoming -- the satan. Thus, such a temurah would be a maaseh satan. Pretty conventional metaphysics, even for those who find the other religious positions bothersome. I mentioned this because of R' Gidon Rothstein's latest column in TM on the Ramban. "Ramban to Re'eh, Week Two: Avoiding False Prophets, Hearing From Hashem" http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/06/avoiding-false-prophets-hearing-hashem Along the way, RGR writes: It Might Actually Be From Hashem In the last verse in this passage, Moshe warns that this false prophet is a nisayon, a test, from Hashem. Ramban points out that back inBereshit, he had already dealt with the question of why Hashem "tests" us (doesn't Hashem know the future, and therefore know the outcome of the test? There are many answers, this is Ramban's). It's only a test from our perspective, he said. Hashem indeed knows the outcome, and is engaging in it to bring our potential into actuality (that implies that everyone always passes these tests, which works well for figures like Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov. It seems to me less convincing about the nisayon here, since the Jewish people have in fact occasionally followed such false prophets). Still, that's the less surprising part of this Ramban, since it is the face value of the verse, that the wonder did in fact come through the Will of Hashem, Hashem showed him this dream or vision to test our love of Hashem. Ramban doesn't say more, but I think he means--and this is the part that is more surprising and a bit challenging- that all people involved must realize that this is not what Hashem wants. I think he means the prophet him/herself was supposed to refrain from giving this prophecy (the other option is that Hashem was commanding and condemning this person to be a false prophet, to forfeit his/her life in doing so, and that someone we would put to death as a false prophet is actually a hero of Hashem's service. I find that unthinkable, unless the prophet said "I had this vision, but you clearly shouldn't listen to because we're not allowed to ever worship any power other than Hashem." But it's logically possible). The prophet aside, anyone who hears that prophecy, even if it's supported by uncannily accurate predictions, must both refuse to obey and react to this person as a false prophet. That is what true ahavat Hashem would lead us to do, a reminder that acting on our love of Hashem sometimes means doing that which under other circumstances should be distasteful. Putting someone to death for sharing his/her vision is not usually conduct we applaud. Here, it would still be upsetting, but necessary for those whose love of Hashem fills their beings. If the Ramban could say that there could be a navi sheqer who gets his message from Hashem for the sould purpose of challenging us, is it such a far stretch to the SR's anti-Zionism? IMHO, it's easier to understand Satmar or Munkacz anti-Zionism than Agudah's classical position of non-Zionism. The former agrees with the RZ that the Medinah is a huge event of vast import, but disagree about what the import is. The Agudist (at least classically, there were exceptions in the early years of the state, and things seem to be wearing down now) believe that Jews can regain sovereignty over EY for the first time in 2 millenia without it being religiously significant. (I am not talking about those of Neturei Karta who protest with the Palestinians and their supporters, or who visit Iranian gov't officials. They pose a whole different and perhaps even more fundamental set of problems. The SR's anti-Zionism included praying for Tzahal, as these were Jews led to danger through a horrible (in his opinion) error; an error that exists in part for the purpose of putting Jews in danger.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: RGR -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 18 10:59:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:59:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Korach Message-ID: <2943596C-CE9C-488B-B333-D25328C619BD@cox.net> 1) 16:1 "Vayikach Korach...." "And Korach, the son of Yitzhar, the son of Kehoth, the son of Levi took, and Dathan and Aviram, the sons of Eliav,etc.? The question is what did Korach take? The verb has no object. Resh Lakish said: "He took a bad 'taking' for himself" (Sanhedrin). Rashi said: "Korach...separated [lit.,took] himself. Korach placed himself at odds with the rest of the assembly to protest against Aaron's assumption of the priesthood." Ibn Ezra said it meant: "Korach took men..." 2) In the Ethics of the Fathers 5, 17 it states: "Every controversy that is pursued in a heavenly cause, is destined to be perpetuated; and that which is not pursued in a heavenly cause is not destined to be perpetuated. Which can be considered a controversy pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And that not pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Korach and his congregation." An analysis of this by Malbim explains in quite a compelling fashion why the Mishnah was not worded as we would have expected it to be: "A controversy pursued in a heavenly cause...that is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. That not pursued in a heavenly cause is the controversy of Korach and Moses." Instead it reads: "Korach and his congregation." As Malbim explains-- they would be quarreling amongst themselves, as each one strove to attain his selfish ambitions. The controversy therefore was rightly termed "between Korach and his congregation." They would ultimately fight among themselves. And the denouement would be their self-destruction. 3) "Korach quarreled with peace, and he who quarrels with peace quarrels with the Holy Name." (Zohar, Korach 176a [ed.,Soncino], Vol. V, p.238). The bottom line here is "Don't Mess with Hashem." In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves. Buddhal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 18 17:07:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 17:07:22 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: the aguda made a very practical decision-- to not make a halachic decision, but rather to seek support economically and non-military . the only halachic issue was to determine that the State's money is muttar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 01:17:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shalom Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:17:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shoah Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg's reference to the Orthodox Rabbi who wrote about who has the right to disbelieve after the Holocaust is most likely Eliezer Berkovits in his Faith After the Holocaust. Shalom Rabbi Shalom Z. Berger, Ed.D. The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education Bar-Ilan University http://www.lookstein.org https://www.facebook.com/groups/lookjed/ Follow me on Twitter: @szberger NETWORK*LEARN*GROW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 09:40:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:40:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. I am required to attend a business meeting at a non-kosher restaurant. How do I avoid the issue of maris ayin? Message-ID: <1497890418438.2614@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. I am required to attend a business meeting at a non-kosher restaurant. How do I avoid the issue of maris ayin? A. The general rule regarding maris ayin is that one can avoid the prohibition of maris ayin if there is a heker (sign) that indicates that the action is permitted. For example, Rama (YD 87:3) writes that one may not cook meat with almond milk, since this gives the impression that one is violating the prohibition of cooking milk and meat together. This would constitute maris ayin. However, this situation is permitted if one places almonds near the pot, since the almonds will alert a bystander that the milk comes from almonds and not from an animal. Therefore, if one must enter a non-kosher restaurant, one should do so in a manner that makes it clear that one is entering for business and not for pleasure. For example, one should enter carrying a briefcase or a stack of papers. Rav Schachter, shlita said that in such an instance it would be preferable to wear a cap instead of a yarmulke. Rav Schachter also said that once seated, one may order a drink -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 12:56:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:56:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur Message-ID: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> This is a comment on R Yaakov Jaffe's article at http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2017/6/13/get-your-hashkafa-out-of-my-chumash Since the Lehrhaus doesn't take comments, I thought we could discuss it here. (CC-ing RYJ.) He writes: Lehrhaus Get Your Hashkafa Out of My Chumash! [R] Yaakov Jaffe ... It has become commonplace in Modern Orthodox circles to lament the lack of alignment between the beliefs of the movement and some of the editions, translations, and versions of ritual texts that members of the movement use. These critiques are often welcome, such as Deborah Klapper's[13] recent excellent essay about the Haggadah for Pesach, and tend to frame ArtScroll Publishers as the almost villain who has taken the ideologically open, natural, innocent, uncorrupted foundational texts of Judaism and colored them with an Ultra-Orthodox translation, skew, or commentary.... Okay, that's the general topic. Here's the point I wanted to discuss: For me, there is a more grave concern when Modern Orthodox Jews flock to a different ritual text because it aligns more purely with their own ideology, and that is that the ritual text ceases to be important for its own sake (as a Siddur, Humash, or Hagaddah), a vehicle for transmitting sacred texts and values through the generations, but instead becomes a mere bit player in a larger drama about movements and self-identification. ("I use this Siddur because in many ways it demonstrates that I am a proud Modern Orthodox Jew.") This carries the risk that readers will stop reading the text of the Humash or being taken by the poetry of the Siddur and instead become hyper-focused on ideological markers that appear in those ritual texts. And for reasons that we will demonstrate below, the subordination of prayer within the mind of the person at prayer, beneath the selection of outward identifiers of ideology undermines the very purpose and notion of prayer itself. In 1978, Rabbi Soloveitchik authored a[15] short essay entitled "Majesty and Humility" in Tradition, in which he poses a dichotomy critical for Jewish religious experience and prayer. He describes one pole as majestic humanity, striving for victory and sovereignty, as "Man sets himself up as king and tries to triumph over opposition and hostility." The other pole is humble humanity, full of "withdrawal and retreat," which appreciates the smallness of human beings in the scope of the cosmic order. In the essay, prayer is an example of man in the mood of humility, of withdrawal, who finds the Almighty not when humanity triumphs over the forces of nature, or in the scope of the galaxies, but when humanity recognizes its own limitations, and, as a result, causes that "God does descend from infinity to finitude, from boundlessness into the narrowness of the Sanctuary," or: All I could do was to pray. However, I could not pray in the hospital... the moment I returned home I would rush to my room, fall on my knees and pray fervently. God in those moments appeared not as the exalted majestic King, but rather as a humble, close friend. While at prayer, the individual is constantly focused on his or her own inadequacy compared to the Divine Creator and his or her own limitations. The individual cannot be engaged in the battles of denomination supremacy, as he or she is paralyzed by his or her own smallness while attempting to pray. Moreover, prayer is generally a uniquely unsuited vehicle for conveying specific, unique, or modern ideologies and beliefs. It focuses on requests and aspirations, not on statements of creed. The text of the Siddur also serves as a unifying tool for the Jewish people (given the enormous general similarity despite centuries of division and dispersal) and highlights what we have in common and not what we have apart. 13. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-haggadah-without-women-2/ 15. http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2017/No.%202/Majesty%20and%20Humility.pdf 16. http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/?author=5886cfaabebafbcb2d43550f My problem is that tefillah is all about ideology, and the siddur runs from statement of creed to statement of creed -- Yigdal to Ani Maamin. (Not saying AM is mandatory, but it's there...) For example, RYBS's is one approach to prayer. It's different than that of Nefesh haChaim, where the focus of baqashos are what the world needs for G-d's sake, not our own needs for our sake. Curing the sick because His Presence is enhanced when people are healthy. Etc... It's different than RSRH's approach to berakhos, where they are declarations of personal commitment. So that we ask for health so that we can contribute to His Say in the world -- "berakhah" lashon ribui, after all. Etc... (I think I dug up 7 different theological resolutions to how to undertand "barukh Atah H'" given that ribui and HQBH don't mix.) This is taking a specific hashkafah's side in order to argue that tefillah shouldn't be taking a specific hashkafah's side. As for Tanakh... It is true that in one community, maximalist positions that magnify G-d's Greatness -- whether it's a description of qeri'as Yam Suf or Rivqa's age at meeting Yitzchaq -- have a near-exclusive currency. Saying that the sea simply split vehamayim lahem chimah miyminam umismolam is seen as the product if ignorance; of course it split into 13 tunnels, each providing all of our needs, ready to be grabbed out of the walls. Whereas the other prefers more rationalist positions, and in any case there is a broader array of Chazal's statements taken as possibly true. Or, does an MO Jew relate to a chumash in which the only topic of footnotes on the berakhos of Yissachar & Zevulun is their possible precedent for kollel life? (Despite there never having been an entire community where kollel was the norm until the past century.) In a community where wearing hexaplex (the snail formerly known as murex) dyed strings is a significant minority, isn't there more interest in sefunei temunei chol than in a community where it's unheard of? Then there is just different communities having different tastes in what kind of Torah thought they find more appealing / satisfying / moving. People who gravitate to the words of the Rav like the ideas in Mesores haRav for that reason. Just as Chabadnikim are more likely to find things to their taste in the Guttenstein Chumash than in the Stone Edition. Shouldn't, then, all these options exist? And is that any less true when thinking of how to relate to some complex poseq in Tehillim or a line composed by Anshei Keneses haGdolah (or the typical Ashkenazi paytan) to be a palimpsest of meanings? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 03:25:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:25:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: <> R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah poisition basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful but is against the wishes of G-d. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 06:19:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yaakov Jaffe via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:19:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Hi, Regarding the first point that "This is taking a specific hashkafah's side in order to argue that tefillah shouldn't be taking a specific hashkafah's side." I confess that I am guilty as charged. But one approach to tefilah (let's call it the one that resonates with me) is that it is purely a communication between the speaker and his or her Creator, and that consequently, it is not the time and place to be focused on proclaiming our ideologies. Obviously others may argue, and there are numerous siddur options for them. But we shouldn't pretend that this is the only approach to prayer, or that every Jew must use ideology in chosing a siddur. Regarding the second point, which I understand to be saying "each occasion of Torah study involves someone chosing an approach they prefer to understand the text, so they should chose a Chumash that furthers the approach that they prefer" I also tend to agree as well, but here my post focuses on the reductio ad absurdum problem of splitting hairs and hyper-focus on details hashkafa. I did not conduct a comprehensive study of the stone Chumash, but wonder whether the troubling explanations are ubiquitous, occasional, or somewhere in between. The problem with a "Modern" chumash, is that there are many "modern" explanations that could be equally troubling, depending on how modern the chumash and conservative the reader. Did Bilaam's donkey talk or was it a dream (Ramban versus Rambam)? If Artscroll said he spoke, and for example a new chumash says that he did not - then which one most accurately reflects my hashkafa? And if you imagine 100 different texts that can be each read multiple ways, how do we find the chumash that on all 100 provides the perfect match? Hope this makes sense, happy to continue the conversation further, Yaakov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 08:07:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:07:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Shmitta fund Message-ID: <2A3CAC10-A501-4AF5-A666-AB7B0D35E90C@gmail.com> http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2017/06/proposed-law-shmitta-fund.html?m=1. Is that the general psak, that heter mechira is no better than nothing? Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 15:02:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:02:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] restaurants In-Reply-To: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170620220230.GB29839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:44:00PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From the OU: : Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher : restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would : be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness : the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad : (giving the appearance of impropriety)... A question about that "and"... I agree with their parenthetic definition, but I will rephrase to show why I think it's rare-to-impossible for something to simultaneously be both mar'is ayin and cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone who sees the action will assume it's mutar, or at least informally "not so bad". Cheshad is where someone who sees the action is sure it's assur, and therefore think less of the person doing it. How many actions involve two conflicting default umdenos? So, being confused, I looked up the Igeros Moshe. The teshuvah is primarily about a frum minyan in a room in a non-O synagogue. The last paragraph begins "Ubedavar im mutar le'ekhol berestarant..." ("Restaurant" transliterated in Yiddish or hil' gittin style.) The line is "yeis le'esor mishum mar'is ayin vecheshad". But if someone is mitzta'er tuva, so that these gezeiros do not apply, they could eat betzin'ah something that has no actual kashrus problem. Does "ve-" here have to mean both? Or could it mean that between the two, it is assur in all circumstances? Like "lulav hagazul vehayaveish pasul" doesn't refer only to a lulav that is both stolen and dried out. Chazal's "ve-" is more complex than "and". (I am tempted to discuss de Morgan's laws and ve-, but I will just leave in this hint rather than detour into a class in symbolic logic.) If it does have to mean both mar'ish ayin and cheshad, can someone : Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based? I am not clear how they could NOT be. : For example, in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in : a treif restaurant, what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % : threshold for concern? In NYC, if you see two people, only one of which in O uniform, entering a restaurant, it's common to just assume this is a business meeting and accomodations were made. Restaurants in Manhattan routinely take delivery for a kosher meal when catering a group; it's a matter of the minimum size of the group they'll make such accomodation for. (I have been one of three, and got Abigails delivered double-sealed.) In such a climate, I don't think people would assume you're there to eat treif even if it's just two people meeting and no kosher could possibly be brought in from the outside. It's just a known thing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 16:11:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 19:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170620231132.GC29839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:33:00PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. : : True. I have always thought of ribis in a class of its own, for the : simple reason that the entire world considers it to be a generally : acceptable business practice... According to the Rambam, it's a mitzvas asei. The SA (YD 159:1) holds like the Tur, it's mutar de'oraisa, and usually prohibited derabbanan "shema yilmod mima'asav". Bikhdei chayav, tzurba derabbanan and if the profit is only defined derabbanan as ribbis are three exceptions. (Charging ribis from a mumar shekafar be'iqar is also mutar, because we are not obligated lehachayaso; but paying ribis to him is not.) The Levush says "shema yilmod mima'asev" doesn't apply in the current economy. Chazal assumed a primarily Jewish economy where we have a few exceptional deals with non-Jews. So for us, ribis is always mutar lemaaseh. I wonder whether this heter of the Levush would apply to Jews in Israel today. In any case, halakhah pesukah (assuming the reader isn't Teimani) doesn't mention any mitzvah asei. In terms of the taam being because their own economy is based on interest... Would you argue that it's wrong to lend a Muslim or an Amish person money with interest? (Even in the Levush's opinion?) Particularly in a Moslem country. where they have their own parallels to heter isqa , and the person's whole culture (I presume) reviles interest. So is it whether or not ribis is considered immoral by the person being charged, or whether or not kelapei Shemaya galya ribis is moral? I argued the latter, but your wording left me wanting to articulate the chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 13:49:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:49:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting Message-ID: What would you like the first thing that HKB"H says to you at 120 when you report to the beit din shel maaleh(heavenly study hall)? Kt Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 13:50:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban Message-ID: What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:53:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:53:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 11:21:05PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : > I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi : > haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, : > like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" : > in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather : > than knowledge of abstract ideas. : No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these : were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi : haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and : that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? "They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..." :> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. : These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult : to understand them as having been written by the same person... Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position. ... :: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in :: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21... ::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us ::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the ::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers ::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their ::> practice on their upright fathers. :> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. : Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the : pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] : and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk... But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write: : Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the : context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting : up of schools)... Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's derashah. I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with "chadash assur min haTorah".) :> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. : Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas : etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody : define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at : all the experiential aspect... Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect? :> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when :> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an :> example to imitate. : The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is : as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with : Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her : ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." : The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard : to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, : excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of : Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily : in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education. After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior? In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49. : And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they : could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward : etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two : types of TSBP... Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah. : Is not the gemora etc filled with : this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it occuring... So I am toally lost here. Maybe the "this" has been stretched further than I can follow. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 19:00:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Message-ID: The gematria for Rosh Chodesh is 813. In the whole of tanach there is only one verse with the gematria of 813. It is B?reishis, Chapter 1, verse 3. ?Vayomer Elohim ohr, vay?hi ohr? ?And God said: Let there be light and there was light.? Music is moonlight in the gloomy night of life. Jean Paul, Author From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:42:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:42:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170621234200.GF18168@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 09:19:46AM -0400, Yaakov Jaffe via Avodah wrote: : But one approach to tefilah (let's call it the one that resonates with me) : is that it is purely a communication between the speaker and his or her : Creator, and that consequently, it is not the time and place to be focused : on proclaiming our ideologies. Obviously others may argue, and there are : numerous siddur options for them. But we shouldn't pretend that this is : the only approach to prayer, or that every Jew must use ideology in chosing : a siddur. But if a person wants to approach tefilah as a pure communication, then shouldn't they pick a siddur whose ideology is that tefillah is a pure communication? Having a siddur of a given ideology is not necessarily about proclaiming that ideology. (But if you want to rail about the fact that too often this call for an MO siddur /is/ about proclomation, there is room to do so.) It is about having a siddur that aids the kind of prayer you want to do. Which is why I never understood why people assign value to having "their siddur". I have a collection, as I go from more cerebral to more experiential moods, and want different siddurim depending on where my head is just then. For example, the as-yet-unpublished RCA siddur has something in it about shelo asani that would say something that a Mod-O Jew is more likely to be concerned about saying than someone who is less engaged with the more egalitarian west would feel a need to say. ... : I did not conduct a comprehensive study of the stone Chumash, but wonder : whether the troubling explanations are ubiquitous, occasional, or somewhere : in between... In my experience, occasional. But the rationalists are under-represented, given the chareidi tendency toward more maximalist approaches. That's not troubling, but it's promoting one worldview and not allowing the other to reach the market-share it deserves. : or was it a dream (Ramban versus Rambam)? If Artscroll said he spoke, and : for example a new chumash says that he did not - then which one most : accurately reflects my hashkafa? ... My ideal chumash would present both, or if space requires, inform me that both possibilities are discussed without full presentation. If two hashkafic ideas are viable, why should I let an editor choose between them for me? But that's a different story. The problem the MO nay-sayers have with the absence of a vaiable alternative to ArtScroll is less that there is a specific problem with a comment. As I wrote, those are rare. But that without variety, without a survey that includes ideas current and popular outside the Agudist community, those ideas will cease being thought of as normative. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:20:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:20:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170621222015.GB18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:50:41PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? #1 Qedoshim Tihyu -- naval birshus haTorah #2 The end of Bo (although you didn't ask for a runner-up) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:28:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:28:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170621232850.GE18168@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:07:45PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : >I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons : >and sources, and this chapter is a perfect example... In the Bavli "Mai ta'ama?" is a request for a reason. In the Y-mi, it is a request for a pasuq as source. Reasons and sources are different things, and I think the difference helps clears up the question. : Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites : the Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than : in other places. Zev was saying that the Rambam usually opens or close with a reason, a ta'am hamitzvah. (And, as he explains in the Moreh, he only expects these to cover the generalities.) Usually, these are unsourced. But, kedarko, when he can paraphrase a source he does. Which is what he is doing here. : I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he : often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or : "pashat haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a : Midrash? This one stands out. This paragraph addresses the Rambam's not spending much time on sources, not about reasons. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:16:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:16:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170621221634.GA18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:49:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What would you like the first thing that HKB"H says to you at 120 when : you report to the beit din shel maaleh(heavenly study hall)? (After introducing me to my daughter...) "I'm proud of you, son!" "I would help you get used to this, but techiyas hameisim will be underway..." "So THAT'S why I did that..." But according to Rava (Shabbos 31a) I should expect, "Nasata venatata be'emunah?" Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:24:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:24:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170621232402.GD18168@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 08:43:42PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : > How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of : > any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even : > punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of : > the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? : : The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an : extension of the beit din. Perhaps according to the Rambam (Rotzeiach 1:2), who says "mitzvah beyad go'el hadam..." and if the go'el doesn't want to or there is none, "BD memisin es harotzeiach besayif". Rashi al haTorah appears to hold that "ein lo dam" means the go'el is killing an already dead man, and therefore bears no guilt. Not a mitzvah, but a reshus. (But see below.) And if the go'el only has reshus, it's hard to say he is operating as beis din's appointee. Sanhedrin 45b says "mitzvah bego'el hadam", but if there is no go'el, BD appoints one. There is no sayif. BUT, Makos 2:7 has a machloqes: R Yosi haGelili says that if the killer is found outside the techum, it is a mitzvah on the go'el hadam and a reshus for everyone else to kill him. (According to the beraisa on 12a, if there is no go'el, there is reshus...) R' Aqiva disagrees, saying it's a reshus for the go'el and a non-punishable issur for anyone else. (According to the beraisa, they are chayav.) And here's the weird part -- despite what I quoted above from the Yad, the Rambam on the mishnah says halakhah is like R' Aqiva. Rashi on Makkos 12a says about Bamidbar 35:27 "ika leferushei lashon tzivui ve'ika leferushei lashon tzivui. In sum, I think RJR is understating it. It's not "only" the pesuqim that are unclear. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 01:29:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:29:00 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: : No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these : were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi : haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and : that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? And RMB replied: >"They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..." I like "the root principles and the general rules .." - thanks, that is better than my use of source - but I think "osmosis" is not quite right either. I don't think "osmosis" as we understand it would necessarily have been within the Maharil's conception, and that it is not a great translation for "al pi hakabala" - maybe "from tradition" - but osmosis isn't right. The girls in question probably learnt how to speak the local language by osmosis (even if eg Yiddish was spoken in the home), but you would not say that is "al pi hakabbala". There is a big difference. :> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. : These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult : to understand them as having been written by the same person... >Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position. I don't think you can say that. First of all, the second one, ie the one from Maharil HaChadashos, made it into the Shulchan Aruch, - it is quoted by the Rema - and you can't just dismiss that. And the first one was in the possession of the Birchei Yosef, who is very influential in a whole host of ways in terms of psak. I think rather you have to treat them as two different rishonic teshuvot, and give them weight on that basis. It may well be that they were influenced by, or even possibly penned by, the student of the Maharil who collected them (hence my note that they came from two different collections) , and we may never know which one was really the Maharil's opinion and which one was in fact that of his student or some other rishon from around that time and attributed to the Maharil, but they are both rishonic source material, and I don't think we can ignore either of them. ... :: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in :: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21... ::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us ::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the ::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers ::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their ::> practice on their upright fathers. :> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. : Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the : pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] : and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk... But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write: : Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the : context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting : up of schools)... >Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's derashah. Yes, but even in terms of pshat, it seems very difficult to come away from the idea of transmission of tradition from father to children when using this process. "Asking" is not about osmosis - it is about an attempt at formal learning, and answering in response to an ask is exactly the process of formal learning in pretty much all contexts (it is why we still have teachers even in Universities, and not just books). If you have system where you are supposed to "ask" and somebody else is supposed to then answer, you have formal education. This is a step up from where you are expected to learn by watching (but not asking) - but where at least sometimes the educational aspect is clear - eg, I want you to watch and see how I go to place X, so you can find it yourself next time, is a less formal process than asking, but it is still a form of education, which is a step up from osmosis, where nobody on either side necessarily realises that something is being learnt, it just seeps in (language is a classic case, or how about accent - kids pick up their accent from school by osmosis, it is not a conscious process, and maybe the parents would in fact prefer, and maybe even they would prefer, that they talk with the parent's accent, rather than that of their peers, but it doesn't happen that way, you send a kid to school, they start talking like the locals in their school). >I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with "chadash assur min haTorah".) Because the proof text resonates, it does even in the pshat. In the pshat it is clearly linked to "vshinantam l'vanecha" - ie is the flip side of it (which is why the extension into drash makes sense, just as v'shinantam l'vanecha is the basis of the command for Torah study, this is the basis of the need to listen to the master of Torah). And if you know the drash, even when you use it in the pshat form, you will get the resonance. "V'shinantam l'vanecha" is the pasuk from which the obligation for boys to learn is learnt (banecha v'lo banotecha) - with the emphasis then on the father's teaching - the formal school process came later, when the father's obligation was delegated to a school teacher. Ask you father (in the masculine) is similarly in the pshat about a boy's obligation to learn. Applying it to girls is an odd stretch in the first place. What you are saying is that the proof text when applied to girls suddenly doesn't mean what it means when applied to boys, in either pshat or drash, that to me seems odd. :> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. : Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas : etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody : define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at : all the experiential aspect... >Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect? Well the CC is explaining the Rambam. The Rambam says: ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????, ???? ??? ??????, ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????, ???"? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????, ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????, ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man, because she is not commanded and all who do a thing that they are not commanded to do, there reward is not like the reward of one who is commanded and does rather [their reward] is less than these, and even though she gains a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning, and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut. So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav (note that the Rambam himself in Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 Halacha 11 - says a man is required to divide his time into thirds, a third in Torah shebichtav, a third in Torah sheba?al peh, and a third in understanding and weighing - what he calls Gemora, so there he seems to have three categories, but the third requires a knowledge of the other two, and presumably cannot be taught). So, in terms of your question "does anybody force the CC to define the set of TSBP that was classically prohibited as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including the experiential aspect" - it seems to me that the Rambam does. Ie given that the CC is explaining the Rambam, and the Rambam has only two categories of Torah, then either the experiential aspect is Torah shebichtav or it is not Torah at all. But saying that the experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase. I therefore think it very difficult to say that experiential teaching, especially when linked with the formality of "asking", as the CC does, can be defined as not Torah at all. So that leaves Torah shebichtav. I did try and say that was the Tur's point, what you are should not teach are the laws as written down, but to say that the experiential is Torah shebichtav seems to me a very difficult assertion. :> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when :> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an :> example to imitate. : The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is : as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with : Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her : ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." : The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard : to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, : excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of : Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily : in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". >I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education. >After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior? Yes he does, the minute he is "asked", or if he says "watch what I do" (similar to when I take my children somewhere to show them how to get there on their own, eg a new school, including pointing out the landmarks, that is most definitely active teaching, despite the fact that it is experiential, and not done from giving them a map and teaching them to map read). >In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49. And "look, let me show you how ..." is formal teaching, whether it is a maths problem or it is how to bake chala. And if that particular aspect of teaching falls within the definition of Torah, then one is teaching Torah, albeit informally. And the danger with understanding "lelameid" to only mean formal teaching, not informal teaching, is that you then write out of a father's obligation to a son an awful lot, as it is not within the mitzvah. You can't have it both ways, either when a father teaches a son informally (eg shows him how to put on tephillin, as that seems very difficult to learn from a book) he is teaching him Torah or he is not. Which is it? : And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they : could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward : etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two : types of TSBP... >Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah. So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect, showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn?t take the bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid? Isn't that the consequence of what you are saying? That the only Torah that men are obligated to learn as Talmud torah are the formal abstract rules and regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially? : Is not the gemora etc filled with : this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. >The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it occuring... I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules. If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? -Micha Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 06:27:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:27:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> On 22/06/17 04:29, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: >> The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or >> memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it >> occuring... > I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the > formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the > formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules. > > If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of > the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? Indeed, it's an explicit gemara: "*Torah* hi, velilmod ani tzarich". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 09:32:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:32:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170622163247.GA19841@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:27:07AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: :>If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of :> the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? : Indeed, it's an explicit gemara: "*Torah* hi, velilmod ani tzarich". I am excluding informal education from "lelameid bito", not excluding the acquired info from "Torah". When the R' Eliezer (as quoted by the Rambam) talks about learning or teaching, is he thinking about mimetic osmosis and the like or is he referring only to formal education? It is indeed a key way to learn how to practice. In many cases -- eg milah, safrus, mar'os, tereifos, etc... -- it's the /only/ way to learn the necessary Torah. "Mimetic osmosis *or the like*" is my acknowledgement that Chana managed to convince me that my dichotomy is really a spectrum from the informality of unconscious imitation to raw text study. And therefore there will be gray are that is more or less likely to be included by R' Eliezer or the Rambam rather than a yes-or-no. My talk of mimeticism and osmosis overstates where I am going, and created needless problems with the CC's use of "she'al avikha". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 06:26:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:26:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Letter from Europe Message-ID: <84dd8782469149f99c23cf85a031e37b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I seem to remember a letter from a European (German) Jewish community to someone/thing in Eretz Yisrael with the general message that their hometown was where they intended to wait for Moshiach whether moving to Eretz Yisrael was possible or not. Does this sound familiar? If so, do you know the source? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 07:06:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:06:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple Message-ID: <20170623140615.GB17536@aishdas.org> SA EhE 62:11 says that if the benei hachupah have to divide up into chaburos, they all make sheva berakhos. Even if the locations are not open to each other nor is there a common server -- none of the normal things that combine a zimun. The AhS #37 adds that they each make their own 7 berakhos. Does this mean that if a man needs to leave a wedding early, he should really invest the effort to find 9 others and not just 3, not only because zimun requires trying, but also because the 10 of you would be passing up a chance to bentch the chasan & kallah! To add more weight to the idea, earlier in the siman the AhS discusses the function of panim chadashos at 7 berakhos. In #23-24 he says that the Rambam (Berakhos pereq 2) implies that the reason why we need panim chadashos for 7 berakhos is that the whole thing is to fulfill *their* chiyuv to bentch the chasan & kallah. As guests of the couple, they have a chiyuv to give them a berakhah, which is fulfilled at the minimum by their amein. Whereas if everyone there already fulfilled that obligation, the berakhos are levatalah. Then in #35 he gives besheim "rov raboseinu" the usually quoted reason (at least in my circles) that it's their addition to the simchah that legitimizes the berakhah. Which is why the neshamah yeseirah and Shabbos meal can serve in the same role. (However, he warns, this only works for a real se'udah shelishis. A yotzei-zain shaleshudis lacks that requisite simchah.) So, it could be that according to the Rambam, walking out of the se'udah without 7 berakhos is neglecting one's chiyuv to give the couple a berakhah! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 10:46:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:46:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> <20170621234200.GF18168@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170623174657.GA20760@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:00:14PM -0400, Yaakov Jaffe wrote: : Thank you for your perspective. I understand your argument - rather than : my three-options (hashkafa a, hashkafa b and hashkafa c), you suggest a : fourth with a & b side by side, for the reader to chose. I hadn't : considered it - but it does have a lot to offer! We need to distinguish between a specific commentary -- R' Hirsch's Pentateuch, Mesoret haRav works, Divrei Moshe -- and an anonymous collector of footnotes as in the Stone Chumush, the ArtStroll or RCA siddurim, etc... And I want to acknowledge the gray areas. R/Lord Sack's siddur can be either, depending upon whether someone bought it out of esteem for R' Sacks and wanting to know his position, or it's as just Koren's contender in that market. I am only talking about the latter category, the anonymous shul chumash or siddur. Chareidism is founded on the need to protect ourselves from the modern. And only after dealing with the thread, one considers the opportunities. And part of that defense mechanism is deffering decisions to those more knowledgable. In contrast, Mod-O embraces the West's admiration of autonomy. Thus leaving a gap between the communities about when one turns to gedolim for answers, and when not. A side-effect of how "daas Torah" is formulated is that it has little tolerance for plurality. "The gedolim hold" is an oft-repeated idiom, in my hometown of Passaic, even by people who -- if you made them stop and consider the question -- know "the gedolim" often disagree. Because if we need to choose between valid answers, we could run the risk of choosing wrongly, a dangerous variant of one, the other, or in combination. A comparative unknown yeshivish rav or collection of avreikhem providing such commentary, choosing a consistent style of comment over others is perceived from that mindset. As promoting one position as the sole truly normative approach. The same often happens with Rashi. We think of Rashi's position as the default, because it's girsa diyenuqa, and another rishon is seen as the machadesh. Did the brothers sell Yoseif or did they find the pit empty after the Moavim got there first and selling him? There is a machloqes tannaim about Rivqa's age when married, but Rashi quotes one, and that becomes the default in some circles. In other circles, peshat is more likely to trump medrashic stories. With the position of numerous rishonim and acharonim (are there cholqim?) that medrashic stories are repeated for their nimshalim, not the story itself. Which brings me to a second effect of daas Torah... The more one takes pride in deferring to authority the more likely one is to embrace the maximalist position, to accept that which is further from rationalist, from what the autonomous decision would have been. A second reason why Rivqa must have been 3 when married, not 15. Yes, many people know both, but isn't there a clear emotional attitude about one position being normative rather than the other? I therefore think that giving a survey of opinions is itself an inherently MO way of doing this kind of text. It allows someone to choose autonomously between rationalism, mysticism, maximalism, etc... without the relatively-unknown rabbi -- or anyone but my own rav, his rav, his rav's rav... ("my gadol" is a much more MO view than "the gedolim) -- setting himself to tell large numbers of the observant community what to view as the mainstream, and what is an acceptable but avant-gard alternative, even if they ever learn of the other options. If we want RYBS's position to be viewed as part of the mainstream, or R' Herschel Schachter's (which is far closer to yeshivish but still not something ArtScroll would quote too often) or R' Aharon Soloveitchik or RALichtenstein, R' Amital, R CY Goldvicht or any other rosh yeshivas hesder, R' Kook, etc... there has to be chumashim that put these ideas in the hands of the common people, the ones who aren't spending spare time hanging out in the sefarim store or following e-zines, blogs, email lists or even FB groups that discuss (usually: argue) such things. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 15:56:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:56:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d2ec73$fba1e110$f2e5a330$@gmail.com> R' Joel Rich: What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? ------------------------ The one about being a naval b'rshus haTorah. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 14:04:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 23:04:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: <2a88576c-335d-3d30-a014-301f177029c1@zahav.net.il> References: <2a88576c-335d-3d30-a014-301f177029c1@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <297327dc-ba39-c064-1bd4-0a61c750d11f@zahav.net.il> Mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisrael, including conquering it. Ben On 6/21/2017 10:50 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? > KT > Joel Rich > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 06:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 16:10:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple Message-ID: "Does this mean that if a man needs to leave a wedding early, he should really invest the effort to find 9 others and not just 3, not only because zimun requires trying, but also because the 10 of you would be passing up a chance to bentch the chasan & kallah!" Actually, even without regard for Sheva B'rochos, the din of zimmun requires that one not who has eaten with a minyan not bentsch with less than a minyan. There is mention on OC 193:1 that only where there would be difficulty in a minyan hearing, thus necessitating the bentsching calling attention to itself and thus offending the host, that it can be done in groups of three; it would seem to be a kal vachomer that gathering ten and saying Sheva B'rochos would be even more noticeable, and thus more hurtful. It would also seem that if one person has to leave, he should not request two others to join him in zimmun unless they, too, must leave early, since otherwise they should not violate their obligation of proper zimmun so that the one leaving have an incomplete fulfillment of his obligation. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:01:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 01:01:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: . R' Eli Turkel wrote: > R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He > understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah position > basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a > state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful > but is against the wishes of G-d. Could you please explain to me what the Agudah position is, and *how* it denies that G-d affects history? Personally, I do not know what the Agudah position is about the Medinah. I'm not convinced that they even *have* a position. Over the years, I have gotten the impression that they have deliberately avoided publicizing their views, because at this point in history it is so difficult to be sure of such things. You yourself concede that the state "APPEARS" to be successful. Who knows? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:21:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:21:57 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] perhaps not such a well-known RaMBaM, but ... Message-ID: in his intro to Sefer Shemos Matan Torah was just a device employed to re-attain the standards that had already been accomplished by the Avos when they came to Mount Sinai - made the Mishkan and HaShem returned His Shechinah amongst them, that is when they restored their status to be like their Avos .... and that is when they were deemed to be redeemed [from the servitude in Egypt] Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:42:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:42:05 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] redemption - The GoEl HaDam Message-ID: the family can come to terms with the killer. when circumstances are such that the killer is deemed too negligent, he can not seek refuge in the Ir Miklat and they MUST come to terms, of the aggressor lives his life in constant fear of being executed. Lo SikChu Kofer LeNefesh RoTzeach Hu - is a warning [to BDin] NOT to take redemption money, NOT to avert the death penalty, NOT to come to terms; but in other circumstances it seems we ought to seek strategies to come to terms. That may include but is not limited to offering money - it probably has more to do with Teshuvah, which is the need to persuade the victims that the regret is sincere, which is why BDin cannot provide a ruling, it can only be negotiated through direct communications, and finding friends of the victims and persuading them of the sincerity and getting THEM to intercede - this is the Shurah that is described in Halacha and RaMBaM. Why are they defined as the GoEl the redeemer? It is a redemption for the society - an evil [negligence of this magnitude, especially when Chazal indicate it is a reflection of other misdeeds, is an evil] of this magnitude leaves an impression on the collective mind of the community, the Eidah, those whose lives is a testimony to HKBH, and if it goes unpunished, the community is tainted. So the community requires redemption. This too feeds into the coming to terms with the aggressor - it is not only the friends of the victim who are impressing upon their traumatised consciousness the need to forgive to accept that the aggressor truly regrets [and that the victim is also as Chazal say, a contributor to his untimely own end] but the community is a sort of spectator to these negotiations and the aggressors feel a need to be accepted by the community and not be seen as being too harsh and vengeful or rapacious in their demands for compensation. This is a very redeeming experience for everyone Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 10:10:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:10:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] most famous ramban Message-ID: <000b01d2edd5$f855df80$e9019e80$@actcom.net.il> First Ramban in Yayera-polemic with the Moreh Nevukhim. After that, 'Kedoshim tihiyu', (which many people are horrified by or completely misunderstand and yes, the Ramban was an ascetic and makes a brilliant case for asceticism) but we could probably have a whole lot of fun on this list making a list of Rambans that everyone should know. In fact, we may actually have done this already. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 10:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:05:14 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting from God Message-ID: <000601d2edd5$3d08f5a0$b71ae0e0$@actcom.net.il> I'd be thrilled to hear: "It's okay-don't worry about it" but I'm not counting on it. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 07:06:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:06:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170626140643.GD29431@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 04:10:45PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : hurtful. It would also seem that if one person has to leave, he should not : request two others to join him in zimmun unless they, too, must leave : early, since otherwise they should not violate their obligation of proper : zimmun so that the one leaving have an incomplete fulfillment of his : obligation. OTOH, if they have an obligation to bless the chasan and kalah, perhaps the threshold for "must leave early" has to be raised. After all, there are cases of need where we do break a zimmun, but we would never (e.g.) walk out on a beris milah over the same motivation. "Need" is a relative term. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 09:15:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 12:15:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> On this thread, did any of us mention birkhas ge'ulah? "Ufdeih khin'umekha Yehudah veYisrael" expresses our expectation that Hashem will redeem both malkhios. Or is there another way to talk separately about Yehudah and Yisrael. So I would think the siddur pasqens, and this is in all traditional nusachos, that the 1- tribes are not permanently lost. I am assuming since this is a birkhas shevakh rather than baqashah, this is an expectation "you will surely redeem", and not a request. Requesting the impossible is a tefillas shav. So... As a baqashah, the berakhah would only prove they could be redeemed; as shevakh (which is, I believe, the correct category), the berakhah is expressing our faith they will be redeemed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 14:51:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:51:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Talmud Torah vs Mitzvah Maasis Message-ID: <20170626215120.GA8220@aishdas.org> Another data point... AhS EhE 65:4 says "mevatlin talmud Torah lehakhnasas kalah lechupah", even toraso umenaso. But limited to someone who sees them going to the chupah. If you just know of a wedding in town, you aren't obligated to stop learning to go. For sources, the end of the se'if cites 1- Semachos 11[:7], which RYME summarizes as "dema'aseh qodem leTT". The mishnah itselces cites both Aba Sha'ul and Rabbi Yehudah, that "hama'aseh qodem letalmud". (Rabbi Yehudah would enjoin his talmidim to participate as well.) 2- Qiddushin 40b which discusses whether talmud gadol or ma'aseh gadol. R' Tarfon: ma'aseh R' Aqiva: talmud "Ne'enu kulam ve'amru: talmud gadol" because talmud leads to ma'aseh. (And so on, discussion elided.) This gemara concludes that talmud is greater. 3- And for exaplanation of how to resolve Semachos vs Qiddushin, he points you to Tosafos BQ 17[a] "veha'amar". The gemara there says "gadol limud Torah shemeivi liydei ma'adeh", much like Qiddushim. Rashi says "alma ma'aseh adif". R' Tam asks on Rashi, from the gemara in Qiddushin. Tosafos then explains the gemara's distinction between learning and teaching in two opposite ways: 1- It's teaching which has priority, because it brings the masses to action. Whereas one's own learning or acting are one person either way. 2- It's learning, which tells one how to act, that has priority. But since teaching doesn't inform the teacher how to fulfilll a mitzvah, it does not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 08:22:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:22:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chukas Message-ID: <9B3AD7FA-3712-4F5A-B2FC-BAC8F688CD87@cox.net> Rashi picks up on the juxtaposition of the consecutive sentences where we first read of Miriam?s death and immediately following ? of the lack of water. This would indicate some connection which Rashi points out that the existence of the water was on the z?chus of Miriam. Nonetheless, the question of the Sifse Chakhamim is also quite valid. Weren?t Aaron and Moses worthy enough to warrant the existence of the water on their z?chus? As a chok has no rational explanation, so, too, there is no logical explanation as to why as long as Miriam was there, offering her inspired leadership, the waters of the be?er, the wells of Torah, flowed ceaselessly and with her death, the waters stopped; whereas, the greatness of Aaron and Moses paled in comparison. This shows the error of those who downplay the role of women in Judaism. Remember, it?s the mother who determines the child?s religion and it?s the mother who plays a major role in her children?s development. The dedication and devotion of the exemplary Jewish mother are a shining example to all who would seek idealism in a Jewish woman. "The Lord gave more wit to women than to men." Talmud - Niddah ??And the Lord God built the rib which teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, endowed the woman with more understanding than the man.? Niddah 45b ?A beautiful wife enlarges a man?s spirit.? [adapted from] Talmud, Berakhot 57b -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 15:15:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:15:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <78965e20-72ab-5232-fd11-bfbe6b3a4ee2@sero.name> On 26/06/17 12:15, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On this thread, did any of us mention birkhas ge'ulah? "Ufdeih > khin'umekha Yehudah veYisrael" expresses our expectation that Hashem > will redeem both malkhios. Or is there another way to talk separately > about Yehudah and Yisrael. > > So I would think the siddur pasqens, and this is in all traditional > nusachos, that the 1- tribes are not permanently lost. It is not in all traditional nuschaos. TTBOMK it's found only in Nusach Ashkenaz. Sefarad substitutes the pasuk "Goaleinu", Italians substitute "Biglal avot...", I don't know what other traditional nuschaot do. (Modern Nusach Ashkenaz and some versions of the Chassidic "Sfard" combine the old Ashkenaz and Sefarad endings; this was originally Nusach Tzorfat, back when that was distinct from Ashkenaz.) (The reason for the Sefaradi ending with the pasuk rather than the other two versions is that the bracha is about Geulat Mitzrayim, not the future Geulah, hence the chatima "Ga'al Yisrael" as distinct from "Go'el Yisrael" in the 7th of the 18, so ending with a prayer for the future Geulah is off topic. I don't know how the other two nuschaot would respond, but maybe that's why NA ended up adopting the Tzorfati combination.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 22:08:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:08:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Agudah [was: Support for Maaseh Satan] Message-ID: <15180d.31f3d54b.4685e552@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <> [--I don't know who is being quoted here] R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah poisition basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful but is against the wishes of G-d. -- Eli Turkel >>>>>> All through Tanach there are examples of reshaim who succeed (if only for a while). Obviously it is Hashem's wish that they succeed, even if it is not His wish that they sin. What is remarkable and miraculous about the last century of history in Eretz Yisrael is how Eretz Yisrael has been built up, the growth of agriculture, cities, the economy, the Jewish population, and most of all the amazing growth of Torah living and learning -- despite secular socialist Zionism. The Medinah gets some credit but what is most remarkable is that so much good has happened despite the Medinah or even very much against the will of the secular government. There is so much ohr vechoshech mishtamshim be'irbuvya. Nevertheless it is impossible /not/ to see the Yad Hashem in the overall course of events over the past century. How many prophecies are coming true before our very eyes! A thriving economy grew up under the very feet of the socialists! Is that not a miracle?! Has such a thing ever happened in any other country?! :- ) So what is the Agudah's position? In November 1947, when the UN voted for the establishment of the Jewish State, the Agudah made the following declaration: --begin quote-- The World Agudas Yisroel sees as an historic event the decision of the nations of the world to return to us, after 2000 years, a portion of the Holy Land, there to establish a Jewish state and to encompass within its borders the banished and scattered members of our people. This historic event must bring home to every Jew the realization that ***the Almighty has brought this about in an act of Divine Providence*** [my emphasis] which presents us with a great task and a grave test. We must face up to this test and establish our life as a people, upon the basis of Torah. While we are sorely grieved that the Land has been divided and sections of the holy Land have been torn asunder, especially Yerushalayim, the holy city, while we still yearn for the aid of Mashiach tzidkeinu, who will bring us total redemption, we nevertheless see the hand of Providence offering us the opportunity to prepare for the geula shelaima if we will walk into the future as G-d's people. --end quote-- [quoted in __To Dwell in the Palace: Perspectives on Eretz Yisrael__ edited by Tzvia Ehrlich-Klein, 1991] The above is still fairly representative of the hashkafa of broad swaths of Klal Yisrael who are charedi or charedi-leaning, yeshivish or chassidish, neither Satmar nor Dati Leumi. That is, the majority of all frum Jews in America and Eretz Yisrael. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 22:31:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:31:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? Message-ID: <151979.a3a1c08.4685eabc@aol.com> From: Chana Luntz via Avodah I Well the CC is explaining the Rambam. The Rambam says: --quote-- A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man, ...and even though she gains a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning, and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. --end quote-- That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut. So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav ... ....But saying that the experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase.... .....So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect, showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn't take the bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid? Isn't that the consequence of what you are saying? That the only Torah that men are obligated to learn as Talmud Torah are the formal abstract rules and regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially? Regards Chana >>>>> I think that different uses of the word "Torah" are being confused here. The very word "Torah" has many meanings, depending on context. It can refer to just the Chumash -- the Torah shebichsav -- about which the Rambam says "but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." Some chassidishe schools to this day do not teach girls Chumash. The word Torah can mean both Chumash and Gemara. "The Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut." There is universal agreement that "Torah" in this context means Gemara. NO ONE thinks that teaching halacha to girls is tantamount to teaching tiflus. The word "Torah" can refer to the vast corpus of everything that has ever been written by or about the Tanaim and Amoraim, Rishonim and Achronim. The word can refer to halacha, to hashkafa, to everything that makes up Jewish life and thought. "Torah" can also refer to that which is taught and learned by example, or by osmosis, or by a mother's tears when she bentshes lecht and davens for her children. "Al titosh Toras imecha." Every language has words like that, words whose precise meaning depends on context. Certainly in the Gemara itself there are many such words. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 29 06:18:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:18:11 +0000 Subject: What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem’s name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? Message-ID: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem's name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, HY"D the Av Bais Din of Shomloy in Hungary, once wrote a letter on this subject. It reads in part, "We have a tradition in our hands from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty, that the reading of the honored and awesome name of Hashem is AH -- DOY -- NOY (AH-DOE -- NOY or AH-DOW-NOY) using the vowelization of Chataf Patach for the Aleph, a Cholam for the Daled and a Kamatz for the Nun..." "Our master the Chasam Sofer and the author of the Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah, zt"l and a whole group of Geonim and Kedoshim have already warned us that unfortunately there are many mistakes concerning this. One needs to be very careful about this matter for a common mistake has spread among the masses and even among those with fear of Hashem. Through a lack of concentration, the Daled (of Hashem's pronounced name) is said with a Sheva as "AHD-ENOY." It is certain that whoever pronounces Hashem's name this way has not said Hashem's name at all and must repeat the bracha again, and so did the Chasam Sofer rule." Rav Shimon Schwab, zt"l in his classic work on Siddur, Iyun Tefilla (p. 25), adds that one should also be careful not to say AH -- DEE -- NOY. He writes: "One must pronounce the Daled with a Cholam (DOY, DOE or DOW) and the Nun with a Kamatz, and not use a Chirik under the Daled (DEE) as is the custom of some who are mistaken and think that they are pronouncing the Name properly... This is a disgrace of the honored and awesome Name. One who pronounces Hashem's name with a Chirik even a hundred times a day is not transgressing the prohibition of saying Hashem's name in vain." Rav Pinchas Scheinberg, zt"l was once asked if Ahd-enoy or Ahdeenoy are acceptable be'dieved, after the fact. His response was a resounding "No!" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 29 06:30:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zalman Alpert via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:30:39 -0400 Subject: What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem’s name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? In-Reply-To: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> References: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 29, 2017 10:18 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > From today's OU Halacha Yomis > > *Q. What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem?s name in Shmoneh Esrei > and other brachos?* There are different ways in Ashkenazi hebrew to pronounce many vowels like cholom zeira segol etc so this answer isof little meaning Galicianer Lithuanian German Ukrainian Hungarian and Central Polish jews each have their own pronunciation See Michtvei Torah by Gerer rebbe Imre Emes where opines different than what is written here Rabbi Heschel of Hamodia several yrs ago discussed this issue in a very cogent manner Although many American college educated frum Jews believe there is only 1way of halachic practice that is absurd,there are many authentic practices to the chagrin of a group of yedhivashe people seeking to impose uniform practicr namely their own Nehare nehare upishteh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 30 06:56:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:56:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Forgotten Fast Days Message-ID: <650c141a32674be8bd8ee65a52bc1d83@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see the article at https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5929 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 30 09:04:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:04:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Authority of Cherem deRabbeinu Gershom Message-ID: <20170630160442.GA20546@aishdas.org> AhS EhE 1:23,25 etc... refers to taqanos or gezeiros passed by Rabbein Gershon meOr haGolah and his contemporaries. Not the idiom I heard in the past, "cheirem deR' Gershom" -- not even the same last letter on the name. Since this was well after the last beis din hagadol / Sanhedrin (so far), we have discussed in the past where the authority to pass such laws came from. My own suggestion revolved around them being charamim for anyone who... rather than direct issurim. But the AhS would be more medayeiq to call them charamim if he thought that was a critical part of the mechanism. But here is something that had me wondering all over again. AhS EhE 119:17... The question is how a gett given without the wife's agreement would be valid if one holds "i avid lo mahani" (like Rava). And yet the Rama says "avar vegirshah ba"k" he is an avaryan (and thus in nidui) until she remarries. One it can't be fixed, because he cannot remarry his gerushah anymore, the nidui is removed. But the AhS writes, if this is true for a derabbanan (Kesuvor 81b) *kol shekein* dChdR"G hu kemo qarov le'isur Torah. Without explaining why. And I can't even figure out how it has the authority to be more than minhag altogether... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 13:45:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:45:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Aruch HaShulchan was not happy with the minhag that the baal haseder has his wine poured by someone else. He writes that it's a bit haughty to order his wife to pour for him and that in his city it was not the minhag. Aside from the interestingly contemporary sound of his concern, it seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for everyone to pour for everyone else, which would avoid the concern of the ArHaSh. 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? 2. If so is it a) based on the poskim, b) an old practice without formal endorsement, or c) a new-fangled sop to modernity? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 17:49:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzav: "As Long As The Soul Is Within Me, I Will Give Thanks Unto Thee, O Lord, My God And God Of My Fathers" Berakhot, 60b Message-ID: <476D9522-69B8-43D1-9E77-D0491911541D@cox.net> Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the korban todah, Thanksgiving Offering. The Medrash (Lev. R., 9.7) tells us that in the future all the sacrifices will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering. Rashi (Leviticus 7:12) states (paraphrased): A man offers a thanksgiving offering (in the Temple) when he is saved from potential danger. There are four types: sea travelers, desert travelers, those released from prison and a seriously ill patient who has recovered. As the verse says in Psalms (107:21), "They should give thanks to God for His kindness, and for His wonders to mankind.? Interestingly and providentially, the mnemonic for this group of four is Chayyim, which stands for [Chavush (jail), Yisurim (illness), Yam (sea), Midbar (desert)], (Shulchan Aruch 219:1). In our times, we fulfill this concept with the recitation of the blessing, HaGomel ("He who grants favors..."). There is a beautiful insight in the Avudraham on laws and commentary on prayers. The author was student of Ba'al HaTurim (R. Yaakov ben Asher) and was a rabbi in Seville. When the hazzan says Modim, the congregation recites the "Modim d'Rabbanan" (The Rabbis' Modim). Why is that? The Avudraham says that for all blessings in the Sh?moneh Esrei we can have an agent. For 'Heal Us', for 'Bless Us with a Good Year' and so forth we can have the sheliach tzibbur say the blessing for us. However, there is one thing that no one else can say for us. We must say it for ourselves. That one thing is "Thank You". Hoda'ah has to come from the individual. No one can be our agent to say 'Thank You.' (This is similar to asking for forgiveness. You must obtain it from the individual wronged. Not even the Almighty can forgive you for wronging a fellow human being). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 20:28:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:28:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: <5101c.42bfc52f.460fb895@aol.com> References: <5101c.42bfc52f.460fb895@aol.com> Message-ID: > "The Halachic Adventures of the Potato" ? by R' Yitzchak Spitz > https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5184 > [...] > In fact, and this is not widely known, the Chayei Adam does actually > rule this way, Sigh. This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location, but do *not* cheat by copying a citation from some secondary source; I will not accept it, because I know very well that there are many secondary sources who claim this, but none of them give a *valid* reference to where he wrote it. What I *have* seen in the Nishmas Adam is an aside, in the course of writing something different, that by the way in Germany they treat potatoes as kitniyos. In fact I'll go further: I don't believe that there has ever been a posek of any stature who forbade potatoes as kitniyos, nor any community that ever accepted such a practice. I have seen many sources claiming that someone else, somewhere else forbade it, or that some other community far away treats it as kitinyos, but never any first hand acccount. When the Rosh writes that in Provence they said Tal Umatar from Marcheshvan 7th I believe it, because he was there and saw it with his own eyes. But I have never seen anyone report having seen with his own eyes a community that forbids potatoes, or a psak din to that effect. It's always someone else somewhere else. Until I see a first hand account I don't believe it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 20:30:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:30:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked about guests in a shul where the guest's practices differ from the shul's. I am bothered by the question, and even more so by the responses. What has happened Porush Min Hatzibur? What has happened to Derech Eretz and simple good manners? (Previous discussions here on Avodah have claimed that some poskim actually hold that a visitor who davens Nusach Sfard should use that text even if he is in the tzibur of a Nusach Ashkenaz shul. Ditto for responding to Kedusha, so I will not discuss those particular examples.) But: > Would your shul allow a guest to say 13 middot aloud > by Tachanun (if local practice is not to)? We're not talking about a few words here, but approximately a whole page worth, that the tzibur would be forced to say. It's not clear from the question whether this guest is the shliach tzibur or not, but I think it is safe to say that in my shul, a shliach tzibur who tries this would be quickly informed of his error, and if it came from someone in the seats he'd simply be ignored. > Would your shul allow a guest to read his own Aliya? >From your use of the word "guest", I am presuming that this was not arranged in advance. If the guest had approached the gabbai a few days in advance to make this request, I don't know what the answer would be. But it sounds like the guest was called up, and at that point he asked the koreh, "May I read it myself?", as in the story that R' Josh Meisner told. I am horrified by the lack of consideration that this guest has toward the time and effort that the baal koreh put into preparing the laining. In RJM's story this happened on Rosh Chodesh, and I do concede that RC is by far the most frequently read parsha of all. But the question as posed was more general, applicable to any laining whether weekday or Shabbos. I am particularly surprised by the reaction of RJM's rav, who <<< insisted ... that the next two olim also read their own aliyos so as not to directly draw a distinction between those who read their own aliyah and those who do not. >>> While I appreciate the sensitivity involved, I am really surprised that this shul has such a large pool of people who can be called upon to lain properly, even for Rosh Chodesh - literally at a moment's notice. How common is this? Are there shuls where any randomly chosen person is able to lain? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 03:40:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:40:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chazkah that changed Message-ID: <> I would venture that according to everyone chazakot in financial matters can change. The famous case is a borrower who denies everything (kofer ba-kol) according to the Torah he doesn't pay anything and is not required to swear since no borrower would be brazen to completely deny a lie. The gemara says that "today" people are brazen and so we require a "shevua". I would guess that other financial chazakot for example that someone doesnt repay a loan ahead of time would depend on the current situation. If today there would be some reason for people to pay back a loan early that I would guess that the halacha indeed would change. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 04:01:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:01:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Visiting a Shul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJRich asked: > Visiting a shul questions-actual practices and sources appreciated: > * Would your shul allow a guest to read his own Aliya? > * Would your shul allow a guest to say his own nussach of kaddish (not as shatz)? > * Would your shul (in galut) allow the shatz not to say baruch hashem l'olam in maariv? > * Would your shul allow a guest to say 13 middot aloud by Tachanun(if local practice is not to)? > * Would the answers be different if requested before prayer (vs. gabbai intervention at time of event)? Me: In all those cases, in our shul, local minhag trumps the wishes of the guest, though we won't jump at anyone for adding vekooraiv mesheechay or werewa'h weassalah. Sometimes the reading of one's own aliya may be tolerated. When I was an avel, I mostly davvened in shuls that did not adhere to my minhag (though I layer "converted" to one of those other minhaggim), and as shaliach tzibbur, always followed their respective minhaggim. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 06:15:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:15:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked about guests in a shul where the guest's practices differ from the shul's. I am bothered by the question, and even more so by the responses. What has happened Porush Min Hatzibur? What has happened to Derech Eretz and simple good manners? ----------------------------- I have seen them all occur. What triggered the question was a shiur on yutorah where a pulpit rabbi mentioned that a visiting guest sfardi scholar asked in advance and was granted the right to read his own aliya. I was surprised and then thought of other situations that I had a similar reaction to. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 19:16:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 22:16:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Poisoning in Halacha Message-ID: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> Tonight my chevrusa and I learned the sugya in Bava Kamma 47b of one who puts poison in front of his friend's animal. A brief synopsis and application of the sugya is at http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/infected: ?A person put some poisoned food in front of his neighbor?s animal,? Rabbi Dayan said. ?The animal ate the food and died. The owner sued the neighbor for killing his animal. What do you say about this case?? ?I would say he?s liable,? said Mr. Wolf. ?He poisoned the animal.? ?I?m not so sure,? objected Mr. Mann. ?The neighbor didn?t actually kill the animal. Although he put out the poison, the animal chose to eat the food.? ?Animals don?t exactly have choice,? reasoned Mr. Wolf. ?If they see food, they eat! Anyway, even if the neighbor didn?t directly kill the animal, he certainly brought about the animal?s death.? ?But is that enough to hold him liable?? argued Mr. Mann. He turned to Rabbi Dayan.?The Gemara (B.K. 47b; 56a) teaches that placing poison before an animal is considered grama,? answered Rabbi Dayan. ?The animal did not have to eat the poisoned food. Therefore, the neighbor is not legally liable in beis din, but he is responsible b?dinei Shamayim. This means that he has a strong moral liability to pay, albeit not enforceable in beis din (Shach 386:23; 32:2).? It struck us that it follows that if one poisons another human being by, say, placing cyanide in his tea, which the victim then drinks and dies, the poisoner is exempt from capitol punishment. It would seem that such a manner of murder falls into the category of the Rambam's ruling in Hilchos Rotze'ach u'Shemiras Nefesh 3:10: Different rules apply, however, in the following instances: A person binds a colleague and leaves him to starve to death; he binds him and leaves him in a place that will ultimately cause him to be subjected to cold or heat, and these influences indeed come and kill the victim; he covers him with a barrel; he uncovers the roof of the building where he was staying; or he causes a snake to bite him. Needless to say, a distinction is made if a colleague dispatches a dog or a snake at a colleague. In all the above instances, the person is not executed. He is, nevertheless, considered to be a murderer, and "the One who seeks vengeance for bloodshed" will seek vengeance for the blood he shed. (translation from http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1088919/jewish/Rotzeach-uShmirat-Nefesh-Chapter-Three.htm) Perhaps this was a davar pashut to everyone else, but for me, tonight, it was a mind-boggling revelation! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 06:05:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:05:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hilchos Chol HaMoed Message-ID: <1491224727245.62311@stevens.edu> >From the article at http://tinyurl.com/l8ll4lf The following is meant as a convenient review of Halachos pertaining to Chol-Hamoed. The Piskei Din for the most part are based purely on the Sugyos, Shulchan Aruch and Rama, and the Mishna Berurah, unless stated otherwise. They are based on my understanding of the aforementioned texts through the teachings of my Rebbeim. As individual circumstances are often important in determining the psak in specific cases, and as there may be different approaches to some of the issues, one should always check with one's Rov first. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 12:50:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:50:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> > RZS: > In fact I'll go further: I don't believe that there has ever been a > posek of any stature who forbade potatoes as kitniyos, nor any community > that ever accepted such a practice. I have seen many sources claiming > that someone else, somewhere else forbade it, or that some other > community far away treats it as kitinyos, but never any first hand > acccount. When the Rosh writes that in Provence they said Tal Umatar > from Marcheshvan 7th I believe it, because he was there and saw it with > his own eyes. But I have never seen anyone report having seen with his > own eyes a community that forbids potatoes, or a psak din to that > effect. It's always someone else somewhere else. Until I see a first > hand account I don't believe it. > This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade potatoes. David Riceman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 09:15:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 12:15:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: <7f1aa7e091a1468c8cc6c5df61f610ac@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <7f1aa7e091a1468c8cc6c5df61f610ac@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <29.EA.10233.B3572E85@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 11:57 AM 4/3/2017, Ben Bradley wrote: >The Aruch HaShulchan was not happy with the minhag that the baal >haseder has his wine poured by someone else. He writes that it's a >bit haughty to order his wife to pour for him and that in his city >it was not the minhag. > >Aside from the interestingly contemporary sound of his concern, it >seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for everyone to >pour for everyone else, which would avoid the concern of the ArHaSh. > > >1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? In my home the children poured my wine once they were big enough and now my older grandchildren do this. And they pour for my wife also. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 10:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:10:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bourbon no Longer an Automatic, Faces Kashrus Issues Message-ID: <1491239439011.48127@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/kh92xxv "Companies that once distilled just a few barrels of bourbon every year are now churning out dozens of other drinks-Sherries, brandies, flavored vodkas-which might not be kosher. They can contaminate the bourbon, Rabbi Litvin said, if the liquors are run through the same pipes or tanks." The Litvins, a family that lives in Louisville, "have taken it upon themselves to keep bourbon kosher." Despite the fact that Jews are proportionately poor Bourbon consumers (it is an $8.5 billion industry), there has been a dramatic increase in demand in recent years, particularly by younger kosher consumers. "Alcohol consumption has definitely increased manifold," said one kosher wine and spirits expert. Heaven Hill, one of the largest liquor companies in the world, is owned by a Jewish family, but only a few of the bourbons-Evan Williams, the company's largest brand, and the high-end single-barrel whiskeys-are still guaranteed to be kosher. The others are run through the same pipes and storage tanks as other products, including untold flavors of vodka, spiced rum and mint whiskey. ______________________________________________________________ I guess that I have been ahead of the trends, because I have been drinking bourbon for decades and never liked Scotch. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 12:21:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:21:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Good manners will open doors that the best education cannot. Clarence Thomas Message-ID: <708AB73F-9427-468E-AAEE-C0DD97D63B94@cox.net> One of my doors recently broke and I?m having a new one installed Wednesday. It brought to mind a MIdrash I once learned telling of the basic distinctiveness of the Jewish door and the secret of its architectural design, which served as a protection against annihilation. ?And strike the upper doorpost through the merit of Abraham, and the two side-posts, in the merit of Isaac and Jacob. It was for their merit that HE saw the blood and would not suffer the destroyer? (Midrash Rabbah XVII - 3 Exodus). It set me to thinking. Aren?t the doors to a home indicative of the nature and character of those who live beyond them? I began to think of doors with various emblems displayed upon them. Some say: ?We have given.? ?No Beggars or Peddlers Allowed.? ?Nobody lives here,? etc. But next Monday evening, the Jewish emblem on the entrance door will say: "Let all who are hungry, come and eat." On this Festival of Pesach, let not Judaism pass over our doors. When we open our doors to welcome Eliyahu Hanavi, let us keep it open wide, to welcome all that is positive, invigorating and creative in Jewish life. Let our doors be indicative of proud Jewish occupants. Let us display our Mezuzot not as mere adornments but as emblems which proudly proclaim for all to see: ?We are proud to be the sons and daughters of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and we are determined to carry on in their tradition. Grief is a room without doors but Passover?s power not only changes that situation but it sends Eliyahu Hanavi right through. Truncated clich?, rw From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:11:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> References: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> Message-ID: On 03/04/17 15:50, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: >> > This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a > friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly > gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one > ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. > Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras > kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade > potatoes. That comes close, but not close enough. If the name of the town were given, so that one could track down other families from that town and verify it, then I'd accept it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:17:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:17:00 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach Message-ID: *<<*This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location >> *Nishmas* *Adam*, *Hilchos* *Pesach*, Question 20 (from the article on Potatos) mentions retzke that are called tatarka which are used to make flour are kitniyot My yiddish is very limited I saw one place that translated this as corn while another used buckwheat later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called erdeffel which I saw a translation as potatos. If this translation is accurate then the Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that allowed potatos on Pesach in case of a major famine. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:43:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:43:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170403204335.GC6792@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:17:00PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not : true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or : whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location >> : : Nishmas Adam, Hilchos Pesach, Question 20 (from the article on : Potatos) mentions : retzke that are called tatarka which are used to make flour are kitniyot It's Kelal 119, Q 20. : later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called erdeffel which : I saw a translation as potatos. If this translation is accurate then the : Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that allowed potatos on Pesach : in case of a major famine. And so, as Zev pointed out, it is untrue that the CA advocated this position. Which is what is commonly retold. (At least, in my experience.) The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:47:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:47:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 01:15:37PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What triggered the question was a shiur on yutorah where a pulpit : rabbi mentioned that a visiting guest sfardi scholar asked in advance : and was granted the right to read his own aliya. I was surprised and : then thought of other situations that I had a similar reaction to. Isn't there a problem that the second you let those who are able to lein for themselves, you destroyed the minhag of leveling the playing field with a baal qeri'ah? Along thse lines, my father -- who certainly doesn't have to -- reads the berachos from the card on the bimah. The whole procedure is built around avoiding embarassing those less educated Jewishly. And today, where so many who get aliyos may be newer baalei teshuvah who don't know the berakhos by heart, shouldn't everyone read the berakhos, just the way everyone has a shaliach do the reading? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 14:34:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:34:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> References: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 03/04/17 16:47, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Along thse lines, my father -- who certainly doesn't have to -- reads > the berachos from the card on the bimah. The whole procedure is built > around avoiding embarassing those less educated Jewishly. As I understand it, the purpose of reading the brachos from a card is to make it clear that one is not reading them from the Torah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 14:30:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:30:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> On 03/04/17 16:17, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not >> true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or >> Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the >> location > Nishmas/ /Adam/, /Hilchos/ /Pesach/, Question 20 (from the article > on Potatos) Yes, I'm obviously aware of this reference, which *does not say* what so many people cite it as saying, because they saw it cited to that effect somewhere else, and have not bothered looking it up. This is frankly getting up my nose, which is why I specified that I am not interested in citations that the poster has not looked up himself and verified that they actually say what they are represented as saying. > mentions retzke that are called tatarka which are used to > make flour are kitniyot My yiddish is very limited I saw one place > that translated this as corn while another used buckwheat Retchke, or Gretchke, means normal buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum). Tatarke means Tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum). > later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called > erdeffel which I saw a translation as potatos. Yes, bulbes are potatoes. as in the famous song "Zuntik bulbes, Montik bulbes". > If this translation is > accurate then the Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that > allowed potatos on Pesach in case of a major famine. He reports having heard that in 1771-72 there was a famine and the community of Frth convened a beis din which permitted potatoes and kitniyos, but not buckwheat. His purpose in citing this is simply to demonstrate that buckwheat is worse than kitniyos, since even in this extreme case they refused to permit it. Of course this immediately causes the reader to wonder why they'd need a heter for potatoes, so he throws in the explanation that in Germany they don't eat them on Pesach. Of course anyone who sees this can see immediately that (a) he reports this practise neutrally, without expressing any support for it, and (b) he doesn't claim first hand knowledge that it even exists, but merely repeat a rumour he'd heard about some other place. Somehow, in the hands of irresponsible people, this seems to have transformed into the received wisdom that he forbade potatoes, or wanted to forbid them, or thought they ought to be forbidden, etc, none of which has the slightest tinge of truth, and it's perpetuated by lazy and dishonest people who repeat it as fact, complete with a fake citation which they have not bothered to verify. This, in turn, by exaggerating the extent of gezeras kitniyos, is used to make it seem ridiculous, onerous, impractical, and ripe for reform. On 03/04/17 16:43, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. and did so merely as a rumour. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 20:11:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:11:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder Message-ID: R' Ben Bradley wrote: > it seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for > everyone to pour for everyone else, which would avoid the > concern of the ArHaSh. > > 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? The ArtScroll Haggadah says (in the instructions for Kiddush), "The participants fill each others' cups", without mentioning any minhagim to the contrary. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat, in Halachos of Pesach, on pg 468, cites Haggada Kol Dodi (Rav Dovid Feinstein) 7:2, writing: > The Ramoh (473;1) specifies that the leader of the Seder > should not fill his own cup, but should allow others to pour > for him, as this displays cheirus (freedom). > > Although the wording of the Ramoh seems to imply that this > requirement only applies to the host and leader of the Seder, > the general custom is to do this for all the participants. > Most people therefore pour the wine for each other at each > juncture of the Four Cups. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 03:40:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 06:40:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> References: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170404104004.GA3715@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 05:30:34PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. : and did so merely as a rumour. What he repeated was a story about someone making an exception to their minhag. The explanation as to why the minhag was needed isn't given as part of the story. And if the CA puts the story into writing and uses in halachic argument, he obviously thought it was more than mere rumor. Still, not his own position, not even something he advised in theory, even before ein hatzibur yakhol laamod bah considerations. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 05:52:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 12:52:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman Message-ID: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> There is a shiur about this at http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 19:29:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 22:29:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Isn't there a problem that the second you let those who > are able to lein for themselves, you destroyed the minhag > of leveling the playing field with a baal qeri'ah? Yes, that's what MB 141:8 says. Actually, that MB goes a bit farther, and points out that "harbeh" such people *don't* know the laining so well, and the result is that the tzibur isn't yotzay. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 06:42:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:42:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato Message-ID: "This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade potatoes." This has nothing to do with potatoes but I was talking to the wife of a Moroccan this morning and she said that he told her (third-hand again) that many Moroccan towns had their own minhagim. For example, in one town they didn't use sugar because it was stored in bags near grain. So it's certainly possibly true about potatoes as well. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 06:23:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:23:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: from an OU bulletin My grandparents, may they rest in peace, would be startled to discover that I can purchase OUP kosher for Passover items such as breakfast cereals, pizza, bread sticks, rolls, blintzes, waffles, pierogis and farfel. OTOH the OU has many chumrot on what is kitniyot I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily be mixed up with chametz. It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 08:58:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:58:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> On 04/04/17 09:23, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer > makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as > kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. > > To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and > bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our predecessors made. Thus the machlokes acharonim about newly discovered legumes and pseudo-grains: was the original gezera only on certain species, or was it on the entire class? Most acharonim seem to say it was on the entire class, but then argue about how to define that class, and thus how to decide what it includes. But very few if any say zil basar ta`ma to include new things that definitely don't fall in the original definition of the banned class. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 09:45:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 19:45:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> References: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> Message-ID: <6bd3ddad-9fb6-b9ae-d7e5-edded0b2f267@starways.net> On 4/4/2017 6:58 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 04/04/17 09:23, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> >> It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer >> makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as >> kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. >> >> To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and >> bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. > > It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no > authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our > predecessors made. I was under the impression that gezeirot weren't something that could be instituted after the Sanhedrin. Even Rabbenu Gershom only instituted his rules as chramim, rather than gezeirot. And the minhag (not gezeira by any stretch of the imagination) was made by local rabbis for local conditions and local situations. Conditions and situations change. I realize that the reason we differentiate between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan law is because there's a meforash commandment of bal tosif. But we can learn out from that on some level that we shouldn't be jumbling up gezeirot and takkanot and cheramim and minhagim and siyagim and treating them like they're all the same. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:43:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 20:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58ee56f4-ffb7-2f3d-6cf8-93f18c2d7746@zahav.net.il> See my post a week ago in which I cited Rav Yoel Ben Nun and Rav Yosef Rimon as both taking the position that we need to ban flour substitutes and relax on kitniyot. Ben On 4/4/2017 3:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals > and bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:13:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:23:37PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer : makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as : kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. : : To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and : bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. In this era of packaged foods and heksheirim, the whole minhag makes no sense. People aren't deciding on their own whether quinoa is qitniyos. Or whether some sack contains pure peas with no wheat from the bottom of the silo. Or would eat a porridge based on a guess about whether it was pea or oatmeal. (The fact that I get my *unflavored* gourmet whole-leaf teas without a KLP symbol -- something little different than buying any [other] vegetable -- makes my wife nervous.) The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:58:06AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no : authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our : predecessors made... Well, they lacked that authority too. This is minhag, not gezeira. And the notion that we should be bery mimetic and work with what our ancestors actually did rather than what their rationale would imply in our context works even better with minhagim than with gezeiros. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:01:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman In-Reply-To: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> References: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170404180132.GB8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : There is a shiur about this at : http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz So, I am listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on YUTorah at this link. He opens by saying that the afiqoman (epikomion) must be before chatzos, and very likely the 4th cup too. So, kol hamarbeh means adding to the END of the seder, not having a longer Maggid that will push past chatzos. (Eg tzeis is 8:12pm in NY, as MyZmanim computes it -- 36 min as degrees, and chatzos is 12:56. So, we're talking Qadeish to the end of Hallel in 4 hr 44 min. Unhitting pause...) The Avnei Neizer (R Avrohom Bornsztain, the first Sochatchover Rebbe, descendant of both the Ramah and the Shach) argues that if you are finishing by chatzos to fulfil R Gamliel's shitah, then you could eat other foods after chatzos. And if you are not eating the rest of the night, that's because you're worried that if the mitzvah is indeed alkl night (unlike RG), ein maftirin achar hapesach would also be all night. So, the AN suggests that a moment before chatzos, eat a piece of matzah al tenai that if the halakhah is like Rabban Gamliel, it will be your afiqoman. Then, don't eat the minute or two until chatzos -- for R' Gamliel's en maftirin. Then, go back to eating (as long as you finish before alos), concluding with another afiqoman, also al tenai -- thus fulfilling the other ein maftirin. (BTW, note that the seder in the hagadah that went until zeman qeri'as Shema didn't include Rabban Gamliel.) R Meir Arik in Kol Torah uses this to answer a problematic Rashbam (Pesachim 121). The Rashbam says you're allowed to bring qorbanos todah or nedavah on erev Pesach. But you're not allowed to bring a qorban where you are mema'et the zeman akhilah, and the zeman akhilah for these qorbanos is until the morning. So how could you bring them on a day where ein maftirin achar hapesach will limit the time in which they could be eaten? But according to the Avnei Neizer, you can fulfill ein maftirin for both shitos and only limit eating for a moment before chatzos, by eating that 2nd afiqoman at the last possible time. However, there is a lot of opposition to the AN's chiddush. RALebowitz says there are 6 questions, but he's running out of time. 1- The Baal haMaor and the Ran's explanation for why ein maftirin would work with the AN. But the Ramban says the problem was that having so many people needing to eat their kezayis qorban pesach bein hachomos before chatzos, there was a worry that people would eat early, when still famished. (Which is assur derabbanan, gezeirah maybe they'll break bones. The question of why ein maftirin wouldn't then be a gezeira al hagezeira was not raised in the shiur.) Which means that even if the zeman for the qorban is until chatzos, if people could still plan a late dinner, they could rely on that and still eat their pesach while very hungry. 2- RMF (IM OC vol 5, pg 123) brings several objections. One basic one: even the AN says he never saw anyone do this before. RMF found it tamuha to rely on a sevara be'alma to change so many generations of mimeticism. (An argument that touches on some hot topics today.) 3- RMF adds that one needs to prove that the zman akhilah and the zeman ta'am are the same. Maybe the chiyuv of having the taste in your mouth happens to run longer? 4- The Chasam Sofer writes against doing a mitzvah mitoras safeiq. Similar to Rabbeinu Yonah's (on Berakhos) explanation for why an asham talui is more expensive than a chatas. Because we need to correct the "I probably didn't do anything wrong" attitude. If you never know when you're fulfilling the mitzvah, kavah will be lacking. RALebowitz then gives eidus from R Wolf that R Willig finishes his 4th kos right before chatzos. And timing then becomes a central theme during the seder. R' Avraham Pam said on many occations that we have to be aware of those who spent all that time making the seder. (Typically the wives and mothers.) Sometimes we spend so much time on Magid, that we then rush through the beautiful se'udah they made to get to the last kos on time. RAP thought that this bein adam lachaveiro issue is sufficient to justify relying on the Avnei Neizer. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 12:21:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 21:21:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <496ab467-1c33-a721-97d2-48512539e648@zahav.net.il> Rav Rimon's Hagaddah specifies that the minhag is to pour the wine/grape juice of the ba'al habayit alone. He also notes that there are those who don't follow the custom. In the footnotes, he cites that when people put water in their wine, it wasn't derech cheirut for the home owner to do it himself. Today, that isn't the case and it is common for everyone to pour his own wine/grape juice. He also cites the AHS' opposition. Ben On 4/4/2017 5:11 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? > > The ArtScroll Haggadah says (in the instructions for Kiddush), "The > participants fill each others' cups", without mentioning any minhagim > to the contrary. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:21:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:21:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Fungibility of Mitzvos Message-ID: <20170404182125.GD8762@aishdas.org> As y'all know, I'm obsessed with this topic. The notion of metaphysical causality that interferes with "you get what you deserve / need" bothers me. So I appreciated RNSlifkin finding these sources. http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2017/04/can-you-do-mitzvos-to-benefit-others.html Tir'u baTov! -Micha Can You Do Mitzvos To Benefit Others? April 03, 2017 Can you do mitzvos in such a way that the merit for them will benefit other people? Can you designate them to receive the reward for your mitzvah in their mitzvah bank account, such that they receive more Divine favor? A friend of mine recently forwarded to me a request on behalf of someone who is tragically unwell. The community was requested to pray for his recovery, which is certainly a time-honored Jewish response. But there was also a request to do mitzvos on his behalf, as a merit for God to heal him. My friend wanted to know if there was any classical Jewish basis for this. In my essay "What Can One Do For Someone Who Has Passed Away?" I noted that classically, one's mitzvos are only a credit to those people who had a formative influence on you. One's mitzvos cannot help the souls of other people. Rashba cites a responsum from Rav Sherira Gaon on this: "A person cannot merit someone else with reward; his elevation and greatness and pleasure from the radiance of the Divine Presence is only in accordance with his deeds." (Rashba, Responsa, Vol. 7 #539) Maharam Alashkar cites Rav Hai Gaon who firmly rejects the notion that one can transfer the reward of a mitzvah to another person and explains why this is impossible: "These concepts are nonsense and one should not rely upon them. How can one entertain the notion that the reward of good deeds performed by one person should go to another person? Surely the verse states, 'The righteousness of a righteous person is on him,' (Ezek. 18:20) and likewise it states, 'And the wickedness of a wicked person is upon him.' Just as nobody can be punished on account of somebody else's sin, so too nobody can merit the reward of someone else. How could one think that the reward for mitzvos is something that a person can carry around with him, such that he can transfer it to another person?" (Maharam Alashkar, Responsa #101) The same view is found explicitly and implicitly in other sources, as I noted in my essay. There is simply no mechanism to transfer the reward for one's own mitzvos to other people. It seems that only very recent mystical-based sources claim otherwise. Now, I don't see any reason why there should be any difference if the person that one is trying to help is deceased or alive. Nor do I know of any source in classical rabbinic literature that one can do a mitzvah as a merit to help someone that is sick. Prayer, yes. And Tehillim are also a form of prayer (though it may depend upon which Tehillim are being recited). But I know of no classical source that one can honor one's parents or learn Torah or send away a mother bird as a merit for somebody else. (The most common example of people attempting to do this may be the custom of women to separate challah on behalf of a sick person. Here too, though, it appears that the classical basis of this is not that the mitzvah of separating challah is crediting the sick person, but rather that the person separating the challah thereby has a special time of power/inspiration, which makes their prayer more powerful.) If I'm wrong in any of the above, I'll be glad to see sources showing otherwise. But so far, I have found that while people are shocked when one challenges the notion that you can learn Torah on behalf of someone who is sick, nobody has yet actually come up with any classical sources demonstrating otherwise. Furthermore, if this indeed was a part of classical Judaism, we would certainly expect it to have prominent mention in the writings of Chazal and the Rishonim. We appear to have another situation of something widespread that is believed to be an integral and classical part of Judaism, and yet is actually a modern innovation that has no basis in classical Judaism whatsoever. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:33:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:33:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> References: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we > start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system > will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. > > Mehila, but aren't you being rather Chicken Little (or is your tongue somewhere in the direction of your cheek?) We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other minhagim that people are so set against any change? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 12:22:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 19:22:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot Message-ID: > The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we > start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system will > collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and many modern oils RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and cottonseed oil and this is being expanded by many I don't see this as destroying a Mimetic tradition the reason to include canola oil is that it is similar to Kitniyot even though it or even corn oil did not exist at the time of the generation So the question is why extend the minhagim to canola oil when the problem of the confusion doesn't exist but we don't extend it to non chametz cereal or breadstick where the possibility of mistakes is greater As previously mentioned rsza was against these chametz look a like products as are several contemporary rabbis OTOH the outside is nachman in lecithin in candies where there are many reasons to be making and they are making in chametz looking and tasting products where many are machmir From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 13:15:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170404201511.GI8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:33:22PM +0300, Simon Montagu wrote: : We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha : hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other : minhagim that people are so set against any change? Sorry if this will sound like circular reasoning, but it isn't because of the time lag: Minhagim that are *currently* treated very seriously can't be broken *going forward* as readliy simply because of the psychological / experiential impact of bending or breaking something that is so vehemently held. Since my argument is about mimetics, halakhah-as-culture, you can't necessarily get a textual / theory-based answer. On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 07:22:32PM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote: : We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them : My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and : many modern oils RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and : cottonseed oil and this is being expanded by many .. Well, RMF didn't actively permit peanut oil as much as report that back in Litta, peanuts were commonly consumed on Pesach. According to R/Dr Bannet, within my lifetime peanut oil was THE go-to oil for Pesach. But that's Litta. Minhag Litta didn't expand qitniyos to legumes found in the New World, after the original minhag formed. (Although they did take on avoiding New World grain -- maize / corn.) Minhag Litta was also lenient on mei qitniyos, and a far broader range of the northern half of Eastern Europe (I don't know what Yekkes hold) were lenient on shemes qitniyos in particular. Yes, by my minhagim, there are two reasons not to need a special formula for KLP Coke. If we could get anyone to give a hekhsher to certify there is nothing "worse" than mei New World qitniyos in it. But other parts of Europe went by reasoning, and did have stringencies including liquids and oils. That's their minhag, and it always was their minhag. Which gets me to my point: It's not really that any rav is expanding minhagim. It's that the heksher industry is going to be cost efficient. Heksheirim that say something is okay for 2/3 of their audience don't survive. Causing a lest-common-denominator approach to the spread of minhagim. Like trying to find reliable non-glatt meat in the US; the larger hekhsheirim don't even try. And so, as more move into the area whose minhagim exclude using peanut oil on Pesach, it becomes harder to find KLP certified peanut oil, and all too quickly people forget what was once the norm. I think that framing it as pesaqim and machloqes is imprecise. It's more like watching the evolution of new minhagim as our new communities from mixtures of the old ones. Not necessarily in directions we would like, but at least that's the framework in question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:11:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:11:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/17 15:22, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them We have no more authority to limit them than to eliminate them altogether. > My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and > many modern oils What people do has no relation to what they have the right to do. > RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and cottonseed oil RMF (almost alone) holds that the original gezera was on particular species, and peanuts were never included. The machlokes about cottonseed oil is precisely about whether it is a kind of kitnis or not. > the reason to include canola oil is that it is similar to Kitniyot > even though it or even corn oil did not exist at the time of the > generation Whether the oil existed then is lechol hade'os irrelevant. If the species is included in the ban then all forms are included. RMF however would presumably say that since rapeseed was not an edible species at the time, it was not included. Most acharonim, who hold that the ban was on the whole category, would presumably include it. > So the question is why extend the minhagim to canola oil when the problem > of the confusion doesn't exist but we don't extend it to non chametz cereal > or breadstick where the possibility of mistakes is greater Once again, because no individual rav or group of rabbanim have the authority to permit what is already forbidden, or to forbid for the entire people what is currently permitted. > As previously mentioned rsza was against these chametz look a like products That he was against something doesn't make it assur. > as are several contemporary rabbis OTOH the outside is nachman in lecithin > in candies where there are many reasons to be making and they are making in > chametz looking and tasting products where many are machmir But what authority do they have for this? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:33:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 17:33:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman In-Reply-To: References: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <0A.54.10233.A4114E85@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:01 PM 4/4/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via >Avodah wrote: >: There is a shiur about this at >: http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz > >So, I am listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on YUTorah at this link. >R' Avraham Pam said on many occations that we have to be aware of >those who spent all that time making the seder. (Typically the wives >and mothers.) Sometimes we spend so much time on Magid, that we then >rush through the beautiful se'udah they made to get to the last kos on >time. RAP thought that this bein adam lachaveiro issue is sufficient to >justify relying on the Avnei Neizer. Rav Schwab in his shiur on the seder (to be found in Rav Schwab on Prayer) suggests eating very little during the Seder besides the required amounts of Matzah and Moror, so that one will have room and appetite for the Afikoman and not have to "force" oneself to eat it. I do not know what Rebbetzen Schwab prepared for the Seder meal, but I assume it was not an elaborate meal based on what she knew Rav Schwab would eat. I know that R. Miller would not allow his children or grandchildren to read from the sheets that they came home with from Yeshiva. He told them to save it for later, probably the next day. And since I mentioned all of the material that the kids come home with from school, let me say that IMO the schools "spoil" the seder. To me it is clear from the Gemara in Pesachim that the children are not supposed to be "primed" with all sorts of knowledge about the Seder. The things we do are supposed to be new to them so that they will ask questions. My children when they were young and my younger grandchildren now know enough to conduct the Seder themselves! There is nothing new for them. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:59:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:59:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah Message-ID: I understand that one cannot use Egg Matza for the mitzva of Achilas Matza, but I'm not sure exactly why. I'm aware of two different reasons, and they seem mutually exclusive. 1) The Torah requires that this mitzva be done with "lechem oni" - poor bread, plain and lacking the richness that it would have if it were made with eggs, juice, oil, or the like. 2) Matza must be something that could have become chometz, but was baked before chimutz could occur. According to those who hold that flour and pure mei peiros will not ever become chometz, "matza ashira" isn't really halachic matza at all. I suspect that I am conflating various shitos, and that according to any individual shita, one reason or the other will apply, but not both. Can someone help me out? Thanks! Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:27:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:27:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I understand it, the purpose of reading the brachos from a card is to make it clear that one is not reading them from the Torah. I believe that's the reason for turning one's head to the side, haven't seen that as the reason for using a card. And that's only according to the opinion that the oleh leaves the Sefer Torah open while making the brachos. The opinion that the Sefer Torah should be closed is for the same reason if memory serves, and then of course no card would be needed at all. So I presume the reason for the card is simply for people who need it. Given that the whole reason for having a designated baal koreh in the first place was to save the embarassment of those who can't read their own aliya, I'm bemused by the permission for someone to decide they'd like to read their own aliya. Unless you say that a well known talmid chacham, or a guest of honour, would not embarrass the other olim by reading his aliya since he's known as a scholar. It does seem that avoiding the chashash of embarrassment was more important to chazal than to many contemporary kehillos. Maybe it needs some chizuk. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 23:41:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 06:41:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot Message-ID: And so, as more move into the area whose minhagim exclude using peanut oil on Pesach, it becomes harder to find KLP certified peanut oil, and all too quickly people forget what was once the norm. Which is a difference between Israel and USA Israel with a large sefardi community has top level hasgacha on kiniyot products also many candies now list that they contain lecithin so that the consumer can decide rather than the hasgacha deciding -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 20:45:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 23:45:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/17 17:27, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > Given that the whole reason for having a designated baal koreh in the > first place was to save the embarassment of those who can't read their > own aliya, I'm bemused by the permission for someone to decide they'd > like to read their own aliya. Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone wants to do his own, why not? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 21:53:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:53:50 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Are Mitzvos Fungible Message-ID: Obviously, and in spite of all the stories of people selling their Olam Haba it is a nonsense - good and evil deeds cannot be redeemed or transferred by a financial transaction or any agreement HOWEVER if anyone is inspired to do a good [or evil] deed or desist doing an evil [or good] deed because of another persons influence clearly that influencing person is rewarded accordingly and so when we learn Torah or do any other other Mitzvah and we are inspired to do it because of an institution or a person be they in Olam HaEmes or in this world a Zechis accrues for that person Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 21:18:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:18:03 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru - We have no authority to decree new gezeros Message-ID: Although it has been said on these hallowed pages Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru - We have no authority to decree new gezeros yet many felt that the new stainless steel Shechitah knives were forbidden machicne Matza was forbidden Ben PeKuAh is forbidden they're even arguing that soft Matza is forbidden for Ashkenazim etc. But it is Kula Chada Gezeira Thus newly discovered foods are Kitniyos And whatever the truth is we are V lucky that potato was not included and not reversed remember when peanuts were KLP? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 03:01:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:01:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pate de Foie Gras Message-ID: <20170405100107.GA16249@aishdas.org> Daf Yomi learners just learned BB 73b. It looks to me like the gemara is condemning, although on an aggadic level, the preparation of pate de foi gras. Since I can't quote the gemara, here's R' Steinzaltz's commentary (from : And Rabba bar bar Hana said: Once we were traveling in the desert and we saw these geese whose wings were sloping because they were so fat, and streams of oil flowed beneath them. I said to them: Shall we have a portion of you in the World-to-Come? One raised a wing, and one raised a leg, [signaling an affirmative response]. When I came before Rabbi Elazar, he said to me: The Jewish people will [eventually] be held accountable for [the suffering] of [the geese. Since the Jews do not repent, the geese are forced to continue to grow fat as they wait to be given to the Jewish people as a reward.] Rashbam ("litein aleihem es hadin"): For in their sins, they delay mashiach. They, those geese, have tza'ar ba'alei chaim because of their fat. Apparently even the messianic se'udah is insufficient grounds to justify torturing geese for their fat. Also implied is that the sin of making the geese suffer in their obesity is not a sin so great at to itself holding up the mashiach's arrival. Otherwise, R' Elazar would be describing a vicious cycle. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 03:51:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:51:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on > kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU > gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be > prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily > be mixed up with chametz. > > It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if > no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the > same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. I am both surprised and confused, by this post and almost all the ones that followed. It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and gebroks. Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right? So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate gebroks. I am not surprised that amei haaretz like myself have trouble understanding the definitions of kitniyos. But one thing is for sure: That our rabanim ought to understand that kitniyos and gebroks are two different things. Some might respond that today's "farfel, bread sticks etc" are being made not of matza meal but of potato and tapioca. I don't see that as relevant. *ANY* definition of kitniyos has to be one that doesn't include matza meal. And if matza meal is excluded, then you can't include potatoes merely because they are so useful. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 05:20:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:20:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <50BEA150-B533-4159-AFEB-ADE8B18EB7E1@sibson.com> > Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone wants to do his own, why not? > > -- Synagogue practices in particular are a very sensitive area, at least according to rabbi Soloveutchik. THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 08:56:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:56:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170405155630.GA29273@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:45:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any : given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, : it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone : wants to do his own, why not? Since when does logic have to do with emotions? Your line of reasoning would work for robots, not people. If everyone else is leining their own aliyah that day, someone who can't may still be embarassed and decline taking an aliyah with the ba'al qeri'ah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 05:57:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 08:57:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Tefillin on Chol Moed Message-ID: R Samuel Svarc wrote on Areivim >This, as it turns out, is a minority view. Not all Ashkenazim hold >that way, nor do Sefardim, nor a nice junk of the Litvishe wing. From http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/tefillinONmoed.htm The Aruch Hashulchan notes that "recently" a practice among some Ashkenazic Jews has developed to refrain from wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. He is referring to the practice of Chassidim, which was also the practice at the famed Volozhiner Yeshiva (as recorded by the Rav, Shiurim L'zeicher Aba Mori Zal p.119) And from http://dinonline.org/2014/04/07/tefillin-on-chol-hamoed-pesach/ The Rema adds that the Ashkenaz custom is to wear Tefillin and recite a berachah, but because of the sensitivity of the topic the berachah should be recited quietly. Later authorities espouse the compromise noted by the Tur, meaning that Tefillin are worn but the berachah is not recited (see Taz 31:2; Mishnah Berurah 31:8). YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 09:29:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:29:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170405162920.GB19562@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 06:51:14AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and : gebroks. I think the conversation works better as is. Gebrochts is a minhag to avoid the possible manufacture of real chameitz from any flour that happened to stay dry when the matzah was made. Qitniyos is a minhag or multiple minhagim to avoid things that either: 1- are stored in the same silos as with chameitz, in which case it's much like gebrochts in function. Or 2- are used in a manner similar to chameitz, and people might eat chameitz thinking it's pea porridge or mustard seed or whatnot. And these could indeed be divergant minhagim, where different explanations became primary drivers in different areas, leading to difference in how practice evolved. But explanation #2 does open the door for the original question. Pretzels made from oatmeal make it possible for someone to accidentally eat real chameitz pretzels. And if your ancestral version of qitniyos includes growing it to include new items that make the same mistake possible, eg corn, then why not all these gebrochts or potato / potato starch products -- not because they're gebrochts (if they are), but because reason #2 applies. : So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever : arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they : were rejected by communities that ate gebroks. No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) This really is a recent development. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 07:48:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:48:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Fungibility of Mitzvos In-Reply-To: References: <002801d2ae0d$a752e040$f5f8a0c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: R? Micha Berger quoted R? Natan Slifkin: <<< I have found that while people are shocked when one challenges the notion that you can learn Torah on behalf of someone who is sick, nobody has yet actually come up with any classical sources demonstrating otherwise. >>> I?d like to suggest a very slight difference between two scenarios: Suppose I say, ?Hashem, I am going to learn some Torah now, and I?d like the s?char for this mitzvah to go to Ploni, instead of to me.? That seems to be the situation that RNS is talking about. But suppose I say, ?Hashem, I am going to learn some Torah now, and I?d like *MY* s?char for this mitzvah to be that You heal Ploni, who is currently ill?, or ?? that You elevate Ploni to a higher level in Gan Eden?, or something similar. My point is that if there is no mechanism to transfer s?char from one person to another, perhaps we can still request that the s?char should take a particular form, and it would result in the same effect. I?m pretty sure that there *are* sources for requesting that the s?char should take a certain form. More accurately, I recall cases where one requests that his *onesh* should take a particular form, such as if it has been decreed that one should lose a certain amount of money, it should occur in tiny amounts over a long time, or some other similar request. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 08:52:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:52:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos HaGadol Message-ID: It is not easy to explain the origin of the Hagadol which is applied to this coming Shabbos. In the Haftorah, the prophet Malachi speaks of a Yom Hashem Hagadol which according to various customs is to be read when the Sabbath before Pesach happens to be Erev Pesach. And yet the term Hagadol as applied to the Sabbath before Passover has been accepted by all whether or not it falls on Erev Pesach. The Midrash offers additional insight as to why this Shabbos is termed Hagadol and tells us something most of us have learned that on the Shabbos preceding the 14th of Nissan (when the Pascal lamb was to be brought as an offering), the Egyptian masters entered into the homes of the Jews and noticed that each family had a sheep tied to its bedposts. The Egyptians asked: ?What are you doing with our sheep?!? The Jews replied: ?We are going to slaughter it as an offering to our God.? The Egyptian masters gritted their teeth in exasperation and walked out. This is another basis for the Shabbos preceding Pesach to be called the ?Great Shabbos.? It is the Shabbos that the Jewish people experienced a miracle ? they were not killed by their masters because of their subordination to the Will of the Almighty and they were not deterred by concern for their personal safety. THAT was ?greatness? and they were, indeed, truly ?great.? It is also interesting that every Shabbos symbolizes complete freedom ? freedom from technology and the mundane. Pesach typifies freedom and redemption. The parallel to Shabbos is profound. May this Shabbos be the ?GREATEST!? "The price of greatness is responsibility.? Winston Churchill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 14:25:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:25:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a5b4365-260b-ab41-7882-0043d896073e@zahav.net.il> On 4/5/2017 12:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone > who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from > gebroks, right? Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can get today which is no different than cake flour? [Email #2. -micha] On 4/4/2017 8:33 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and > halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all > other minhagim that people are so set against any change? If this one is different it is because people have set out to take down this minhag. Whereas something like changing from an Ashkenazi white with black stripes tallit to a more Sefardi all white one wouldn't be such a big deal because no one is making an issue out of it. In my community there is a back lash against the kitni-chumrot so I see it changing, somewhat. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 01:32:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:32:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Food in the desert questions Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: "In the mishkan, a mincha offering was brought. other offerings too. Some : required flour and oil. Where did they come from? " I just saw a Tosafos in Menachos 45b that discusses the question of flour in the midbar. Tosafos quotes Rashi as saying that they did not make the shtei halechem in the midbar because all they had was man (so they had no flour). Tosafos disagrees and says that they bought flour from merchants (based on the Gemara Yoma 75b). I would assume that Tosafos would say the same thing about oil. The Rambam in the Peirush Hamishnayos (Menachos 4:4) agrees with Rashi that they had no flour in the midbar. So to answer your question according to Rashi and the Rambam they had no flour and therefore did not bring anything flour based. According to Tpsafos they bought flour from merchants in the midbar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 22:03:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Meisner via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 01:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > I understand that one cannot use Egg Matza for the mitzva of Achilas > Matza, but I'm not sure exactly why. I'm aware of two different reasons, > and they seem mutually exclusive. > > 1) The Torah requires that this mitzva be done with "lechem oni"... > 2) Matza must be something that could have become chometz, but was baked > before chimutz could occur. According to those who hold that flour and pure > mei peiros will not ever become chometz, "matza ashira" isn't really > halachic matza at all. If matzah is baked with mei peiros and a kol she-hu of water, it would not be lechem oni but would be halachically matzah. Josh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 04:16:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:16:49 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller asked: "It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and gebroks. Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right? So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate gebroks." There is no question that this is a new problem, even 50 years ago no one made things out of matzo meal or potato starch that looked almost exactly like the equivalent chometz item. There has been an explosion of "imitation" chometz products over the last 20 years that look and even taste like chometz. This is more a spirit of the law issue. One of the reasons given for not eating kitniyos is that since kitniyos look like and/or can make things that look like chometz we are afraid that people will confuse them with chometz and come to eat chometz. This concern certainly applies much more to these modern products. If I can get kosher l'pesach cereal that looks exactly like chometz cereal there is certainly a risk of confusion. No one is saying that these things are kitniyos, what they are saying that in the spirit of kitniyos these should be prohibited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 05:06:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those measures should be. I wrote: : So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? : Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 : years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate : gebroks. and R' Micha Berger responded: > No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks > that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) > This really is a recent development. Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my mother made at home? I'm sorry, but I can't buy that. It is true that today's factory kitchens allow an amazing variety of technologies and abilities, including products that are almost indistinguishable from regular bread. But I maintain that this does NOT translate to an increased chance that someone will mix flour and water in their home kitchen, precisely because the factory and home are so far apart - both geographically and sociologically. If someone is enticed by the quality of a store-bought breadstick or pizza slice, I cannot imagine that they would attempt to duplicate it at home nowadays without a recipe. Seeing a breaded chicken cutlet at one's neighbor's home *IS* something that you might duplicate in your own home, and there is great danger there. But I just don't see that happening with factory-made goods. Anyone who is awed by the quality will read the box to figure out how they managed such a feat, and they will immediately see the potato and tapioca listed. (But I am willing to listen to other arguments.) My suspicion is that the anti-potato sentiments may have originated in the non-gebroks sectors. Pesach pizza and pancakes are very new to them, and I suppose I can understand their concern. But among those who have been eating gebroks for generations, I just don't understand why these new products bother them. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 03:35:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:35:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah Message-ID: R' Joshua Meisner wrote: > If matzah is baked with mei peiros and a kol she-hu of water, > it would not be lechem oni but would be halachically matzah. That's true. Theoretically, if one would bake it fast enough, before it becomes chometz, it would be real matza. But because of the mei peiros, it isn't plain matza, but it is "rich" matza - matza ashira, and thus disqualified from Mitzvas Achilas Matza. But as far as I know, no one makes such matza, because (there is a fear that) the combination of both water and mei peiros will allow the dough to become chometz much faster than usual. That's not the case with the stuff on the shelves that's labeled "Egg Matza" or "Matza Ashira" - This has no water at all, and its dough can never become chometz. If so, then it seems to me that the term "Matza Ashira" is a misnomer. It isn't matza at all, because it was incapable of becoming chometz. A better term for it might be "Matza-style squares" (which is the term that the industry has chosen for the potato and tapioca stuff). I suspect that at some point in history, some educator felt that the logic of "the fruit juice makes it rich bread" was more easily accepted by the masses, and the logic of "it can't be chometz and therefore it isn't matza" was too difficult for them. And from that point onwards, it was the go-to explanation, despite the technical shortcomings. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 05:28:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat Message-ID: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I've been thinking (pun intended) about staam daat" . (I have in mind "whatever HKB"H wants me to have in mind without actually knowing what that is [e.g., to be yotzeih the chazan's bracha]). Firstly what is the source of the concept. Secondly, Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal says works, that's what I want to think/occur). [relatrd to daat makneh and koneh issues] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:07:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:07:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru Message-ID: We all assume we can't have new gezerot. Is this really true? At least according to some opinions bicycles and umbrellas are allowed on shabbat. According to RSZA electricity (without a heat or fire) is really allowed on shabbat and certainly yomtov. Years ago many held that electricity was allowed on yomtov. Today we have things like fitbit watches which many feel are allowed on shabbat. Yet in practice the poskim prohibit all these things. Other things are prohbited in davening because it is a slippery slope etc. In essence these are all new gezerot perhaps without the nomenclature -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:21:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:21:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:06:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos : understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect : people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is : acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those : measures should be. Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change a minhag. And if we were talking about gezeiros, then we'd need a Sanhedrin or universal consensus to create one. ("Universal consensus", eg RSZA on electricity.) But we would also need that level authority to modify or repeal one. So there too there is a high barrier to change. So in either case, while I could appreciate R' Aviner's reasoning, I don't know if I would be comfortable applying it lemaaseh. :> No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks :> that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) :> This really is a recent development. : Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in : the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my : mother made at home? While, really I'm suggesting that an environment where -- even a bagel or a loaf of bread -- could be a gebrochts or potato starch replacement poses bigger problems than we faced 50 years ago. Because a person can pick up anything and mistake it for a KLP alternative. Much like one of the reasons given for qitniyos. The same was not true when the only KLP pancakes were rare and homemade. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:41:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:41:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Working on Chol Moed Message-ID: <1491493270335.3143@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If I don't work on Chol Hamoed my paycheck will be much smaller. Is this a davar behaved (irreparable loss)? Am I permitted to go to work on Chol Hamoed? A. A loss of profit is generally not considered a davar ha'avud. As such one cannot automatically assume that it is permissible to work on Chol Hamoed. Nonetheless there are situations where davar ha'avud would apply. For example, if a person will use up vacation days by not working during Chol Hamoed, and there is a preference to take vacation at a more convenient time, this may be considered a davar ha'avud. (See Shmiras Shabbos Kihilchoso, vol. 2, chapter 67, footnote 47.) Furthermore, if a person is struggling financially, and not earning a salary on Chol Hamoed would be stressful, this may be treated as a davar ha'avud. Nonetheless these leniencies are not ideal, and Rav Belsky, zt"l stressed that it is preferable to not work on Chol Hamoed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 09:44:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:44:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat In-Reply-To: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <958e2160-18d0-985e-70d4-9c571dea3a3f@sero.name> On 06/04/17 08:28, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Secondly, Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., > I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal says > works, that?s what I want to think/occur). Isn't that *exactly* what we do when we write in a shtar that we stipulate to having made whichever kind of kinyan is most effective ("be'ofan hayoser mo`il")? We don't know which of the various kinyanim we should be doing so we stipulate that whichever one it is, we did it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 10:01:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 20:01:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/6/2017 6:07 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We all assume we can't have new gezerot. Is this really true? ... > In essence these are all new gezerot perhaps without the nomenclature The nomenclature is vital. As I said in my previous email, we don't blur the distinctions between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan, and we don't blur the distinctions between gezeirot, takkanot, chramim, siyagim, minhagim, etc. Yes, it's forbidden to eat chicken parmesan. And it's forbidden to eat a pork chop. There's no wiggle room. Both are forbidden. So to someone on the outside, those prohibitions might look like the same thing, "perhaps without the nomenclature". But the nomenclature matters, because there are different rules for the two. Just as there are different rules for the various "add-ons". Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:49:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:49:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7c4f2947-d6c6-62b2-40fd-a9b977d026f4@starways.net> > Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy > in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes > that my mother made at home? Matza meal pancakes, which I grew up with as well, are nothing at all like regular pancakes. The difference is clear and obvious. Ditto for cakes. We used to have sponge cake at Pesach. And we thought of it as a Pesach cake. It wasn't something we had all year. I don't have a problem with fake treyf. So I don't really have a huge problem with fake chametz. But to pretend that there's no difference between what we used to have in the 60s, 70s, etc, and today is just silly. The difference is enormous. And while I don't have a huge problem with fake chametz, I see another distinction between fake chametz and fake treyf. You can't ever eat bacon. So making fake bacon is reasonable. But fake chametz? Really? We can't make it a week without waffles and pizza and pretzels? [Email #2. -micha] On 4/6/2017 6:21 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be > mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very > overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change > a minhag. WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be determinative. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 10:54:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:54:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:03:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept : of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be : determinative. Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei For that matter, the topic here is qitniyos -- which is itself a minhag avos, not halakhah. It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the accepted ruling in practice. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 13:59:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:59:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> I am confused by the term mimetic. I understand it in the sense of tradition, We are discussing various situations that didn't exist years ago, My parents didnt use Canola oil because it was not available but they did use cottonseed oil. What is my mimetic custom for lechitin? When I grew up we had mainly macaroon cookies. Any cakes even with matza meal tasted and looked different than chametz items. No one I knew used CI shiurim. In EY on the radio I still hear about the necessity of using CI shiurim at least lechatchila. I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. I recently heard a shiur from R. Aviner attacking much of these chumrot and R. Lior also has many kulot and these are considered right wing DL rabbis. As I stated before one difference between EY and the US is the existence of a large charedi sefardi community, This gives rise to kitniyot products with top level hasgachot. The easy availability of soft matzaot etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 12:10:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:10:26 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder Message-ID: is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a korban pesach? i think we all agree that the matzot to make a korech were soft matzot [and presumably mashiach will rule that's the way we should all be making them ]. if the zaytim were like larger then , would the sandwich have been the size of a big mac? or half a pizza? kiddush would have started the meal . then some form of maggid [ 3 hrs long? would the korban be edible that many hours later?] . so people washed and then what? hamotzi on 3 matzos? but the mitzva matza was to eat the korech no? so the rest of the meal was not matza followed by marror, but rather that of korech. so then the chiyuv-matza was the afikoman matza? or people would have chazon ish'ed it up twice---at the matza they washed on and again on korech? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 07:46:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:46:29 +0000 (WET DST) Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Apr 6, 2017 11:03:15 am Message-ID: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> > > ... This is another basis for the Shabbos preceding Pesach to be > called the "Great Shabbos." > No, it is not. Haggadol is not an adjective modifying Shabbath, because Shabbath is feminine. No one who speaks Hebrew uses masculine adjectives to modify Shabbath, ever (pedantic footnote: except in the fixed expression "Shabbath shalom umvorakh", which is said by people who do speak Hebrew, but which for other reasons is clearly an idiomatic expression that does not follow the rules of grammar, unless you want to call it a mistake, which is also fine with me). It is the same reason why we know that Lshon Hara` and `Eyn Hara` are not nouns modified by adjectives, because lashon and `ayin are feminine nouns. No one who speaks Hebrew would ever use the masculine adjective ra` to modify the feminine nouns lashon or `ayin. They are nouns modified by other nouns, and so is Shabbath Haggadol. (Whether lshon hara` and `eyn hara` are the correct pronunciation turns on whether the smikhuth forms in Rabbinic Hebrew are the same as the smikhuth forms in Biblical and modern Hebrew, a question that is irrelevant to the current discussion. They are unquestionably smikhuth forms, however they should be pronounced.) This alone is not sufficient reason to reject your translation "The Great Shabbos", because languages do not have to be translated literally and word-for-word. I do not reject the translation "the holy tongue" for "lshon haqqodesh", even though "lshon haqqodesh" literally means "the tongue of holiness", because languages do not have to be translated literally. If you want to translate "lshon haqqodesh" as "the holy tongue", fine. But you cannot do that with "Shabbath Haggadol", because we do not say Shabbath Haggodel, or Shabbath Haggdula, we say "Shabbath Haggadol", and gadol is an adjective, albeit a masculine one. As for what it does mean, well, if you want to say that Hagadol is a kinuy for God ("the Great One"), I think that is far-fetched, but I won't post an article publicly saying that you are wrong. It is clear to me that we say Shabbath Hagadol for the same reason that we say Shabbath Xazon or Shabbath Naxamu or Shabbath Shuva. You may disagree. But what you cannot plausibly say is that it means "the great Shabbath". Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:24:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:24:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matzah Meat (was Kitnios In-Reply-To: <728a7944561447f0984b79952cedf5a5@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <728a7944561447f0984b79952cedf5a5@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <86.ED.07959.212B6E85@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:03 PM 4/6/2017, Ben Waxman wrote: >On 4/5/2017 12:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone > > who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from > > gebroks, right? > >Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for >matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can >get today which is no different than cake flour? I must admit that I have no idea what you are referring to when you write about "roughly ground matza meal." Is this what is called cake meal? If so, it is good for making many things. See for example http://tinyurl.com/n6yo95b Also, do a google search for cake meal recipes, and you will see how many recipes come up I use "regular" matza meal to make matzah balls and they come out fine. See http://tinyurl.com/kl5tljs for a recipe for matza balls that calls for matza meal. I have never seen shmura cake meal. Has anyone? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 13:30:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:30:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 4/6/2017 8:54 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:03:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: >: WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept >: of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be >: determinative. > Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel > Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei > > It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering > cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the > accepted ruling in practice. I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:48:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:48:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170406214806.GH26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:30:40PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : >It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering : >cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the : >accepted ruling in practice. : : I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi : is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that : we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea : that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible. You are only discussing the absolutes, the case where the halakhah isn't known, and that where it is, but common practice differs. But in the part I left above, I described the gray area. There are cases where the logic for one position is more compelling than the other, but not muchrach. In fact, this is more common than a case where two rishonim or noted acharonim disagree and one opinion is found to be outright wrong. Between the brilliance of the people involved and the "peer review" as to which ideas reach us, it is very rare for us to find a true incontrovertable mistake, and even harder to know if we really did, or if it is our own assessment that's in error. In that situation, where we have to choose between multiple viable shitos, there are a number of things a poseiq would weigh. Different schools of pesaq may give each different weights. This kind of comparison of apples and oranges requires real shiqul hadaas, and is why pesaq is an art, not an algorithm. This is my usual list of categories of factors that go into pesaq. 1- Textualiam 1a- Logicalness of the rationale 1b- Authority of those who back each postion: majority, expertise (eg the Rambam and Rosh carry more weight than some other rishonim) 2- Mimeticism 3- Aggadic concerns -- whether it's chassidim not wearing tefillin on ch"m or some of RSRH's innovations. My point in #2 is that there are many times that we continue following what we do because it has a sound textual basis -- even though some other shitah may have a stronger such basis. And again, this is minhag, not halakhah. The whole topic of qitniyos rests on mimeticism, not formal halachic reasoning. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] P.O.P. Paradox Of Pesach Message-ID: <5204F12E-00B5-47B0-92DD-2D93AB3E7C87@cox.net> A great ambivalence is to be found in the symbolism of the Seder. On one hand, the white kitel is a manifestation of joy and purity, and on the other hand, it is also the shroud of death. An egg is a token of mourning, but at the Seder it recalls the korban chagigah, the additional sacrifice brought to assure joy on Pesach. The matzah is the bread of affliction as well as the food of freedom baked in haste as our forefathers rushed out of Egypt. The very word individual which refers to a single person ends with DUAL. Pesach brings out the duality of man but through the unity of the family, we are able to live with cognitive dissonance, paradox and conflict. ?We may have different points of arguments from perspectives of belief, faith and religion. But we must not hate each other. We are one human family.? ? Lailah Gifty Akita, (Think Great: Be Great!) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:04:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:04:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406220429.GK26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:59:51PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be :> mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very :> overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change :> a minhag. : I am confused by the term mimetic. I understand it in the sense of : tradition, Mimetic is from the shoresh mime, to copy. (Like a mimeograph.) Mimeticism is Judaism as culture. Things like absorbing that "Shabbos is coming" feeling of the erev Shabbos Jew. The pious Jew of today may be able to work himself up emotionally on Yom Kippur, the mimetic Jew of 100 years ago was simply terrified, without such work. (Both kinds of religiosity have their pros and cons.) Mimeticism evolves because culture evolves. Textualism is also tradition. But it's the formal tradition passed off from rebbe to talmid. RYBS's dialog down the ages that he watched gather around his father's table, or later, in his own shiur room. So the mimetic-textualist axis is not quite the same as the tradition-ideology one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:07:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:07:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> References: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> Message-ID: <20170406220711.GL26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 02:46:29PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote: : Haggadol is not an adjective modifying Shabbath, because Shabbath is : feminine. No one who speaks Hebrew uses masculine adjectives to : modify Shabbath, ever (pedantic footnote: except in the fixed : expression "Shabbath shalom umvorakh", which is said by people who : do speak Hebrew, but which for other reasons is clearly an idiomatic : expression that does not follow the rules of grammar, unless you want : to call it a mistake, which is also fine with me). What about Shabbos morning, and "veyanuchu vo"? The previous night it was "vahh". I agree with your thesis, I am more trying to get from you what the masculine noun "vo" refers to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:27:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav Message-ID: Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik heh under my understanding and also be milera. Is my understanding of the word incorrect? Kol tuv and Chag Kasher v'Sameach to all, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 00:29:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:29:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot Message-ID: from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) BTW the sefer contains 3 sections ; main, dvar halacha and orchot halacha. I am assuming that all 3 are from RSZA or notes of students. I will do my best in the translation but have added some of the notes in Hebrew RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who determines this minhag?) He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat. He adda that PERHAPS there is a reason to prohibit potato flour (serach kitniyot - based on chiddishin of RSZA to Pesachim). Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be prohibited (ie even according to those that eat gebrochs) (yesh ladun behem - Pesachim 40b - Rashi that when people are "mezalzel one should be machmir) In the notes that this was what RSZA said in shiurim and when asked a question responded that one should follow the family minhag. Nevetheless he remarked several times that cakes with matzah flour that look like chametz cakes that he didn't understand the heter when we go to lengths to avoid things that might be confused with chametz -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 23:27:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 06:27:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Afikoman_-_=93Stealing=93_and_Other_Rel?= =?windows-1252?q?ated_Minhagim?= Message-ID: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> Please the article at http://seforim.blogspot.com/2017/04/afikoman-stealing-and-other-related.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 20:28:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:28:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: > ... Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., > I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal > says works, that?s what I want to think/occur). [related to daat > makneh and koneh issues] I think Mishne Berura 649:15 might be exactly what you're looking for. I am paraphrasing him, and he was paraphrasing the Magen Avraham and Pri Megadim. But basically, the point is: >>> Suppose it is the first day of Sukkos, and you want to use someone else's lulav, but you can't, because on the first day you need to own it yourself. So l'chatchila, the best option is make it explicit that you want to acquire his lulav in a "matana al m'nas l'hachzir" (gift on condition of returning) manner. >>> But b'dieved, if you borrowed it in a "stam" manner so that you could be yotzay with it, then we presume that he gave it to you intending to do it in whatever manner would allow you to be yotzay, namely, "matana al m'nas l'hachzir". >>> However, if you explicitly used the word "borrow" rather than "gift", then you would not be yotzay. Also, if the lulav's owner is unaware that a borrowed lulav is pasul, it would not work then either. (End of Mishne Brura.) Here's my commentary: There are two requirements for "stam daas" to help us here. The first is that the conversation must be vague, because if it were explicit we would not be able to assign a meaning to the words. But the second requirement is very relevant to RJR's question: The lulav's owner has to be aware that a borrowed lulav is pasul. If the owner does have that awareness, then we say that his stam daas was to grant ownership to you. But if the lulav's owner is not aware of this halacha, then his stam daas is to *lend* the lulav, which would not be valid. We see from this that "stam daas" is not a magic wand that can be applied conveniently to any vague comment. Rather, it is applied with a lot of care and understand of what the person's likely intention really was. Please read the MB yourself and see what he means. Even better, check out the MA and PM that the MB was summarizing (because I did not go into that much depth. Maybe over Shabbos.) [Press Pause button... Okay, continue...] I have now reread RJR's post, and I noticed that while the MB ruled how the halacha views these two people and the lulav, RJR's post is much more "me"-oriented. He asks about the case where > I have in mind ?whatever HKB?H wants me to have in mind > without actually knowing what that is ..." It seems to me that this is an explicit vagueness. If "stam daas" works where outsiders are trying to figure out what Ploni probably meant, it should certainly work where Ploni himself is being deliberately vague. I never studied Logic to the depth that R' Micha and other have, but even I can see a serious flaw in the above paragraph. In the MB's case of the lulav, the owner had *something* in mind, and we are presuming to know what it was. But in RJR's case, the individual made an effort have nothing in mind at all, and I can easily understand someone who says that this simply won't work. I would suggest this as a practical solution: One should never say simply, "I have in mind whatever Hashem wants me to have in mind," because that is essentially admitting that he really has nothing in mind. Rather, one should use an explicit tenai: "If Hashem wants me to have A in mind, then I do have A in mind; but if He wants me to have B in mind, then I do have B in mind." Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#m_3151624698786785420_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:24:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav Message-ID: > Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH > translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". > Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik > heh under my understanding and also be milera. Upon reviewing the pshat in the word "bushala", it is possible that my understanding was incorrect and the structure would be similar to "yochLUha" where the translation of the suffix in both cases is "it" as opposed to "its" and thus not requiring a mapik heh. Shabbat Shalom, HT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:25:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:25:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67447a90-4764-0dce-4f82-b0f11d5c55af@sero.name> On 06/04/17 18:27, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: > Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH > translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". > > Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik > heh under my understanding and also be milera. It's a verb, not a noun. If it were written as you would have it it would be a noun, presumably meaning "its cooking", but then it would be "bishulah". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 08:46:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:46:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170407154652.GD32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:27:30PM -0400, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: : Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH : translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". : : Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik : heh under my understanding and also be milera. That would make it a posessed noun, "if its cooking was in a copper vessel". RSRH is treating is as a verb. In more contemporary American English, "if it had been cooked in a copper vessel". :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:47:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Afikoman_-_=E2=80=9CStealing=E2=80=9C_and_Othe?= =?utf-8?q?r_Related_Minhagim?= In-Reply-To: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> References: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <0a933758-f6de-9e33-4fd0-33f89b9dc517@sero.name> > http://seforim.blogspot.com/2017/04/afikoman-stealing-and-other-related.html My father gives presents to all those children who *don't* steal. He also explains that if the hidden matzah is stolen he will not pay any ransom for it but will simply use a different matzah. Thus the purpose of the minhag is preserved but the bad chinuch is avoided. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 08:44:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:44:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:10:26PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a korban : pesach? I assume koreikh was the norm. Not that Hillel argued they were necessary and no one else made wraps, but that everyone made a wrap, which is why a machloqes could arise as to whether one is yotzei if not. : i think we all agree that the matzot to make a korech were soft matzot [and : presumably mashiach will rule that's the way we should all be making them ]. One could be yotzei koreikh just putting a tiny lump of meat on a cracker. Not difficult. OTOH, we seem to have proven in numerous years that until the acharonic period, softa matzos were the norm in every community. (Ashkenazim too; see the Rama.) : if the zaytim were like larger then, would the sandwich have been the size : of a big mac? or half a pizza? But they were smaller, so no problem. Another perrennial is whether the growth of the kezayis is halachically binding even after archeology proved the historical assumptions wrong. : kiddush would have started the meal... And Ha Lachma Anya would have been 4 days before, as you can only invite people to join the chaburah BEFORE the sheep is set aside. For that matter, I'm convinced Ha Lachma Anya is not part of Maggid. Maggid ought to begin with questions, so let's assume it does. HLA is an explanation of Yachatz. And then, once we fact out qwhat it's like to have to ration our lachma anya, we express empathy for the dirtzrikh and dichpin. So perhaps Yachatz too would be before picking the sheep. . then some form of maggid [ 3 hrs : long? would the korban be edible that many hours later?]. Sure! How quickly does meat go bad where you live? It looks like there is a fundamental machloqes about the seider. Notice that Rabban Gamliel wasn't present at R' Aqiva's seider in Benei Beraq. OTOH, in the Tosefta at the end of Pesachim Rabban Gamliel hosts big seider in Lod, where they spent the whole night "osqin behilkhos haPesach". (This Tosefta goes with "ein maftirin achar haPesach afiqoman". A whole answer-to-the-chakham vibe here.) Notice that at R' Aqiva's seider "vehayu mesaperim beytzi'as mitzrayim". R' Aqiva held that a seider is all about the story. R' Gamliel -- the mitzvos. Most of Maggid we do R' Aqiva style: 1- We follow R' Yehudah, and tell the story of physical redemption. Avadim Hayinu. 2- Then (after an intermission in which we explain why we're doing multiple versions -- 4 banim, etc...) we follow Rav, and tell the story of spiritual redemption. Betechilah ovedei AZ. 3- And we tell the story using Vidui Biqurim and other texts. 4- Then, at the very end, we make sure to do the least necessary to be yotzei according to Rabban Gamliel. So it would seem we basically hold like R' Aqiva, that the main role of the foods is as aids to the story-telling. But Rabban Gamliel would have Maggid as /during/ the other mitzvos of the seider. We discuss the foods. : washed and then what? hamotzi on 3 matzos? but the mitzva matza was to : eat the korech no? so the rest of the meal was not matza followed by : marror, but rather that of korech. so then the chiyuv-matza was the : afikoman matza? or people would have chazon ish'ed it up twice---at the : matza they washed on and again on korech? The afiqoman was the sheep, all matzos umorerim. Before that was the chagiga, re'iyah and shulchan oreikh. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:48:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Meisner via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:48:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:10 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a > korban pesach? The Rambam in Ch. 8 of Hil. Chametz uMatzah provides a step-by-step description of the seder that includes the eating of the Korban Pesach, which is probably a good start. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 09:32:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:32:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4167b94e-52b7-16a4-0069-0697990750d6@sero.name> On 07/04/17 11:44, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And Ha Lachma Anya would have been 4 days before, as you can only invite > people to join the chaburah BEFORE the sheep is set aside. Not true. One can join or leave a chavurah right up to the moment of shechitah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 09:58:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 17:58:36 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Surely either we'd pasken like Hillel, and eat the full portion of Pesach, Matza and Maror in one sandwich, or else we wouldn't, and there'd be no Korech at all? On 7 April 2017 at 16:44, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > One could be yotzei koreikh just putting a tiny lump of meat on a > cracker. Not difficult. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 10:15:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:15:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170407171523.GI32239@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 05:58:36PM +0100, Allan Engel wrote: : Surely either we'd pasken like Hillel, and eat the full portion of Pesach, : Matza and Maror in one sandwich, or else we wouldn't, and there'd be no : Korech at all? I assume everyone ate koreikh. It's most reasonable to assume that a machloqes over an annual practice kept by everyone is theoretical, not pragmatic. Not that one person is saying what a significant number of people are doing is pasul / assur. For similar reasons, I assume that until the rishonim, people considered both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam tefillin to be kosher. Otherwise, how were both styles in existence and common use since the days of the Chashmonaim until some 1,300 years later when rishonim started voicing preferences? Note my use of the phrase, "I assume". Li mistaber, I have no strong arguments for it. Back to our topic... I figure everyone ate the matzah, marror and lamb in a wrap. Otherwise, how did Hillel come around and argue that what everyone was doing was pasul? And why would it stay with Hillel, wouldn't he have the Sanhedrin vote on it? Rather, the machloqes was whether one was yotzei if they did the weird thing and eat them separately. If this was a rare event, multiple opinions could persist without resolutions. Now when it came time to commemorate, rather than fulfill the mitzvah.... Matzah we have to eat separately from maror, because without the pesach, there may be a problem with our fulfilling the mitzvah of eating matzah without it being the only tast in the mouth. And then there's the question of what are we commemorating -- eating all three in one meal, and the wrap aspect was not a critical facet that needs commemoration, or are we commemorating a wrap? So, we do both. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 10:28:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel In-Reply-To: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> References: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:05:30PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : My son who lives in EY told me that Ashkenazim have to very careful : about the products that they purchase for Pesach, since many products : that are certified for Pesach contain kitnios. The item below reinforces : this. ... : Eretz Yisrael: Strauss Cottage Cheese Contains Kitnios : : April 3, 2017- from the Arutz 7 : : : "Badatz Mehadrin, the hashgacha of Rabbi Avraham Rubin Shlita, alerts... I was wondering about this. Qitniyos is batel berov. Ah, you may say: but they're intentionally mixing in the qitniyos, there is no bitul! So here's my question: If a Sepharadi makes cottage cheese containing qitniyos, he isn't really having Ashkenazim in particular in mind. And for him the qitniyos are mutar. By parallel, a non-Jew mixing 1:61 basar bechalav for his own use or for a primarily non-Jewish customer base isn't bitul lkhat-chilah, as a permitted person's intent doesn't qualify as lekhat-chilah. So, does this Sepharadi man mixing qitniyos in run afowl of the problem of bitul lekhat-chilah? Why can't one argue that as long as the qitniyos is a mi'ut of the cottage cheese, and as long as it's not against the mixer's own minhag or that of the main bulk of people for whom he is mixing, the food is permissible for Ashkenazim too? And does it have to be both the mixer's own minhag AND that of most of the people the cottage cheese if for? After all, this is minhag, not pesaq. It's not like an Ashkenazi holds a Saphradi ought to be holding like us too. What if an Ashkenazi was doing the mixing on a product where most of the target customer base is Sepharadi? (Now, add to that mei qitniyos, and whether corn should have been added to the minhag, the observation that it is primarily NOT made for Ashkenazi Jews, and ask the same thing about Coca Cola.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 15:48:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: <<< I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. >>> Is this only in the DL community? If so, can anyone suggest why this would be so? I can this of two very different possibilities: One is negative, that there is some sort of jealousy to the sefardim, or taavah for the many products that are available. The other is positive, that this is simply a natural development of how minhagim change over the centuries when communities mix. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 13:42:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 22:42:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel In-Reply-To: <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> References: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <43acd44d-c45c-b481-7dfb-2671547565a7@zahav.net.il> This is part of the backlash. People want the labels to read "contains kitniyot", not "for ochlei kitniyot only". Ben On 4/7/2017 7:28 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Qitniyos is batel berov. > > Ah, you may say: but they're intentionally mixing in the qitniyos, there > is no bitul! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 10:44:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:44:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58E92189.9030803@zahav.net.il> [Part 2, a mid-post detour. -mb] And as long as I am writing, a comment on the next posting in the Digest 48. Matza meal is the coarse version and is used for making latkes and kneidlach. Cake meal is the fine ground version for making cakes. Both were on the market and used by my mother in the US some 70- 80 years ago. And R' Micha mentioned a week or so ago that R/Dr Bannet pointed out that in my youth, peanut oil had the most machmir heksher of all Pesach oils. Three comments: It is true that chasidim used only peanut oil made by a Shomer mitzvot Jew. I am neither a R nor a Dr, and my family name ends with two t's. PKvS. David Bannett From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 10:44:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:44:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58E92189.9030803@zahav.net.il> [RCD tried to sneak multiple topics into the same email. For the sake of threading, I split it and fixed the subject lines. -micha] Without commenting on the meaning of Shabbat Hagadol, I'd like to comment on the "fact" that Shabbat is feminine and one would have to say Shabbat Hag'dola. The Rambam in Hilkhot Shabbat 30:2 says Shhabat Hagadol. I then looked in the Bar Ilan Shu"t and found that there are a dozen other sources for a male Shabbat. [End of part 1. Now, part 3. -mb] And then R' Micha on the vayanuchu va, vo and vam in the tefila: There were three nuschaot. One said Shabbat and va, Another said yom haShabbat and vo and the third said Shabbatot and vam. PKvS. David Bannett From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 20:22:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2017 05:22:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If the issue was jealousy of sefardim, people would want to drop the minhag entirely. There is that, but only on the fringe. These chumrot seem like a false imposition, something someone invented. You can only hear "when I was a kid, we ate X, Y, Z" or "I went to a shiur and the rav said X, Y, Z are muttar" so many times before asking yourself "so why don't we eat X, Y, Z"? And yes, intermarriage is a huge factor. On 4/8/2017 12:48 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I can this of two very different possibilities: One is negative, that > there is some sort of jealousy to the sefardim, or taavah for the many > products that are available. The other is positive, that this is > simply a natural development of how minhagim change over the centuries > when communities mix. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:00:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:00:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) > ... > He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak > was never accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat. > He adds that PERHAPS there is a reason to prohibit potato flour > (serach kitniyot - based on chiddishin of RSZA to Pesachim). > Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be > prohibited (ie even according to those that eat gebrochs) ... To me, it seems contradictory to allow gebroks yet forbid matza meal cake. Yet it certainly seems that this is how RSZA held. I think I'm going to have to retract most of my recent posts. Or add least append a big "tzorech iyun" to them. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:22:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimetics [was:kitnoyot] Message-ID: > Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be > mimetically defined, by definition, .... [--RMB] WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be determinative. Lisa >>>>> "Shema beni mussar avicha, VE'AL TITOSH TORAS IMECHA." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:19:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <23551cea-98c2-5446-2323-d0fb7e82cc09@starways.net> On 4/8/2017 1:48 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Eli Turkel wrote: > > <<< I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been > a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. >>> > > Is this only in the DL community? If so, can anyone suggest why this > would be so? I think it's because the DL community is the community that is (a) committed to the Torah and (b) not stuck in fear mode. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 01:16:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 11:16:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller asked why in the dati leumi community there is a backlash against kitniyos? I think there are a number of reasons for this: 1. Theological - The Dati Leumi community views the establishment of the State of Israel as a significant theological event, the beginning of the Geula. They view the state as having significance. Therefore, they view the Jewish people as much more of an organic whole and want to eliminate things that separate the Jewish people into groups. Kitniyos very much does that. There is no question that whan Moshiach comes the division between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no machlokes. The Charedi world on the other hand believes that we are still fully in Galus and nothing has changed. 2. The Dati Leumi community isw much less segragated between sefardim and Ashkenazim. There are no ashkenazi or sefardi yeshivas and there is quite a bit of "intermarriage". If your daughter marries a Sefardi do you suddently not go to her for Pesach because she eats kitniyos? 3. People realize the hypocrisy of not eating kitniyos while eating kosgher l'pesach pretzels. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:31:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:31:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Why can't one argue that as long as the qitniyos is a mi'ut of > the cottage cheese, and as long as it's not against the mixer's > own minhag or that of the main bulk of people for whom he is > mixing, the food is permissible for Ashkenazim too? > > ... What if an Ashkenazi was doing the mixing on a product where > most of the target customer base is Sepharadi? I would like to focus on the words "target customer base". We have to distinguish the manufacturer's customer base from the hashgacha's customer base. The two might be identical for a small brand that markets only to frum neighborhoods, but not for an industry giant like Strauss. We can presume that the manufacturer and their target customer base is mostly not makpid about kitniyos. Therefore, the manufacturer is doing nothing wrong by putting kitniyos into the product, and once they have done so, it is acceptable even for Ashkenazim, exactly as RMB suggests. But the hashgacha cannot put their certification on it. The target customer base of this hashgacha seems to be people who *are* makpid on kitniyos. (If they're not the majority of the hashgacha's clientele, they are at least a very significant minority.) And as such, the hashgacha has accepted the responsibility to act in place of their clientele at the factory. This turns it into a "bittul lechatchila" situation, and the hashgacha cannot grant an official okay to such products without an accompanying warning, which is exactly what they seem to have done. > (Now, add to that mei qitniyos, and whether corn should have > been added to the minhag, the observation that it is primarily > NOT made for Ashkenazi Jews, and ask the same thing about Coca > Cola.) Not just Coca Cola. Weren't we discussing chocolate bars a few weeks ago? Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 23:42:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 02:42:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman Message-ID: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> I tend to agree with the negative aspect of stealing the Afikoman. Very similarly, I feel the minhag to get so drunk on Purim so that you can?t distinguish between blessed be Mordecai and cursed be Haman is a very bad minhag and more offensive than stealing the afikoman. You are encouraging people to get drunk and that also has caused many problems in recent times. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:02:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:02:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman In-Reply-To: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> References: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 02:42:40AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : I tend to agree with the negative aspect of stealing the Afikoman. : Very similarly, I feel the minhag to get so drunk on Purim so that : you can?t distinguish between blessed be Mordecai and cursed be Haman : is a very bad minhag and more offensive than stealing the afikoman. Yeah, I don't see how teaching kids to steal the afiqoman is going to weaken their knowledge that it's wrong to steal. Should kids playing baseball not steal home? Just because the rule of the game is called "stealing"? But there is backlash against the drunk-on-Purim minhag too. The OU and RCA each put out something like annually. Hatzola puts out warnings. There are black-n-white wearing yeshivos that clamped down on their kids getting drunk when doing their Purim fundraising. And there has been backlash to the backlash, by people who value minhag. Really, the treatment of the two has been pretty parallel. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:19:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman In-Reply-To: <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> References: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <621677e8-92b7-ca89-7197-201a3af3f7e6@sero.name> On 09/04/17 09:02, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Yeah, I don't see how teaching kids to steal the afiqoman is going > to weaken their knowledge that it's wrong to steal. Should kids > playing baseball not steal home? Just because the rule of the game > is called "stealing"? That's a different sense of the word: "4. to move or convey stealthily". As in "with cat-like tread upon our prey we steal". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:48:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:48:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > There is no question that when Moshiach comes the division > between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The > Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no > machlokes. This is news to me. There is no machlokes here to be paskened. Everyone agrees that the halacha allows even rice to Ashkenazim. It is all minhag. Even if the Sanhendrin would want to, I don't know where they'd get the authority to do away with minhagim. On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim! > The Dati Leumi community is much less segregated between > sefardim and Ashkenazim. There are no ashkenazi or sefardi > yeshivas and there is quite a bit of "intermarriage". If your > daughter marries a Sefardi do you suddently not go to her for > Pesach because she eats kitniyos? That depends on your posek. By my memory, many poskim, including among the DL, hold that one can eat from the keilim, but to avoid actual kitniyos. And many other shitos in both directions. > People realize the hypocrisy of not eating kitniyos while > eating kosher l'pesach pretzels. I was arguing strenuously against this until a few hours ago, when I was reminded that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach held this way too. Perhaps I have overdosed on inoculations of matza meal cake and matza meal pancakes, and I cannot see myself ever sharing this view. But having seen RSZA's words, I cannot claim that it is only the little people who say this - it's the big guns too. And I would be indebted to any listmembers who would quote other gedolim on this topic. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 15:47:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 08:47:40 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyos - Why do today's Poskim argue with the Mishneh Berurah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can anyone show some Halachic source that argues with the Mishneh Berurah who Paskens that Foods containing LESS THAN 50% Kitniyos that is at the same time not visually discernible Although its taste is certainly discernible, is Muttar during Pesach? Is a Rov permitted to refuse to identify a Kosher product as Kosher (or worse, declare a product not Kosher) because of other considerations? See this article http://www.kosherveyosher.com/chocolate-pesach-lecithin-1001.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 01:45:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:45:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] order of the seder Message-ID: < See "leil haPesach be-taludum shel chachamim" (Hebrew) by David Henshkr who has a detailed discussion -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 01:47:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:47:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Matzah meal Message-ID: <> In Israel it is readily available in many supermarkets -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 02:04:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:04:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism Message-ID: <> Doesn't answer my question of how mimeticism deals with new situations. Sticking to kitniyot by patents used cottenseed oil but knew nothing about Canola oil or Lecitisthin <> Let me use this to sound off. I have a major problem with textualiism. In some circles it means studying a sugya and coming to a conclusion without any regard to the outside world. In regard to shiurim the Noda Yehuda has a question. One doesn't suddenly change minhagim because of a question. In recent years this doubling of shiurim has become popular because of CI. First there is evidence that CI himself did not use his own shiur. It is well known that some descendants of the CC don't use his kiddush cup because it is not shiur CI. However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. Even a slightly smaller shiur would hit various walls making it impossible to walk around while various testimonies make it smaller. There is now a new exhibition of a virtual 3D reality of walking around the bet hamikdash. It is based on aerial photographs of the current Temple mount and supplemented by details in the Mishna and archaeology using the topography of the land. Theis construction places the holy har habayit on the currently raised portion of the Temple mount. This yields an amah of about 38cm (CI=57, CN=44-48) Other proofs included the length of the Siloam tunnel which is documents in amot and can be measured. One of the strongest proofs is based on the meitzah of the cohen gadol which could not possibly hold the shiur of CI (note that if his hands were bigger this would redefine the amah). As to changes over the generations olive pits from the Bar Chocba era are the same size as today. In spite of a preponderous evidence that the shiur of CI is way too large almost all seforim in Israel give the amount of matzah to eat and wine to drink based on CI (at least lechatchila). This is textualism at the extreme in contrast to common sense -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 03:15:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "I have an opportunity to kill the terrorist..." Message-ID: <20170410101557.GA14700@aishdas.org> Anyone want to try this one, with meqoros? RSE raises two issues: killing a neutralized terrorist, and (I guess) dina demalkhusa on the topic. Chag Kasher veSameaich (belashon "lo zu af zu"), -micha The Jewish Press Tzfat Chief Rabbi Was Asked in Real Time whether to Kill Ramming Terrorist By David Israel -- 11 Nisan 5777 -- April 7, 2017 http://www.jewishpress.com/news/jewish-news/tzfat-chief-rabbi-was-asked-in-real-time-whether-to-kill-ramming-terrorist/2017/04/07/ Chief Rabbi of Tzfat Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, who is not known for particularly leftwing sympathies (he encourages his flock to refuse Arab renters, for instance), on Thursday night told a class he was teaching that one of his students had phoned him from the scene of the ramming attack that killed an IDF soldier. The student posed a halachic inquiry: "He told me, I see my buddy here lying down dead," Rabbi Eliyahu recalled, adding that his student had asked, "I have an opportunity to kill the terrorist - should I kill him or not?" Advertisement Around 10 AM, Thursday, an Arab terrorist rammed his vehicle into two IDF soldiers waiting at a hitchhiking post on Rt. 60, outside Ofra in Judea and Samaria. Sgt. Elhai Teharlev HY"D, 20, was killed, and the other soldier was injured. The terrorist was arrested by security forces. Rabbi Eliyahu said that his response was that "this terrorist deserves to die. However, unfortunately, the laws in this country are not well constructed, and so there is no legal way to do to him what needs to be done." "I told him that had he been able to do it while the attack was on it would have been possible, but we were after the event, unfortunately." Advertisement From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 03:39:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed Message-ID: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ > Let me run an idea by you guys... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha > 2. Melacha is forbidden on chol hamoed > 3. One of the permits for doing melacha is for tzorech hamoed, but in this > case, if possible you should do the melacha before the chag > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. > 5. If you find yourself on chol hamoed without pre-torn toilet paper, you > can tear it, however preferably not on the lines. > Am I crazy? :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 04:54:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:54:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> References: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2017 1:40 PM, "Micha Berger via Avodah" wrote... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha > 2. Melacha is forbidden on chol hamoed > 3. One of the permits for doing melacha is for tzorech hamoed, but in this > case, if possible you should do the melacha before the chag > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. > 5. If you find yourself on chol hamoed without pre-torn toilet paper, you > can tear it, however preferably not on the lines. > Am I crazy? Not at all. Please see Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa perek 66 footnote 78. RSZA was machmir for himself, though the author suggests that nowdays it would be unnecessary. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 06:39:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:39:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12e4046f8d104931a3a60fafe99b3947@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > There is no question that when Moshiach comes the division > between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The > Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no > machlokes. This is news to me. There is no machlokes here to be paskened. Everyone agrees that the halacha allows even rice to Ashkenazim. It is all minhag. Even if the Sanhendrin would want to, I don't know where they'd get the authority to do away with minhagim. On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim! --------------------------------------- Aiui there is some debate as to how much practice was/will be standardized-some believe (IIRC R'HS) that the shevet Sanhedrin set local practice and few issues went to great sanhedrin for standardization. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 06:41:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:41:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170410134127.GB29583@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:04:31PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> Mimeticism evolves because culture evolves. : Doesn't answer my question of how mimeticism deals with new situations. It answers your question by implying there is no answer. There is no rule for how common practice will evolve. Rules are textual. But the truth is, halakhah requires both. Not every evolution of a minhag is valid. That way lies Catholic Israel. It has to pass muster against the sources and sevara. :-)|,|ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 07:54:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Misc interesting Halacha questions from R Shlomo Miller shlitah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <035201d2b20a$5ef3d1a0$1cdb74e0$@com> Misc interesting Halacha questions from R Shlomo Miller shlitah http://baisdovyosef.com/rabbi-past-questions/ Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlitah for a printout of all the Q&As (100 pgs) https://www.dropbox.com/s/70y971r0ct2l7x8/RS%20miller%20bartfeld%20questions .doc?dl=0 or email me offline mcohen at touchlogic.com GYT, mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 12 12:45:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:45:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz Message-ID: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy A rav gave over some quick halachot and cited the Shulhan Aruch that if one finds chameitz in one's home, you cover it (if you find it on shabbat/yom tov) and later burn it, or burn it right away (cholo moed). I asked, if one sold one's chameitz, how can you burn it? It now belongs to the non-jew. This rav (and second rav) said that the sale only includes the chameitz that you specify. If you don't have a piece of chameitz in mind, you didn't sell it. OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz, everything in all of his properties. It makes no mention of what you have in mind. If a contract say "ALL" it means all, n'est pas? So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 12 21:09:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:09:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taanis Bechoros - Women? Message-ID: My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros. So I read her Mishne Berurah 470:4, which gives the reason as because there are no halachos in which female firstborns have any such kedusha. That seemed to satisfy her, but it didn't satisfy me. After all, if a boy is his father's first but not his mother's first, then he has no kedusha which would require Pidyon Haben. Aruch Hashulchan 470:2 gives that same logic, but explains that although the father's first doesn't get a Pidyon Haben, he *does* have special halachos about inheritance, and Aruch Hashulchan 470:3 says the same thing regarding a boy who was born after a miscarriage, or a firstborn Kohen, or a firstborn Levi. My question is: So what? Why is the special status of "firstborn for inheritance" more relevant than "would've been killed in Mitzrayim"? (Please note that there is another case that I'm *not* asking about, namely, where none of the people at home was a technical bechor, then whoever was oldest was subject to Makas Bechoros. Since that could vary depending on who was home in any particular year, I can easily understand why it never got included in the minhag.) Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 13 13:24:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 23:24:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefirot Ha`omer Message-ID: Every year I would like to get deeper into the combinations of sefirot (or middot) that appear in siddurim with the counting of the Omer, and every year I get lost and confused. For example, what is the difference between hesed shebigevura and gevura shebehesed? If tiferet is a synthesis of hesed and gevura, how does it differ from either of the above? And so on and so on. There seem to be a thousand books and websites that explain the sefirot and their combinations in modern terms, but I haven't found any that quote or even cite primary sources. Where might one look for such sources? Mo`adim lesimha! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 13 22:56:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:56:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim!" Given the illogic of the minhag of kitniyos I think not. Why would they impose a din that makes no sense in today's world. With regards to visiting children R' AKiva Miler wrote: "That depends on your posek. By my memory, many poskim, including among the DL, hold that one can eat from the keilim, but to avoid actual kitniyos. And many other shitos in both directions." I was saying that facetiously. WADR you missed the forest for the trees. Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child and can't eat all the food. You are looking at this from a pure halachic perspceticve but in truth, there is a non-halachic sociologcal perspective here that needs to be addressed as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 14 01:12:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 11:12:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefirot Ha`omer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71537556-72e6-e4ec-3ea1-61c0f913fb9b@starways.net> Lama li kra? It seems pretty clear on the face of it. Hesed she'b'Gevura means that you're doing Hesed by means of Gevura. Your intended result is Hesed. The way you're achieving that Hesed is by an act of Gevura. So let's take R' Aryeh Kaplan's understanding of the two Middot, where Hesed means going above and beyond what is required, and Gevura is restraining yourself, and here are a couple of examples. You're at the grocery store, and there's one box of Wacky Macs left on the shelf. You see a mother with a bunch of her kids coming down the aisle, and the kids are beginning for Wacky Macs. So you don't take it. You're limiting yourself in order to do something nice (but not required) for the mother. That's Hesed she'b'Gevura. You're at the grocery store, and you've taken the last box of Wacky Macs. You know you shouldn't eat it, because it's all starch and fat, but you can't help it. You're standing at the checkout line, and there's a mother behind you whose kids are giving her a hard time because they wanted Wacky Macs, but the store is out. So you decide that this will help you keep your diet, and you offer the mother the box of Wacky Macs. You're doing something nice (but not required) for the mother in order to limit yourself. That's Gevura she'b'Hesed. It's a thin line, sometimes. Figuring out what the actual action (or inaction) is and what the purpose is. Means and ends. As far as Tiferet, while you can see it as a synthesis of Hesed and Gevura, which is nice if you like the thesis-antithesis-synthesis paradigm, it's really the point of balance between them. Where you aren't refraining and you aren't overdoing. Another term for Tiferet is Tzedek. Meaning doing what you're supposed to do, or what you're allowed to do: no more and no less. I think that one of the reasons there aren't books that cite primary sources about this is simply because there aren't any. There are primary sources about what the meaning of each of the Sefirot mean, but the combination should be fairly clear. That said, I know it isn't. When I was a camper as a kid, we had discussion groups about whether we were "Jewish Americans" or "American Jews". I was 12 the first time we did it, and it was a mess. The next time, I think I was 14 or 15, and I already realized what the problem was, although the counselor leading the discussion didn't. It's a matter of definitions. If you look at it in terms of language, one of those words is the noun, and the other is the adjective. The noun is what you *are*. The adjective just modifies it. So "American Jew" is putting being Jewish first, and "Jewish American" is putting being American first. But a lot of the other kids (and the counselor) were looking at it from the point of view of which *word* came first in the phrase. And theoretically, I suppose, you could interpret X she'b'Y in the opposite way from what I've described above, but I'm not sure there's a real nafka mina, because we cover all the combinations. It just seems to me that the first week, we deal with the concept of *doing* Hesed, with all 7 possible intents, since these 7 Sefirot are fundamentally Sefirot of action (and interaction), as opposed to the first three, which are Sefirot of mind. But can you say that the first week, we talk about the concept of *intending* Hesed, with all 7 possible methods? I suppose. It's not the way I look at it, but absent primary sources to determine which way is right, I suppose it's possible. Shabbat Shalom and Moadim L'Simcha, Lisa On 4/13/2017 11:24 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > Every year I would like to get deeper into the combinations of sefirot > (or middot) that appear in siddurim with the counting of the Omer, and > every year I get lost and confused. For example, what is the > difference between hesed shebigevura and gevura shebehesed? If tiferet > is a synthesis of hesed and gevura, how does it differ from either of > the above? And so on and so on. > > There seem to be a thousand books and websites that explain the > sefirot and their combinations in modern terms, but I haven't found > any that quote or even cite primary sources. Where might one look for > such sources? > > Mo`adim lesimha! > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 14 06:40:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:40:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <491b0760-73a4-cf76-550a-2c2dfb57aeb3@sero.name> On 14/04/17 01:56, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > I was saying that facetiously. WADR you missed the forest for the trees. > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child and > can't eat all the food. If you think that's a problem now, wait till Moshiach comes and you have parents visiting their daughter who married a Cohen. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 11:52:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 20:52:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8fe0a1db-6349-9011-e2d4-ea78a89684eb@zahav.net.il> I've said this before but it bares repeating. I was married to someone with multiple food allergies. Cooking even at home was always a challenge. Going out to eat at someone else's house and giving them the list of what yes, what no made that it even harder. Whenever we had guests, we always asked about food allergies, kashrut requirements, and preferences. Compared to allergies, kashrut stuff was kid's play. More than that, I learned that it is perfectly OK to have food on the table that not everyone can eat. Any vegetarian who came over expecting to be able to eat everything was disappointed. Not being able to eat rice and having to settle for the five other dishes doesn't even make it on my radar. Thinking that one should be able to eat everything is a sense of entitlement that I don't accept. Ben On 4/14/2017 7:56 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child > and can't eat all the food. > > You are looking at this from a pure halachic perspceticve but in > truth, there is a non-halachic sociologcal perspective here that needs > to be addressed as well. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 18:36:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:36:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > Given the illogic of the minhag of kitniyos ... ... > Why would they impose a din that makes no sense in today's world. I could easily argue that avoidance of poultry and milk "makes no sense in today's world." I'd like to hear whether other people think that din to be logical or illogical. (One is a minhag, and the other is d'rabbanan, but that's a side issue. My question is whether one is less logical than the other.) Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 18:22:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:22:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini Message-ID: One of the main areas this portion deals with is kashruth. There is an overriding concept in the laws of kashruth that the characteristics of what we eat somehow have a great influence on the way we behave. We do not want to associate ourselves with cruelty, therefore we are forbidden to eat cruel animals, and in this case certain fowl. Among the fowl that are listed as being non kosher is the chasidah, the white stork. You may ask what cruel character trait does the stork possess. Rashi mentions that the reason it is called a "chasidah" is because it does chesed with its friends regarding the food it finds. On the surface this seems strange. If the stork acts kindly with its food, why is it disqualified as being kosher? A beautiful explanation to this difficulty has been given by the Chidushei Harim, a Chassidic 19th century Talmudic scholar, in which he explains the nature of the stork. He says that the fact the stork only shows its kindness with its friends defines its cruelty. A fowl who is not in the circle of the stork's good buddies is excluded from getting any help from the stork in finding food. In other words, the stork is very selective in its kindness. This type of kindness is misleading. We, as Jews, are commanded to help our foes. If we come across someone we dislike intensely who needs help, we are commanded to help. The stork, on the other hand, helps only his friends. It is this character trait of differentiating between close friends and others when it comes to providing food that makes the stork non-kosher. Chesed means reaching out altruistically, with love and generosity to all. The process of maturing involves developing our sense of caring for others. This is crucial for spiritual health. The Talmud likens someone who doesn't give to others as the "walking dead.? A non-giving soul is malnourished and withered. It is only through unconditional love that our successful future will be built. In the words of King David (Psalm 89:3): Olam chesed yibaneh - "the world is built on kindness.? May we live to see this kindness and care infused in all our lives. Kindness is the language the deaf can hear and the blind can see. Mark Twain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 12:40:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:40:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: <042313fe1c2b495fbe8f8efad437f69d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <042313fe1c2b495fbe8f8efad437f69d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: I was reminded of this question this evening. Our shul is nominally nusach Sefard. However if someone (like moi) does daven Ashkenaz, the gabbi is OK, but insists on things like: Saying Shir Ha'ma'lot in Maariv Saying Keter during Mussaf Ben On 3/30/2017 2:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Visiting a shul questions-actual practices and sources appreciated: > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:45:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:45:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ff40b88-0f88-fb08-9c92-10e44bbdfc3d@zahav.net.il> A bit of perspective here: this is the Orthodox version of a first world problem. 100 years ago how many Ashkenazim and Sefardim even met, much less intermarried or lived in the same neighborhoods? At most, this is a bit of growing pain. Ben On 4/14/2017 7:56 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child > and can't eat all the food. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:34:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:34:27 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: How do we determine when the dough is baked to the point where it can no longer become Chamets? when there are no Chutim NimShaChim When the Matza is torn apart there are no doughy threads stretching between the two pieces. These days this test is not available because so little water is added to the flour that there is no opportunity for the chemical reaction that activates the gluten and even when the Matza, or the batch of dough is torn BEFORE it is put into the oven there are NO Chutim NimShaChim [this is noted by the Chazon Ish] So if one suggests that there is a possibility that some flour within [but not on the surface of] the Matza which is protected from the heat of the oven and does not become baked [as once it is baked, flour can not become Chamets] then the Chashash that this flour might become Chamets if it becomes wet pales into insignificance and is completely eclipsed by the much greater risk that the middle part of the Matza which may not have been baked may actually be Chamets [Gamur] The fact that it is now now dry means nothing that is simply dehydrated dough AKA Chamets, maybe Chamets Nukshe Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:40:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:40:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed Message-ID: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ > Let me run an idea by you guys... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha....... > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. >>>>> It seems to me you are no more obligated to tear toilet paper for the whole week than you are to do all your cooking for the whole week before the yom tov. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:49:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:49:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taanis Bechoros - Women? Message-ID: <63e57.57f1ef36.46246de8@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros. << Akiva Miller >>>>> That's a pretty obscure medrash. It is seemingly contradicted by the Torah itself, which specifies that a pidyon haben is required for a firstborn boy because the firstborn boys were spared makas bechoros in Egypt. Nothing about a pidyon habas. On the other hand, according to Sefer HaToda'ah (Book of Our Heritage), "There are different customs associated with this fast. Some say that every firstborn, male or female, whether from the father or from the mother, must fast on that day. If there is no firstborn, then the oldest in the house must fast.....However others say that only firstborn males need to fast and this is the generally accepted custom." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 21:50:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Martin Brody via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:50:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Fast of the First Born. Message-ID: Akiva Miller posted "My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros etc." Maybe because the fast has nothing to do with the 10th plague at all? They should be celebrating, not fasting! Fasting is for repentance. More likely the Sin of the Golden Calf, when the firstborn lost their priestly status. On the 14th the first born have to watch the Aaronite priests slaughtering the Pascal offering instead of them. Cheers Martin Brody From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 20:55:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:55:38 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen son in law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: when Moshiach comes parents will seek a cohen for a son in law because it's a great investment, they can feed their son in law and his family with their tithes. It's like having the Bechor reinstated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 06:28:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:28:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is > impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har > habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. > ... > This construction places the holy har habayit on the currently > raised portion of the Temple mount. This yields an amah of about > 38cm (CI=57, CN=44-48) > Other proofs included the length of the Siloam tunnel which is > documents in amot and can be measured. ... I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction as well. The minimum shiur for a mikveh is 3 cubic amos, as this is the size that a typical person could fit into. Who among us could fit into a space 38x38x114 cm? (15x15x45 inches)? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 06:41:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:41:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > If you think that's a problem now, wait till Moshiach comes and > you have parents visiting their daughter who married a Cohen. Indeed! And I think an even more common case will be a husband (regardless of shevet) who wants (or needs) to eat taharos, but his wife is nidah. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:28:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:28:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170416212823.GC13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 09:28:13AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Eli Turkel wrote: : > However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is : > impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har : > habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. I pointed out that we know length of the water tunnel in meters and rounded to two digits precision amos. In contrast, the current Har haBayis platform post-dates Hadrian y"sh lobbing off the top of the mountain and dumping it into the valley between the kotel and the current Moslem and Jewish Quarters. So we really only have part of one wall to go on. The floor can't possibly date back to either BHMQ. But that doesn't mean the shiur is impossible. The shiur may indeed be at odds with historical interpretations of the halakhah. Even perhaps by accident. But would that necessarily mean it's not binding? In either case, the CI's ammah is textual. RCNaeh's ammah is a textualist's attempt to formalize a precise number that is basicallhy consistent with the praactice of the Yishuv haYashan. Mimeticism-driven. RAM himself replied: : I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction as well. : The minimum shiur for a mikveh is 3 cubic amos, as this is the size : that a typical person could fit into. Who among us could fit into a : space 38x38x114 cm? (15x15x45 inches)? According to http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13993-stature , in 1906, the average Jewish man was about 162cm high. Let's make his miqvah 165 x 31 x 31 cm. Same volume of water. A maximum belt size of something like 97 cm (39") would fit. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:49:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 10:29:56AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) ... : RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who : determines this minhag?) Well, if it's mimetic, you just watch what people do. And if so, RSZA's statement is descriptive, not descriptive. As in: Lemaaseh, people are nohagim not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach. : He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never : accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason than the one given. ... : Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be prohibited (ie : even according to those that eat gebrochs) (yesh ladun behem - Pesachim 40b : - Rashi that when people are "mezalzel one should be machmir) Who is being mezalzel on chameitz? If he saying that because some people are questioning qitniyos, we should strengthen qitniyos, then what does that have to do with foods not already under that umbrella? And even among those who question the minhag's sanity, is there really a major zilzul going on among Ashkenazim doing less and less to avoid qitniyios? On the contrary, as your translation opens, avoiding shemen qitniyos has spread well beyond the communities that originally had that minhag, to the extent that it's being applied to foods that in the past weren't on the list of qitniyos! The questioning is a counter-reaction to the growth of the minhag. Who is being mezalzel? : In the notes that this was what RSZA said in shiurim and when asked a : question responded that one should follow the family minhag... Ascerting mimeticism over his own textualism. Sevara aside, minhag is whatever is the accepted practice. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:30:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:30:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach - Lecithin does not render chocolate non-KLP for Ashkenasim In-Reply-To: References: <0b78331e-194b-c586-6de0-fc623959e4e3@sero.name> <32449da1-df34-d5e8-7170-a2c8676adf0e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170416213032.GD13509@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 07:25:10AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 2) The prohibition of being m'vateil an issur applies to the super : corporations that run the milk industry? This is a case where buying Chalav Yisrael, which is de rigeur in Zev's Chabad community, would be more problematic. After all, something done for CY milk is being done for Jews. Something done for stam OUD milk would not be. :-)||ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:38:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Poisoning in Halacha In-Reply-To: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> References: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170416213850.GE13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 10:16:10PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: : Tonight my chevrusa and I learned the sugya in Bava Kamma 47b of one who : puts poison in front of his friend's animal. A brief synopsis and : application of the sugya is at : http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/infected: ... : It struck us that it follows that if one poisons another human being by, : say, placing cyanide in his tea, which the victim then drinks and dies, : the poisoner is exempt from capitol punishment. It would seem that such : a manner of murder falls into the category of the Rambam's ruling in : Hilchos Rotze'ach u'Shemiras Nefesh 3:10: It might be similarly true, but I don't know if "it follows". After all, gerama in Choshein Mishpat has a more limited definition than in hilkhos Shabbos. So, it didn't have to be true that the same definitions of gerama and garmi apply in dinei mamunus as in dinei nefashos. Lemaaseh, they are consistent. I would ask the Y-mi-style question: How is retzichah more similar to mamon than it is to Shabbos? :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:10:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:10:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> References: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> Message-ID: <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 2:40am EDT, RnTK wrote: :> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook :> https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ :> Let me run an idea by you guys... :> 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha....... :> 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the :> beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. : It seems to me you are no more obligated to tear toilet paper for the whole : week than you are to do all your cooking for the whole week before the yom : tov. Actually, the heter is that the food tastes better when made closer to eating time. But if one is talking about food that would taste as good if made days ahead (including the logistical limitations of storage), one is actually supposed to be cooking it before YT. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 15:44:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:44:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> References: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> On 16/04/17 17:49, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never > : accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... > > But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod > bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason > than the one given. again, no he doesn't. We just went through this last week. He never proposed it, even as a hava amina, and never gives a reason against it. He merely reports, as a matter of fact and completely without comment for or against it, that he heard that in Germany they forbid potatoes because over there they make flour from them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 15:36:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:36:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> References: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8d50d8fe-f514-fdbf-c460-9971ad347ed9@sero.name> On 16/04/17 17:10, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Actually, the heter is that the food tastes better when made closer to > eating time. But if one is talking about food that would taste as good > if made days ahead (including the logistical limitations of storage), > one is actually supposed to be cooking it before YT. But not before chol hamoed. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 20:00:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:00:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> References: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170419030020.GA29092@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 06:44:54PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 16/04/17 17:49, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >: He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never : >: accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... : >But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod : >bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason : >than the one given. : : again, no he doesn't. We just went through this last week... And given the relatice abilities of RSZA and you to read the Chayei Adam, you're obviously mistaken. : never proposed it, even as a hava amina... He reports the existence of such a minhag, and recommends against its adoption. Close enough. You're setting yourself up as a baal pelugta of RSZA by splitting hairs to crration a distinction without a difference? Really? -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 19:56:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:56:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Isru Chag Message-ID: <68F6CB3B-3D32-4BF0-A68E-3AD77FD7EE69@cox.net> The gematria for Isru Chag is 278, the same gematria for l'machar found in Bamidbar, Ch.11, vs.18. This is in the Sidra, Beha?a'lotcha, where God has Moshe establish a Sanhedrin because Moshe complained that he could not carry on alone. God says to Moshe: "To the people you shall say, 'Prepare yourselves for tomorrow and you shall eat meat..." There is an interesting tie here. The day after a festival is the "morrow" and even though the holiday is over, we must always be preparing ourselves. (Also, in counting the omer, we are preparing ourselves for the climax of our faith in 50 days). A good Isru chag to all. ri ?By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.? Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 21:06:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:06:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: R' Meir G. Rabi explained his logic: > if one suggests that > there is a possibility that > some flour > within [but not on the surface of] the Matza > which is protected from the heat of the oven > and does not become baked > [as once it is baked, flour can not become Chamets] > then the Chashash that this flour > might become Chamets if it becomes wet > pales into insignificance > and is completely eclipsed by the much greater risk > that the middle part of the Matza > which may not have been baked > may actually be Chamets [Gamur] I do not follow this logic. He is comparing two distinctly different risks. For simplicity, I'd like to call one risk "insufficiently kneaded" and the other one "insufficiently baked". "Insufficiently kneaded" means that there might be some flour in the middle of the matza that never got wet and is still plain raw flour, and that if it gets wet it will become chometz. "Insufficiently baked" means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not get baked, and it is already chometz. And RMGR feels that the second of these is a "much greater risk". I don't know where he gets the statistics to say that "insufficiently kneaded" is a small risk (his words are "pales into insignificance"), and that "insufficiently baked" is a "much greater risk". Personally, my opinion is that *IF* one checks his matzos to be sure that they are uniformly thin, *AND* checks to be sure that they have none of the kefulos or other problems that halacha warns us about, then he can be confident that no part of the matza was insufficiently baked, and they are NOT chometz. Thus, there are steps that the consumer can take to minimize the risk that his matzos were insufficiently baked. In contrast, I don't know of any way that the consumer can check the matzos to verify that they were kneaded well enough; who knows if there might be a few particles of flour that never got wet? I guess the consumer has to rely on the manufacturer and hechsher to insure that they are doing a good enough job of kneading the dough. Anyway, my main point is that these two risks are distinct from each other. I don't see any logical connection between them. From the way he worded the subject line, it sounds like RMGR is making a "kal vachomer", that if one is worried about one of the risks, then he must certainly worry about the other one, but I don't see that. (In fact, I can't even figure out which risk he feels leads to the other.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 13:17:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:17:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: I am moving this to Avodah. >From: Ben Waxman via Areivim >To: Simon Montagu via Areivim , areivim > >Why is this even an issue? Meaning, why is it such an issue that people >with a different minhag are davening together*? Or is the issue that >both sides feel that the other is doing an aveira**? > >*Sefardim and Ashkenazim wrap their teffilin differently. That factoid >doesn't stop anyone from praying together. >** Which brings up other issues. >Ben My understanding is that people who wear Tefillen during Cho Moed are not supposed to wear them in a minyan where the custom is that no one wears Tefillen. I know that in a couple of shuls near me they are makpid that those who wear Tefillen and those who do not do wear them do not daven together until after the kedusha of shachris when Tefillen are taken off. In the Kivasikin minyan that I normally daven with, those who were Tefillen are upstairs in what is normally the ladies section. After Kedusha of Shachris, those upstairs join those downstairs for a Hallel. I have been told that in the Agudah in Baltimore those who wear Tefillen are on one side of the mechitza and those who don't are on the other side until after kedusha of shachris. So, apparently there is a problem with having a mix of Tefillen wearers and non-wearers during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 14:17:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:17:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:17:21PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : So, apparently there is a problem with having a mix of Tefillen : wearers and non-wearers during Chol Moed. Lo sisgodedu. The pasuq behind the whole notion of minhag hamaqom altogether. Eg see MB 31 s"q 8. The AhS OC 31:4 is okay with minyanim that are mixed between wearers and non-wearers. Nowadays, when the concept of minhag hamaqom is so weak and has so little to do with our sence of belonging, I think the psychology is the opposite as that assumed by those who apply lo sisgodedu. Having two minyanim is more divided, and certainly if it ends up an argument about which part of the minyan is behind the mechitzah. Look how in Israel, many minyanim ignore the halakhos of having a set nusach for the beis kenesses and just let each chazan use his own minhag avos! And this enables a single minyan to function in spite of diversity; a variety of Jews from different cultures able to daven together! Tir'u baTov! -Micha (PS: "wfb" summarized a nice list of sources about whether they should be worn from R Jacob Katz's article in Halakhah veQabbalah at .) -- Micha Berger Today is the 8th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed for another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 14:41:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:41:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Why would tefillin be any different to the various different practises about who does and doesn't wear a tallis? I have never heard of a non-tallis-wearing post-bar-mitzva boy being banished behind the mechitza at a yekkishe shul, or vice versa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 01:20:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:20:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> I didn't understand the question. My daughter married a sefardi and they eat kitniyot. I was by them for seder and everything served was without kiniyot. BTW I not aware of any shitah that there is a problem with keilim used for kitniyot. BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given modern communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a problem but there might be technological answers to that also. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 01:38:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:38:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kiniyot Message-ID: <<: RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who : determines this minhag?) Well, if it's mimetic, you just watch what people do. And if so, RSZA's statement is descriptive, not descriptive. As in: Lemaaseh, people are nohagim not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach. ... Sevara aside, minhag is whatever is the accepted practice. >> The question is "whose minhag". RSZA is stating what he saw. In my area of New York everyone used cottenseed oil. I recently saw a discussion of women saying kaddish. After a lengthy discussion the author concludes that the minhag is for women not to say kaddish. Well in almost all the shuls in my town women do say kaddish. I understand that even the Rama in SA in quoting minhag means Polish (Krakow) minhag and many other existing minhagim in Russia, or Italy were ignored. Similar things in the Sefardi communities. There are several cases that ROY opposes Morrocan customs as being against (sefardi) halacha but are heatedly defended by Moroccan rabbis. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 05:15:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:15:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Look how in Israel, many minyanim ignore the halakhos of having a set nusach for the beis kenesses and just let each chazan use his own minhag avos! And this enables a single minyan to function in spite of diversity; a variety of Jews from different cultures able to daven together! ---------------------------------- Which gets to the heart of the matter - some see diversity of Minhag as lchatchila (all the shvatim had their own Sanhedrin/practice) while others see it as a result of galut. IMHO this debate will continue ad biat hagoel (may it be very soon) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 05:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41e2d260-e360-8e8e-4d15-6f524b655121@sero.name> On 20/04/17 04:20, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make > sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given > modern communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush > hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a problem but there might be > technological answers to that also. The simplest method of getting word of kiddush hachodesh to the whole world on Shabbos/Yomtov is to have a goy send a tweet, which every Jewish house or shul could be set up beforehand to receive. Amira lenochri is of course midrabbanan, so the Sanhedrin can authorise an exception. But there's an even better solution: Kidush hachodesh (as opposed to notifying people about it) is docheh Shabbos/Yomtov. Eidim can be positioned in advance in places guaranteed to have no cloud cover and a good view of the moon (perhaps Ramon Crater?), and they can then drive to Yerushalayim, arriving in plenty of time to testify as soon as the beit din opens in the morning. They could even be positioned on desert mountaintops in chu"l, and fly in. Thus we could guarantee in advance that Elul will never again have a 30th day, and everyone could rely on that without actually being notified on the day. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 09:38:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:38:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:20:04AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make sense I : vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given modern : communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush : hachodesh instantaneously.... I would like to suggest a different angle on YT Sheini. It's not so much that Chazal were afraid of the same problems might arise in bayis shelishi. After all, the language in the gemara isn't the usual that we find with (eg) chadash on Nisan 16 or other taqanos to avoid that kind of problem. I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh ought to be al pi re'iyah. It is that important to remember that the progression is "meqadesh Yisrael vehazmanim", that people sanctify time, rather than the times imposing themselves on people. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 10:13:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:13:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> On 21/04/17 12:38, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I would like to suggest a different angle on YT Sheini. > > It's not so much that Chazal were afraid of the same problems might > arise in bayis shelishi. After all, the language in the gemara isn't > the usual that we find with (eg) chadash on Nisan 16 or other taqanos > to avoid that kind of problem. The language is "sometimes the kingdom will decree a decree"; therefore in an era when -- according to all opinions -- we will never again be subject to hostile kingdoms, it would seem no longer relevant. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 10:45:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:45:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:13:27PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The language is "sometimes the kingdom will decree a decree"; : therefore in an era when -- according to all opinions -- we will : never again be subject to hostile kingdoms, it would seem no longer : relevant. The language of the azhara to keep the minhag talks about zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah. Rashi ad loc says that the said gezeira would be against studying Torah, the community would lose the sod ha'ibbur and mess up their version of the calculation. But that's not the cause for keeping the minhag going. Because that rationale has nothing to do with where the messengers could arrive on time back when we needed them. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 11:23:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:23:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:58:36PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: :> The language of the azhara to keep the minhag talks about zimnin degazru :> hamalkhus gezeirah. :> Rashi ad loc says that the said gezeira would be against studying Torah, :> the community would lose the sod ha'ibbur and mess up their version of :> the calculation. :> But that's not the cause for keeping the minhag going. : The letter explicitly says that *was* the reason. You don't address my claim, just deny it. What the gemara says the letter read was: Hizharu beminhag avoseikhem! Zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah, ve'asi le'ilqalqulei. This is a motive given for "hizharu". (The letter expliticly says so.) Yes, it could mean that it's the motive for the minhag, which is so strong that that justifies not only keeping it going, but being warned But, given that the potential oppression does not justify the format of the minhag, this explanation must be for the caution alone. :> Because that :> rationale has nothing to do with where the messengers could arrive on :> time back when we needed them. : Those places never had a minhag of two days, so Chazal weren't going : to institute one now. Why not? If the problem is the unreliability of a computed calendar that is done once for centuries ahead without a Sanhedrin, this is new to those in Israel too! I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. Then they add, that one shouldn't say it's not /that/ important, because there is a pragmatic benefit as well. (In any case, Chazal were instituting a derabbanan based on a pre-existing minhag. I don't think you intended to imply that the "one" being instituted now was a minhag.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 11:42:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> On 21/04/17 14:23, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > What the gemara says the letter read was: > Hizharu beminhag avoseikhem! > Zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah, ve'asi le'ilqalqulei. > > This is a motive given for "hizharu". (The letter expliticly says > so.) > > Yes, it could mean that it's the motive for the minhag, which is so > strong that that justifies not only keeping it going, but being warned > But, given that the potential oppression does not justify the format > of the minhag, this explanation must be for the caution alone. No, it's not the reason for the minhag in the first place; we know what that was, and it no longer applies. That's why they wrote to the Sanhedrin asking whether they should abandon it. Hizharu means don't abandon it, keep it going anyway, and the reason for doing so is Zimnin degazru. > : Those places never had a minhag of two days, so Chazal weren't going > : to institute one now. > > Why not? Because that would be an innovation and Zimnin degazru is not enough reason to do so. But it *is* enough reason to continue an already existing practise that has just become obsolete. It takes a lot more to justify changing existing practise than it does to continue it. > I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that > qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices > from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. But there's no hint of this, and the letter explicitly says otherwise. > (In any case, Chazal were instituting a derabbanan based on a pre-existing > minhag. Yes, exactly. It's a din derabanan that behaves *as if* it were a mere minhag, because that's what the rabbanan said it should do. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 12:26:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:26:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421192640.GA20001@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 02:42:49PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : No, it's not the reason for the minhag in the first place; we know : what that was, and it no longer applies. That's why they wrote to : the Sanhedrin asking whether they should abandon it. Hizharu means : don't abandon it, keep it going anyway, and the reason for doing so : is Zimnin degazru. No, hizharu means "be careful", not "keep it going anyway". This is NOT "kevar qiblu avoseikhem aleihem. Shene'emar 'Shemi beni musar avikha, ve'al titosh toras imekha.'" (Pesachim 50b) ... : >I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that : >qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices : >from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. : : But there's no hint of this, and the letter explicitly says otherwise. Again, only once you mistranslate what it means lehazhir. This "explicitly" is not only far from explicit, it's not even there! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 13:37:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:37:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer > make sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside > Israel. Given modern communications, the whole world would know > the time of kiddush hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a > problem but there might be technological answers to that also. Shavuos mochiach. Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. If you can discover all of them, and explain all of them, and explain how Shavuos fits, *then* we can discuss "gezerot that no longer make sense". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 14:21:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:21:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> On 4/21/2017 7:38 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole > taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh > ought to be al pi re'iyah. That's a real possibility. In addition, I suggest that halakha is intended to be feasible without any technology. Just imagine changing something this fundamental to rely on an electronic network that will inevitably be subject to attack by EMPs at some point. I don't think it would be responsible. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 10:35:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 20:35:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole > taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh > ought to be al pi re'iyah. > It is that important to remember that the progression is "meqadesh > Yisrael vehazmanim", that people sanctify time, rather than the times > imposing themselves on people. Even more so once a Sanhredin is reconstituted and there is qiddush hachodesh ougal pi re'iyah.there is no use for YT sheni From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 19:18:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:18:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170423021813.GC19870@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:21:23AM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : That's a real possibility. In addition, I suggest that halakha is : intended to be feasible without any technology. Just imagine : changing something this fundamental to rely on an electronic network : that will inevitably be subject to attack by EMPs at some point. I : don't think it would be responsible. While I get your basic point... What EMPs? Even by Shemu'el's rather prosaic version of the messianic era, ein bein olam hazeh liyamos hamoshiach ela shib'ud malkhius bilvad. Gut Voch! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 00:03:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 03:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: <59924.64874017.462dabd2@aol.com> [1] From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" >> My understanding is that people who wear Tefillen during Cho Moed are not supposed to wear them in a minyan where the custom is that no one wears Tefillen. I know that in a couple of shuls near me they are makpid that those who wear Tefillen and those who do not do wear them do not daven together until after the kedusha of shachris when Tefillen are taken off. << YL [2] From: Allan Engel via Avodah >> Why would tefillin be any different to the various different practises about who does and doesn't wear a tallis? I have never heard of a non-tallis-wearing post-bar-mitzva boy being banished behind the mechitza at a yekkishe shul, or vice versa. << >>>> The difference between the tallis-or-not issue and the tefillin-or-not issue is that the former is in the realm of minhag while the latter is in the realm of halacha. People are not so makpid about differing minhagim in the same shul, but differing piskei halacha in the same shul -- that is much more serious. When you have some men wearing tefillin and others not wearing tefillin in the same minyan on chol hamoed, the presence of each subset implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 00:14:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 10:14:12 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> Hard to imagine that all communication would be lost for 15 days. It certainly is less likely than some problem with lighting fires between mountains. Remember that originally the "entire" galut knew the correct date of Pesach and Succot and so there was only one day of yomtov. Only when there was a deliberate attempt to mislead was the system changed. Also interesting is that there is no discussion of communities beyond Bavel. What was done in Alexandria and Rome? In any case even if locally they kept 2 days it was widespread. BTW I assume it took months to reach Rome. If there was a community in Spain (sefarad) it was even longer. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 12:34:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:34:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tazria Message-ID: <60DB8D20-7368-440D-830C-67A3C69835DD@cox.net> Rabbi Zelig Pliskin, in his book ?Love Your Neighbor,? quotes a hilarious true story about Lashon Hora. Someone asked a cerain woman if she wished to borrow a copy of ?Guard Your Tongue? to study the laws of lashon hora. Her response was: ?I don?t need it. I never speak lashon hora. But my husband really needs it. He always speaks lashon hora." We all know about lashon hora and how speaking ill of others is rather a poor reflection of ourselves. However, taken to another level, it was the S?fat Emes who said that it also can refer to having failed to speak lashon tov. This brings to mind the poignant story of a man weeping uncontrollably at the grave of his young wife. When the rabbi tried to console him by saying how good he was to her, he replied: ?Oh, rabbi, how I loved her so much and once I almost told her.? We have friends who take the time and effort to say nice things, and it would even be nicer if more of us did that. You never know the ripple effect a good word can have. ri After receiving another notice from school about bad behavior, a frustrated father sat to explain to his child the source of each one of the gray hairs in his once black beard. ?This one is from the last time the principal called about your misbehavior. This one is from the time you were mean to your sister. This one is from the time you broke our neighbor?s window,? etc., etc. The father looked at his child for a response to his appeal for better behavior, to which the child calmly replied: ?Oh, now it makes sense why Zaide has such a white beard!? Speech is the mirror of the soul Publilius Syrus, Latin Writer 85BCE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 11:47:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 18:47:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 256 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 25 15:03:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 22:03:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> "When you have some men wearing tefillin and others not wearing tefillin in the same minyan on chol hamoed, the presence of each subset implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment." Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people conscientiously following their family customs and davening together nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. Just a thought from a different perspective. Joseph Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 05:02:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:02:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "Shavuos mochiach. Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. If you can discover all of them, and explain all of them, and explain how Shavuos fits, *then* we can discuss "gezerot that no longer make sense"." The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 04:52:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:52:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Metzorah "LEPERS DO CHANGE THEIR SPOTS" Message-ID: On this, the Shabbos preceding Yom Haatzmaut, we read the Haftarah containing the following verse referring to the four lepers: ?And they said to one another: ?We are not doing the right thing; today is a day of good tidings and yet, we remain silent! If we wait until the light of dawn (until it?s too late), we will be adjudged as sinners; now come, let us go and report to the king?s palace.? Second Kings 7:9 It is fascinating that in our own times, this verse contains a challenging message. It is remarkable how the events of modern Israel ran parallel to the the story told in this Biblical chapter. The Arab armies besieging the Jewish community in Israel, their panic and sudden flight, the great deliverance which followed, and the birth of the State of Israel ? do we not see the hand of Providence in all these events? In one respect we are deeply worried. The lepers of the Haftarah possessed the moral obligation to proclaim the miracle. ?We are not doing the right thing. This is a day of good tidings and it is not proper that we should be quiet about it.? Many of us today (outcasts of yesterday) have still not risen to the moral height of recognizing that a miracle has transpired before our very eyes and therefore our duty to proclaim the greatness of the day! Let us, therefore, proclaim it to our children and to the world. Let us, with a firm belief in the future of Israel, do everything possible to assure its existence, strengthen its foundations, and thus look forward to the day of good tidings, the day of Israel?s total and quintessential Independence! rw John Adams: "I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations? They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews.? John F. Kennedy: "Israel was not created in order to disappear ? Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 13:29:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:03:43PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: :> implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This :> makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look :> bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. : Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly : perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people : conscientiously following their family customs and davening together : nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out : of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that : anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. I think we've lost sight of the original topic. Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. When I was a kid, we tefillin-wearers davened Shacharis in the basement, joining the rest of the shteibl only for the latter part of davening. We are therefore starting with data, the pesaq, and trying to figure out what that means aggadically. Not just blindly guessing about how things look in heaven. If things are as you portray it, the original question is stronger -- what you said doesn't resolve anything. BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos as self-identifications. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 15th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in Fax: (270) 514-1507 harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 14:42:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 21:42:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com>, <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> Lost sight of original topic? If that were a valid criticism we'd hear it at least once if not more in every issue. As to substance. I've been davening in shuls on chol haMoed for more than 50 years and every shul I've davened in, all Modern Orthodox led by rabbis who were well respected talmedei chachamim, had men with and without teffilin davening in one minyan together, sitting next to each other without problems or, I'm pretty sure, thinking of transgressors. That's MY data which I would hope is as valid as shteibl data. And that's what my response to my good friend Toby was trying to deal with. I wasn't the one to raise the perspective of Heaven but I found Toby's thoughtful comment refreshingly interesting and, as always, articulate, so I thought about it a bit and responded. I thought that what we do here on A/A. Joseph Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 26, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:03:43PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: > :> implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This > :> makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look > :> bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. > > : Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly > : perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people > : conscientiously following their family customs and davening together > : nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out > : of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that > : anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. > > I think we've lost sight of the original topic. > > Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in > a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises > evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. > > When I was a kid, we tefillin-wearers davened Shacharis in the basement, > joining the rest of the shteibl only for the latter part of davening. > > We are therefore starting with data, the pesaq, and trying to figure > out what that means aggadically. > > Not just blindly guessing about how things look in heaven. If things > are as you portray it, the original question is stronger -- what you > said doesn't resolve anything. > > BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are indeed > motivated by a consciencous following of family customs and the > perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. And how much > is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification with Litvaks or > Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than identification with the > Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos as self-identifications. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Today is the 15th day, which is > micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. > http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in > Fax: (270) 514-1507 harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 16:11:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:11:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:42:41PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : As to substance. I've been davening in shuls on chol haMoed for more : than 50 years and every shul I've davened in, all Modern Orthodox led : by rabbis who were well respected talmedei chachamim, had men with and : without teffilin davening in one minyan together, sitting next to each : other without problems or, I'm pretty sure, thinking of transgressors. : : That's MY data which I would hope is as valid as shteibl data. And : that's what my response to my good friend Toby was trying to deal with. Those are both anecdotes. (BTW, it was a pretty MO shteibl. We had more professors and other PhDs than you can shake a stick at. R/Dr SZ Leiman, R/Dr David Berger, Rs/Drs Steiner, Rs/Drs Sachat, progessors of Asronomy, Physics (R/Dr Herbert Goldstein, likely author of you physics textbook), Topology...) What is data is that the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed between tefillin wearers and not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 18:24:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:24:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com>, <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB wrote: "What is data is that the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed between tefillin wearers and not." Here's some "data" from R. Chaim (Howard) Jachter: "Nevertheless, in many North American congregations on Chol Hamoed, some wear Tefillin and others do not wear Tefillin in one Minyan. Are all these congregations disregarding the Mishna Berura and the Aruch Hashulchan? One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent authorities. The Gemara (ibid.) states that the coexistence of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad ? two distinct communities maintaining disparate practices in one community ? does not violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 1:158 and 159) notes that in this country Jews have gathered from the various sections of Europe and continue the Halachic practices of their former communities. Subsequent generations continue the practices of their parents. Rav Moshe asserts that American Jewry constitutes ?a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad? and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. The Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan addressed a situation in Europe, which radically differs from the situation in North America, as explained by Rav Moshe. However, it appears that one violates Lo Titgodedu if he wears Tefillin in public in Israel on Chol Hamoed." Joseph Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 22:54:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 01:24:46AM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent : authorities. ... Rav Moshe asserts : that American Jewry constitutes "a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad" : and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) : writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single : community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does : not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of : Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. : The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed... So, that answers the OP. Next question.. How long are we /supposed/ to continue being 2 BD be'ir echad, following the minhagim of our ancestral communities, rather than invoking lo sisgodedu and combining into communal minhagim in our current communities? EY is nearly there WRT tefillin on ch"m, with only a few holdouts like KAJ. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 04:29:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> , <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <36AE5716-00CB-4838-A9CE-5321370B72B4@tenzerlunin.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 27, 2017, at 1:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > > Next question.. How long are we /supposed/ to continue being 2 BD be'ir > echad, following the minhagim of our ancestral communities, rather > than invoking lo sisgodedu and combining into communal minhagim in our > current communities? Considering modern mobility, the world has been made so much smaller that I think the idea of strong communal minhagim imposed on all members of the community may be a thing of the past but not of the future. Joseph From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 16:48:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:48:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. ...<< Akiva Miller >>>>> I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 11:15:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent Message-ID: <20B9894A-31AD-494D-8049-66C38175C660@cox.net> It has been taught that a man must recite 100 b?rachot daily. There are different explanations why 100 and the following are a few: Rabbi Mayer said: a person is obligated to recite 100 Brachos each day. In the Jerusalem Talmud we learned: it was taught in the name of Rabbi Mayer; there is no Jew who does not fulfill one hundred Mitzvos each day, as it was written: Now Israel, what does G-d your G-d ask of you? Do not read the verse as providing for the word: ?what? (Mah); instead read it as including the word: ?one hundred? (Mai?Eh). King David established the practice of reciting one hundred Brachos each day. When the residents of Jerusalem informed him that one hundred Jews were dying everyday, he established this requirement. It appears that the practice was forgotten until our Sages at the time of the Mishna and at the time of the Gemara re-established it. There is an additional hint to the need to recite 100 blessings each day from the Prophets as it is written, Micah, Chapter 6, Verse 8: What does G-d ask of you (Hebrew: mimcha). Mimcha in Gematria is 100. There is also a hint to the need to recite 100 blessings from Scriptures as it is written in Psalms, Chapter 128 Verse 4: Behold, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the Lord (the Hebrew words: Ki Kain appear in the verse. The letters in those words total 100 in Gematria). I?d like to proffer another explanation. In most tests you take in school, a perfect score is 100 or an A+. Hence, when reciting a hundred brachot a day, we come as close to perfection as possible. ?If sin becomes an abomination to you, you will have a hundred percent victory over it.? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 17:35:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:35:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> References: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> Message-ID: <1210e77c-beca-a075-ee6d-2fb9df2cafe8@sero.name> On 27/04/17 19:48, via Avodah wrote: > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the > mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman matan toraseinu. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 18:13:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:13:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> On Areivim we were discussing how some activity could be labeled yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. Along the way I wrote that it couldn't be because the enviroment includes gender mixing. I concluded: : Arayos isn't yeihareig ve'al ya'avor until it's : actual relations. I'm not even sure that yeihareig ve'al ya'avor would : apply to bi'ah with a willing penuyah (who is not a niddah). Two people asked me off list to look at Sanhedrin 75a. In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he could speak to her; at least through a fence. According to either R' Yaaqov bar Idi or R Shemu'el bar Nachmeini, she was even a penuyah. (Peligi bah... chad amar...) But one could learn from that gemara that it would NOT be yeihareig ve'al ya'avor: Bishloma according to the man da'amar she was an eishes ish, shapir. But according to the MdA she was penuyah -- mah kulei hai? Two answers: R' Papa says because it's a pegam mishpachah, R' Acha berei deR' Iqa says "kedei shelo yehu benos Yisrael perutzos ba'arayos". So what's the exchange saying? That it is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor because of the consequent peritzus? Or that bishloma an eishes ish would be YvAY, but a penyah, who isn't, why wouldn't the guy be allowed to speak to her? As I said on Areivim "I am not even sure" which, because the gemara could be taken either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:03:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:03:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: R' Micha Berger concluded: > BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are > indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs > and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. > And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification > with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than > identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos > as self-identifications. That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the MB and AhS were on. By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? Do we really want to accuse the MB and AhS of that? I think there is another way we can look at this whole topic. Let's ask what makes Chol Hamoed Tefillin so unusual. Why is this case different than so many others? Someone else asked why there isn't any enforced uniformity regarding unmarried men wearing a tallis in shul. Why is that different? How about the differing ways of avoiding simcha during sefira? One person will make a wedding during the last week of Nisan, and another person FROM THE SAME SHUL will make a wedding after Lag Baomer. Not only is this tolerated, but the entire shul is allowed to attend both weddings! Why don't we insist that the whole town should go one way or the other, like with the tefillin? Sometimes I feel that our perspective on these issues is so very different than what prevailed in the unified kehilos of yesteryear, that we cannot ever hope to understand it. I think the confusion comes from try to impose one perspective on a differing situation. Perhaps we ought to "agree to disagree". Specifically: *WE* get strength from our diversity; *THEY* got strength from their uniformity. I personally worry about the misfits in those cultures, and the losses they suffered. But perhaps their leaders accepted that as an acceptable price for the chizuk that came to the larger group. We have been trained to be unwilling to accept such a price, and we fight for every single individual. But that too has a price, and we are often unable or unwilling to admit it. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:12:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:12:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement > in the mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. Yes, there is a disagreement over whether the Torah was given on 6 Sivan or on 7 Sivan. And there are lots of cute vertlach about whether Shavuos is about *Matan* Torah, or *Kabalas* HaTorah (and whether or not they happened on the same day). But the bottom line is the the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after Pesach. If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty about Shavuos. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:52:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:52:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025454.YQWS32620.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in >a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises >evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. There's something about this that I've never understood. Suppose a person is having a stomach problem -- isn't he supposed to refrain from wearing tefillin? So, in a shul, a guy is not wearing tefillin -- how do we even know what his reason is? (In fact, I think I recall hearing that R Moshe himself didn't wear tefillin many times towards the end of his life for this reason). So, of all the things regarding lo sisgadedu -- why tefillin? Why not all the other things that daveners wear differently? (E.g., different minhagim via-a-vis wearing a tallis before marriage?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:54:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:54:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Rabbi Mayer said: a person is obligated to recite 100 Brachos each >day. In the Jerusalem Talmud we >learned: it was taught in the name of Rabbi Mayer; there is no Jew >who does not fulfill one hundred >Mitzvos each day, as it was written: Now Israel, what does G-d your >G-d ask of you? Do not read the >verse as providing for the word: ?what? (Mah); instead read it as >including the word: ?one hundred? >(Mai?Eh). IIRC, there's a fun Ba'al HaTurim on this pasek: If you add the alef into the pasuk -- not only does it turn the word into "100" -- but the pasuk will then have 100 letters in it. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:58:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:58:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> > > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the > > mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. Indeed. Machlokes over whether it was Sivan 6 or 7. OTOH, the 50th day could also have fallen on Sivan 5, no? >The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed >calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman >matan toraseinu. Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? (I'm not being snarky -- it's a genuine question) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 21:45:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:45:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170428044535.GC2155@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:58:07PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" : when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? The explanation I like (eg from Maadanei Yom Tov) is that "zeman matan Toraseinu" is not a date in Sivan, but a number of days after Yetzias Mitzrayim or of the omer. Your question is based on the idea that "zeman" is a time on the calendar, not a point in a process (be it redemption or of omer). The MYT I mentioned earlier explains why Matan Torah was on the 7th whereas our Zeman Matan Toraseinu is on the 6th: He (the Tosafos Yom Tov?) notes that omer is both tisperu 50 yom and sheva shabasos temimos. It is 50 days or 7 x 7 = 49 days? So, uusually we think 49 days of omer, Shavuos is the 50th. The MYT says that 49 days of omer and the first day of Pesach is the 0th. Zeman Matan Toraseinu is thus after 50 days of process. For our Pesach, that's day 1 of Pesach + 49 omer, yeilding Sivan 6th. The first Pesach, though, Yetzi'as Mitzrayim was at midnight. So the first full day, usable as day 0, was the 16th of Nissan. Shifting everying off one day, so that process from physical ge'ulah to matan Torah ended on 7 Sivan. But whether you like that vertl or not, the idea that would answer your question is just that "zeman" is not necessarily a date; just as Shabbos is a time based on interval, not date. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:33:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:33:49 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <40e6067e-a5cf-689b-619a-908d5249a8a8@zahav.net.il> When was that prayer written, before or after the calendar was set? Ben On 4/28/2017 4:58 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" > when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 02:33:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:33:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the Exodus. Lisa On 4/28/2017 5:58 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed >> calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman >> matan toraseinu. > > Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" > when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:18:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:18:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428061804.GA19887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : "Insufficiently kneaded" means that there might be some flour in the : middle of the matza that never got wet and is still plain raw flour, : and that if it gets wet it will become chometz. "Insufficiently baked" : means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not : get baked, and it is already chometz. And RMGR feels that the second : of these is a "much greater risk". But... If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently kneeded, would any of the dry flour that went through the oven be still capable of becoming chaneitz if wet? If the dough is now too baked to rise any further, wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be to toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5, which discvusses things not to do because "shelma lo qulhu yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is that possible? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:22:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. Lo zakhisi lehavin. All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty. Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays being of the form of an uncertainty. But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain about the date. What am I missing in the CS's sevara? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 22:03:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:03:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite Message-ID: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> I signed up for something called Carbonite, which uploads everything on your computer to the Cloud where it might be possible to retrieve it all if your computer dies or is stolen. The thing is, either I have way too much on my computer or my computer is way too old and slow, but anyway, Carbonite started uploading on Sunday afternoon and now, Thursday night, it is STILL uploading. It continuously shows what progress it has made, and it is showing me that it has uploaded 43% of my computer. I am no math whiz but I can figure out that if it took from Sunday to Thursday to upload 43% it is not going to reach 100% before Shabbos. I asked the Carbonite tech person what happens if you turn off your computer in the middle, and he said Carbonite will just continue where it left off when you turn your computer back on. Interestingly we had a test case on Monday when my neighborhood lost power for six hours. When the power came back on, Carbonite did NOT resume where it had left off. Instead, I had to call Carbonite and ended up being on the phone for an hour while they told me to do this and that and then they did whatever and finally got Carbonite to resume its weary work. So here is my question for the learned chevra here on Avodah: Can I just leave my computer on all Shabbos, in another room with the door closed where I won't see it and it won't fashtair my Shabbos, and let Carbonite keep running and running? (It looks like it will take a whole nother week to finish.) Or should I sell my laptop to a goy and buy it back after Shabbos? (That was a joke, for those of you in Rio Linda.) Should I turn it off and resign myself to talking to tech support again for another hour to get it working again after Shabbos? Oy, siz shver tsu zein a Yid! Is leaving a laptop on all Shabbos with Carbonite uploading more like [A] leaving your lights, fridge and air conditioning on all Shabbos or [B] leaving a TV or radio on -- dubiously muttar, definitely not Shabbosdik or [C] making your eved Canaani work for you all day Shabbos -- a no-no or [D] giving your clothes to the Greek dressmaker to fix and telling her you need them some time next week, and if she for her own convenience decides to do the work on Shabbos, that's copacetic? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 06:44:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:44:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite In-Reply-To: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> References: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:03 AM, [Rn Toby Katz] wrote: > I signed up for something called Carbonite... > Can I just leave my computer on all Shabbos, in another room with the door > closed where I won't see it and it won't fashtair my Shabbos, and let > Carbonite keep running and running? (It looks like it will take a whole > nother week to finish.) ... What tzurus. I use crash plan. They each have their share of grief. I leave my computer on 24x7 except 2 day yomtov. I turn off the monitor and make sure the keyboard and mouse are secure before Shabbat. Why is it any different than leaving on the A/C? Back in the day, people would set the vcr to record a show over shabbat. That was a bit more dubious but was done. Good Shabbos From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 04:02:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:02:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org>, <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From: Micha Berger Sent: 27 April 2017 13:13 ... > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he > could speak to her; at least through a fence... > Bishloma according to the man da'amar she was an eishes ish, > shapir. > But according to the MdA she was penuyah -- mah kulei hai? ... > So what's the exchange saying? That it is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor > because of the consequent peritzus? Or that bishloma an eishes ish > would be YvAY, but a penyah, who isn't, why wouldn't the guy be > allowed to speak to her? Of note, that gemara is brought in Rambam Yesodei HaTorah in the context of acheiving cure for illness through hana'as issur. Meaning that it's not a halacha of gilui arayos per se, rather hana'as issur. He paskens it's assur even with a pnuya so that bnos yisrael won't be hefker. No mention of pgam mishpacha. (Parenthetically this seems to be an din of yeihareig v'al ya'avor midrabannon (so that bnos yisrael etc..). Any other such cases? I'd assumed YvAY is always d'oirasa, almost by definition) The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought. There is no suggestion that conversation in any normal situation is an issur hana'a per se, so therefore is not assur, certainly not Yeihareig V'al Yaavor. Therefore can't see how this gemara would be relevant to the army issue any more than the familiar dinim of r'eiyas einayim, kirva l'arayos etc which are no less relevant in the workplace and on the street. [Email #2. -micha] On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua. Nonetheless the whole gemara is still only relevant to a case of clear hana'as issur. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 07:57:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:57:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite In-Reply-To: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> References: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> Message-ID: <247ffd82-32aa-3bf1-c6ef-36c008a1a4a3@sero.name> On 28/04/17 01:03, via Avodah wrote: > Is leaving a laptop on all Shabbos with Carbonite uploading more like > [A] leaving your lights, fridge and air conditioning on all Shabbos > or [B] leaving a TV or radio on -- dubiously muttar, definitely not > Shabbosdik or [C] making your eved Canaani work for you all day Shabbos > -- a no-no or [D] giving your clothes to the Greek dressmaker to fix and > telling her you need them some time next week, and if she for her own > convenience decides to do the work on Shabbos, that's copacetic? It's A, shevisas keilim, which is a machlokes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. The halacha of course follows Beis Hillel, that we are not commanded on shevisas keiliim, so it's completely OK. The problem with B is hashma`as kol, which is a species of mar'is ho`ayin; passersby will hear the sound of work being done in your home and will suspect you, if not of actual chilul shabbos, then at least of amira lenochri. It is muttar if there are no Jews within a techum shabbos. C is of course completely out, mid'oraisa, even if the eved sets his own schedule. Avadim are obligated to keep Shabbos. D is amira lenochri, which is completely muttar mid'oraisa, but the chachamim forbade it lest you come to do melacha yourself. Thus it's muttar if the decision to do the work on Shabbos rather than during the week is completely up to the nochri. BTW you don't need to leave it to sometime next week; you can ask to have it ready when the shop opens on Sunday morning, and it's up to the cleaner whether to do it on Shabbos or to stay up all night motzei shabbos to get it done. It's only assur if there are literally not enough weekday hours between now and when you want it, so that the nochri *must* do some of it on Shabbos. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 07:27:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:27:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:14 PM 4/27/2017, R. Micha Berger wrote: >EY is nearly there WRT tefillin on ch"m, with only a few holdouts >like KAJ. This statement does not seem to be correct. See http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x Note the following from there. Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau?er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. and (I do not know what all of the ? stand for.) Here are a few names, a sampling of some past gedolim who wore tefillin on chol hamoed IN ERETZ YISROEL (either betzinoh or otherwise) ? Moreinu HaRav Schach, Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, Rav Michel Feinstein (eidem of the Brisker Rav), Pressburger Rav, and Rav Duschinsky, ????. The ???? ????? was in Eretz Yisroel. In his siddur Shaarei Shomayim, he has tefillin on chol hamoed. Rav Moshe Feinstein ???? writes in a teshuvoh that he knows of thousands of bnei Torah who put on tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel. ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????, ????? of Edah Charedis was heard also taking the position that someone whose minhog is to put on tefillin on chol hamoed cannot just suddenly drop it totally in Eretz Yisroel. The above and previous post is based on what I heard about this inyan ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????, ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????. I think there is an Oberlander minyan in Yerushlayim where they wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed as well, if I recall correctly. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 08:03:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:03:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7af7f734-f777-e833-2997-5d8daf3057af@sero.name> On 28/04/17 02:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos > : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not > : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day > : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a > : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most > : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But > : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the > : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. > Lo zakhisi lehavin. > > All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a > taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty. > > Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the > uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays > being of the form of an uncertainty. > > But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was > like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain > about the date. I think what he means is that even in their days, when most YT Sheni were safek d'oraisa, the 2nd day of Shavuos was a vadai d'rabanan pretending to be a safek d'oraisa. Nowadays that describes *all* YT Sheni (except the 2nd day of RH, which is a vadai d'rabanan not pretending to be anything else, because even in their days this was occasionally the case). So his explanation is merely historical, that what we have is not a new situation, because they had it on Shavuos. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 08:27:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:27:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is > the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the > case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which > we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the > Exodus. Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th day but on the 51st. So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the pseudo-Julian anniversary. Therefore I assume they did *not* say ZMT. In fact I assume they didn't say it even when it *did* fall on the 6th, since that was just a coincidence. Only when it was set to fall on the 6th every year did it take on a new nature as ZMT. This is all, however, on the assumption that we hold like the opinion that yetzias mitzrayim was on a Thursday. This is the basis of the entire sugya in Perek R Akiva Omer that we all know. But right at the end of that sugya, at the top of 88a a new source is suddenly cited, the Seder Olam, that YM was on a Friday, and the gemara seems to say "Aha! Forget everything we said till now, trying to reconcile the Rabbanan's opinion, now everything is simple: the Seder Olam follows the Rabbanan, YM was on a Friday, and MT was 50 days later on the 6th of Sivan, and the sources we've been working with, that say YM was on a Thursday, follow R Yossi, who says MT was on the 7th. So for years I've wondered why it is that we seem to ignore this source and continue to maintain that YM was on Thursday, even though it means accepting the strained explanations the gemara comes up with to reconcile them before it found the Seder Olam. If the SO was enough for the gemara to overthrow its earlier discussion, why isn't it enough for us? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 11:16:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:16:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: <24769a.1d3ee4d4.4634e11b@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> But the bottom line is the the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after Pesach. If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty about Shavuos. << Akiva Miller >>>> In the days when they kept two days Pesach because they didn't know when Rosh Chodesh had been, perhaps you can say that by the time Shavuos rolled around, the messengers had arrived to tell them when Rosh Chodesh Nissan (and therefore when Pesach) had been so by then they knew for sure when Shavuos was. But of course we still keep two days of Pesach until now, as we've been discussing, despite the fact that we no longer have a safeik about the date. So your statement, "If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty" is not really true or maybe is true but not relevant. After all, didn't you start counting Sefira on your [second] Seder Night? Was that not a stira -- counting sefira at the seder? After all, we're supposed to start counting "mimacharas haShabbos" -- the day AFTER yom tov, i.e., the first day of chol hamo'ed. So "fifty days after Pesach" turns out itself to be a slightly slippery concept. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 12:07:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:07:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent In-Reply-To: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> References: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Message-ID: I heard this from the late R Hershel Fogelman, of Worcester MA: The passuk says "ha'elef lecha Shelomo, umasayim lenotrim es piryo". What does this mean? The Gemara (Chulin 87a) says that the opportunity to say a bracha is worth ten golden coins. So we owe You, Melech Shehashalom Shelo, 1000 coins. But on Shabbos we are short 200. Who makes up these 200? Those who keep it with fruit. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 03:17:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 20:17:11 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: "Insufficiently baked" means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not get baked and it is already chometz. RMGR feels that this is a "much greater risk" than the risk of Gebrochts. I hope the following clarifies my argument that G is an utterly fake concern IF one is Choshesh that the baking has NOT reached the central part of the Matza as are Choshesh all those who do not eat G [bcs if it is properly baked then even if some flour remains bcs the dough was insufficiently kneaded that flour which has been baked CANNOT become Chamets] The problem is once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash that the central part of the Matza is not fully baked then never mind the problem of flour which will BECOME Chamets when it gets wet and given time WE HAVE A MUCH GREATER PROBLEM according to the Gebrochts-nicks argument we ALREADY HAVE CHAMETS in the Matza since the dough that is insufficiently baked is ALREADY Chamets -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 19:44:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:44:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently > kneaded, would any of the dry flour that went through > the oven be still capable of becoming chameitz if wet? > If the dough is now too baked to rise any further, > wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be > too toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5, > which discusses things not to do because "shema lo qulhu > yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is > that possible? What's the shiur of "qulhu yafeh"? Maybe roasting flour is more time-consuming than baking matzah? You want to say they're the same, but who knows? If we had a better handle on these things, our Pesach breakfasts could be farina or oatmeal made with chalita, but we have forgotten how to do that correctly. I have a friend who has been a Home Economics teacher at the local public high school for about 40 years. She likes to point out how different baking is from cooking. Cooking, she says, is about flavors, and you can put just about anything you like into a pot, cook it for a while, and it will be okay. "But baking is all about chemistry." You have to get the right ingredients in the right proportions at the right temperatures for the right time, or it will be a disaster. This distinction doesn't show up in Hilchos Shabbos, but it certainly does in Chometz UMatzah. Timing is key. I have no idea what the poskim say about varied situations of "shema lo qulhu yafeh", but it is very easy for me to imagine that if there is some dry flour inside the matza dough, the matza could be adequately baked while that flour is still not yet roasted enough to prevent later chimutz. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 04:10:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 21:10:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe Message-ID: R Micha points out RaMBaM does record the Halacha that we may not cook in water during Pesach toasted grains nor the flour ground from them because Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe perhaps they were not fully toasted and they may become Chamets one assumes this is because over-toasting the Camel grains ruins the taste and it was therefore far more likely that they were under-toasted than over-toasted Furthermore there is no test to apply to toasted grains as there is to baked Matza Matza is tested for being baked by tearing it apart and ensuring there are no doughy threads stretching between the torn pieces -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 19:17:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Acharei Mot Message-ID: Acharei Mot is the only Torah portion with the word ?death? in its title. The two words together are captivating: ACHAREI mot. In other words, we should be focusing on ?Acharei,? AFTER death. As depressing, difficult and mysterious as death is, we must not dwell on it. We must go on with our lives ?Acharei" AFTER. Life is eternal, and love is immortal, and death is only a horizon; and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight. Rossiter Worthington Raymond (April 27, 1840 in Cincinnati, Ohio ? December 31, 1918 in Brooklyn, New York) He was an American mining engineer, legal scholar and author. At his memorial, the President of Lehigh University described him as "one of the most remarkable cases of versatility that our country has ever seen?sailor, soldier, engineer, lawyer, orator, editor, poet, novelist, story-teller, biblical critic, theologian, teacher, chess-player?he was superior in each capacity. What he did, he always did well." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 20:58:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 05:58:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <77074713-e49c-4af3-1f69-39b611caa0e0@zahav.net.il> Read further down on the page: Your exceptions prove the rule. Sorry you are unfamiliar with minhagei eretz yisrael. They are esentially minhagei Hagra, brought here by the famous ?prushim? clan, and these minhagim have been accepted throughout Israel, with some exceptions.In Yerushalayim , they are accepted almost uniformly. The Tukotchinsky Luach for minhagim of the davening is a reflection of this and it is accepted by almost all. True, here and there, as your friend noted, there is a minyan that puts on tefillin. To each his own. But there are thousands of minyanim that don?t, and many of them do not hesitate to unceremoniously throw anyone out that dares put them on, even in the corner or in another room. I have seen this myself. Rav Schach?s custom, and certainly the Erlauer Rebbe indicate that the general custom is not to put on tefillin. None of the yeshivas, including Rav Schach?s yeshiva, adopted his minhag.None of the chassidim here do either except the relatively small numbered Erlauer. Ben On 4/28/2017 4:27 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > This statement does not seem to be correct. See http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x > > Note the following from there. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 20:53:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:53:56 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I had asked whether people had a view on the halachic propriety or otherwise of using a sous-vide machine over Shabbos and received no response. The sous-vide is a method of cooking which one might call very slow cooking. Bags with the food (e.g. meat) are places in a bucket or the like, and the machine is placed inside the bucket together with water which covers the plastic bag(s). It can take a really cheap cut of meat and make it tender and delicious. It?s buttons can be covered if someone is worried about Shehiya, I think the issue is Harmono. It can?t be both. One thing I noticed is that nobody seems to fiddle or touch the bags until the ?given time period?, and then one just pulls the plastic bags out. One can pre-program to turn the machine off, or it can continue keeping the water at the set temperature. There are various scenarios. Where the food is ready on Friday night. Where another bag of the food has a different texture is left till lunchtime on shabbos Where the meat is Mamash Raw (let alone not Maachol Ben Drusoi) on Erev Shabbos but will be good on Shabbos Where the concept of Mitztamek Veyofe Lo has nothing to do with Mitztamek, but rather a quantitative improvement that is still possible without it shrivelling The final issue is whether you say that since it might have had another 12 hours cooking and the temperature does not rise, that the meat is of a different VARIETY as opposed to quality. For example cooked versus roasted steak. Either way, here is a link to the only Tshuva I know of on this issue. I?m interested in reactions. There is a touch of Choddosh Ossur Min HaTorah from Rav Asher Weiss, but in the main, I can?t think of a reason why it?s not Hatmono. Disclaimer: I have not reviewed Hatmono for many years, and started to in dribs and drabs with the Aruch HaShulchan. This is the link to the Tshuva http://preview.tinyurl.com/kvxswnp or http://tinyurl.com/kvxswnp I spoke to Mori V?Rabbi Rav Schachter about it, and interchanged with his son Rabbi Shay, but they haven?t managed to show him the device and he won?t pasken until he has seen it (of course). "It is only the anticipation of redemption that preserves Judaism in Exile, while Judaism in the Land of Israel is the redemption itself." ______________________ Rabbi A.I. Hacohen Kook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 06:34:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:34:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >: The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos >: Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not >: differentiate between holidays... > All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaint[y]... > But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was > like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain > about the date. The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about second day of Yom Tov apply. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 09:48:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:48:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170430164805.GA11800@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 04:34:17PM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: : The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made : b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about second day of : Yom Tov apply. I know. That's my question. He says YT sheini of Shavuos was mishum lo pelug. So, if it's really lo pelug, then how/why would it be different in form than YT Sheini Sukkos, Shemini Atzeres or Pesach (x 2)? If it's lo pelug, then the usual qulos of pretending we're dealing with the old-time safeiq should apply -- or else, there is a pelug. No? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 09:57:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:57:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:02:29AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he : > could speak to her; at least through a fence... ... : The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone : who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as : issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought. ... : [Email #2. -micha] : : On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar : pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned : with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as : arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua. Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy for letting his taavos get so worked up. I see a slight conflict in your answers. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 11:05:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:05:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From AudioRoundup at Torah Musings: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/864540/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-sous-vide-cooking-for-shabbos-(and-through-shabbos)/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-From The Rabbi?s Desk ? Sous Vide Cooking For Shabbos (and Through Shabbos) Sous vide cooking (another thing we?ve lived without but now sounds like it will be the next sushi). If you do it for, or over Shabbat, is there an issue of hatmana or shehiya? FWIW the hashkafa at the end of R?Asher Weiss?s tshuva is well worth thinking about ? we seem to live in an age where any sacrifice is difficult. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 13:50:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> , <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I didn't think I was giving two answers, just clarifying further. So, let's work through it again. I must admit I have looked at neither Rishonim (except Rambam) nor achronim. But here goes: The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of YaVY. The gemara then says that this works fine for an eishes ish, The first question should be why that's obvious? Since when is conversation with an eishes ish YvAY? We answered that by saying, al pi Rambam, that the point of the gemara is to clarify how far we apply YvAY to hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation carries the din YvAY. That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. However, the bottom line for our original reason for analysing this gemara remains that it's not part of the cheshbon governing any standard interactions in which any ben Torah might participate, as it only applies to someone sick enough to have inevitable sexual hana'a from a conversation. R Micha's two correspondents can feel free to challange that whether off or on list. BW Ben Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy for letting his taavos get so worked up. I see a slight conflict in your answers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:22:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:45:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy : ... : OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the : rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very : clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz.... : : So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? I think the "out" is the clause "sheyeish lanu ba'alus alava". So, chameitz that you didn't have baalus on, but was delivered on Pesach wouldn't be included. (And would be a davar shelo ba le'olam, even if you did try to include it.) No, that doesn't cover things you owned since before Pesach and were unware "delo chazisei" that you only found on Pesach. OTOH, wasn't that stuff already mevutal anyway? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:30:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430173012.GB27111@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are :> indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs :> and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. :> And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification :> with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than :> identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos :> as self-identifications. : That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the : MB and AhS were on. : By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they : putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, : ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on : identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? ... I don't see how they are. If someone says there should be a single pesaq for a location and the shul could be consistent is talking about unity. Not about whether our community's minhagim are better or worse than those of another community -- they aren't present to suggest we're comparing. I was contrasting two different motives for breaking that unity: The first archetype is the one who does so because he takes more self-identity from his Litvisher (eg) ancestry than in being in part of the observant community, or Jewish community in general. The second is the one who is motivated by the logic of the pesaq or the hashkafah payoff. Such as someone who is "into" qabbalah for whom "qotzeitz bintiyos" means something and motivates not feeling happy in tefillin on ch"m. I was suggesting that lo sisgodedu only rules out the first motivation, not the second. But the acharon who promotes everyone following one practice isn't a question of whether their motivation is more important than lo sisgodedu to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:30:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430173012.GB27111@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are :> indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs :> and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. :> And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification :> with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than :> identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos :> as self-identifications. : That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the : MB and AhS were on. : By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they : putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, : ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on : identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? ... I don't see how they are. If someone says there should be a single pesaq for a location and the shul could be consistent is talking about unity. Not about whether our community's minhagim are better or worse than those of another community -- they aren't present to suggest we're comparing. I was contrasting two different motives for breaking that unity: The first archetype is the one who does so because he takes more self-identity from his Litvisher (eg) ancestry than in being in part of the observant community, or Jewish community in general. The second is the one who is motivated by the logic of the pesaq or the hashkafah payoff. Such as someone who is "into" qabbalah for whom "qotzeitz bintiyos" means something and motivates not feeling happy in tefillin on ch"m. I was suggesting that lo sisgodedu only rules out the first motivation, not the second. But the acharon who promotes everyone following one practice isn't a question of whether their motivation is more important than lo sisgodedu to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:08:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:08:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430170851.GD19139@aishdas.org> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 08:17:11PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The problem is : once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash : that the central part of the Matza : is not fully baked : then never mind the problem of flour : which will BECOME Chamets : when it gets wet ... Again, if gebrochts were about the middle not being baked, it would be worries about chameitz whether or not the matzah later gets in contact with water. It's about flour that didn't become kneaded. As the SA haRav states, the Besht ate gebrochts because in his day the 1 mil timer was stopped for kneading. We came up with this chumerah of trying to fit everything, including the kneading in the time limit. Which caused us to start rushing the kneading. (Yet, the Alter Rebbe of Lub lauded this new chumerah, despite it coming with new risks.) And so he justified chassidim of his generation following a new hanhagah that the Besht did not. (We discuss this teshuvah annually.) The question I asked is based on the fact that toasted flour doesn't become chameitz. And by simple physics, we expect that if dough, a huge lump, can bake through, then of course we would have completed the toasting of the same chemicals present in fine powder form, like any dry unkneaded flour within the dough. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 17:49:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 10:49:28 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <384BCE1C-0255-4CD6-9547-033963F2DA9C@gmail.com> Rich, Joel wrote: > > > From AudioRoundup at Torah Musings: > http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/864540/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-sous-vide-cooking-for-shabbos-(and-through-shabbos)/ > Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-From The Rabbi?s Desk ? Sous Vide Cooking For Shabbos (and Through Shabbos) > Sous vide cooking (another thing we?ve lived without but now sounds like it will be the next sushi). If you do it for, or over Shabbat, is there an issue of hatmana or shehiya? > > > FWIW the hashkafa at the end of R?Asher Weiss?s tshuva is well worth thinking about ? we seem to live in an age where any sacrifice is difficult. > > KT > Joel Rich R Joel, yes indeed. I got the Tshuva from R Aryeh :-) The other question is why does Halacha entail sacrifice. IF it's halachically sound it may be a hiddur! I know we have it on Tuesdays and everyone loves it. It is a superior form of cooking. If it's NOT Hatmono then why (if one has the implement) would one not use it. I find that a Hungarian Posek approach in general. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 17:34:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:34:13 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on Monday besides Hallel on tues Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 08:39:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 08:39:29 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> References: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <138374BA-01AB-4BF3-8554-304B33684B81@gmail.com> Young Israel century city holds both kulot. No tachanun Monday. Hallel Tues. Curious how most chul shuls do it. .I expect most follow israel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 09:51:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 18:51:40 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/1/2017 2:34 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on > Monday besides Hallel on tues Mine didn't and that was my experience in other shuls as well. The Tfilion app doesn't have Tachanun (but does have an added chapter of Tehillim for the fallen). Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 06:15:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:15:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> On Monday, May 1, 2017 6:02 AM, saul newman wrote: > Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on > Monday besides Hallel on tues Rav Ahron considered Hey Iyar to be Yom Ha'atzmaut and the day that Hallel (without a Bracha) is said and Tachanun is not said -- regardless of when Israel celebrates it (for whatever reason it may be delayed). I (and Yeshivas Brisk) did not say Tachanun at Mincha yesterday (Erev Yom Tov) nor today at Shacharis... nor will I say it at Mincha. I will say it tomorrow. HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 10:23:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:23:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Last year, in http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n055.shtml#10 , RHM gave R' Aharon Soloveitchik's shitah. Much like this year, although last iteration he added: One can review the Halachic sources RAS used in his book 'Logic of the heart, Logic of the Mind'. I responded in the post right below it, quoting RGS, http://www.torahmusings.com/technology-halakhic-change-yom-ha-atzmaut , who in turn was commenting on R/Dr Aaron Levin of Flatbush's evolving practice: In America, where the celebrations can be more easily controlled to avoid the desecration of Shabbos, many authorities did not recognize the change of date, among them Rav Ahron Soloveichik and Rav Hershel Schachter. They insisted that people recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar -- the day of the miracle of the declaration of the State of Israel -- regardless of when Israelis celebrate the day. Rav Aaron Levine's son, Rav Efraim Levine, told me that his father had to change his position on this question over time. Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a community to determine its own date to celebrate. To which I added: RAS might have decided similarly or not had he lived to see the day when the primary intercontinental communication was the telephone, not the aerogram. We can't know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 11:59:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 20:59:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: For Hebrew readers, Rav Yoni Rosensweig sums up Rav Rabinovitch's position on the matter: https://www.facebook.com/yonirosensweig/posts/1761639697197955 Bottom line: Moving Yom Aztmaout doesn't entirely remove the uniqueness of the day. While he does state that the rabbinate holds that one skips Tachanun only on the day Yom Aztmaout is celebrated, RYR doesn't accept that psak. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 12:35:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 15:35:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> On a lighter, more aggadic note, my father suggested that the existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to minimize chilul Shabbos is the very thing a Religious Zionist would be celebrating on Yom haAtzmaaut. Which reminds me of something Rav Dovid Lifshitz said about Yom haAtzma'ut. Rebbe said that Atzma'ut is something special, and certainly worth celebrating. But for now YhA is only half a holiday. We established the atzma'ut of Yisrael, but are still missing its etzem. To rephrase into my father's words: It is worthwhile to celebrate the existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to minimize chilul Shabbos, but what we pray for is the existence of a country that wouldn't have to! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 14:42:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 23:42:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the reading is pushed off until Sunday. Ben On 5/1/2017 9:35 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > It is worthwhile to celebrate the > existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to > minimize chilul Shabbos, but what we pray for is the existence of a > country that wouldn't have to! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 17:38:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 20:38:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:42:18PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the : reading is pushed off until Sunday. Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 22:29:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 07:29:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> Message-ID: 1) It is part of a package deal, the first part of which can fall on Shabbat. 2) When we go back to setting the month based on witnesses, it could fall on Shabbat. Ben On 5/2/2017 2:38 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. > > -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 23:12:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 09:12:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:42:18PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: > : It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the > : reading is pushed off until Sunday. > > Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. > 5 Iyyar certainly can fall out on Shabbat, and as it happens it doe so in exactly the same years when there is Shushan Purim Meshulash: Adar has 29 days and Nisan 30, so from 15 Adar to 5 Iyyar is 29 + 30 - 10 = 49 days or exactly 7 weeks. In other words, Shushan Purim and Yom Ha`Atzmaut (when not postponed or advanced) are always on the same day of the week. This last happened nine years ago in 5768 and will happen again in 5781 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 21:39:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 14:39:34 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Looking Jewish Message-ID: Gemara AZara 58a - R Yochanan b Arza and R Yosiy b Nehuroi, were drinking wine - they requested someone nearby to fix their drinks. After he fulfilled their request they realised he was not Jewish. May they drink the wine, is the Gemara's Q. But how could they make such a mistake? And how might the wine be permitted? the Gemarah 58b explains it was clear to the G that the Sages were Jewish, it was also clear that he thought that they knew he was not Jewish, and it was also clear that he as a non-J knew that if he handled the wine, they wold not be permitted to drink it So he thought - they MUST be drinking mead [which he may handle and mix for them] so even though he was actually handling wine, thinking it was mead, he would not make his usual pagan worship and so it did not become disqualified. So here is the tough part HE was CERTAIN they knew he was not J [that's why he was certain that they were drinking mead and not wine] however the truth was they DID IN FACT THINK he was J [and that is why they did invite him to fix their wine drinks] could this happen today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 04:48:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 07:48:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Ha'atzmaut Message-ID: <3866CC37-90C9-4337-8257-616B6EB01940@cox.net> The story is told of the Chafetz Chayim, zt"l, that he asked one of his visitors who had come from a great distance, "How are you?? which in Yiddish is, "Vos makhst du," literally, "What do you do?" So in answer to this inquiry, the visitor replied, "Thank God, I have a thriving business, I have no financial problems, I have a beautiful home with a swimming pool,? etc. etc. The Chafetz Chayim repeated, "Vos makhst du?" and the visitor, a bit confused as to why the question was repeated, gave the same reply. So for the third time, the same question was asked of the visitor, at which point the visitor looked at the saint and he said: ?I don?t understand why you asked me three times 'How I am.? I told you that thank God, I have a thriving business, a lot of money, a beautiful home, etc.? The Chafetz Chayim replied: ?You don?t understand. You told me what GOD is doing for YOU, but I asked, 'What are YOU doing?' I therefore repeat: 'Vos makhst du?'" How does this apply to Israel Independence Day? We know what Israel has done for US. The question remains: What are we doing for Israel, and what are we doing for each other? May we become ?Independent" enough to help others who "depend" on us. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 11:50:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Avram Sacks via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 13:50:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Cong Or Torah in Skokie said tachanun at shacharit, but not at mincha on erev Yom Ha-Atzmaut. On YhA, at ma'ariv we added additional tehillim at the end of davening, as found in the Koren siddur for Yom HaAtzmaut. At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. Kol tuv, Avi Avram Sacks From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 13:16:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 16:16:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Looking Jewish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170502201609.GB17585@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:39:34PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Gemara AZara 58a ... : the Gemarah 58b explains ... : So he thought - they MUST be drinking mead : [which he may handle and mix for them] : so even though he was actually handling wine, : thinking it was mead, he would not make his usual pagan worship : and so it did not become disqualified. ... : could this happen today? Their wine was this thick syrup that required dilution (mezigas hakos) to be drinkable. They also often had to add spices and/or honey to make it palatable. Inomlin / yinomlin (spelled with a leading alef or yud, depending on girsa; Shabbos 20:2, AZ 30a) was wine mixed with honey and pepper (Shabbos 140a). So, if the grapes were particularly sour, and more honey was added, perhaps it wasn't that easy to determine that it was wine (enomlin) and not meade. A problem 2 millenia of vintners eliminated through breeding better grapes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 14:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 17:20:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5908F811.8040504@aishdas.org> Beautiful sentiments, to be sure, but 100% emotional and 0% halachic. Was there live music on 6 Iyar? KT, YGB On 5/2/2017 2:50 PM, Avram Sacks via Avodah wrote: > Cong Or Torah in Skokie said tachanun at shacharit, but not at mincha > on erev Yom Ha-Atzmaut. On YhA, at ma'ariv we added additional > tehillim at the end of davening, as found in the Koren siddur for Yom > HaAtzmaut. At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel > (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and > ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it > is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet > observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in > Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added > that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about > those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA > on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 15:17:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 18:17:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akrasia and Ritual Message-ID: <20170502221754.GA25834@aishdas.org> Akrasia is a classical Greek term for why we so often don't do what we believe. In more mesoretic terms -- the problem of akrasia is the question of "what is the yeitzer hara?" In http://www.thebookoflife.org/akrasia-or-why-we-dont-do-what-we-believe there is an interesting piece on how ritual helps solve akrasia. It might help one's qabbalas ol mitzvos: ... There are two central solutions to akrasia, located in two unexpected quarters: in art and in ritual. The real purpose of art... (Fans of RAYK or Dr Nathan Birnbaum might want to read the part I'm skipping here.) Ritual is the second defence we have against akrasia. By ritual, one means the structured, often highly seductive or aesthetic, repetition of a thought or an action, with a view to making it at once convincing and habitual. Ritual rejects the notion that it can ever be sufficient to teach anything important once - an optimistic delusion which the modern education system has been fatefully marked by. Once might be enough to get us to admit an idea is right, but it won't be anything like enough to convince us it should be acted upon. Our brains are leaky, and under-pressure of any kind, they will readily revert to customary patterns of thought and feeling. Ritual trains our cognitive muscles, it makes a sequence of appointments in our diaries to refresh our acquaintance with our most important ideas. Our current culture tends to see ritual mainly as an antiquated infringement of individual freedom, a bossy command to turn our thoughts in particular directions at specific times. But the defenders of ritual would see it another way: we aren't being told to think of something we don't agree with, we are being returned with grace to what we always believed in at heart. We are being tugged by a collective force back to a more loyal and authentic version of ourselves. The greatest human institutions to have tried to address the problem of akrasia have been religions. Religions have wanted to do something much more serious than simply promote abstract ideas, they have wanted to get people to behave in line with those ideas, a very different thing. They didn't just want people to think kindness or forgiveness were nice (which generally we do already); they wanted us to be kind or forgiving most days of the year. That meant inventing a host of ingenious mechanisms for mobilising the will, which is why across much of the world, the finest art and buildings, the most seductive music, the most impressive and moving rituals have all been religious. Religion is a vast machine for addressing the problem of akrasia. This has presented a big conundrum for a more secular era. Bad secularisation has lumped religious superstition and religion's anti-akrasia strategies together. It has rejected both the supernatural ideas of the faiths and their wiser attitudes to the motivational roles of art and ritual. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 21:48:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 06:48:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0a07acaa-4c79-5eb5-b387-1887573b3cd1@zahav.net.il> There is an oversimplification here, that the issue is the secular. Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed off even if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash. Getting the country ready for these days means hundreds, thousands of people have to be in place. This includes soldiers, policemen, etc who are 100% dati. Holding these events on a date that would force these people to work on Shabbat is simply a non-starter and everyone understands that point. I have to add the following: My dream is that people will come to understand how wrong it is to make people (including dati'im) work on Shabbat when Lag B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate steps. Ben On 5/2/2017 8:50 PM, Avram Sacks wrote: > He added that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 21:30:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 21:30:06 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] nidche Message-ID: since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on thurs, does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded this way already in the 50's? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 06:38:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 16:38:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:30 AM, saul newman via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on thurs, > does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded this way > already in the 50's? > To be precise, they are only nidche if Pesah starts on Tuesday, like this year. If it starts on Shabbat or Sunday they are brought forward to Wednesday & Thursday. If my memory is accurate, the bringing forward has always been in practice, but the postponement from Sunday-Monday to Monday-Tuesday was introduced later, within the last 10 or 20 years. When I was first in Israel in the 1980s, YHA was still sometimes observed on a Monday. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 06:06:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 09:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> On 5/3/2017 12:30 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on > thurs, does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded > this way already in the 50's? It was instituted during the tenure of Rabbis Amar and Metzger. [Email #2. -micha] On 5/3/2017 12:48 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > There is an oversimplification here, that the issue is the secular. > Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed off even > if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash... > I have to add the following: My dream is that people will come to > understand how wrong it is to make people (including dati'im) work on > Shabbat when Lag B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate > steps. That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to 5 Iyar. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 14:34:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 17:34:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5a7c4dde-aeda-0d6e-0a6f-3824d06a66da@sero.name> On 03/05/17 09:06, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is > no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- > certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically > viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to > 5 Iyar. Why can't a religious holiday be defined by the day of the week, like Shabbos Hagodol and Behab? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 16:28:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 19:28:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: R' Micha Berger reposted from elsewhere: > Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this > subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on > the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his > position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, > Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut > celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with > perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a > community to determine its own date to celebrate. Why should telecommunications affect the day that my community says Hallel? Should we all start reading Megilas Esther on 15 Adar? R' Ben Waxman wrote: > Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed > off even if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash. Maybe not as unique as it seems. Isn't there a gezera against Motzaei Shabbos weddings for exactly this same reason - because of the likelihood that the preparations would begin on Shabbos? RBW also wrote: > My dream is that people will come to understand how wrong it > is to make people (including dati'im) work on Shabbat when Lag > B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate steps. Amen!! Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 20:43:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 05:43:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: Someone pointed out to me off line that the reading is on Friday, Al HaNissim on Shabbat, and Seuda/Matanot is on Sunday. Ben On 5/1/2017 11:42 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the reading > is pushed off until Sunday. > > Ben > > \ > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 21:26:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 14:26:20 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: <26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com> Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can never fall on a Thursday. Under the current arrangements, it cannot fall on a Monday, so those who fast on BeHaB and also wish to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzma?ut no longer need to be concerned. In Hilchot Yom Ha-Atzma?ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim (ed Nahum Rakover, 1973), there is an article by Rabbi Meir Kaplan which discusses what to do when the two did coincide. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 21:29:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 07:29:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Avram Sacks via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel > (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and > ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it > is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet > observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in > Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added > that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about > those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA > on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. ?Since the issue here is tachanun, hallel and suspending sefira restrictions, I fail to follow his logic. We are being asked to not say tachanun on the same day as the not-yet-observant?, on 6th Iyar. But why the 6th any more than the 5th. We should say hallel on the 6th, the same day as the not-yet-observant. Hardly. Sefira restrictions are suspended on the 6th like the not-yet-observant? If the entire sentiment is when we should have ceremonies to mark the significance of the State, you could that any day, or every day, as often as you like. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 22:11:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:11:39 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Nidche In-Reply-To: 26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com References: 26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: <8ff4cb3fb9929c8cf4af49714131daf8@mail.gmail.com> I wrote in haste. Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can fall on a Friday (as it does next year), in which case it is brought forward a day. David Havin *From:* David Havin [mailto:djhavin at djhavin.com] *Sent:* Thursday, 4 May 2017 2:26 PM *To:* Avodah *Subject:* Nidche Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can never fall on a Thursday. Under the current arrangements, it cannot fall on a Monday, so those who fast on BeHaB and also wish to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzma?ut no longer need to be concerned. In Hilchot Yom Ha-Atzma?ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim (ed Nahum Rakover, 1973), there is an article by Rabbi Meir Kaplan which discusses what to do when the two did coincide. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 07:53:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 10:53:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [From an Areivim discussion of how to be safe from house fires on Friday night.... -micha] On 03/05/17 18:26, Akiva Miller via Areivim wrote: > When eating the evening seudah elsewhere than where you're sleeping, > consider lighting at the seudah location, so that they won't be > unattended. My mitzvah is to light my own home, not someone else's. I know women have the custom of saying a bracha when lighting in someone else's home, but I'm not sure on what basis they do so. It seems to me they're not fulfilling their own mitzvah but rather helping their hostess with her mitzvah, just like helping someone else with his bedikas chametz. In that case (as opposed to doing the whole thing as his agent) one is supposed to hear his bracha, not make ones own, so why is this different? Thus it seems to me that this falls into the category of minhagei nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked, but the women have their own traditions and are not asking. But I don't see a basis for men, who don't have those traditions, to follow them. Yes, we are required to follow "toras imecha", but it seems to me that this means those things that women have traditionally taught their sons, not those that they have traditionally only taught their daughters. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 08:52:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:52:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <54B1C0DF-2CD4-49B5-92A0-AC29B878E3F2@sibson.com> The psak I receive many years ago is that you light where you sleep. One concern was to make sure the candles would run long enough so they were still burning when you came home so you could get benefit from them Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 13:50:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 20:50:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Tatoo Taboo and Permanent Make-Up Too Message-ID: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/ken8l8y There is a widespread myth, especially among secular American Jews, that a Jew with a tattoo may not be buried in a Jewish cemetery[1]. This prevalent belief, whose origin possibly lies with Jewish Bubbies wanting to ensure that their grandchildren did not stray too far from the proper path, is truly nothing more than a common misconception with absolutely no basis in Jewish law. Jewish burial is not dependent on whether or not one violated Torah law, and tattooing is no different in this matter than any other Biblical prohibition. Please see the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 15:13:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 18:13:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Tatoo Taboo and Permanent Make-Up Too In-Reply-To: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> References: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <72ddedb9-4172-c476-3fe6-acbb37a1e577@sero.name> > Jewish burial is not dependent on whether or not one violated Torah law, There are cemeteries, or sections within them, where only observant Jews can be buried, in line with the halacha that one may not bury a rasha next to a tzadik. But a person who qualified for burial there would not be rejected for having a tattoo, since it would be assumed that he had long ago repented. (The sin is *getting* the tattoo, not *having* it; once it's been done there's no obligation to remove it.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 20:54:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 21:54:36 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> On May 3, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is > no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- > certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically > viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to > 5 Iyar. My gut is with you on this. But then we do need to at least address the precedent of Purim. We don?t say Hallel, but we say a bracha on the Megillah. And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid chillul Shabbos. Now there are some important differences. For one thing, Purim seemed to be a concern of ignorance, not secularity. But it does seem to establish the precedent that it can be done. Whether it should be done is a different question. Following the precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off until Sunday, but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. Yom HaZikaron could be pushed earlier. ? Daniel Israel Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center of Santa Fe, President daniel at kolberamah.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 21:00:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 22:00:22 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> On Apr 30, 2017, at 11:22 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:45:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy > : OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the > : rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very > : clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz.... > : > : So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? > > I think the "out" is the clause "sheyeish lanu ba'alus alava". So, > chameitz that you didn't have baalus on, but was delivered on Pesach > wouldn't be included. (And would be a davar shelo ba le'olam, even if > you did try to include it.) I have been bothered by this same question for many years, and mentioned to my Rav over Pesach. It was his impression that contracts in EY more commonly did not use loshen including unmarked/unknown chametz. I think that is common in the US. I suggested that it is motivated by a desire to protect against the case of accidentally consuming chometz sh?evar alav haPesach where the person completely lost track and by the time he ate it, he didn?t remember he sold it. But it does seem that burning it would depend on how the contract was written. And I would take it a step further and point out that if it was sold, there is a serious geneivah issue. > No, that doesn't cover things you owned since before Pesach and were > unware "delo chazisei" that you only found on Pesach. > > OTOH, wasn't that stuff already mevutal anyway? Can I burn something that was hefker without acquiring it? If I declare something hefker (I?m not sure the legal implication of batel), and then I burn it, wouldn?t that imply I?m koneh it? Which makes things much worse. ? Daniel Israel Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center of Santa Fe, President daniel at kolberamah.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:08:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:08:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: On 04/05/17 23:54, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > . And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid chillul > Shabbos. The megillah only goes back, never forward. > Following the precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off > until Sunday, but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. The precedent of Purim is to pull it back to Friday *or Thursday*. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:40:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:40:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: 5 Iyar can also be on Shabbos (as it will in 2021), and its commemoration is pushed back two days, to Thursday. Nonetheless, that Thursday can never be a part of BeHaB, since the fasts begin on the Monday after the first Shabbos following Rosh Chodesh Iyar, and the preceding Shabbos is either the 28th or 29th of Nissan. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 6 12:32:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 21:32:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <04a24079-f3e7-a7e9-d195-3dac00552ebe@zahav.net.il> Yom HaZikaron and Yom Azmaut are an inseparable pair. There have been call to break the connection (to make it easier for the bereaved families to celebrate YA) but so far no one is willing to do so. Ben On 5/5/2017 5:54 AM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > Yom HaZikaron could be pushed earlier. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 21:20:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 00:20:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> On 5/4/2017 11:54 PM, Daniel Israel wrote: > On May 3, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: >> That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is >> no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- >> certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically >> viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to >> 5 Iyar. > My gut is with you on this. But then we do need to at least address > the precedent of Purim. We don?t say Hallel, but we say a bracha on > the Megillah. And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid > chillul Shabbos.... > Whether it should be done is a different question. Following the > precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off until Sunday, > but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. Yom HaZikaron could > be pushed earlier. On Purim Meshulash, the Al HaNisim remains on Shabbos, and the Megillah with the bracha is relocated to the day everyone else is celebrating. Moreover, there is no clash between simcha on 16 Adar and some pre-existing minhag to diminish simcha. Those are some of the differences. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:01:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 18:01:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: Discussion of chametz ?received? during Pesach can be listened to here: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/877269/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-girls-scout-cookies/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -From The Rabbi's Desk - Girls Scout Cookies KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 6 22:53:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 07 May 2017 07:53:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives today, certainly not in any practical manner. More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber). Ben On 5/5/2017 6:20 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > On Purim Meshulash, the Al HaNisim remains on Shabbos, and the Megillah > with the bracha is relocated to the day everyone else is celebrating. > Moreover, there is no clash between simcha on 16 Adar and some > pre-existing minhag to diminish simcha. Those are some of the differences. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 07:26:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 10:26:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Haircuts when Lag Baomer is on Sunday Message-ID: Rama 493:2 writes: "When [Lag Baomer] falls on Sunday, the practice is [nohagin] to get haircuts on Friday l'kavod Shabbos." What makes this Friday different from all other Fridays of sefira? If Kavod Shabbos is ample justification to get a haircut on Omer 31 (which is in the aveilus days by all reckonings), then it ought to justify a haircut on Omer 24 (the previous Friday) also, shouldn't it? But I have never heard of anyone allowing a haircut on Omer 24 simply because it is Erev Shabbos, so there must be an additional factor at work. For many years, I presumed the logic to be as follows: If a person would need a haircut on Friday Omer 31, or on Friday Omer 24, and fail to get that haircut, then he has failed to do Kavod Shabbos, but he did it by inaction. He did it in a "shev v'al taaseh" manner, and it is quite common for halacha to suspend an Aseh with a Shev V'Al Taaseh. (Compare skipping this haircut to skipping Shofar on Shabbos.) HOWEVER - If a person would go out of his way ("kum v'aseh") and actually get a haircut on Sunday, that is intolerable. To have been disheveled on Shabbos (even if justifiably), and then suddenly be all fancied up the very next day, that is an insult to Shabbos, and we cannot allow Shabbos to be insulted in that manner. So when the Rama writes that we allow the haircuts "for kavod Shabbos", what he actually means is that we allow the haircuts "to avoid insulting Shabbos." And this is what makes this weekend of Sefiras Haomer different from all the others: On the other Sundays of Sefira, no one is getting a haircut anyway, so the whole question doesn't exist. But in this year, on this particular weekend, we do have this problem. The Rabbis *could* have chosen to protect the kavod of Shabbos by forbidding us to get haircuts when Lag Baomer is on Sunday, but instead they chose to protect the kavod of Shabbos by allowing us to get haircuts when Omer 31 is on Friday. Or so I thought for many years. But I have questions on this logic. According to what I have written, getting a haircut on Sunday is a bad idea - no matter what time of year it is. Yet I don't recall ever hearing anyone advise against it. In particular, when this situation of a Sunday Lag Baomer occurs, I have often hear people cite this Rama as granting permission to get their haircut on Friday. But in actuality, shouldn't it be less of a permission, and more of a *recommendation*? When a person asks the question, shouldn't the answer be, "Yes, you can get the haircut on Friday, and that's even better than waiting for Sunday." But I have not heard anyone suggest this. That's about as far as I was going to write, but then I went to the seforim to make sure I understood the Rama correctly. Indeed, his phrasing, "nohagin to get haircuts on Friday l'kavod Shabbos", could easily be understood to mean DAVKA on Friday rather than Sunday. But although it *could* be understood that way, I don't remember anyone actually doing do. And then I came across Kaf Hachayim 493:33, who writes that the Levush held differently than the Rama in this situation: > The Levush writes that if the 33rd is on a Sunday when the > non-Jews are not barbering because of their holiday, *that's* > when you can get a haircut on Friday. Meaning that in a place > where you *can* get a haircut on Sunday, then you should *not* > get the haircut on Friday. But from the words of the Rama, who > writes "l'kavod Shabbos", he means to allow it in any case. > And Elya Raba #9 writes the same thing about this Levush, that > the Rama allows it l'kavod Shabbos in either case. To rephrase: If one has a choice between getting his haircut on Friday or Sunday, then the Levush gives precedence to the minhagim of aveilus during Sefira, and requires us to wait until Sunday for the haircut, and *not* get the haircut on Friday Omer 31. The idea of suddenly showing up with a haircut on Sunday does not (seem to) bother the Levush, and this is totally consistent with the lack of anyone ever being told to avoid Sunday haircuts the rest of the year. But the Kaf Hachayim (with support from Elya Raba) rejects the approach of the Levush. He seems to accept the word of the Rama, plain and simple, that we can get haircuts on Friday Omer 31 because it is l'kavod Shabbos. And, according to Rama, this applies whether the barbershops are open on Sunday or not. Even if one has the option of waiting until Lag Baomer, he can "violate" the aveilus of Sefira on Omer 31, because the haircut is l'kavod Shabbos. This leaves me stuck with my original question: If Kavod Shabbos is ample justification to get a haircut on Omer 31, then it ought to justify a haircut on Omer 24 also, shouldn't it? Obviously no, but why? with many thanks in advance for your thoughts, Akiva Miller PS: The Levush is not totally machmir; he does allow leniency, but only in the case of where Lag Baomer is on Sunday, AND the barbers are closed on that day. Only in such a case does he allow a haircut on Omer 31. I have to wonder why he would allow that exception, rather than disallowing it entirely. Here's my guess: The Levush was aware of poskim who allowed haircuts on Friday Omer 31, but he felt this to be an improper violation of the aveilus, and paskened that people should wait for Sunday Lag Baomer. But if the barbers would be closed, that means people would have to wait another two weeks for their haircuts, in which case he allowed the leniency. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 03:46:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 13:46:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: No, I'm pretty sure it was the 50th day. The first day after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the first day of the Omer. The 49th day after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the 49th day of the Omer. Shavuot is thus the 50th day after our leaving Egypt. On 4/28/2017 6:27 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >> I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is >> the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the >> case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which >> we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the >> Exodus. > > Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th > day but on the 51st. So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th > of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the > pseudo-Julian anniversary. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 06:38:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 09:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: On 07/05/17 06:46, Lisa Liel wrote: > No, I'm pretty sure it was the 50th day. The first day after our > leaving Egypt corresponds to the first day of the Omer. The 49th day > after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the 49th day of the Omer. > Shavuot is thus the 50th day after our leaving Egypt. Everyone seems to assume we left on a Thursday. The first day after we left was a Friday, so the 49th day was a Thursday. Mattan Torah was definitely on a Shabbat, thus the 51st day. There's no way out of that, unless we adopt the Seder Olam's view that the gemara suddenly springs on us at the end of the sugya that we left on a Friday. Then it all works perfectly, and as I read the gemara that seems to be the conclusion, but I've never seen any later source even deal with this view; everyone who mentions the day of the week on which we left Egypt takes for granted (as the gemara did for most of the sugya) that it was a Thursday. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 03:51:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 06:51:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minhagei Nashim Message-ID: In a thread about Ner Shabbos, R' Zev Sero wrote: > Thus it seems to me that this falls into the category of minhagei > nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked, > but the women have their own traditions and are not asking. But I > don't see a basis for men, who don't have those traditions, to > follow them. Yes, we are required to follow "toras imecha", but > it seems to me that this means those things that women have > traditionally taught their sons, not those that they have > traditionally only taught their daughters. That's an interesting way to classify things. I suppose it makes sense in the context of Ner Shabbos, which a mother would certainly teach to her daughters, but probably not to her sons. In this system, I suppose she would also teach Kitchen Kashrus only to her daughters, but Brachos to all her kids equally. Please consider the following scenario. I suppose it could happen even today, but it might be easier to imagine if you place it during the many centuries when there was no schooling for girls... A wife is preparing some food for dinner. She notices something unusual. Maybe it has something to do with meat and dairy, or maybe it has something to do with the just-shechted chicken she's kashering. Anyway, she concludes - based on what her mother (and both grandmothers and all her aunts) taught her - it's not a problem. Her husband happens to walk in, sees the same thing, and points out that it is a very clear black-and-white halacha that this food is assur. One could say that this sort of thing happens very rarely, because the men tend to stay out of the kitchen. But if you ask me, that only proves that the couple is unaware of the problem. It probably happened quite often, but no one noticed because the husband wasn't around. How could this *not* be a frequent occurrence? The men are busy learning, and the information never reaches the women. I concede that if a woman is unsure, she will ask, and some halachos will filter over to her side. But if she is *not* unsure, she could be blissfully unaware that her imahos have had a tradition for many generations, and it differs from the tradition that her husband got from generations of avos and teachers. And if this sort of thing can happen in Hilchos Kashrus, how much more often might it occur in Hilchos Nida? You may notice that I am taking pains to tell this story without prejudice as to which side is the truer halacha. Just because the women weren't in yeshiva, that does not prove them to be in error. All it proves is that there's been no opportunity for shakla v'tarya. Neither side can be discredited until they've carefully debated the issues. So who is right? As I wrote, these questions have been bothering me for years. But someone said that "Emunah is not when you have the answers; it's being able to live with the questions. " I got that chizuk from R' Haym Soloveitchik in his now-classic "Rupture and Reconstruction", which is all about these opposing chains of tradition, the mimetic and the textual. (The full text is on-line at www.lookstein.org. Just google the title.) He writes in footnote 18 there: > The traditional kitchen provides the best example of the > neutralizing effect of tradition, especially since the mimetic > tradition continued there long after it was lost in most other > areas of Jewish life. Were the average housewife (bale-boste) > informed that her manner of running the kitchen was contrary to > the Shulhan Arukh, her reaction would have been a dismissive > "Nonsense!" She would have been confronted with the alternative, > either that she, her mother and grandmother had, for decades, > been feeding their families non-kosher food [treifes] or that the > Code was wrong or, put more delicately, someone's understanding > of that text was wrong. As the former was inconceivable, the > latter was clearly the case. This, of course, might pose problems > for scholars, however, that was their problem not hers. Neither > could she be prevailed on to alter her ways, nor would an > experienced rabbi even try. There is an old saying among scholars > "A yidishe bale-boste takes instruction from her mother only". Somehow, these chains do find a way to work together. But I must be clear: I am NOT talking about a machlokes haposkim, where the wife was taught one thing and the husband was taught something else. In that case, there is much common ground, and they (or their rav) can go to the sources to figure out what the couple should do. I'm talking about a much more fundamental problem, where generations have passed on different traditions, without anyone ever realizing that there was a mismatch. (I'd like to close by pointing out that I am neither asking anything new in this post, nor am I trying to answer anything. But RZS mentioned a "category of minhagei nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked", and I simply wanted to expound on that category.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 09:43:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 12:43:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: In Avodah Digest 35:53 on Apr 19, R' Micha Berger wrote: > The AhS OC 31:4 is okay with minyanim that are mixed between > wearers and non-wearers. That's not what I see in the last line there: "In a single beis medrash, don't have some doing this and some doing that, because of Lo Tisgodedu." In Avodah Digest 35:55 on Apr 26, he seems to have corrected that: > ... the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed > between tefillin wearers and not. [You seem to have missed http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol35/v35n055.shtml#07 I didn't correct myself; I was forced to reread the AhS by RHK's post. -micha] This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. IF I understand that AhS correctly, he says that if there is only one Beis Din in town, then everyone must follow it, so Lo Tisgodedu doesn't apply. And if there is more than one Beis Din in town, then everyone can follow their own beis din, so again, Lo Tisgodedu does not apply. So when DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be factionalized like that. That is the AhS's explanation of why each town should be united and follow one set of days for the aveilus of Sefira: The question is totally minhag, and not under the jurisdiction of the local posek. It is a minhag of the people, and the people should get together and be united in one practice. The AhS doesn't mention it in that siman, but this explanation does help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 consistent with 493:8? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 8 05:32:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 15:32:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The relevance of the middle perakim of Bava Basra today Message-ID: Perakim 4-7 of Bava Basra (which Daf Yomi has been learning) deal with the sale of various things, what is included and what is not. The common denominator seems to be that these are seemingly solely based on the accepted business practice during the time of Chazal and what people expect to get when they consumate a deal. There are few to no Torah based sources for any of these. Here is a general outline of the perakim. Perek 4 - Hamocher es habayis discusses what is sold when you sell real property (houses, bathhouses, courtyards, fields, etc.) and what is not, for example when you sell a house the Mishna states that you include teh door but not the key Perek 5 - Hamocher es hasefina discusses the sale of movable objects, again detailing what is included in the sale and what is not (boats, wagons, animals, etc.) Perek 6 - Hamocher peiros lachaveiro discusses the sale of agricultural products. It details how much spoilage/wastage there can be in grain and wine etc. It also discusses selling land to build things on it like a house, graves, how much land is given, what access etc. Perek 7 - Deals with sales of real property how exact do the dimensions need to be. Given the above, are these at all relevant today? A house buyer in 2017 clearly has very different expectations as to what he is buying in comparison to the times of Chazal as does someone buying wine, a field, a boat, etc. The same goes for all of these categories. Since the mishnayos seem to be based solely on accepted business practice and have are not based on pesukim can we simply ignore these today? Am I missing something here? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 8 10:47:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 13:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The relevance of the middle perakim of Bava Basra today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170508174705.GA2335@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:32:57PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Perakim 4-7 of Bava Basra (which Daf Yomi has been learning) deal with the : sale of various things, what is included and what is not. The common : denominator seems to be that these are seemingly solely based on the : accepted business practice during the time of Chazal and what people expect : to get when they consumate a deal... : Given the above, are these at all relevant today? ... First reaction: They would be relevant to a poseiq trying to learn how to determine which of today's expectations have halachic import. It would require doing the saqme kind of mapping of market norms to law that chazal did, so the poseiq could learn from example. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 9 05:44:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 08:44:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor Message-ID: <4667BA80-CCF4-42D3-833D-99611C34F822@cox.net> ?And you shall count unto you from the morrow after the day of rest from the day that you bring the omer of the wave-offering; seven complete weeks shall there be.? (Vayikra 23:15) The Rambam included the counting of the Omer as Mitzvah 161 in his Sefer Hamitzvot. Those Rishonim who disagree, do count it as a mitzvah d?rabbanan and therefore, when we conclude the counting each night we pray: ?May the merciful One bring back to us the Temple service to its place speedily in our days, Amen, selah.? So the question has been asked why we do not say a ?sheheheyanu? when we first count the Omer on the second night of Pesach. The Rashba answers that according to most Rishonim who disagree with the Rambam, the counting is connected intricately with ktzirat ha?omer, harvesting the omer, ha?va-at ha?omer, the bringing of the omer and hakravat ha?omer, the offering of the omer as a sacrifice (Vayikra 23:10&16). So since these mitzvot are obviously inapplicable today it pains us to remember what we are missing when we count the omer. Therefore, the rabbis say, we pronounce no sheheheyanu which is said only when we experience joy. When I started counting my blessings, my whole life turned around. Willie Nelson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 06:33:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 09:33:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kedoshim Message-ID: It was brought to my attention that I hadn?t sent out a commentary on Parashas Kedoshim. Here is a belated d?var. ?In the presence of an old person you shall rise and you shall honor the presence of a sage and you shall revere your God ? I am Hashem.? (Vayikra 19:32) This verse is so rich with interpretation. According to Rashi, following one view in Kidudushin 32b, the two halves of the pasuk explain each other, i.e., the mitzvah is to rise and honor a sage who is both elderly and learned. Others hold that these are two separate mitzvot: to rise for anyone over the age of 70 and to rise for a learned righteous man, even if he is below the age of 70. The halacha follows the latter view, the rationale being that anyone can reach the age of 70 but it takes blood, sweat and tears to achieve scholarship and righteousness. I recall as a youngster being in awe when everyone in the beis medrash would stop what they were doing and a hush fell over the crowd as everyone rose immediately as soon as the Rosh Yeshiva entered the hall. There comes to mind the famous saying in Makkoth 22b: ?How foolish are those people who stand up when the Torah is carried by, but do not stand up when a scholar walks by,? indicating that greater than a piece of parchment upon which the Torah is written, is a human being who has put his whole life into learning and struggling in order to acquire a knowledge of Torah, and who in his personal life is a living embodiment of what the Torah teaches and represents. Along similar lines is the custom in some hassidic circles to kiss the hand of a talmid chochom upon first seeing him in the same manner as kissing the Torah when it passes by. The one thing we must never forget is the basic issue involved. It is not the mere person that is the center of the commandment; it is the ?v?yorayso mey-Elohechoh, Ani HaShem that is here involved. In rising before and granting honor to the talmid chochom, we affirm our profound belief in the Torah of God. Who sows virtue reaps honor. Leonardo da Vinci -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 13:24:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 16:24:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety Message-ID: In Avodah V35n60, RJR responded to RZS, who had responded to RAMiller: >>> When eating the evening seudah elsewhere than where you're sleeping, consider lighting at the seudah location, so that they won't be unattended. <<< >> My mitzvah is to light my own home, not someone else's. << > The psak I receive many years ago is that you light where you sleep. One concern was to make sure the candles would run long enough so they were still burning when you came home so you could get benefit from them < As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*); and as I learned as a kid every Pesach that my family was at a hotel (because my parents didn't have Pesach cooking utensils, dishes, etc. in their apartment), everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 14:55:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 21:55:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As RJR implies, I thought the key component of neiros Shabbos was enjoying their light (in contradistinction to neiros Chanukah); and as I learned as a kid every Pesach that my family was at a hotel (because my parents didn't have Pesach cooking utensils, dishes, etc. in their apartment), everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... All the best from Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA _______________________________________________ Except if they were incandescent bulbs in the individual hotel rooms. In that case I was taught that the women make a bracha on the bulbs in their room Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 04:54:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:54:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Lo Taamod Message-ID: Rav Asher Weiss discusses in parshat Vayeitzeih on lo taamod al dam reiacha that one would have to give up all his assets to save a single life if he is the only one who can do it. However, "it's pashut" that if others can also do it, that he doesn't have to give up all his assets. Why is it so pashut if others refuse? (i.e. why isn't it a joint and several liability?) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 04:55:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:55:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Local Government Message-ID: Anyone have any sources on how local government, if any, functioned in times of Tanach? Was there any besides the court system? What was the role of the nesiim of the shvatim? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 12:02:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:02:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App Message-ID: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Someone mentioned tahorapp.com on-line, so I took a look at their web site. To quote: > Keeping Tradition & > Keeping Your Privacy > Rabbinically Approved! Anonymously send pictures of your Taharas > Hamishpacha questions to a Rav right from your own home. Receive answers > quickly and privately. Download Tahor App For Free! I then thought of "The Dress" , a picture of a black-and-blue dress that floated around the internet that many of us perceived as white-and-gold. So, given that people guess at the background lighting when they see a picture and then subconsciously correct for it (see explanation on wikipedia page), how could a rav rely on a Tahor App image? So, I filled out their contact form with something to that effect, and a short discussion followed. They replied: : Color Precision: : Thank you for your inquiry, : To clarify (as this seems not to be clear): : "Tahor" is meant to serve as a halachically approved "filter" for a : majority of Shailos (many of which are straightforward and simple to : determine). It is meant to allow those who may not have access to a rov, or : who may not feel comfortable going to a rov, to have an option, when : halachically viable, to send in their sample anonymously. : What this app is not: : This app IS NOT meant to be an umbrella replacement for the process of : showing questionable bedikah cloths to Rabbonim. Rabbonim were all able to : pasken correctly because of our advanced white balance technology and : Rabbinic measurement capabilities. The cloths which are borderline or : questionable, will be told to show the actual cloth to a Rabbi. : It is obviously preferable to take the cloth directly to the Rabbi when : possible, but many many women are not doing it! This will allow them to : keep Taharat Hamishpachah and get accurate answers. I felt I was getting a barely touched form letter, so I paraphrased my original question: } But given that the human eye will misinterpret colors when the lighting } differs between the camera and the person looking at the picture, how } can you know the results are accurate? After all, the differences in } perception of the colors of The Dress is far far greater han that between } a tamei brown and a tahor one. And their reply: : Shalom, : Yes, this is true. : This is why the Rabbis will only answer questions through the app which are : clearly one or the other. : An example of this would be if a stain on underwear is less than a gris. : The Rabbi can with complete accurately declare this Pure/Impure. : If the Rabbi feels that it is not so clear, he will tell the user to go to : a Rav. I am letting it drop there, because I am not going to argue anyone into wondering whether or not his pet project works. But I myself am still wondering.... Given how pronounced optical illusions can be when it comes to color and how subtle many determinations are, can a rav even know when the question is "clearly one way or the other" rather than only seeming obvious? I saw the dress in a catalog, so I know I am getting it wrong when I look at the infamous picture. And yet, it's suprising. If it weren't for people reporting a different color set, I would have considered white-and-gold "clearly" right. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 30th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation Fax: (270) 514-1507 result in holding back from others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 12:57:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: See the following timeline: http://crownheights.info/jewish-news/575460 http://crownheights.info/chabad-news/575513 http://crownheights.info/communal-matters/575546 http://crownheights.info/chabad-news/575559 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 07:33:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 10:33:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> There is a definite dearth of rabbis on the site. I am somewhat conflicted on this. OTOH, the nuances of coloring will be distorted by many displays - perhaps all displays. OTOH, perhaps women who otherwise would not ask she'eilos would use this service. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 08:37:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:37:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App Message-ID: <11c7f4.7c2a7fc4.464730a1@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org Someone mentioned tahorapp.com on-line, so I took a look at their web site. To quote: > Keeping Tradition & > Keeping Your Privacy > Rabbinically Approved! Anonymously send pictures of your Taharas > Hamishpacha questions to a Rav right from your own home. Receive answers > quickly and privately. Download Tahor App For Free! I then thought of "The Dress" , a picture of a black-and-blue dress that floated around the internet that many of us perceived as white-and-gold...... .....So, given that people guess at the background lighting when they see a picture and then subconsciously correct for it (see explanation on wikipedia page), how could a rav rely on a Tahor App image? -- Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>>> According to wiki the human eye can distinguish about ten million different colors. Other sources say "only" seven million. (Not relevant here but interesting: Some birds, some fish, some reptiles, even some insects, like bees, can see colors we can't see.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision A computer screen can display about 33,000 different colors -- only a small fraction of the number of shades in nature that the human eye can see. http://www.rit-mcsl.org/fairchild/WhyIsColor/Questions/4-6.html The takeaway -- to my mind -- is that the tahor app probably can't be relied on. The rav needs to see the actual color, not on a screen. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 08:36:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:36:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:33am EDT, R Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: : I am somewhat conflicted on this. OTOH, the nuances of coloring will : be distorted by many displays - perhaps all displays. OTOH, perhaps : women who otherwise would not ask she'eilos would use this service. Because of "The Dress" I am worried that "perhaps all displays" really understates the possibility of getting a color wrong. While the problem you raise is real. I would still recommend yoatzos as a better solution. Still, there are women who still wouldn't go to antoher woman, or who live in an area with no one to ask. RnTK wrote: : According to wiki the human eye can distinguish about ten million different : colors. Other sources say "only" seven million. ... : A computer screen can display about 33,000 different colors... : small fraction of the number of shades in nature that the human eye can see. ... : The takeaway -- to my mind -- is that the tahor app probably can't be : relied on. The rav needs to see the actual color, not on a screen. I think the problem I raised can lead to more profound misassessments. The precision of color displays will blur the edges. And the rabbis behind Tahor App say that it's only for more clear cases. What had me concerned is that that perception is based on more context colors and lighting specifics than the phone's camera may capture. Thus "the dress", which is explained, amongst other startling optical illusions involving color perception here . It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in different lighting than it was taken. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 09:33:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 12:33:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 517 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 11:53:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 14:53:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:33:14PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote: : The 33rd day of the Omer is a minor holiday commemorating a break in : the plague. The common translation of askaria is some kind of lung disease. However, the only explanation of the gemara that predates the late acharonim is R' Achai Gaon's -- that the word is sicarii. Meaning, they were killed by Roman dagger- or shortsword-men. Tying the deaths of the omer to the Bar Kokhva rebellion. (The sicarii of the events of Tish'ah beAv were Jewish dagger bearers. Same word, different people.) If I may add, which emphasizes the connection to shelo nahagu kavod zeh lazeh. The galus was started by sin'as chinam; it couldn't be ended by people who still hadn't mastered showing another kavod. (A scary thought about our own hopes...) : This day is observed as a day of rejoicing because on this day, the : students of Rabbi Akiva did not die. Actually, it's not a day of mourning because they didn't die. It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. Or perhaps it's the day Rashbi left the cave the 2nd time, or.... For Litvaks, Yekkes, and other communities, Lag baOmer as a holiday is a new thing. Also, as per other iterations, Lag baOmer at Meron appears to have originally been Shemu'el haNavi's yahrzeit (Mag beOmer? Yom Y-m) at Nabi Samwel, and only moved when Arabs going to Nabi Samwel (from Tzefat) dangerous. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 12:42:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 15:42:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/05/17 11:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while > convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in > different lighting than it was taken. But isn't that explicitly taken care of by the instruction to the user to take the photo only in direct sunlight, and by the instruction to the rav to look at it only on a specific monitor at a specific brightness? However reliable or unreliable the technology is, at least *that* concern has been addressed, hasn't it? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 13:01:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 16:01:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> References: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/05/17 14:53, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined > communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- > find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) > writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then > a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping > the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. No typo is necessary. What could "yom simchas Rashbi" mean if not his yortzeit, which he explicitly instructed his talmidim to celebrate as if it were his yom hillula? That's where the whole concept of celebrating yortzeits rather than mourning on them comes from, as well as the concept of referring to them as "wedding days". > Also, as per other iterations, Lag baOmer at Meron appears to have > originally been Shemu'el haNavi's yahrzeit (Mag beOmer? Yom Y-m) at Nabi > Samwel, and only moved when Arabs going to Nabi Samwel (from Tzefat) > dangerous. This paragraph got garbled enough that if I didn't already know what you meant I could not have figured it out. But it's my understanding that it wasn't danger from Arab marauders that put an end to the pilgrimages to Shmuel Hanavi (from all over EY) but rather a government decree barring Jews from the site. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 14:49:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:49:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: References: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512214922.GB4067@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 04:01:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined :> communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- :> find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) :> writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then :> a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping :> the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. : No typo is necessary. It happened. Necessity isn't at issue. We know what the older version was, and there used to be a ches there. "Shemeis" is simply not what RCV wrote. : What could "yom simchas Rashbi" mean if not : his yortzeit, which he explicitly instructed his talmidim to : celebrate as if it were his yom hillula? Well, isb't that what I said in the last sentence quoted? But it's only the most likely (in my opinion) possibility, and not -- as you are taking for granterd -- the only one. To continue from where you chopped off that text: > Or perhaps it's the day Rashbi left the cave the 2nd time, or.... Simcha, in the sence that seeing the man carry two hadasim for besamim -- zekhor veshamor -- yasiv da'ataihu. His simchah learning with his son-in-law, R' Pinchas b Ya'ir. "Ashrekha shera'isi bekakh..." Shabbos 33b-34a give you plenty of reason to believe he was joyous, and wanted to share that joy with the qehillah. Or maybe R Aqiva started teaching his 5 new students in earnest the very day the massacre or plague stopped. And therefore Lag baOmer is the day Rashbi started learning qabbalah. Or maybe... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 18:04:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 11:04:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The rabbi is shocked He realises After pesach is concluded That one of the contracts he's supposed to sell to the G Was not sold to the G If ownership According to Halacha Is determined by believing one is in control And when that control Is lost There's YiUsh Then this Chamets Had no owner During Pesach This Chamets For all intents and purposes During Pesach Has no owner. And Chamets can be Muttar Even if owned by a Y If it's abandoned For the duration of Pesach That's the Halacha Re the Mapoles The shed collapse On a crate of whiskey It's buried under at least 3 Tefachim It's Muttar after Pesach And it seems Even without Bittul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 14:33:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:33:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512213304.GA4067@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 03:42:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 12/05/17 11:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while : >convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in : >different lighting than it was taken. : : But isn't that explicitly taken care of by the instruction to the : user to take the photo only in direct sunlight, and by the : instruction to the rav to look at it only on a specific monitor at a : specific brightness? ... My wife and I saw The Dress for the first time together, and reported different results. in that picture it is obvious it was taken on a sunny day. And we both saw it in the same lighting. So, I don't think it sufficiently takes care of the problem. Maybe if the distributed a color sheet that must be included in the picture in proximity to the kesem, and the rabbinic side of the software corrects the colors displayed based on knowing what the sheet should look like. If the woman prints the color chart herself, you widen the uncertainty. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 14:23:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 23:23:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I have also been in touch with them (the programmer and one of the rabbis). I haven't come to a final conclusion, but my impression so far is: (1) The people on this project are y'rei Shamayim who take what they are doing seriously and have worked very hard for a long time on developing something that will be reliable (2) It is definitely not as good as seeing a mareh in real life (3) It is not good enough for borderline or difficult-to-pasken cases, and when difficult marot are submitted the rabbis will tell them that they need to be evaluated in person (4) They have had quite good results testing this app with easier cases (and most marot that women ask about are easier cases), which is why they have the confidence to release it (5) There are clear instructions on photographing the mareh in sunlight (6) This is only available for iphone - and deliberately so. They have the camera and white balance technology to give a good enough image, and because everyone is using the same type of phone and operating system, there is more control. Developing an android version will be significantly more challenging. If asked, I think I would cautiously tell women that IF they have no way to get the mareh evaluated in person (they do not live near any qualified Rav or yoetzet, or they are traveling), and they have an iphone and carefully follow the instructions, this seems to be reliable. I have worked online with Rav Auman for a long time, and while I haven't actually met him in person, I do trust him to know what he is doing. I'm still checking into it. If any of you have iphones (like most Israelis, I have an android) and have installed the app, I would be very interested in hearing feedback. Thank you! Shavua tov, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 19:10:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 22:10:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Music on the night of Lag B'Omer Message-ID: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> It seems quite common that people have bonfires with music on the evening of Lag B'Omer. I haven't found a compelling reason for this custom - even those who are meikil like the Rama to lift the Aveilus on Lag B'Omer don't do so until the day, I thought, as miktzas hayom k'kulo. Does anyone have an explanation for this? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 21:20:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 00:20:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Music on the night of Lag B'Omer In-Reply-To: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> References: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <112dafa9-5b8f-9e78-8b3e-2c0fcd51e25b@sero.name> On 13/05/17 22:10, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > It seems quite common that people have bonfires with music on the > evening of Lag B?Omer. I haven?t found a compelling reason for this > custom ? even those who are meikil like the Rama to lift the Aveilus on > Lag B?Omer don?t do so until the day, I thought, as miktzas hayom > k?kulo. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Yes. If one is merely noting the end of aveilus, then it starts in the morning, tachanun (or Tzidkas'cha) is said at the previous mincha, and bichlal it's not a celebration, any more than one celebrates when getting up from shiva. I've never heard of people singing and dancing and playing music on such an occasion, even if it's permitted. But if one is celebrating Rashbi's yom hillula then it's a full holiday, an occasion for song and dance and music, and of course it starts at night, with no tachanun at the previous mincha. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 12:11:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:11:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin Message-ID: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 12:27:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:27:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin In-Reply-To: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> References: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170515192700.GA20468@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:11:29PM -0400, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? MB 40:3 says that's the universal minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 14:49:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 17:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped Tefillin Message-ID: <5F399CEB-B043-4AB8-A067-A8E1495829DF@cox.net> Saul Newman wrote: Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? To the best of my knowledge, YES. However, I also recall that one could give extra tzedaka in lieu of fasting. rw From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 16 19:26:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 22:26:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World" Message-ID: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> This Torah portion sets forth the blessings that are seen in this world in response to our deeds. It then continues with the Tochacha, words of admonition, "If you will not listen to Me and will not perform all of these commandments?" Interestingly, there are seven series of seven punishments each. God warns us throughout the portion that He will punish us in "seven ways for your seven sins. We are now counting seven days a week for seven weeks; the Torah has just recently given the laws for Shemita ? seventh year the land lies fallow and seven periods of seven years, we celebrate the Jubilee year. What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the diatonic scale, seven continents, etc. We wind the T'fillin straps around our forearm seven times. We sit shiva for seven days. At the wedding we chant 7 blessings (sheva b'rachos) and the wedding is followed by seven days of celebration. Even the Torah begins with seven -- the First verse has seven words also containing a total of twenty-eight letters which is seven times four. Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion. When we say "Baruch Hashem" we are praising God for something that is hopefully whole and complete. The acronym for Baruch Hashem (Beis, Hay) also equals 7. Finally, the patriarchs and matriarchs total seven: Avraham, Yitzchok, Ya?akov, Sarah, Rivka, Rochel, Leah. (Please don?t write me to say your phone number has seven digits or the rainbow has 7 colors or that there are seven letters in the Roman numeral system or that nitrogen has the atomic number of 7 or that there were 7 dwarfs with Snow White). :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 05:31:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 12:31:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality, Message-ID: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> See below concerning a frequently discussed issue: Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today, especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:30:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:30:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World" In-Reply-To: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> References: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170518143027.GB13698@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:26:19PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven : represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the : diatonic scale, seven continents... Although the diatonic scale and the division of the colors in the spectrum to fit the numbers 7 are human inventions. They say more about what 7 means to humans -- even without revalation -- than anything inherent. ... : Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion... As does the word. Without niqud, the letters /sb`/ could be read as "seven" or "satiated". (Or swear... go figure that out.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:18:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:18:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170518171844.GD26698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh : Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on : Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives : today, certainly not in any practical manner. A tighter comparison... The minhag as recorded in the SA clearly ran into Lag baOmer -- and ending mourning with the usual miqtzas hayom kekulo. Then the hilula deRashbi turned Lag baOmer into a holiday, and this new holiday overrode the older minhagim of aveilus. What's good for one new holiday ought to be good for another (YhA, where this conversation began), no? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:24:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:24:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:24:41PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was : enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*)... As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel YT") but it's "neir Chanukah". Their kids wouldn't forget. : everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get : enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel : dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... Fire hazard is safeiq piquach nefesh, and ein danin es ha'efshar mishe'i efshar. However, wouldn't the alternative been lighting in the dinig hall, near one's table? The point is to eat by neir shel YT, not to sleep by them! And in this case (combining the above with what RJR wrote), shouldn't they have provided incandescent lamps for each table? (Not that there were small bulbs of other sorts when we were growing up.) Wouldn't it be easier to justify making a berakhah on turning the light on than on lighting in a third room or a table off to the side of the dining room dozens of yards from where you are eating? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:35:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:35:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality, In-Reply-To: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170518143502.GC13698@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:31:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why : there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters : of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the : masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as : all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak : halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would : contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today, : especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.] Not sure what this means. There are halakhos about triage. About how much tzedaqah to give and how to prioritize them. There are a lot of halakhos about morality. I fail to see how this isn't circular. The open moral questions RYBS is referring to are those too situational for every possible situation to be addressed with its own pesaq. Ar the Ramban puts it on "ve'asisa hayashar vehatov". If "morality" is being used in a sense to limit it to those quetions that did not get halachic resolution, isn't he just saying the interpersonal questions that didn't get a pesaq didn't get a pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:46:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:46:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170518144626.GD13698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei : Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events : of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber). It seems (but is not muchrach) from the AhS 394:1-3 . As I wrote (in part) in 2010 . The AhS distinguishes between a global minhag from the Geonic period not to marry and a later minhag bemedinos ha'eilu. He attaches the minhag of 1-33 (and including miqtzas yayom kekulo) to when the talmidei R' Aqiva died (s' 4-5) and the minhag of the last days to "minhag shelanu" (s' 5), localizing the last days to the descendent of those who fled the Crusaders east. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:14:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 11:04:32AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : If ownership : According to Halacha : Is determined by believing one is in control : And when that control : Is lost : There's YiUsh : Then this Chamets : Had no owner : During Pesach But if this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as -- it would be open and shut. I think ba'alus (as opposed to ownership) is defined by having the legal responsibility for something, and only as a consequence about having control or a right to use it. Which would explain why qinyan, a mechanism for eatablishing shelichus or shibud, is more thought of as a means of establishing baalus. Because baalus is also primarily on the hischayvus side. And so, it has as a consequence actual legal right of control, rather than depending on belief that one is in control. Which is why a ganav needs yi'ush plus shinui. Yi'ush, loss of belief of having control, is NOT enough to end ba'alus. But that's ba'alus. We don't have ba'alus over chameitz on Pesach. For example, an avaryan who dies on Pesach while violating bal yeira'eh bal yeimatzeih (BYBY) does not leave that chameitz to his sons. BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs from choshein mishpat, and is not baalus. ... : And Chamets can be Muttar : Even if owned by a Y : If it's abandoned : For the duration of Pesach ... : And it seems : Even without Bittul. ... The mishnah on Pesachim 31b says that if it's buried so deep a dog cannot dig it up, it is a form of bi'ur. R' Chisda in the opening gemara says it needs bitul. But in any case, the question is whether this is destruction. The gemara likens it to bi'ur. Not about a loss of ownership. Which would create a whole different question, as Tosafos (Pesachim 4b "mideOraisa") understand relinquishing ownership to be the very definition of bitul. (The majority opinion -- Rashi "bibitul be'alma", Ritva, Ran, and the Rambam 2:2 -- say it's a form of bi'ur.) Rashi and the Ran say the need for bitul after a mapolah fell on one's chameitz is derabbnan, a gezeira in case it gets unburied. But while buried, it's kebi'ur. The Samaq (#98) says the need for bitul is de'oraisa. And the MA holds that the Semaq would require buried chameitz not was not batul to be dug up and burnt on Pesach. The Mekhilta (on Shemos 12:19, see #2 ) says that chameitz owned by a nakhri which is in a Jew's reshus or a Jew's chameitz are excluded from BYBY by the pasuq's extra word "beveteikhem". "Af al pi shehu birshuso". The Mekhilta is making a split between reshus and BYBY. And it could be we are discussing three different concepts of "ownership", with reshus and baalu being different from each other as well. There is also a whole sugya about buried issurei han'ah on Temurah 33b-34a (starting at the mishnah) that I would need to understand better with rishonim and posqim to really comment in full. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:38:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:38:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> References: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 18/05/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel > YT") but it's "neir Chanukah" In L's case, "neir shel shabbos kodesh", but "neir chanukah". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 13:53:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 21:53:30 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? Message-ID: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> A thought just struck me, and I wondered if this chimed with anybody. The Rambam says (Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 halacha 13): ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????. Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. The Tur says the same except that he has Torah shebichtav and Torah sheba'al peh around the other way (Tur Yoreh Deah Hilchot Talmud Torah siman 246): ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??"? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???"? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? The Sages said all who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking with Torah shebichtav but with Torah shebaal peh he should not teach her ab initio, but if he taught her it is not as though he taught her Tiflut The Beis Yosef says it is a scribal error in the Tur, and should be the same way as the Rambam, and that is how he has the statement in the Shulchan Aruch, and the Taz agrees, pointing to Hakel. The Prisha notes that the Beis Yosef says that it is a scribal error but adds: ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??"? In any event there is to give a small reason for this version in the books of the Tur, since with all of them it is written and published so, because there is a greater loss when Torah shebichtav is brought out as words of nonsense than with Torah shebal peh. However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil Siman 199, the Maharil writes: ?????? ????? ???"? ??????' ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?"? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ? - ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?????' ???? ???? ?? ??? ????' ?? ???????, ??? ??' ??"?? ?"?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????, ??"? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????, ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??'? ???? ???? ??????, ??? ??? ????? ????? ... ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???, ???? ?"? ????? ?????, And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut as it says in perek notlev and we learn it from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, when wisdom enters so does cunning since when wisdom enters the heart of a person there also enters into it cunning and according to the explanation of Rashi because of this she will do things privately, and if so we are concerned that she will come to damage since their knowledge is light and even though it is considered a mitzvah eit l?asot lashem so that one should not drown out the reward by loss and all the more so where there is not a mitzvah ... And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by way of tradition from outside, And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous generations: ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like it says ?ask your father and he shall tell you? and in this it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their upright fathers. But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in the form of the Mishna? That the Torah sheba'al peh was passed from father to son by oral transmission (albeit that at one point schools were instated for those lacking fathers who could teach them)? And on the other hand doesn't the Rosh (ie father of the Tur) famously say that today one fulfils the mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah by writing other seforim in Hilkhot Sefer Torah, chap. 1 as is brought by the Tur and Shulhan Arukh in Yoreh De'ah 270:2? So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al peh - as the vast majority of the details are sourced in Torah sheba'al peh, and if they were only to be taught what is in Torah shebichtav, they would all turn into Karaites! And indeed that women were, as the Chofetz Chaim suggests, taught in the home with the tradition handed over by their fathers in the same way as Torah sheba'al peh has always been learnt all the way back to Moshe Rabbanu. While if you understand Torah shebichtav as including mishna and gemora and rishonim, all so long as they have been written down, then one could indeed understand that as being a possible practical distinction - ie not to teach women to read and write and understand what is in the written seforim? Now perhaps one might say that if the Rambam had poskened like Rav Elazar in Gitten 60b as understood by Rashi, that Torahshebichtav is the majority and Torah sheba'al peh is the minority, because he includes in Torah shebichtav anything that is learnt out of the Torah by way of midrash or gezera shava etc, then it might be possible to understand that by and large women could both learn to do the mitzvot incumbent on them and simultaneously avoid Torah sheba'al peh, but he doesn't, as in his introduction the Mishna he categorises Torah Sheba'al peh into five categories, and is clearly in this poskening like Rav Yochanan. So how, according to the Rambam, did women know what to do if they were never taught Torah sheba'al peh, even ba'al peh, remembering that it is the Rema's addition to the Shulchan Aruch in the name of the Smag (actually Smak) via the Agur that adds in the halacha that women need to learn all the mitzvot that are relevant to them? Is not the Tur's version actually the one that makes more logical sense - especially if you explain Hakel as per the gemora in Chagiga that the women came to listen (ie hear it orally, without looking at the text)? Not that this would seem to explain Rabi Eliezer himself, as Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna in Sotah 21a - objected to women learning that sometimes drinking the Sotah water would not result in immediate death, and in the Yerushalmi, Sotah perek 3 daf 19 column 1 halacha 4 he objected to telling a woman why there are three different types of deaths listed vis a vis the chet haegel when there was only one sin - both of which pieces of learning were, at least in his day, definitely Torah sheba'al peh. So given that the Rambam poskened like Rabbi Eliezer, he would have needed, if a distinction was to be made, have to phrase it the way he did. But maybe what the Tur was saying is that, Rabbi Eliezer or no, the Rambam's solution is not workable, and given the way the gemora explains Rabbi Eliezer's limud from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, and that already in his day that kind of learning was found in Torah shebichtav, the whole thing can be made workable by turning it the other way around? Has anybody seen this suggested anywhere? Any thoughts? Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 15:56:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 08:56:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> References: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 19 May 2017 3:15 am, "Micha Berger" wrote: >: If ownership >: According to Halacha >: Is determined by believing one is in control >: And when that control >: Is lost >: There's YiUsh >: Then this Chamets >: Had no owner >: During Pesach > If this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as I don't understand. Please explain. One who is unaware of the loss of his wallet, believes he is still in control. We Pasken that he remains the owner. Famous story, woman lost her money at a trade fair, was found and taken to the Rov. Although there was no question that it was the money she had lost, there was no way to Pasken that it had to be returned to her. YiUsh. Until Reb Y ? explained that she was never the owner and her state of mind was not relevant. It was her husband's money and he, being unaware it was lost, still firmly believed he was in control. YSheLoMiDaAs suggesting that since he'd be in a different state of mind, if he knew the facts, in other words YSheLoMiDaAs, is still a Sevara that recognises and circulates around the principle that ownership depends upon ones state of mind. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 09:16:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 12:16:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts Message-ID: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Two Faces of Love Twice a day the Jew gives expression to one of the most potent forces in social life ? LOVE. In the morning we plead for ahavah rabbah, abundance of love, for in the morning we want love to expand and grow throughout the day. In the evening, however, when darkness descends upon us, we pray again for love, but not in quantitative terms. Instead we plead for ahavat olam ? enduring and eternal love. In the dark night love does not grow; it deepens. Two Philosophies of LIfe Sarah advised her husband to cast out Ishmael, when she saw he was ?Miitzachaik? and she feared he would be an evil influence on his brother ?Yitzchok.? Interestingly, both ?Miitzachaik? and ?Yitzchok? have a common root, meaning to laugh or to play. What is the disparity? The difference is compelling: ?Mitzachaik? is in the present tense and ?Yitzchok? is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael?s philosophy of life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future. Conversely, she saw that Yitzchok?s philosophy of life was to live life spiritually, delaying immediate gratification and living his life in a way that would provide genuine happiness and enjoyment in the future. The future depends on what we do in the present. Mahatma Gandhi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 11:14:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 14:14:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes Message-ID: <20170519181429.GA31873@aishdas.org> >From this week's emailing from The Halachah Center / Beis haVaad leInyanei Mishpat . There are a number of halachic discussions about e-cig use -- whether kashrus concerns apply, health issues, but then they close with this interesting (to me) more aggadic point. Note found interesting was that R' Yosef Greenwald assumes that venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem isn't about preserving life, but preserving one's ability to pull the ol mitzvos. (That sounds weird, but an animal "pulls a yoke", no?) Which includes preserving life. And thus includes intoxication and other mind- or mood-altering chemicals that could hamper one's ability to function. I could have seen argiong for each as separate values, but... Holy Smokes! A Halachic Discussion Regarding E-Cigarettes Are e-cigarettes problematic from a halachic standpoint? By: Rav Yosef Greenwald ... The Health Concerns of E-cigarettes ... 1. Are E-Cigarettes Any Better than Cigarettes? ... 2. Derech Eretz and a Life of Meaning Let us conclude with one more point about the general imperative to protect our health and its relevance to this case. Although as mentioned there is an injunction to safeguard our health based on v'nishmartem, we also have an assurance of shomer pesaim Hashem, that Hashem will protect those who engage in normal activities, as Rav Moshe explained, which is based on the Gemara (Yevamos 12b and elsewhere).[10] Consequently, eating greasy french fries, doughnuts, and the like, may not be the healthiest thing to do. However, doing so would not violate a halachic prohibition, as eating these foods is considered in the realm of normal behavior (like smoking used to be), and we can apply shomer pesa'im Hashem. There have recently been some questions asked about the kashrus on medical marijuana, due to the possibility that the recreational use of marijuana may be normalized soon. However, before discussing the kashrus questions, one must ask whether it is acceptable to consume marijuana. It would seem to be in the same category as significant alcohol consumption. Leaving aside any possible physical damage caused from overdosing, there is no specific halacha that forbids one from getting drunk, aside from being careful not to miss the proper time for Tefilla, and not issuing halachic rulings while in an inebriated state.[11] Nevertheless, it should be obvious that this is wrong, based on what could be called the "fifth section of the Shulchan Aruch," using common sense in living one's life. Clearly, Hashem does not want a person to waste away their life in a state in which one cannot serve Hashem properly. Rather, one should live life as an intelligent, sober person. One who overdoses on alcohol, or engages in mind-altering or mood- altering by ingesting marijuana, is taking away the ability to function as a normal person. This falls under the category of derech eretz, proper conduct, which precedes the observance of halacha. In other words, even if one does not directly violate the Shulchan Aruch, one must live in a manner in which the Torah and halacha can be fulfilled. To return to e-cigarettes, this notion of living healthy is an important reason why, even if it is concluded that they are 100% kosher even without certification, a non-smoker should not start using such a product. In the merit of being able to curb one's physical temptations, hopefully we as a people can merit to reaching great spiritual heights, and achieve the closeness to Hashem that He, and we, so desire. ... [11] Both of these issues are discussed in the Gemara (Eiruvin 64a) and are cited in the Shulchan Aruch. ... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 12:08:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:08:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Does Orthodox Commitment Provide What is Needed for Good Character? Message-ID: <20170519190815.GA24683@aishdas.org> From http://jewishethicalwisdom.com/does-orthodox-commitment-provide-what-is-needed-for-good-character Critical reading for anyone interested in what AishDas stands for. Jewish Ethical Wisdom Blog Does Orthodox Commitment Provide What is Needed for Good Character? Posted on April 6, 2017 Posted By: Anthony Knopf Does Orthodox commitment provide what is needed for good character? Not yet, I answer in this article. ... Rashei peraqim: Introduction Feeling and Thinking Ethically - Not Always a Matter of Halakha Exclusive Focus on Halakha Distracts from and Attenuates Moral Sensitivity More is Required :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 12:19:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:19:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts In-Reply-To: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> References: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170519191925.GA30260@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:16:28PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The difference is compelling: "Mitzachaik" is in the present tense and : "Yitzchok" is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael's philosophy of : life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as : much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future. However, "Yishmael", the name, is also in future tense, and later in his life, "Yitzchaq metzacheiq es Rivqah ishto" (26:8) -- in the present tense. And while "Yishmael's" name is about listening, not tzechoq, is not listening MORE fundamental to a healthy relationship? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 02:14:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 19:14:00 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah at the Age of 12 Message-ID: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> My maternal grandfather, who lived in Lithuania until his late teens, told me on a number of occasions that he celebrated his bar mitzvah when he was 12 years old, as his father had died and he was considered to be an orphan. Some years ago I recalled this and decided to learn more about the custom, but each of the rabbis I asked had never heard of it. Recently, however, I was re-reading A Tzadik in Our Time: The Life of Reb Aryeh Levin and, at page 95, he recounts that he attended a bar mitzvah of an orphan in Jerusalem on his 12th birthday. Does anyone know anything of this custom? David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 13:39:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:39:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs > from choshein mishpat, and is not baalus. We can see a connection between BYBY and "responsibility" by the situation of a shomer. Even in a situation where a shomer is absolutely not the owner or baal in any sense of the term, he will still violate BYBY if he is responsible for the chometz that he is watching. (I don't know which side of the discussion this supports, but it seems very relevant to *some* side, so I figured I'd mention it.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 19:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'midbar Message-ID: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> Israel?s brithplace was b?midbar ? in the wilderness. It has been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced the monotheistic faith. Man is always in need of fulfillment and his promised land is far away. He is always on the road to the actualization of his dreams, seeking better things and yearning for a fuller, fulfilling life. The wilderness is the symbol of man searching for his destination. It is told that a Chassidic Rebbe, impatient at the sad, mad state of the world (sound familiar?) and overcome with longing for the happiness of mankind, prayed to God: ?If Thou cannot redeem Thy people Israel, then at least redeem mankind!? May we reach the promised land in our lifetime! rw ?Ay me! sad hours seem long.? William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 19:00:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:00:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "Krias Moshe Leynen"? Message-ID: <7c27ddbf-5df2-526c-c8bd-dbfd5a94b96e@sero.name> Has anyone heard of such a thing? I came across it in a Munkatcher publication. If it were buried in a block of text I'd take it for a typo for "Krias Sh'ma Leynen", referring to the children who come on the vach nacht to say Krias Sh'ma for the baby. But it's in a prominent position where I think surely someone would have noticed such a blatant typo and corrected it before it went to print, so my current working theory is that it's some minhag that neither I nor anyone I've asked so far have heard of. So I'm throwing it to the wider Avodah community; does anyone know what this is? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 23:08:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 02:08:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah at the Age of 12 In-Reply-To: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> References: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 20/05/17 05:14, David Havin via Avodah wrote: > My maternal grandfather, who lived in Lithuania until his late teens, > told me on a number of occasions that he celebrated his bar mitzvah when > he was 12 years old, as his father had died and he was considered to be > an orphan. > > Some years ago I recalled this and decided to learn more about the > custom, but each of the rabbis I asked had never heard of it. Recently, > however, I was re-reading A Tzadik in Our Time: The Life of Reb Aryeh > Levin and, at page 95, he recounts that he attended a bar mitzvah of an > orphan in Jerusalem on his 12^th birthday. > > Does anyone know anything of this custom? There is, of course, no such custom of becoming a bar mitzvah early. But it was a common custom that a child with no father would begin putting on tefillin a full year before his bar mitzvah, rather than a few weeks or months as is the usual custom. See Aruch Hashulchan 37:4, who says this is "murgal befi hahamon", but he knows of no reason for it, and disapproves of it. See: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=374&pgnum=295 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 14:40:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 17:40:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts In-Reply-To: References: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Message-ID: <2B3DC5BF-D4C8-4C0D-A9B0-01AE8A89E41E@cox.net> > "Yishmael", the name, is also in future tense ...which means "he WILL hear or listen" which fits in with his personality and character. Presently he doesn't listen and does what he pleases. When he gets old, he will then listen. > And while "Yishmael's" name is about listening, not tzechoq, is not > listening MORE fundamental to a healthy relationship? A healthy relationship is fundamental with many elements: one of which is certainly listening NOW, not in the future. Can you imagine telling your child to do something and he says I'll do it in the future. He isn't even listening because as you point out "He WILL listen -- a lot of good that does for the present. And psychologists will tell you that a healthy relationship must have laughter and humor which can only increase the health of a relationship. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 22 07:47:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 10:47:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag Baomer in pre WWII Mir Yeshiva in Europe In-Reply-To: <1494871334409.64146@stevens.edu> References: <1494871334409.64146@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170522144737.GB29499@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:02:36PM +0000, Prof Yitzchak Levine posted on Areivim: : Please see http://mrlitvak.blogspot.com/ I can understand a desire to reaffirm the authentic Litvisher derkeh. But meanwhile, we have more learning than at any time in Litta's history, and kids are still uninspiring and fleeing in horrendous numbers. How often do people mention the RBSO? How much do we discuss or base decisions on the kelalim gedolim baTorah (cf RBW's recent review of RJB's The Great Principle of the Torah -- ve'ahvta lerei'akha kamokha, de'alakh sani, eileh toledos ha'adam, shema Yisrael, tzadiq be'emunaso yichyeh, etc...)? So, Lag baOmer may not be more than cheap sentimentality. But even if I were to agree this was true, I would still argue that we are in desperate need of sentimentality -- and will settle for the cheap kind rather than letting the pursuit of perfection become excuses for less emotional expression. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 10:54:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:54:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? Message-ID: We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that are on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv is al pi din. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 12:38:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:38:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Added textual mar'eh meqomos alongside the links. -micha] On 23/05/17 13:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would > like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. > Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that > are on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv > is al pi din. These would seem to be dispositive: [Rambam, Hilkhos Shekheinim 10:11:] http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/c310.htm#11 [SA CM 155:26:] https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9F_%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9A_%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9F_%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98_%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%9B%D7%95 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 13:35:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 16:35:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170523203556.GC10104@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 08:54:41PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would : like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. : Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that are : on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv is al pi : din. Related question, really came up last week. Someone had a tree that neighbors were complaining about, that it looked like it was dying and might fall on the neighbor's roof. On a windy day recently it actually snapped -- but not falling on the roof, instead the tree brought down the power lines. A number of people on the block lost food before power was restored and other expenses were incurred. Is the owner of the tree liable al pi din? What if the neighbor hadn't warned him, so that we cannot know if the owner was aware of an issue or not? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 42nd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliability crucial for universal brotherhood? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 13:37:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:37:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'Note found interesting was that R' Yosef Greenwald assumes that venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem isn't about preserving life, but preserving one's ability to pull the ol mitzvos. (That sounds weird, but an animal "pulls a yoke", no?) Which includes preserving life. And thus includes intoxication and other mind- or mood-altering chemicals that could hamper one's ability to function.' The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it either as far as I recall. So that leaves us fairly free to guess what it means, I suppose. I'd assumed it means preserving health, inasmuch as nefesh usually refers to life force, and we wouldn't need it to refer to preserving life itself, since that's covered by a) prohibition of suicide and b) al taamod al dam reyecha. And preserving health would presumably be in order to keep mitzvos the better, no? And I think an animal bears a yoke and pulls a plough. Lashon Hakodesh is always 'nosei ol'. Which corresponds better to bear than pull. So we carry/bear the ol mitzvos I think. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 14:25:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 07:25:01 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away - Mashkon Pikadon Message-ID: In Siman 440 chametz foods owned by a G in the care of a Yid (a ?shomer? / guardian) Siman 441 chametz foods owned by a G left in the care of a Yid as a ?mashkon? (lit. collateral) for guarantee of a loan from the Yid Pesachim 5b Two pesukim Shmos 13:7 ?Chametz shall not be seen to you and leaven shall not be seen to you in all your borders.? You may not see your own (i.e. keep in your possession), but you may see that of others (i.e. non-Jews)? Shmos 12:19 ?For a seven-day period leaven shall not be found in your homes.? a Yid may not accept Chamets deposits from non-Jews.? there appears to be an inconsistency Gemara Pesachim 5b If a Yid may see Chamets of non-Jews why does the Beraisa prohibit the chametz deposit of a non-Jew? It depends upon whether the Y has (monetary) responsibility for the Chametz, When a Y accepts monetary responsibility for the chametz he is considered to be owner to the extent that he is Over BYBY Mishnah Berura discusses whether the Y can sell the ?pikadon?. concludes yes If the Y has no monetary responsibility (i.e. for loss, theft or negligence) it may be kept in his house during Pesach but to ensure it is not mistakenly eaten must close it in a room The ?shomer? who assumes monetary liability becomes a part-owner therefore, a Jew's chametz with a non-Jewish ?shomer? does not absolve the Y he is Over BYBY A visiting non-Jew who brings his own chametz into the home of a Jew need not ask the non-Jew to remove the chametz and may even invite him into his home and eat the chametz right at his table provided the Y does not eat together with the G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 13:42:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:42:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim Message-ID: > > > > I am not expressing an opinion here on the permissibility of maharats, or > of women's ordination. I merely wish to express my respect for those on > both sides of this important question, and my hope that the dispute will > remain on the level of a machloket l'shem shamayim and that ultimately all > of us will benefit from this challenging and passionate conversation. > > ---------------------- Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilana. I have found that discussions about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven ... and of not having a recognized posek to support their halachic position. The discussions rarely focus on the relevant halachic issues. It's nice to hear someone who is willing to respect the other side...and recognize that the discussion is a machlokes l'sheim shamayim. -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 17:37:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 20:37:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170525003710.GA22308@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:42pm EDT, R Michael Feldstein wrote: : Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilana. I have found that discussions : about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because : those who support : shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven ... and : of not having : a recognized posek to support their halachic position. The discussions : rarely focus on : the relevant halachic issues. A discussion on Avodah can focus exclusively on the relevant halachic issues. A decision of what to do in practice has to include deferring to the position that actually is backed by recognized posqim. And one side's unwillingness to ask the question on this level itself becomes a relevant halachic issue. However, the following is true anyway: : It's nice to hear someone who is willing to respect the other side...and : recognize that : the discussion is a machlokes l'sheim shamayim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 20:03:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 05:03:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly accused of being agenda driven. Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. Ben On 5/24/2017 10:42 PM, Michael Feldstein via Areivim wrote: > I have found that discussions > about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support > shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 04:57:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 11:57:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> On 5/24/2017 10:42 PM, Michael Feldstein via Areivim wrote: > I have found that discussions > about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support > shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven _______________________________________________ Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:28:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:28:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? Message-ID: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:30:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:30:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shoftim-Mesorah Chain Message-ID: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&st=&pgnum=484 Fascinating article on the mesorah chain-were the shoftim really part of it ?(doesn't deal with broader question of why we don't see Sanhedrin in Nach). KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:46:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 10:46:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shoftim-Mesorah Chain In-Reply-To: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170525144620.GA16912@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:30:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&st=&pgnum=484 : Fascinating article on the mesorah chain-were the shoftim really part of it ?(doesn't deal with broader question of why we don't see Sanhedrin in Nach). Is this the right link? The article appears to be about the revalation of Tanakh "Dargot haNevu'ah baTorah, Nevi'im uKhtuvim", starting with Devarim vs the other 4 chumashim, then Navi vs Kesuvim. By R Moshe Menachem haKohein Shapira. I think you mean an earlier article, MEsoret haTSBP beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah Neustadt. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252pgnum=474 Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:26:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:26:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minhagei Nashim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526012654.GA29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 06:51:56AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I am NOT talking about a machlokes haposkim, where the wife was taught one : thing and the husband was taught something else. In that case, there is : much common ground, and they (or their rav) can go to the sources to figure : out what the couple should do. I'm talking about a much more fundamental : problem, where generations have passed on different traditions, without : anyone ever realizing that there was a mismatch. Is this really a problem? I highly recommend learning AhS. One of the things you get to watch is how much this conflict drives the dialectic of halakhah. Unlike the clean-room approach to halachic theory one gets from lomdus. You get a sense of how much acceptance of a practice in the field drives how much willingness to accept or draft a dachuq theory to explain how it could be justified in theory. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:43:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:43:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'midbar In-Reply-To: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> References: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170526014307.GC29809@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:37:34PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has : been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced : the monotheistic faith... But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged during the Exodus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:39:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526013946.GB29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, : and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying : observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes : when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ... : [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is : outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be : factionalized like that. .... : help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, : despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it : is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to : the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply : to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. : I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 : consistent with 493:8? Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag, as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin on ch"m either. It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the local court(s) or inherited. Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag side of the AhS's chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 20:53:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 23:53:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes Message-ID: R' Ben Bradley wrote: > The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is > that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui > which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in > fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha > nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it > either as far as I recall. This surprised me so much that I looked it up. Here's what I found: These words are from Devarim 4:15. The only comment of the Torah Temimah is: "This is brought and explained above, in the pasuk Ushmor Nafsh'cha (#9)." So I look at Devarim 4:9, and the Torah Temimah quotes a lengthy story from Brachos 32b, which references both pesukim (4:9 and 4:15). The comments of the Torah Temimah that I found particularly relevant to RBB's comment are found in the second and third paragraphs in Torah Temimah #16, and I will quote them here: > The Maharsha writes here, "This pasuk is about forgetting > the Torah, and these pesukim have nothing at all to do with > a person protecting his own nefesh from danger." According > to him, the tzadik of that story said what he said to the > government official merely to get out of the situation, > because the pasuk is really not about Shmiras Haguf. Further, > the fact that it is a common saying, for people to quote the > pasuk V'nishmartem Me'od L'nafshoseichem for any physical > danger - according to the Maharsha that's a mistake. > > But isn't it the explicit opinion of the Rambam, who wrote > in Rotzeach 11:4, "It is a Mitzvas Aseh to remove any > michshol which could be a Sakanas Nefashos, and to be very > very careful about it, as it is said, 'Hishamer L'cha, > Ushmor Nafsh'cha Me'od.'" So it is explicit that the language > of these pesukim *is* about protecting one's body. At first glance, this seems to go against what RBB wrote. BUT: Even according to the Rambam as cited by the Torah Temimah, it seems to me that the most one can say is that Ushmor Nafsh'cha (Devarim 4:9) talks about physical danger; we don't necessarily know that about V'nishmartem (Devarim 4:15), and it is not clear to me why the Torah Temimah closes that paragraph referring to "THESE pesukim" (hapesukim ha-ayleh). Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 03:18:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 13:18:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Bmidbar Message-ID: Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has : been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced : the monotheistic faith... But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged during the Exodus >> However, the avot were shepherds and it has been suggested that being alone with the flock and nature helped them perceive monotheism. BTW I am now reading The exodus you almost passed over by Rabbi Fohrman who demonstrates that the debate between Moshe and Pharoh and the 10 plagues all revolve about monotheism versus polytheism -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:39:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526013946.GB29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, : and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying : observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes : when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ... : [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is : outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be : factionalized like that. .... : help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, : despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it : is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to : the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply : to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. : I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 : consistent with 493:8? Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag, as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin on ch"m either. It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the local court(s) or inherited. Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag side of the AhS's chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 19:22:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 22:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government Message-ID: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> There is a popular theory that the positive description of the gov't found repeatedly found in the AhS is self-censorship and an attempt to make sure his works make it through the government censorship and approval process. But there are times he goes far beyond this, complimenting them in ways no censor would have expected, never mind demanded. For example EhE 42:51, the discussion of marrying in front of witnesses \who are pesulei eidus deOraisa -- eg converts away from Judaism. Rashi has a case of an anoos who got married with other anoosim, and they all returned. Rashi ruled that she needs a gett, because maybe they had hirhurei teshuvah and at that moment were valid eidim. Then he adds Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed. They would never force someone to convert. Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah, we don't have to be chosheish for it. So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus? In terms of timing, the first booklets of EhE started coming out in 1905. (After YD, which came out 1897-1905.) He stopped sometime during or before 1908, his petirah; but he could have written this well before 1905 -- I only know the publishing date. 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other things. Which then led to a new Russioan Constitution, a multi-party system, the Imperial Duma... and 11 years later, the Soviets. So, it's hard to believe he meant it, but it's hard to believe he would risk empty flattery with those stakes! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 04:50:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 07:50:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> On 25/05/17 22:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Then he adds > Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu > shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed. > They would never force someone to convert. He goes on far longer than that. So long that no reader could possibly miss his meaning. > Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he > continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's > converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah, > we don't have to be chosheish for it. > > So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he > suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO > obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up > to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus? This was a period when some publishers of siddurim felt it necessary to print "avinu malkeinu ein lanu melech bashamayim ela ata". He may very well have feared that including a practical psak about anoosim would arouse the censor's ire, especially since the censors were themselves mostly meshumodim. > 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which > was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other > things. Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would have been obvious to him too. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 07:57:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other :> things. : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would : have been obvious to him too. I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation audience. Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his contemporary readers. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 08:33:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 11:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2dc5d4d3-0686-0f3a-9692-24d0aa39595b@sero.name> On 26/05/17 10:57, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which > :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other > :> things. > > : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see > : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which > : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would > : have been obvious to him too. > > I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in > his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation > audience. candlesticks? I think you meant gelecther. But there's no false psak, just a false description of the metzius, which is so over the top that nobody could miss it. > Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining > qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting > them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his > contemporary readers. How could he possibly know what future conditions might be? Any reference in any sefer to "our times" has to be understood as about the author's times, not the reader's. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 07:53:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:53:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly : accused of being agenda driven. : : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response. Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality. Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a non-halachic agenda by making it look holy. (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:57:32AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post : modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all : agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid) But there are limits to eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. When in a halachic debate, one should be limiting oneself to the various answers that are objectively right. Thus presuming there is an objectively right, while still not being absolutist about it. And if we assimilated too much postmodernism to be able to see where eilu va'eilu ends (tapers off), we should be leaning on posqim who can. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 09:54:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 12:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Tvunah] St. Petersberg White Night Zmanim Message-ID: <20170526165420.GA22041@aishdas.org> >From the web site of R' Asher Weiss's pesaqim . I was told that they had a similar problem in the summer in Telzh. Motza"sh was havdalah, melaveh malkah, night seder, shacharis kevasikin, sleep. Tvunah in English Beit Midrash for Birurei Halachah Binyan Zion Under the Leadership of Maran HaRav Asher Weiss Shlita White Night Zmanim Questions: 1. During White Nights here in St. Petersburg we end Shabbat at midnight (2:00). This is also the time of alot ashahar. Accordingly, there is no opportunity to say a blessing on the candle and eat Seudat melawe malka. Question: Is it possible to rely on the opinion of rabbi Ovadiya Yoseph that alot ashahar is 72 dakot zmaniet before dawn, and accordingly there is a certain night after Chatzot for Bracha on the candle and melawe malka? 2. Can we finish fasts of 17 of Tamuz and the 9th of Av after tzet kahovim according Gaon (0:03 and 23:03)? Answers: 1. Since it is already the beginning of the light of the new day and hence Alot Hashachar, the bracha on the candle for havdala should not be said. However since it is still a few hours before Netz Hachama [sunrise] one could be lenient to eat Melave Malka. In fact, with regards to Melave Malka one could be lenient and eat before Chatzos, as long as 72 minutes have passed since shkiya [even though with regards to Melacha one should be machmir until Chatzos]. 2. With regards to ending Rabbinic Fasts, one could rely on the zman of Tzais Hakochavim according to Rabeinu Tam [according to the Pri Megadim that it is a set time in all places], waiting 72 minutes after shkiya. [Hebrew meqoros ubi'urim elided.] :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 45th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Malchus: What is the beauty of Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity (on all levels of relationship)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 27 12:11:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 22:11:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> On 5/26/2017 5:53 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly > : accused of being agenda driven. > : > : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. > > I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat > believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their > halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response. > > Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda > to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have > a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality. People keep using that word, "feminist". I don't think that's what feminism means. This is egalitarianism, which may overlap with feminism in some areas, but is a different ideology. And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to reality. That would imply that halakha comes first and responds to reality. I think that in the vast majority of cases, and if you want, I'll give you ample examples from the writings of JOFA/YCT people, it is a sense that egalitarianism is a moral imperative. That the egalitarian worldview is quite simply the *only* moral worldview, and that to the extent that halakha comforms to that worldview, it is a moral system, and to the extent that it does not, it is not. > Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means > of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a > non-halachic agenda by making it look holy. It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality that predates this entire debate. When the egalitarians want to try and read their ideology back into Jewish history, they often do so with things like Rashi's daughters laying tefillin, a fiction which is accepted as fact by Conservative and Reform Jews, but has absolutely no historical basis. There is a legitimate argument to be made that those on the side of tradition are afraid of change. But not that they are *only* afraid of change. Casual change of halakhic norms has caused enormous damage in recent history, and wariness or even fear of such things is both rational and reasonable. Again, there may even be something admirable about trying to equalize the two sides the way you're doing here, but it doesn't match the reality. One has only to listen to the types of arguments that are used by the two sides to see that they are operating on the basis of vastly different paradigms, where one *starts* with the Torah and one *starts* with egalitarianism. > (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about > fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" > a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos > that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, > etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or > resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and > general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha. The words of the Ramchal and Rabbenu Bachya are not as rigorously chosen as those in the halakhic areas of the Torah, and are far more easily "adapted" to foreign ideologies. I don't say that they are unimportant, but let's not let the tail wag the dog here. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 27 20:44:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 23:44:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: To quickly review an old question: If Rus and Orpah converted at the *beginning* of the story, then how could Naami send Orpah back to her people? But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews? Some answer this question suggesting that there was a sort of "conditional" conversion at the beginning, and while Rus later affirmed her conversion to be sincere, it was revealed that Orpah's was never valid to begin with. I have never understood this answer, because of the ten years that elapsed from the supposed conversion until it was retroactively nullified. (By analogy, suppose (chalila) that Jared and Ivanka would split up, and Ivanka would claim that she was only putting on a show all along. Who would believe her? Those who currently accept her geirus as valid, would anyone accept such a bitul of it?) Today I came across a different approach to the question. Like any other area of halacha, hilchos geirus has its share of halachic disputes. For example, which parts of the process require a beis din; perhaps a beis din is needed only l'chatchila, or is it me'akev? Or: If the conversion candidate admits that he/she has mixed motivations (such as being interested in a Jewish spouse, but also sincerely l'shem Shamayim), is this acceptable or is it posul even b'dieved? Pick either of those questions, or make up another one of your own. Let's say that both Orpah and Rus converted at the beginning of the story. Let's also say that everyone was up-front and sincere about whatever they claimed their motivations to be, such that no one was surprised ten years later. In other words, there was no disagreement about the facts of the situation. But there WAS a machlokes among the poskim of the time, about the halacha to apply to that situation. Machlon, Kilyon, Rus and Boaz all held like the poskim who said that the conversion was a valid one, at least b'dieved. But Naami held like the poskim who ruled it to be invalid, even b'dieved. Thus, Machlon and Kilyon were able to marry these women in good conscience. For ten years Naami held Orpah and Rus to be non-Jewish, but there wasn't much she could do about it, because their husbands held that they *were* Jewish. When the husbands died, Naami finally had the opportunity to express the view of her poskim. Orpah accepted Naami's advice (for whatever reason), but Rus was committed to continuing her new religion (for whatever reason). At this point, perhaps Rus had a second geirus to keep her mother-in-law happy, or maybe not. Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to speak of. A possible hole in my suggestion appears in pasuk 2:20, where Naami explicitly admits that Boaz is one of "OUR" relatives, and one of "OUR" redeemers. This would not make sense if Naami rejected the validity of the original conversion. However, this occurs AFTER pasuk 2:11, in which Boaz tells Rus (I am paraphrasing): "I know your whole story. Don't worry. I hold your geirus to be valid, and I hold you you be a relative." In the final analysis, Naami goes along. Maybe she decides to accept Boaz's shitah l'halacha, or maybe she merely goes along as a practical matter, given the fait accompli that both Boaz and Rus hold that way. Have I left any loose ends here? Previous approaches have focused on uncertainties of intention. This approach says that everything that happened in Moav was clear, and the only gray part was a machlokes haposkim, but we know which shitah was followed by each character of the story. I invite all comments. advTHANKSance Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 09:16:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 12:16:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0789e301-2374-0dd3-0f9e-8befc1c1052c@sero.name> On 27/05/17 23:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was > valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to > speak of. There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. What is the point of this mitzvah? It's to pay off his obligations and redeem his good name; Ruth -- whether Jewish or not -- was also his obligation, and had to be redeemed. Thus Boaz need not have believed that the initial conversion -- if there was one -- had been valid. But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:51:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:51:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Rut converted when Naomi tried to send her back, while Oprah chose not to convert. Ben On 5/28/2017 5:44 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without > Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 10:50:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 17:50:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> >From last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should always follow the local custom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:16:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:16:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mezonos After Kiddush Message-ID: <1495995457275.89387@stevens.edu> >From Friday's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. Must Kiddush be followed by a meal with bread, or is it sufficient to make Kiddush and then eat mezonos? A. There is a halacha that Kiddush may only be recited at the place of one's meal. This requirement is known as Kiddush b'makom se'udah (Pesachim 101a). If one does not eat a se'udah after Kiddush or recites Kiddush in a location other than where he eats the meal, he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of Kiddush and must make Kiddush again when and where he eats. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch (OC 273:5) quote the Ge'onim who hold that one can fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush without actually eating a full meal at the time and place that he makes Kiddush. Rather, a person can consume a mere ke'zayis of bread or even drink an additional revi'is of wine as his Kiddush-time "meal" to fulfill the requirement of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. The Magen Avraham (273:11) and Aruch Ha-Shulchan (273:8) explain that, according to the Ge'onim, one can eat Mezonos food (e.g. cookies, pastry, or cake), after Kiddush to satisfy the rule of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. This view has become widely accepted, and many poskim permit partaking of Mezonos foods after Kiddush but ideally advise against satisfying the mitzvah by merely drinking an additional revi'is of wine (see MB 273:25). Some halachic authorities, including the Chasam Sofer, as quoted by Rav Moshe Shternbuch, shlita (Teshuvos V'Hanhogos 5:80), have ruled that if one makes Kiddush and then eats Mezonos foods, he must make Kiddush again later at his actual se'udah. This was also the opinion of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l. In the next Halacha Yomis we will discuss whether cheesecake is a proper pastry for one to fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. For more on this topic please read Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer's excellent article "Eating Dairy on Shavuos" featured in the 5777 - 2017 Shavuos Consumer Daf HaKashrus. After eating pungent, strong-tasting cheese one should wait before eating meat, the same amount of time that one waits between meat and milk, regardless of the cheese's age. The following chart shows which cheeses require waiting: Aged Cheese List - Kosher -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:59:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:59:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros Message-ID: <1495998054786.63765@stevens.edu> I received the following response to my earlier email about this topic Sadly, you will always find 1 or 2 people in every shul who "sit" while the entire tzibbur stands. This strikes me as downright arrogant, and IMHO is done more to make a "statement" than to follow a minhag that might be prevalent in some communities. C'mon; if 100 or 200 people are standing, should someone stick out and sit because that's the way he was taught.....? To this I replied Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. And in light of this, may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed. I bet this never occurred to you. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:15:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:15:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> References: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> Message-ID: Some people look at this as purely a matter of minhag, and so criticize those who do not follow the local minhag, calling them arrogant. Well, the Rambam thought this was an issue of an incorrect hashqafa, and worth ignoring any minhag started in ignorance. Part of the problem with modern Jews is that everything to them is an issue of minhag. They do not understand that sometimes there are really important hashqafa issues from teh Torah involved. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels at ou.org ________________________________ From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 1:50 PM To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? >From last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should always follow the local custom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:34:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:34:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to : reality... It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem. ... : It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as : being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality : that predates this entire debate... True, as I wrote : >(My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about : >fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" : >a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos : >that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, : >etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or : >resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and : >general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) >From this perspective, those who are in favor of change are advocating a definition of Torah that includes only black-letter law. ... : It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of : Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha... Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that halakhah must conform to and the law itself. Not "primacy over halakhah", but a voice in resolving between two positions when black-letter law could be drafted to support either. It may only get a quieter voice, it still must have its say. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:16:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 16:16:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the rituals above the menshlichkeit. There's a story I've heard many times. This version comes from Rav Frand at https://torah.org/torah-portion/ravfrand-5755-naso/ > At the eulogy of R. Yaakov Kaminetzsky, zt"l, one speaker > related the following: There was a nun in Monsey, New York > who complained about the way the Jewish population related > to her: Everyone used to walk right past her... The "correct" > people ignored her, and the "super correct" people spat. This > nun then related that there was, however, one old Jew with a > white beard that used to say "Good Morning" every single day. > (That Jew was R. Yaakov.) That?s Kiddush Hashem and "looking > the other way" is Chillul Hashem. Such stories are NOT hard to find. The "frum" newspapers and magazines and parsha sheets are full of them. I don't know why so few people greeted that nun pleasantly. I hope that it changed when that story started to get around. If I write any more, I'll get even more depressed than currently. Suffice it so say that the only reason I'm posting this at all, is to clarify the point that I think RMB was trying to make, and to agree with it. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:52:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:52:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as kedoshim tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in the sense of being like aggadeta. Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos would be incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give the value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan pesukim and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos. Most often that's implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the gemara of value based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the expense of what looks otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular dracheha darchei noam is cited. I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic. Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not operate in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how the value system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We ignore meta-halachic pesukim at our peril. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:18:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:18:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Ben Waxman wrote: > I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their > very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, pages 48-52. R' Zev Sero wrote: > There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the > mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. > But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than > being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why > put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether > it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only > applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk > literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging > such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves. Good question, especially since my post explicitly allowed for "an unknown machlokes". The problem is that the machlokes would have to be one where Machlon, Kilyon, Ruth, and Boaz all held that Ruth's marriage was valid, with only Naami holding it to be not valid. My understanding is that Avoda Zara 36b allows for the *possibility* that it is muttar *d'Oraisa* to marry an Avoda Zara woman who is not from The Seven Nations. And Ruth, being from Moav, was *not* from those seven. But at the very most, that gemara would allow (on a d'Oraisa level) sexual relations, and even doing so "derech chasnus" - as a marriage. It does NOT go so far as to consider Ruth as part of the extended family such that Boaz would have any responsibility to her. I would want a source for that. Granted that there might be some "unknown machlokes" which would consider Ruth to be part of Boaz's family, even if she did not convert at the beginning of the story. But I think such a suggestion would be venturing into fantasyland. Here's why: Even if it is mutar d'Oraisa for a Jewish man to publicly marry an Avoda Zara woman (who isn't from the Seven Nations), the children from such a marriage would not be Jewish, and that's d'Oraisa. In other words, even if the marriage is legitimate, the children are not part of the man's family. And if the children are not part of his family, then kal vachomer, Boaz is certainly not part of his family. So unless you can show a valid source that Boaz held (or even *might* have held) by patrilineal descent, then I can't see RZS's suggestion as reasonable. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 15:07:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:07:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: "And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying, 'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them: May HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers 6:22-26] The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins between man and his fellow man. Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his or her face towards the offender. So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is equally important. Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 15:27:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: <4EECF03B-E505-4324-B37E-96A99F67F0A9@cox.net> "And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying, 'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them: May HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers 6:22-26] The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins between man and his fellow man. Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his or her face towards the offender. So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is equally important. Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 16:14:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 19:14:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170528231426.GD6467@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:16:38PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : : > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of : > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without : > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot : > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... : : I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and : more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly : does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But : for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the : rituals above the menshlichkeit. : This is why I wrote that the hashkafah is necessary in order to observe halakhos like qedoshim tihyu. But I realized the language problem, which is why when I replied to Lisa I used the idiom "black-letter halakhah", to refer to the kind of laws that can be codified in the SA. Which isn't only ritual. Eg the limits of ona'as mamon is black-letter halakhah. One of the saddest things about the writings of the CC (other than the MB) is that they represent the realization that shemiras halashon and ahavad chessed were going to continue to get short shrift unless someone made black-letter halakhah out of them. When in reality, HQBH would be "Happier" -- I am guessing, of course -- if we would do things things simply because ve'ahavta lerei'akha kamokha. At the Alter of Slabodka put it: I don't love mtself because there is a mitzvah to do so. So too, the mitzvah is to develop of love of others, and therefore all these things would come naturally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:31:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 14:31:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: It seems to me that the opponents of ordination of women are hiding behind conflation of terms. What is first needed is an understanding of what ordination is in this day and age. The plain meaning of the Shulchan Aruch YD 242:14 is that it is permission from a teacher to a student to instruct in issur v'heter. it is perhaps more instructive to go through the process step by step and see where those who object have a problem. 1. women learn the subject matter 2. the teacher thinks they are capable 3. if the teacher dies, according to SA YD 242:14, nothing further is needed 4. the teacher gives the student permission(to avoid transgressing on the prohibition of moreh l'fnei rabo) So, if there is a problem, which step is the problem and why? is it that a teacher cant give a women permission to be mora l'fnei raba? what is the source for that? Essentially what we use the term semicha today is a teacher giving the student immunity from transgressing a particular prohibition. If the issue is that of a woman giving hora'ah, then it is necessary to establish exactly what that is in this day and age. Is it just 'mareh mekomot'? is it more formal hora'ah? we should keep in mind that R. Schachter, in defining terms for converts, writes that hora'ah in issur v'heter is NOT serarah, and that according to some opinions, judging dinei mamanot is not serarah. Furthermore, he writes of a difference of opinion whether semicha is a din in dayanus, or a din in hora'ah. So, if semicha is a din in dayanus, and not hora'ah, then there is no reason to bring the restrictions from dayanus over to hora'ah. and, if semicha is a din in hora'ah, then the restrictions on dayyanus don't apply to semicha. I would add that the entire basis for the claim that women cant get semicha starts with the restriction on women being witnesses, then that being extended to judges, and then being extended again to semicha. It is not necessarily a given that these extensions should be made. We should note that there are a number of others who are prohibited from being witnesses- those who lend with interest, deaf, blind, etc. The internet reports that there are those who were deaf that recieved orthodox semicha. I dont have any information on semicha for the blind. However, it does not appear that the OU has taken a position on these, nor has anyone accused the deaf and the blind who are seeking semicha of being heretics nor have they been threatened with being kicked out of Orthodoxy. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 17:00:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:00:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529000002.GA17436@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:01:37AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Areivim wrote: : 'that a pesaq is by definition someone eligable to be a dayan,' : Which surely most community rabbis are not, since most have yoreh yoreh but not yadin yadin. 1- Eligable, not qualified. 2- Who said one has to have Yadin Yadin to serve as a dayan? Yes, to judge fiscal matters, we need someone who knows CM, but for someone to decide questions of YD? On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:21:20PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Areivim wrote: : I was thinking along very similar lines. In which case, the main : (only?) difference between the yoetzet and the community rabbi is that : the rabbi's job also includes "masculine" roles like leadership, while : teaching and paskening are neutral and shared. As I wrote in every other iteratrion of this question, there is a difference between teaching halakhah pesuqah and applying shiqul hada'as. Someone who follows a rav's pesaq is obeying lo sasur, and therefore did the right thing even if the rabbi's shiqul hada'as was faulty. Any hypothetical qorban chatos would be the rabbi's. If the person is not among those covered by mikol asher yorukha, then the qorban chatas is yours for listening to her, not the Maharat's. On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 02:31:52PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that the opponents of ordination of women are hiding : behind conflation of terms. What is first needed is an understanding of : what ordination is in this day and age. The plain meaning of the Shulchan : Aruch YD 242:14 is that it is permission from a teacher to a student to : instruct in issur v'heter... I cwould use the word "hora'ah" rather than the misleading "instruct". One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in the same town as one's rebbe. ... : 3. if the teacher dies, according to SA YD 242:14, nothing further : is needed : 4. the teacher gives the student permission(to avoid transgressing on : the prohibition of moreh l'fnei rabo) I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. IOW, we have no indication that when the Rama says that if the rebbe was niftar, nothing else is needed that he is talking about anything more than needed to satisfy kavod harav ONLY. IOW, one of these two criteria is necessary, but -- even assuming competency is a given -- are they sufficient? Semchiah could well be hetero hora'ah plus. Both R/Prof Saul Lieberman and RHS argued they are not. And so it appears from Taosafos. And since we have no indication that the Rama is disagreeing with Torafos... For that matter, since the form "yoreh yoreh" is peeled off of the formula for ordaining a member of sanhderin -- "Yoreh? Yoreh! Yadin? Yadin! Yatir bekhoros? Yatir bechoros!" -- there is sme connection to dayanus as per Tosafos implied in the traditional ordination text itself. ... : I would add that the entire basis for the claim that women cant get : semicha starts with the restriction on women being witnesses, then that : being extended to judges, and then being extended again to semicha. : It is not necessarily a given that these extensions should be made. We : should note that there are a number of others who are prohibited : from being witnesses- those who lend with interest, deaf, blind, etc. : The internet reports that there are those who were deaf that recieved : orthodox semicha... Deaf? To you mean cheireish, a caegory we rule refers to the uneducable and thus does not mean today's deaf mutes? Blind? Chalitzah has a special gezeiras hakasuv, "l'einei", specifically because a blind man is allowed to serve as a dayan. (And as RHS points out, geirim can be dayanim for other geirim, so we see their disqualification to serve in most courts is not athat they are outside of lo sosuru, but another issue.) But I do not think those who lend with interest are kosher rabbanim. Refardless of social ills which may cause that din to be largely ignored in practice. Our discussion here should not be about whether you or I agree with the OU's priorities, but whether the shitah they are supporting in the particular question at hand is well-founded in principle. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 16:53:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 19:53:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg cited a story with an apparent contradiction, and resolved the contradiction this way: > Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between > man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can > show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But > when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His > face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his > or her face towards the offender. > > So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the > Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately > towards other human beings is equally important. It seems to me that although religious or ritual behavior is important, Rebbe Yossi HaKohen is teaching us that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is EVEN MORE important. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 17:18:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:18:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 07:53:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that although religious or ritual behavior is : important, Rebbe Yossi HaKohen is teaching us that behaving : appropriately towards other human beings is EVEN MORE important. Look at the list of holidays in parashas Emor. 23:21-22 describe Shavuos. Look which mitzvos are associated with Shavuos. Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which mitzvos are listed specifically? Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice of Shavu'os reading. To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani. We really need a flavor of O that takes Hillel's "de'ealh sani", or R' Ariva's or Ben Azzai's kelalim gedolim, or for that matter the oft-quoted medrash "derekh eretz qodma ... leTorah" as one's actual first principle for life. And not just a platitude for the early grades, a truism repeated unthinkingly to get nods during the rabbi's sermon. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:11:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:11:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Someone who follows a rav's pesaq is obeying lo sasur, and > therefore did the right thing even if the rabbi's shiqul > hada'as was faulty. Any hypothetical qorban chatos would be > the rabbi's. If the person is not among those covered by > mikol asher yorukha, then the qorban chatas is yours for > listening to her, not the Maharat's. L'halacha, I totally agree. L'maaseh, it is critical to determine who is a "rav" and who isn't. That is, who is "covered by mikol asher yorukha" and who isn't. It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these teachers, because, after all, *Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! > I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. > IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that > anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. I agree that YD 242 is about kavod harav. And if the rav is niftar, then that permission is no longer necessary, but that's not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about who is covered by mikol asher yorukha. So why wouldn't the semicha place a musmach into that category? In other words: Suppose a certain person *is* in that category, and then gives semicha "yoreh yoreh" to another individual. Doesn't the semicha announce to the world that the second individual is now covered by mikol asher yorukha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:15:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 05:15:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> If "black letter law" is the criteria, then issues like womens Megila readings and women dancing with a Sefer Torah disappear. All the opposition because these practices are not "Torat Sabba" doesn't even begin if all we do is ask "Muttar? Yes? Fine". Ben On 5/28/2017 9:34 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of > : Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha... > > Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black > letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that > halakhah must conform to and the law itself. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:20:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 05:15:03AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : If "black letter law" is the criteria, then issues like womens : Megila readings and women dancing with a Sefer Torah disappear. All : the opposition because these practices are not "Torat Sabba" doesn't : even begin if all we do is ask "Muttar? Yes? Fine". I am totally at lost as to your intent. Megillah reading or dancing with a sefer Torah are reducible to black-letter law. In contrast to, for example, deciding how to triage my tzedaqah donations. Wehther that reduction can be done within vanilla halachic process or by appeal to metahalakhah, or by appeal to the general "feel" of halakhah -- like the Rambam's "li nir'eh" -- is a different question. But either way, the question exists. So, what do you mean? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:06:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:06:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat/R. Micha Message-ID: R. Micha, thanks for the response. so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah. And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't necessarily apply to anything else. But the OU authors claim that some of YD 242 is based on classic semicha, and therefore all the restrictions of classic semicha should apply. But that makes no sense of you are claiming that YD 242 ONLY applies to the teacher/student relationship. So your own argument works against your claim. There is not a single hint that anything else about classic semicha applies to what we currently call semicha. (Incidentally I wonder when the first claim of more extensive connections were made, and why, if there is such a close connection, we dont mandate that semicha be done only in Israel, and all the other attributes of classic semicha, it seems that the ONLY aspect of classic semicha that is being brought forward is the prohibition on women). You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much against that possibility. It states: ??????? ???????????? ??????????? ????????? ??????, ?????? ??????????? ???? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ????? ??????????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ???????????, ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????????. ????? ??????????? ?????, ????????? ?????????????? ??????, ????????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????????.(???''? ?????? ??''? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ?' ?????? ????????). ?????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ???????????, ???? ???????????? ???????, ?????? ??????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????, ??? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????. (???''? ?????? ??' ?' ?????''? ??' ?''? ???''?). ?????? ????????? ???????????(?????????? ???''? ?????''?). ?????????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????????, ????? ??? ????????? ?????, ???? ????????? ???? ?????????? ???????, ???? ?''?. ?????? ?''? ?????????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???????????? ????????, ????? ??? ???? ??????????? ??????????? ????????????? ????????????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????, ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????????? ????????. specifically, semicha IN THIS TIME, so that people know that....he has permission. So if his teacher died, there is no need for semicha. The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general" It is very forced to claim that there is more here. You basically have to read things into it that are not there. I am not sure if you are claiming that women cant have semicha? or that they cannot be moreh hora'ah. because it seems very clear here that those who can be moreh hora'ah can get semicha b'zman hazeh..And there is a long list of poskim who agree that women can be moreh hora'ah. Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable. And also, that even though the Talmud specifically states that someone in a particular category cant be a judge or witness, when the understanding of that person's abilities changes, there is potential for them to be witnesses and/or judges- essentially in some cases, where the understanding of the Talmud was at variance with what we know now, the restrictions on some categories is not fixed. If I am reading correctly, R. Herschel Schachter in b'din ger dan et chavero (available at YUTorah August 2002), seems to state that hora'ah in issur v'heter is NOT a issue of serarah. and, according to some opinions, being a dayan for dinei mamanot is similarly not an issue of serarah. Perhaps more to the point, In 'Kuntrus HaSemicha"(published in eretz hatzvi and it seems to be the basis for a talk given at an RCA convention- the talk is available at YUTorah(1985) Smicha in the talmud and today), if I understand correctly, R. Soloveitchik made a distinction as to whether Smicha was a din in dayanus or in Hora'ah. It would seem that such a distinction would indicate that restrictions on dayyanus via semicha do not automatically apply to hora'ah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 00:14:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:14:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 5/28/2017 10:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >: And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to >: reality... > It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are > other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem. I'm not sure that the views of Avodah's LW are the point. To the extent that they argue in favor of those with "other, less defensible, ideologies", it's reasonable to argue against those "other, less defensible, ideologies". And I would be willing to supply examples of where members of Avodah's LW do appear to see it that way, but I suspect such examples would be bounced as "adding more fire than light to the discussion". On 5/28/2017 11:52 PM, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of > Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' > I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as > kedoshim tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in > the sense of being like aggadeta. I don't see that. They are halakhic in the sense that they are commandments. > Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos would be > incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give the > value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are > part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan > pesukim and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos. Most > often that's implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the > gemara of value based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the > expense of what looks otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular > dracheha darchei noam is cited. There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what can be done today. When members of the left claim that brachot should be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old. > I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic. > Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not > operate in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how > the value system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We > ignore meta-halachic pesukim at our peril. The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum". If you mean that the system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to respectfully disagree. The ethics must themselves come from within our own cultural framework, based on our own traditions. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:32:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:32:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:11:37PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least : equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, : because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has : not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself : included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these : teachers, because, after all, *Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! I do not think the typical yo'etzet is qualified under mikol asher yrukha regardless of how capable she is. The term only applies to be elegable to recieve full semichah -- if the chain hadn't been lost, or could be restored. THat's the thesis of what I'm pushing here; that even the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services. And, since this seems ot be turning into a full reprise, even though we should all know the other's position by now, my third problem is with egalitarianism in-and-of itself. It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah. By justifying finding worth in this way, we are indeed teaching girls their traditional role is inferior and they can't reach equality. Rather than trying to find equal meaningfullness without egalitarianism. Second, the fact that we can't reach full eqalirianism implies something about the anature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely consistent with our religion. It should mean that we should really think through our even wanting to make halakhah more egalitarian, and how to balance that with the clear message of laws like davar shebiqdushah, talmud Torah, esrog, sukkah, shofar... Again: 1- Who can pasqen 2- Who was shul designed to serve 3- Trying to accomodate agalitarianism is both strategically and in terms of values, a bad idea. Notice the absense of the word "serarah". Trying to minimize or eliminate the role of serarah in our conversation won't do much to sway me, as it has little to do with my arguments to begin with. Now, back to R/Dr Stadlan's email: :> I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. :> IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that :> anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. : I agree that YD 242 is about kavod harav. And if the rav is niftar, : then that permission is no longer necessary, but that's not what the : discussion is about. The discussion is about who is covered by mikol : asher yorukha. So why wouldn't the semicha place a musmach into that : category? It could or couldn't -- I believe couldn't. (Following R/Prof Lieberman and RHS.) But SA 242 can't be cited on the topic either way, since the se'if is not on topic for our discussion. R/Dr N Stadlan brought it as the defintion of the role of semichah, so I wanted to dismiss taking this siman that way.` "Mikol asher yorukha" is written in the context of dayanim. The only reason why we say it applies to today's musmachim, despite the lesser kind of semichah and the lack of sanhedrin is that "yoreh yoreh" is framed as a splinter of dayanus (which is where the phrase "yoreh yoreh" comes from) and that they are appointed to act as the surrogate of the last (so far) sanhedrin. None of which pro forma can be applied to women. Only someone who could be a dayan, if the situation were such that they could become qualified and real semichah were available can serve as their fill-in. On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:06:06PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah. : And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't : necessarily apply to anything else. But the OU authors claim that some of : YD 242 is based on classic semicha... They note that the Rama in 4-5 is drawing from the Mahariq, and then explain that the Mahariq tells you he is basing his conclusion on the idea that what's true for classic semichah should be true for our current Yoreh-Yoreh (YY). They also cite the AhS 242:30, who assumes that only those eligable for classic semichah can be ordained YY. Those are the ony two mentions of siman 242 in the paper, neither of which refer to the se'ifim you did. And what you are attributing to the OU is actually the Mahariq and the Ah -- a source and an interpreter (who is for us a source in his own right) of the SA -- not their own take. : You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly : where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much : against that possibility. It states: ... : The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the : ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general" YD 242:14 isn't trying to define semichah. It's in a siman about kevod harav, not a siman about semichah. You are nit-picking in the wording about se'ifim that are only tangentially related, and ignoring the Rama's stated source. I disagree with how you read the se'if, since his "only" would be about kevod harav, not "semichah is only". But really that's tangential. Your read of the Rama contradicts one of the sources he names. ... : Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be : witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable... I do? Where do I say that? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 22:01:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 01:01:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the entire aliya in which the dibros appear. For those who feel the dibros merit standing, they are indeed standing. For those who feel that the dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria of the dibros begins. Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since their end is always the end of the aliya. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:04:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 23:04:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/05/17 15:18, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Ben Waxman wrote: >> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their >> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. > > Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that > Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent > introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, > pages 48-52. Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation that has such "gedolim". > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the >> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. > > It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it > something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus > and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus > then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. On the contrary. If it were a matter of yibum then it would depend on whether there was an original marriage. But then why would it be connected to redeeming the field? It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations would not be settled. Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz agreed with them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 00:10:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:10:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/28/2017 10:18 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Ben Waxman wrote: >> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their >> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. > Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that > Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." Yes, but the dor in question was one where "each man did what was right in his own eyes". So their being gedolei hador doesn't mean they were any better than, say, Yiftach. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:23:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:23:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation : that has such "gedolim". According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah Neustadt , this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam. Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim". But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el... If this is the Rambam's intent, it would fit a number of gemaros which refer to various shofetim as amei ha'aretz. See the article. OTOH, Tosafos's treatment of the question of how Devorah could serve as shofetes presumes the role includes being a dayan in the halachic sense (and then explains why Devorah is neither role model nor eis-la'asos exception), rather than only the serarah question of her being a civil leader. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:17:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:17:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29/05/17 01:01, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his > minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not > to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two > different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the > entire aliya in which the dibros appear. For those who feel the dibros > merit standing, they are indeed standing. For those who feel that the > dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up > specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria > of the dibros begins. Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since > their end is always the end of the aliya. Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. (Personally I stand for the whole leining so it's not an issue for me, but this is what I've seen.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:33:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:33:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <10c1c9ed-6b4e-cb90-8297-cdeb5a507e94@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <13c3a1e0-26da-f70b-7b13-b80c95bf5d1d@zahav.net.il> <58F44DE5-8AE0-4CF7-BC79-7048F752624D@sibson.com> <10c1c9ed-6b4e-cb90-8297-cdeb5a507e94@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: > Ok let's accept your presumption-Who that has the authority to determine which changes are with in the halachic system and which aren't. Can I say libi omer li if I have smicha and that's good enough? If not , how do you draw the line? ------------------------ I can't say that I can draw a clear line. Certainly someone who passes a 2 year smicha program (a change, BTW) shouldn't be doing this type of thing. It seems that change doesn't require unanimous agreement and very possibly it can be done even if the greatest rabbis disagree. My example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher. Ben ----------------------- Yup, as said, the wheel is still in spin with regard to this and the other current thread Maharat/smicha. Now "everyone knows" it was obvious that Chassidus would be accepted and Conservative not (see Kahnemaan Tversky on how we all do this) Anyone who thinks these or those are simply matters of black letter law discussions (hat tip R'Micha) IMHO is fooling themselves. Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 06:09:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 09:09:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in > the same town as one's rebbe. If the shiur-giver is very careful to merely read and explain the QSA, then I'd agree with you. But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require require semicha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 06:12:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 13:12:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] (no subject) Message-ID: "Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. And in light of this, may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed." Do you also sit for the musaf amidah on Rosh Hashana and Ne'ilah on Yom Kippur? And since there are those who cannot and do not stand for those because of physical infirmities, would you suggest that everyone sit for those teffilot so as not to embarrass the ones who truly must sit? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 09:41:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros Message-ID: <33c01f.93b651f.465da93b@aol.com> From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. YL >>>>>> I want to thank RYL for the reminder we all need -- myself very much included -- not to be too quick to assume we know other people's motives. Sitting during the reading of Aseres Hadibros may indeed be an indication not of arrogance but of arthritis. Let us be kind to one another, even in our thoughts. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 07:26:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 29/05/17 08:23, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation > : that has such "gedolim". > > According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP > beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah > Neustadt, > this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam. > > Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim > of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim". > > But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers > of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past > that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el... I actually had that article in mind, but was not taking Rashi's side. Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel Bedoro". So even if Machlon & Kilyon were considered "gedolei hador" that wouldn't seem to be sufficient reason to assume that they acted properly, even in the sense that they had an opinion which is one of the shiv'im panim and followed it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 09:46:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:46:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum," or you call it something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. Akiva Miller >>>>>> There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events in Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 13:01:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 20:01:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <92dae2a6-a1ea-f563-f350-cddd9a9fbade@starways.net> References: , <92dae2a6-a1ea-f563-f350-cddd9a9fbade@starways.net> Message-ID: 'There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what can be done today. When members of the left claim that brachot should be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old.' No argument there at all. The point was really to buttress the truism that halacha and Torah are not synonymous. Halacha works within the larger structure of Torah and is guided by principle and values. Your point that this idea is mangled and misused throughout heterodoxy is well taken though. I was not suggesting that someone can pick a favourite value, decide that it doesn't shtim with a particular halacha and proceed to mangle the halacha into submission. Not for a moment. 'The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum". If you mean that the system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to respectfully disagree. The ethics must themselves come from within our own cultural framework, based on our own traditions'. Again, agree 100%. Don't think I suggested otherwise. I'm a neo-Hirschian after all. What I was taking issue with was your contention that it is 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' That's true for the heterodox tendency to sidestep halacha (or worse) due to what they consider to be ethical issues. But it doesn't take into account the centrality of of values in the whole system of Torah, including underlying TSBP. Just for example, Pirkei Avos is not halachic but it's vital and has implications for halacha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 12:38:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:38:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> References: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> Message-ID: <2ba3e007-8860-37d6-2941-c41f1aac13bf@sero.name> On 29/05/17 12:46, RTK wrote: > There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events > in Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no > mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was. 1. How could anyone hold there was a mitzvah of yibum, when the Torah explicitly limits it to brothers? 2. If he held as a matter of halacha that Boaz was wrong, then he should have insisted on redeeming the field without marrying Ruth. The fact that on being informed of this requirement he backed out of the whole deal shows that he acknowledged Boaz's point. Therefore that point was not about yibum but about mitzvas geulah. Boaz pointed out that Machlon had an obligation to Ruth, and so long as it remained outstanding the mitzvah to discharge his obligations would remain unfulfilled. Ploni agreed, and since he could not do that he waived his rights. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 12:51:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:51:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel : Bedoro". The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah". Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so? Yes, it's dachuq. But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include the generation's gedolim. I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology, but that doesn't mean I share it. However, given Chabad's linking HQBH medaber mirokh gerono shel Moshe to Moshe bedoro keShmuel bedoro to yield the notion that every generation has a Yechidah Kelalis, a single tzadiq who is uniquely that generation's person in that role, I would think the notion that Yiftach as that person but not one of the baton-passers of mesorah to be even harder to fathom than within my own hashkafah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 13:25:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:25:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <46edbb0e-6394-3e98-a574-f1c53410f0bf@sero.name> On 29/05/17 15:51, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the > : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the > : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel > : Bedoro". > > The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing > Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah". Yes, precisely. And yet he was the "gadol hador". > Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our > obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring > whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so? > > Yes, it's dachuq. > > But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but > not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm > not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include > the generation's gedolim. Your unstated but clear assumption is that "gedolei hador" means "gedolei *hatorah* shebador". I am challenging that assumption. I am saying that when Machlon & Kilyon are described as "gedolei hador" it does not mean that they were talmidei chachamim, any more than it means that when Yiftach is described as "kishmuel bedoro". It just means they were the generation's leaders, and thus if they did wrong everyone else would follow their lead. Meanwhile Pinchas was still the gadol hatorah. Remember, "Yiftach bedoro" is an explicit gemara, so the Rambam can't dispute it. So how can this machlokes between Rashi & the Rambam, that the article posits, exist? This is how. The Rambam accepts Yiftach bedoro, that Yiftach was indeed the "gadol hador", but that is irrelevant to his topic; he is listing who passed the Torah down from that generation to the next, and that was not Yiftach but Pinechas. > I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I > think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology, Wow. Just wow. No, it has nothing to do with Chabad *or* theology. It's an explicit pasuk and gemara. Yiftach was the one and only gadol hador, because the pasuk says so, and he had the same authority as Shmuel because the gemara says so. But one wouldn't ask him a shayla about "an egg in kutach". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:03:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing. Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R. Micha's interpretation: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/ Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to understand the Rama, but one of them is: " The first and simplest view, drawing the logical conclusion from the above depiction of semikhah and adopted by Rama in both the Darkhei Moshe and Shulh?an Arukh, concludes that anyone is eligible to receive semikhah when their teacher certifies they have acquired requisite knowledge and licenses them to issue halakhic rulings. The scope of this license may be limited to certain areas of law (depending on the studentVs actual knowledge and qualifications) and may be granted to one who is ineligible to receive Mosaic ordination that was present in Talmudic times. As such, basic contemporary semikhah is based on oneVs knowledge and competence to answer questions of law". the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have sources to rely upon. I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong with semicha for women. The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 05:08:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 08:08:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am going to revise and restate my original post, which got sidetracked onto issues of marriage to a non-Jewess, and of the role of a "redeemer", which I confess to knowing very little about. But it is very clear to anyone who has looked at it (again, pages 48-52 of ArtScroll's Ruth is an excellent summary) many of Chazal were uncomfortable with the possibility that Machlon and Kilyon would marry women who had not been converted at all. At the same same, they are also very uncomfortable with Naami telling women who *had* converted that they should leave. Some have tried to resolve this by suggesting some sort of "tentative" conversion, but I cannot imagine that we'd allow such a conversion to be cancelled after ten long years. Instead, my solution is that there was a genuine halachic machlokes involved, such that Machlon and Kilyon held the conversion to be valid (at least on some minimal b'dieved level), while Ruth held it to be totally invalid. This simple approach answers all the problems listed above. (It also allows you to think whatever you like about the level of Machlon's and kilyon's gadlus.) I will leave it as an open question whether Ruth reconverted to satisfy Naami's shita, or whether Naami resigned herself to accepting the first geirus. I also retract all my comments about Boaz, as they will turn on topics that I am woefully ignorant about. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:32:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 17:32:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging > Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an > obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he > owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations > would not be settled. > Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages > were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz > agreed with them. I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a related question which is probably simpler: What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then there was no kiddushin. I'll repeat that: Even if it is mutar to marry a woman AZ-nik (not from the Seven Nations) that marriage is one of convenience, maybe even love, but not of kiddushin, and I'm not aware of any halachic obligations that the husband has toward such a wife. I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have towards the husband himself, and we see in pasuk 4:4, that Ploni Almoni was willing to buy the field from Naami in order to meet those obligations to Elimelech. But in 4:5, Boaz pointed out that buying it from Naami would be insufficient. He'd have to buy it from both Naami and Ruth, at which point Ploni declined and Boaz himself accepted the responsibility. My question is: *What* responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid? (I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so, then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech left. Why did they wait ten years?) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:51:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 23:51:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > RMB: the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. > All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and possibly the latter. > > RMB: Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of > shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use > to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi > in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services. > On the one hand, I completely agree with you. One of the things I love about Orthodox Judaism is the all-women spaces - women's shiurim and batei midrash and tehillim groups and ladies' auxiliaries and all-girls schools. I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have comfortable space for women as well. I understand that the "men's club" gets to run the tefillot and be the gabbaim and the ba'alei tefillah and ba'alei korei and rabbi - and that losing that space would not be good for men. But I hope that having an ezrat nashim open for all tefillot (during the week, Shabbat mincha) would not ruin the mens' club atmosphere. Does having a woman give the drasha go too far in this regard? I think it depends on the community. > > > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah.... > Second, > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about > the > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely > consistent with our religion.... > Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. I think you have presented some compelling reasons for declining to endorse or promote the institution of maharats. I see no reason for maharats to be universally accepted. However, I believe that the maharats personally, and the communities they serve, remain clearly within the Orthodox community. We can disagree strongly with another Orthodox sector's practices (Hallel on Yom Ha'Atzma'ut comes to mind) without declaring them out-of-bounds. Finally, a perspective from Israel. Women rabbis/maharats are a particularly contentious issue in the US, because (a) it is similar to changes made by the Conservative and Reform movements, (b) a very common career path for American male rabbis is the shul rabbinate, which is particularly problematic for women, and (c) it seems to have perhaps been instituted in a manner designed to provoke controversy. In Israel, Conservative and Reform are a small minority with little influence. Most male rabbis work in education, writing/translating/publishing, or computer programming - all perfectly acceptable careers for learned women. Full-time shul rabbis are almost unheard of. And I can think of three or four respected, mainstream, dati leumi institutions that are essentially giving women the equivalent of smicha, without a lot of fanfare. Some people think this is great, some people think this is awful, and many people have not really noticed - but there isn't a big brouhaha and questioning of Orthodox credentials. Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it seems to be shaping up as the latter. Chag sameach, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 03:10:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 06:10:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170530101006.GA10791@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have : sources to rely upon... Again, the Rama cites the Mahariq... So, so rule leniently is to read the Rama and ignore his source. : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the : specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. Well, in the case of Maharat in particular, the big bold print in the middle of the certificate reads "heter hora'ah larabbim". http://www.jta.org/2013/06/17/default/what-does-an-orthodox-ordination-certificate-look-like Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 49th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 7 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 goal of perfect unity? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 04:51:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 06:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R Micha. You did not answer my question. When you and/orthe OU panel use the word semicha when you forbid it to women, what exactly does it mean? Heter hora'ah? Something more? Something different? Clarity please. Thank you Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 07:27:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shavuos (Lifeline) Message-ID: <448A28D9-D7AC-47C4-807C-08E3C10A0318@cox.net> The Rabbis tell us the Book of Ruth teaches neither of things that are permitted or forbidden. Why then is it part of Holy Scriptures? Because its subject matter is gemilus chassodim. Along the same line, three times a day we recite ?God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob.? However, we conclude the blessing ?mogen Avraham? ? only with Abraham. Why? In explanation, a Chassidic Rabbi explains that each of the patriarchs symbolizes one of the three essentials as articulated in Pirkei Avos 1:2). Jacob represents Torah; Isaac, Avodah; and Abraham, gemilus chassodim. Though all three principles are vital, kindness is sufficient to stabilize the world (how we need it now more than ever!). An interest in the performance of good deeds was the quality that marked Abraham ? a quality which can be a shield and support to us even when other qualities in our nature are weak ? hence, MOGEN AVRAHAM. Ruth was no ordinary convert. Her name gives us a clue to her essence. In Hebrew, Ruth's name is comprised of the letters reish, vav, tav, which add up to a numerical value of 606. As all human beings have an obligation to observe the seven Noachide commandments ? so called because they were given after the flood ? as did Ruth upon her birth as a Moabite. Add those seven commandments to the value of her name and you get 613, the number of commandments in the Torah. The essence of Ruth, her driving life force was the discovery and acceptance of the 606 commandments she was missing. Another lovely aspect is the meaning of the name "Ruth." In Hebrew the name is probably a contraction of re'ut, ' friendship,' which admirably summarizes her nature. The meaning in English is also very apropos: ? Compassion or pity for another ? Sorrow or misery about one's own misdeeds or flaws. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 15:46:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 01:46:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Naso In-Reply-To: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> References: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos > 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which > mitzvos are listed specifically? > > Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice > of Shavu'os reading. > > To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms > of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of > observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani. > Barukh shekkivanti. I made exactly this comparison in a Tikkun Leil Shavuot this time last year, and a parallel observation in a shi`ur last Shabbat: when the Zohar needs an example of how Basar veDam can make a hit`aruta dil'tata which will cause a hit`aruta dele`ela and kickstart the process of atzilut shefa from the upper to lower worlds, it typically says something like "hoshiv ani al shulhanecha". Because for Hazal, the Torah is above all Torat Hesed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 06:06:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:06:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. ---------------------------------------------------- Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the debate on black letter law? KT Joel Rich (full disclosure-kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-not everything that is permitted to you should be done) THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 07:22:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:22:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Probably the best and most succinct historical analogy I've seen for this question. Ben On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > > Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women > rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the > vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it > seems to be shaping up as the latter. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 13:59:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:59:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation. Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. How can this be? Dare we imagine that he did such things unauthorizedly? Certainly he must have had/received some sort of Heter Hora'ah. If so, then when and how did he get it - and without getting semicha at the same time? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 10:22:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] matched soldier and praying for them In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014801d2d969$41c5c800$c5515800$@com> A while ago on Avodah, a well known (chareidi) Baal machshava was quoted as disagreeing strongly with the concept of matching frum people with a nonfrum soldier in order to pray for them. "we have no brotherhood with secular Israelis" Recently, I posted to Avodah a link to a collection of 1400 short tshuvot from HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlitah (of Toronto) On the above topic, he writes there.. #600 Pray As They Go Q. There are two organizations here in Eretz Yisroel, one called; Elef LaMateh, and the other; The Shmirah Project. Basically, their intent is to match Israeli soldiers with Avreichim and bochurim learning. Each Avreich and Bochur who volunteers, receives the name of a specific soldier (his name and his mother's name) that he takes responsibility to daven for and learn specially for so that in the merit of the tefillos and learning, that soldier will merit to return home alive and well. (Is this a good idea) A. HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is a great mitzvah to pray, learn Torah and accomplish mitzvos for the benefit of all our brethren B'nay Yisroel in times of peril and need, especially for those who put their life in harm's way to save and protect others. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 00:39:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:39:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should be identical for each community and each generation? - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 20:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: . I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start farming? I suppose it was pretty desolate after a ten-year famine, but did she even try? She must have at least gone there to see the place, if for no other reason than to be sure that no squatters took over while she was gone. Without making sure of such things, how could she even hope that anyone (even a goel) would buy it? Maybe she expected to get a better profit from Boaz than she'd get from farming it herself, but maybe there are other answers? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 20:05:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:05:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the distinction? When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on this. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 02:14:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (ADE via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:14:59 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are still being machshiv some pesukim over others. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk > *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:32:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:32:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <510d4fd4-6c91-fb85-0c23-f6cdfa7ffcbf@sero.name> On 02/06/17 05:14, ADE wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one >> pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this >> reason. > Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are > still being machshiv some pesukim over others. There is no requirement to treat all pesukim exactly the same. One is entitled to stand or sit during KhT as one wishes, and has no obligation to choose one policy and stick to it. The problem is only with standing up for special pesukim, such as Shma or the 10D. Since there's nothing special about the pasuk before the 10D, there's no problem with deciding to stand for it. And when the special pesukim come along one is already standing, so one has no obligation to sit down. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 18:46:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:46:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> In our personal religious commitments there are those among us scrupulous in performance of the ceremonial mitzvot but at the same time displaying reckless disregard of our elementary duties towards our fellowman. Halacha embraces human life in its totality. One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social trait from our behavior! A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 08:31:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:31:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought In-Reply-To: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> References: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170602153131.GA15356@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made : a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study : of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social : trait from our behavior! Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, among the aphorisms of his listed in R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 21:28:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:28:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4dd6e4f1-2d00-a274-ace0-e5d2a803039a@sero.name> On 01/06/17 23:05, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I only see four instances of "Ruth Hamoaviah", three in ch 2, and only one in ch 4, in Boaz's description of the situation to Tov. Since his purpose was to scare him off, it made sense to mention her origin, so Tov would be reluctant to risk his future. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:20:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:20:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/2/2017 6:05 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I can't cite a source for it, but I remember once reading that Ruth HaMoaviah was intended to praise her, since she gave up her position in Moav to join us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:31:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:31:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Actually if the land had lied fallow for 10 years, it should be in good shape. Granted it needs weeding but the soil should be good. It only requires a relatively small amount of rain for grass to grow and re-invigorate the soil. Maybe she was too old to work the land and figured that a sale would provide her with enough money to live out the rest of her days in dignity? Ben On 6/2/2017 5:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 00:04:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 09:04:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? They came back on Pesach, at the beginning of the barley harvest. Nothing was growing on their land, presumably. Planting is after Sukkot, at the beginning of the rainy season. If they planted, it would be a full year until they could harvest the first barley. As we see from Megillat Rut, the barley then had to dry and wasn't threshed or winnowed until after the wheat harvest (early summer?). When they come back, they have nothing. They need to eat. And two women alone will not be able to do all the work of planting and cultivating in the fall. They would need money to hire workers and probably buy or rent an animal to help with plowing. And to buy seed. They didn't have the capital to go back into farming, or the means to support themselves until the first crop. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 21:17:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:17:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <272b8698-d5c1-55a1-560b-2bc6d0c39b74@sero.name> On 01/06/17 23:01, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? It seems to me that finding a buyer for the property was not at all important to her, and in fact she had shown no interest in doing so until she saw how she could use it to get Boaz to marry Ruth. It was Boaz who spun the story out for Tov in order to scare him off; first he drew him in with the prospect of an easy transaction for Naomi's portion of the field, but then he threw in the Ruth monkey wrench. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:18:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:18:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/2/2017 6:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the > halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I > think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: > > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? In the set of priorities that we had back then, the principle of yerusha was more important than simple economics. As I understand it. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:21:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:21:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22efff8f-5ee7-d47e-8701-b1541a7a8e41@zahav.net.il> And of course the irony is even greater in that many yeshiva rabbis will tell their guys to go to a community rav because they, the yeshiva rabbis, don't deal with shailas. Ben On 5/29/2017 4:11 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least > equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, > because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has > not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself > included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these > teachers, because, after all,*Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:16:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:16:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> On 6/1/2017 10:39 AM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly > egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the > experiences of women and couples and families and communities to > affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian > direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. > > RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument > is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically > permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically > forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without > asking whether HKB?H prefers it? > > Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should > be identical for each community and each generation? > I'm not sure that's the question. The problem is, as I see it, that when one adopts an external -ism as an ideal, and try and "move in a somewhat more -ism-friendly direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted", they're essentially saying that their motivating principle is that -ism. That halakha isn't the motivating principle, but merely bookends. Limits to how far they can push the -ism that's important. It's the difference between a static principle and a dynamic one. What you're describing has egalitarianism as the dynamic force, and halakha as a static one. A fossil. And there's no way to maintain that worldview for long without starting to chafe against the static limits. At which point, people put their shoulders into it and *push* those limits a little bit further. And then a little further than that. And they feel frustrated by those limits. That's probably the biggest problem. It turns halakha into shackles and frustration. And you only have to read articles written by certain YCT teachers and grads to see the hostility that comes out of that. Yes, there are people who can manage to walk the tightrope and not fall into that kind of frustration, but they are few in number, and not representative of the "movement", as such. And many of them, in my observed experience, eventually fall off. Permit me to illustrate this mindset with something that just happened *as* I was writing this. My 17 year old daughter was reading a comic book from the early 1990s. In the comic, the hero (Superboy) is 16, but all of the women he dates are in their 20s. Today, we call that statuatory rape, and have little to no tolerance for it. But if you recall the early 90s, that idea was rather new, and while the writers of the comic gave lip service to the idea, even having characters laughingly calling Superboy "jailbait", it wasn't nearly as taboo as it is today, at least when the younger person was male. But my daughter is livid about it. Appalled. And she isn't able to imagine a world in which that was the way people thought. Similarly, people immersed in the egalitarian ethos so prevelent in the Western world today cannot *imagine* a world where that isn't the universally accepted ideal, except for barbaric and backwards societies. It's a given that egalitarianism is the more advanced worldview. The more civilized worldview. That to the extent that a worldview is less egalitarian, it is less civilized. More backwards. So now consider what it means to say, "I want to be as egalitarian as possible, within the bounds of halakha". It means "I want to be as civilized as possible, within the bounds of the less civilized and more backwards system of halakha." How can that help but breed disrespect, discomfort, and eventually contempt for halakha? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:50:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:50:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> Message-ID: > > LL: The problem is, as I see it, that when one adopts an external -ism as > an ideal, and try and "move in a somewhat more -ism-friendly direction > WITHIN what is halachically permitted", they're essentially saying that > their motivating principle is that -ism. That halakha isn't the motivating > principle, but merely bookends. Limits to how far they can push the -ism > that's important...... > > Similarly, people immersed in the egalitarian ethos so prevelent in the > Western world today cannot *imagine* a world where that isn't the > universally accepted ideal, except for barbaric and backwards societies. > It's a given that egalitarianism is the more advanced worldview. The more > civilized worldview. That to the extent that a worldview is less > egalitarian, it is less civilized. More backwards. > > So now consider what it means to say, "I want to be as egalitarian as > possible, within the bounds of halakha". It means "I want to be as > civilized as possible, within the bounds of the less civilized and more > backwards system of halakha." How can that help but breed disrespect, > discomfort, and eventually contempt for halakha? Yes, if one defines one's ideology and worldview primarily as feminist, one is going to struggle with halacha. Some people struggle and still maintain Orthodox practice. Some become "halachic egalitarian." But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah live in an increasingly egalitarian society. Even women who would never dream of making a women's zimmun (range of psak on this goes from obligatory to optional to assur) have their own credit cards and vote in elections and choose whom they want to marry. Halachic psak does not exist in a vacuum; it applies to a particular metziut in a particular time and place. I can certainly see room to argue that the institution of maharat is an example of an attempt to "push" halacha to evolve artificially to conform to feminism. But to some extent, increased involvement of women teaching and learning all areas of Torah, at all levels, is a natural halachic development in response to changing reality. Each posek will draw his own line as to what is a positive development (maharats? yoatzot? Rebbetzin Heller?), and what needs to be reined in. Halacha is dynamic. (This is true even if the Conservative movement also says it!) Obviously, there are boundaries, but there is also plenty of room for different opinions, and for development over generations. I am not advocating always choosing the most feminist interpretation possible within the bounds of what is mutar. I am pointing out that increasingly egalitarian psak within halacha reflects the reality in which we live. Shabbat Shalom, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 10:00:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Martin Brody via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:00:09 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat etc. Message-ID: "R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation" Did the Chazon Ish have semicha?.I think not -- Martin Brody -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 11:35:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:35:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <960df966-7387-baf7-202b-5a6624127fed@sero.name> On 30/05/17 16:59, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura > did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the > ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite > involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send them to the rav. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 11:46:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:46:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37d489e2-09cc-d836-f973-74d1b831ec0a@sero.name> On 29/05/17 17:32, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging >> Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an >> obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he >> owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations >> would not be settled. >> Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages >> were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz >> agreed with them. > I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to > respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too > complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a > related question which is probably simpler: > > What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then > there was no kiddushin. I don't see how this matters. Machlon was shacked up with this woman for ten years, and left her high and dry. She was now in Beit Lechem living in poverty, and everyone who saw her would say "there's Machlon's widow, poor thing". Thus seeing her settled was an unsettled obligation that Machlon had left behind, so taking care of it was part of the goel's duty, just like paying off his credit cards and returning his library books, so that nobody should be left with a claim against his memory. > I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's > relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have > towards the husband himself [...] My question is: *What* > responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might > be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid? Yes, the goel's duty is to his relative, not to the relative's creditors. But that duty *is* to discharge the relative's obligations, which he is himself unable to discharge, whether because of poverty (as in the Torah's example) or death (as here). Neither Tov nor Boaz owed anything to Ruth, but Machlon did. > (I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the > family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we > want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be > paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so, > then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech > left. Why did they wait ten years?) Redeem it from whom? At that point it still belonged to Elimelech. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 12:55:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 15:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170602195535.GA7359@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 09:09:10AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this : other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that : question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require : require semicha? Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also not an open question that requires decision-making rather than just reporting the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:51:26PM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: : > the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore : > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. : All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to : offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not : sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and : possibly the latter. I am missing something. My assertion was that "the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur" for the same reason that she could never give hora'ah as a dayan either. I wasn't denying the reality that there are women who know enough for their knowledge not to be a barrier to their pasqening. ... : I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the : other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have : comfortable space for women as well... I think there should be comfortable space for women too, and that it makes sense for it to be in the same building. Our topic was women rabbis. My first point was my belief that the Mahariq holds like Tosafos, the Rama like the Mahariq, and therefore we cannot ordain a poseqes. In this, my 2nd point, I was arguing that since shul and minyan as Anshei Kenses haGadolah invented them are men's spaces, we shouldn't want women speaking from the pulpit or otherwise making it a co-ed experience, a second element of the rabbi's job. : > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for : > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be : > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah.... : > Second, : > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about : > the : > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely : > consistent with our religion.... : : Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that : is highly egalitarian... And this was my third point. That the notion doesn't fit the gestalt built of numerous halakhos. I don't think our living in a world where opportunity is increasingly egalitarian changes that. The disjoin poses a challenge, not a license. : And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the : experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect : religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction : WITHIN what is halachically permitted. I tried to explain why that can't happen. You're not moving into a setting of greater equality; you are aiming women toward hitting a glass cieling. The implied message of "as much egalitarianism as allowed" is that it's the role traditionally given to men that is meaningful, and women can't fully take on that role. To my mind the long-term outcome, once there is little room for further innovation left, will be worse that trying to find different but equally valuable roles. Aside from the "minor" problem that that message about male roles is simply sheqer. On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 01:06:28PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that : as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted : (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by : r'mb's black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether : HKB"H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all : or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the : debate on black letter law? I don't think that's fair. We all learn in the early grades that derekh eretz qodmah laTorah, but we'll talk about frum theives, but not frum shellfish eaters. Our culture's focus on those mitzvos and dinim that can be reduced to black-letter is a problem we need to work on, and not a given to be leveraged further. On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:50:32AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: : But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah : live in an increasingly egalitarian society... Egalitarianism as metzi'us, the fact that gender roles are progressively becoming more similar, is different than eqalitarinism as a value -- the notion that they should. At the very least, halakhah is telling us there are a number of greater values that override egalitarianism. I argued that some of them actually impact who enters the rabbinate. But really the burden of proof lies in the other direction: It is change that needs justification. One has to prove that whatever those conflicting values are -- and I guess this would require identifying them -- they are not issues that impact the desirability of ordaining women. So, to get less abstract, here's an example. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting : R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing. : Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid : muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R. : Micha's interpretation: : http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/ But lemaaseh he wrote a letter against ordaning women that held up JTS changing policy until after R/PSL's passing. has a complete translation by Rabbi Wayne Allen. The issue isn't how RGS read the letter, but the letter itself. And I understood your father-in-law differently than your (and your wife's, judging from her choice of subject line) take. He writes: Professor Lieberman might have been opposed to any clerical role for women. Nevertheless, he only cited the classical sources that indicate that only men may be dayyanim or even serve on a bet din as laymen (hedyotim). Since Yeshivat Maharat is careful to remain within the bounds of Halakhah by not ordaining women to roles that are proscribed by Halakhah, Professor Liebermans responsum does not apply to the yeshivah or to any of its graduates. So he agrees with RGS that R/PSL was opposed to orgaining women as rabbi. After all, most of the letter is about what we mean today by "Yoreh Yoreh", and how it's NOT dayanus. It was about admitting women to JTS's semichah program, to "being called by the title 'rav'", not "dayan". It would seem that minus the political pressures within JTS, R/PSL's letter would at most permit "Rabbah uManhigah". Your FIL writes that R/PSL only cites sources about dayanus, not that his point was only about dayanus. And as we saw, there is a connection made between who can become a dayan and who can give hora'ah. His only mention of the political dynamics at JTS at the time is to explain his own position -- why he was against ordaining women when he was among those starting UTJ, but is in favor of Yeshivat Maharat. His letter to your wife does not speak of this issue in terms of his rebbe's position. For that matter, his description of R/PSL's lack of proving his point WRT non-dayan rabbanim reads as explaining why his own position was justified despite R/PSL's letter, rather than justified by that letter. He doesn't say RGS is wrong, he says it's "beside the point". : Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and : Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to : understand the Rama, but one of them is: But the burden or proof is on the innovator. You can't simply say your read is possible -- and given the aforementioned citation of the Mahariq, I don't see how this se'if can be, you would have a self-contradictory siman. But in any case, you have to prove your read is the Rama's intent; saying "it's possible" is not enough to justify a mimetic rupture. ... : the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have : sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have : sources to rely upon. I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and : Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong : with semicha for women. "Rather than nitpicking"? How do we learn a sugyah without nitpicking? In any case, you jumped from "could be read as someone to rely upon" to "someone to rely upon". : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the : specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. Sorry I made you wait long enough that you felt a need to re-ask this question. Semichah today may well be a heter hora'ah, but that doesn't mean that it's the only barrier to hora'ah. And if one's rebbe passed away, there is no need for heter hora'ah -- and yet still other barriers could exist. Tosafos, and the Mahariq cited by the Rama link the authority for hora'ah with being eligable to gain the qualifications and become a dayan. That's a barrier to hora'ah even if someone's rebbe wrote them a "qlaf" or passed away. We would have to find another shitah about hora'ah, show it's not dekhuyah -- and given we're talking about an opionion that disputes 3 pillars of Ashkenazi pesaq (if I include the Rama's se'if 4), for someone of Ashekazi background, that's a tough row to hoe. And then there are my other two problems.... Both of which would also reflect on Rabbah uManhigah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 3 20:23:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 23:23:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . Is semicha required for hora'ah? To illustrate the possibility that it is *not* required, I wrote: > Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura > did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the > ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite > involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. R' Zev Sero responded: > Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, > and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send > them to the rav. And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression of his personal opinion. Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"? I had written that a non-semicha person could give a shiur in Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, provided that he is careful to merely read and explain the text, but ... ... > But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this > other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that > question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require > require semicha? R' Micha Berger responded: > Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also > not an open question that requires decision-making rather than > just reporting the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community. "Black-letter halacha" is often not as black as we might think. Who gets to decide which shita is the dominant one? If the community has a recognized rav who issued a ruling on this exact question, then I can quote that. But in the great majority of cases, there are two or more shitos, and I have no idea which is "dominant". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 3 22:51:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 07:51:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c3c1e25-04b7-878e-d93b-d6b5edc10a0f@zahav.net.il> My intent, or my desire, is to reduce the number of issues on which we decide to break Torah community into even more pieces. If these issues are meta halachic, or have a bad feeling, then let's take the argument between the RWMO and LWMO down a notch or two. Let's lower the tones. For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi community consider to be kefira. If so, than kal v'chomer many of the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in getting hung up on multiple non-issues. Ben On 5/29/2017 4:20 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I am totally at lost as to your intent. Megillah reading or dancing with > a sefer Torah are reducible to black-letter law. In contrast to, for > example, deciding how to triage my tzedaqah donations. > > Wehther that reduction can be done within vanilla halachic process or > by appeal to metahalakhah, or by appeal to the general "feel" of halakhah > -- like the Rambam's "li nir'eh" -- is a different question. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 04:36:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 07:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a0d51cd-f693-b8a0-f2bd-a23a15a3e44a@sero.name> On 03/06/17 23:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > >> Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, >> and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send >> them to the rav. > And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to > find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim > wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us > which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other > expression of his personal opinion. > > Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"? AIUI no, it is not. Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a specific shayla for a specific person. Writing books does not involve any shikul hada`as, it merely involves setting down the halacha as one understands it, including, if applicable, the range of options available to a moreh hora'ah when applying his shikul hada`as. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 09:40:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 12:40:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170604164052.GA8050@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 11:23:05PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to : find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim : wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us : which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other : expression of his personal opinion. Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone know what has been said in the years since the standardization of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh. I argued that the difference between the AhS and the MB was not that one was a mimeticist and the other a textualist, but that the AhS was out to justify accepted pesaq, and the other is a collection of texts, a tool for the poseiq -- not pesaq. The personal opinion is just that, advice, not hora'ah. Or, other assumed you need to dismiss the MB's self-description as reflecting the CC's anavah, and not to be taken at face value. But then one has to explain the numerous stories of the CC personally not following the MB's conclusion -- the size of his becher, his tzitzis were tucked in, he supported the building a a community eiruv, etc... (Something is broken on my blog right now. It may take a 3-4 refreshes before getting anything but the AishDas "page not found" page.) In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable. And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving R Ploni answering questions. (The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the model.) This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads -- or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her rebbe's license? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 08:48:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:48:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you understand the OU panel as defining it. Otherwise you are just using a nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning. The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here: http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah ). There was a period when leaders did not have semicha, The Tzitz Eliezer points out that Sephardim for a long time did not have semichah, yet communities had religious leaders. So one does not need semikhah to be a communal religious leader(in keeping with the Rama in 242:14). Furthermore, R. Lichtenstein points out(Leaves of Faith vol 2 293) "originally a samukh would pronounce a decision that was binding by don't of his authoritative fiat. ...Now, he essentially serves as a reference guide, providing reliable information about what the tradition and its sources, properly understood and interpreted, state; but it is they, rather than he, that bind authoritatively." (quoted in the name of the Rav, in the name of his father, Rav Moshe.) Furthermore, as R. Lichtenstein points out, the Rambam viewed that Smikhah applied to hora'at issur v'heter as well as din. However, as R. Schachter himself points out, (see Kuntrus Ha semicha in Eretz Hatzvi chap 32) the other Rishonim hold that Semichah is a Halacha in beit din, NOT Hora'ah. AND, there are lots of authorities who clearly state that women can give Hora'ah. So you really need to define exactly what you mean by Semicha and how you are using it So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that apply to beit din. That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist. The semikhah for that type included wearing a specific garment, only being given in Israel, and according to most(but not all), prohibited to women. According to most Rishonim, that category did not apply to Hora'ah, just beit din. And, R. Lichtenstein illustrates that there is a clear and gaping difference in authority. There have been many years and many communities where leaders did not have any formal semikhah. But obviously there was some sort of Hora'ah going on. So it is clear that Hora'ah doesn't require semikhah, unless you want to argue that they were doing it all illegitimately. granting a degree of ordination was re-established(perhaps in response to universities, perhaps other reasons, see "The Emergence of the Professional rabbi in Ashkenzic Jewry by Bernard Rosensweig in Tradition, especially references in note 6) and the word Semikhah was used(although not always and not always exclusively). But you are arguing that somehow someway the restrictions from ancient Semikhah still apply- well, actually you are only arguing that the restrictions on women still apply, you have conveniently neglected to argue for the restriction of semikhah to Eretz Yisrael, for the wearing of special clothing, and all the other restrictions that were in place on ancient Semikhah. I have not had a chance to see the Maharik inside. But just because he applies halachot of relationships between teacher and student doesn't seem to be a reason to generalize that everything that applied to ancient Semikhah applies to today's neo-semikhah. That logically makes no sense. Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus tradition trope. It is a false dichotomy. First of all, as R. Shalom Carmy wrote, the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism. More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of our Masoretic values has changed over time. We don't value slavery or polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more. And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah. Furthermore, our Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a women. L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 07:40:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:40:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is becoming increasingly clear to me that I need a very basic lesson in the concepts of "redemption" and a "redeemer's" responsibilities. In my experience, we find two different sorts of redemption in Judaism. (I was going to write "in Halacha", but it seems that Boaz's actions were more sociological and ethnic than halachically mandatory.) One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and "redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many others. The other sort of kedusha has nothing to do with kedusha, but rather ownership of land. If I'm not mistaken, we find this in Shmitta, Yovel, and ordinary land sales in a walled city (and maybe elsewhere too?). In these cases, land has been sold outright, but under certain circumstances, the original owner has a right to buy it back from the new owner. AFTER WRITING THE ABOVE, I remembered another sort of redemption, that of the Goel Hadam. That seems irrelevant, because even though Naomi is now destitute, and her husband and sons are dead, no murder was committed. I also found yet another kind of Goel, described in Vayikra 25:47-54: If a person became poor and sold himself, then close relatives are obligated to redeem him and purchase his freedom. Although Naomi and Ruth did not reach that level (slavery), I can easily imagine that a social sort of redemption would require Tov or Boaz to help them out. I would call this "tzedaka" (not geula) but I suppose this might be the origin of the rule that one's primary obligation in tzedaka is to relatives. Many thanks to all who wrote to me (both on- and off-list), who put so much effort into helping me learn this subject. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 03:01:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:01:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= Message-ID: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a commentary how do you read it? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 02:59:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 09:59:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] support? Message-ID: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah restrictions are generally not observed (e.g., hello includes a social hug between the sexes), although Reuvain is meticulous in his observance of them. He is in his office in a conference with two colleagues when Miriam, the wife of a third tier social friend, also well past childbearing age, comes to the office door and says with a tear in her eye, "Reuvain, I hate to do this to you." Reuvain quickly asks his colleagues to excuse them, and Miriam blurts out, "David (her husband) just passed away," and she begins to slump, crying. Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to comfort her and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not make any request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but she did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion of the community which did not presume a social negiah restriction. Was Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, what should he have done? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:23:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 15:23:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:01:10AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a : commentary how do you read it? I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq venimtza qal" were written out. That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:43:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 22:43:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?va=E2=80=99v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <30b106b1-2a2d-f8dd-e692-4af1979063c9@starways.net> v'doke On 6/4/2017 1:01 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a > commentary how do you read it? > Kt > Joel rich > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:33:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 15:33:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] support? In-Reply-To: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170604193342.GA24739@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 09:59:23AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a : Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah : restrictions are generally not observed... A real maaseh shahayah, which would liely garner the same thoughts. One day, around 10am, the woman sitting in the cubicle next to mine gets a call on her cell, and after a few moments had her screaming and crying. It was the Salvation Army, where her son volunteered and lived. He didn't wake up that morning. Another co worker of ours, a yehivish guy who grew up in Israel but lives in Lakewood, got us a conference room, dialed some phone calls for her -- the coronor's office and the like. He was clearly cfrom communities in which persumed social negi'ah restrictions are fully observed. But when our co worker broke down in a fresh round of crying, he put his arm around her. I think to do anything else is to be a tzadiq shoteh. But I never asked a she'eilah; that was just my gut reaction at the time. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:01:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 23:01:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Noam, It's not a "trope". While there can be situations in which egalitarianism vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them. Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not. It seems a poor argument, as well. I don't believe there is anyone who, without the impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical concepts of justice demand that we ordain women." Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Distinctions are one of the hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and non-Jews or men and women. We have never viewed having different roles as indicating superiority and inferiority. That judgment is foreign to our tradition. Foreign to halakha. Foreign to the Torah. Please note that I'm not talking about whether, given the assumption that having different roles conveys inferiority, one could argue in favor of equalizing roles in the name of justice. I am talking about that assumption itself. It is an assumption that comes from egalitarianism, and cannot be found in Jewish tradition, which is not subject to Brown v Board of Education. Different does *not* necessarily mean unequal in Judaism. Polygamy was never a "value". To Mormons, perhaps. Not to us. It was simply something permitted. Slavery is out of the question purely on dina d'malchuta dina grounds. Were that not the case, we might still engage in it. We certainly haven't changed the halakha pertaining to either kind of avdut (K'naani or Ivri). You say that modern values have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in our Mesorah. Can I ask where the need for such a re-evaluation comes from? It was my understanding that we value all of our Mesorah, and do not sift through it, deciding what parts of it we value and what parts we do not. Also, please note that I have specifically referred to egalitarianism, and *not* to feminism. I don't believe that feminism requires egalitarianism, and the moves by the left to try and force Orthodox Judaism into an egalitarian framework have nothing to do with the basic idea that women are fully competent adult human beings, which is what feminism was originally about. On 6/4/2017 6:48 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus > tradition trope. It is a false dichotomy. First of all, as R. Shalom > Carmy wrote, the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to > Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism. > More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of > our Masoretic values has changed over time. We don't value slavery or > polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more. > And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for > us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah. Furthermore, our > Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna > in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a > women. L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:53:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:53:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . I wrote that the Mishneh Berurah, despite a lack of semicha, > frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the > ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression > of his personal opinion. R' Micha Berger responded: > Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed > this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone > know what has been said in the years since the standardization > of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh. Yes, he does self-describe as a summary and teaching/learning tool. But he does *not* specifically disclaim being a posek for halacha l'maaseh. The Igros Moshe and many other recent seforim do that, but I do not see it in the Mishneh Berurah. As an example, let's open to the very first page. He writes in MB 1:2 (near the end) about Netilas Yadayim upon waking in the morning: "Some say that for this, the entire house is considered like four amos. But (4) do not rely on this except in a shaas hadchak." Let's analyze that: He cites an unnamed lenient opinion, and clearly tells us not to rely on it. Note 4 leads us to his own Shaar Hatziun, where he gives his source, the Shaarei Teshuva. The Shaarei Teshuva, fortunately, is printed on this same page, and I direct your attention to the last four lines of #2, where the lenient opinion is named as being the Rashba. It is not clear to me whether the psak to *not* rely on that Rashba comes from the Shvus Yaakov, or whether it is from the Shaarei Teshuva himself. But either way, it is clear to me that the Mishne Berurah is taking sides, and IS PASKENING TO US that we should be machmir unless it is a shaas hadchak. > In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in > every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, > which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise > unreachable. Then we need to figure out what *is* required for hora'ah. Because it seems clear to me that the Chofetz Chaim felt that he met the criteria, and (perhaps more importantly) Klal Yisrael agreed. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:58:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 19:58:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2F566ED7-C27E-4141-9BAA-E81C69F30CE1@sibson.com> > > I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq > venimtza qal" were written out. > > That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. > > HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" > -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. ------------ I had always been taught the latter. The bar Ilan data base uses the former. I suppose one could rationalize one person's try and it will seem easy is another's it's a bit of a stretch. Then again Kuf lamed could be kal lhavin or kasheh li. :-) Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 15:56:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 17:56:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > It's not a "trope". While there can be situations in which egalitarianism > vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them. > Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to > the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not. It seems a poor > argument, as well. I don't believe there is anyone who, without the > impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical > concepts of justice demand that we ordain women." > Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Distinctions are one of the > hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and > non-Jews or men and women. We have never viewed having different roles as > indicating superiority and inferiority. That judgment is foreign to our > tradition. Foreign to halakha. Foreign to the Torah. Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" It isn't an issue of being like men, it is an issue of fairness and justice. Regarding 'modern values' and Mesorah. please read Rabbi Walter Wurzburger, regarded as one of R. Soloveitchik's most prominent students here: http://download.yutorah.org/TUJ/TU1_Wurtzburger.pdf Since chazal owned slaves and the Gemara didn't outlaw them, obviously owning slaves was not seen as odious as it is now. I doubt that current rabbis have the same positive view of slavery as you do. in fact, one published author does not. see R. Gamliel Shmalo here: http://download.yutorah.org/2013/1053/798326.pdf Similar to polygamy, I doubt that any current rabbinical authority thinks that polygamy should be instituted(except in the very rare situations of heter me'ah rabbonim when in practicality there is only one wife) Many authorities, including Rav Lichtenstein, R. Nachum Rabinovitch(and see R. Wurzburger's article for citations to classic authorities of the past) and others state clearly that encountering 'modern values' helps us figure out which how to better balance the values already in our Masorah. And, as I pointed out, our Masorah has already moved towards egalitarianism, as demonstrated that most MO poskim don't hold by the Mishna in Horiyyot. And who was denying that there are different roles? no one denies that there are different roles for the genders. But Halacha should be the determinant of what those differences are. Not someone saying, "well, there have to be differences, and I am going to tell you what those differences should be." If there are no good Halakhic arguments against women's ordination(and there aren't), then claiming that there should be different roles for different genders is not a coherent argument. Basically you could use the same argument for everything and anything, since there is no Halachic basis for it. You could say that women shouldn't ride bikes because gender roles have to be different. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:47:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <6736acd1-ba2d-c1bc-1762-d8e55bb8e473@sero.name> On 04/06/17 06:01, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a > commentary how do you read it? Vest du velen kvetchen, kadoches vest du vissen On 04/06/17 15:23, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. > HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" > -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. Or "vedayeq vetimtza qashe" -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 20:38:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 23:38:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605033858.JVPC32620.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a >specific shayla for a specific person. I guess the question is: is that related to semicha? Note the following (by Joel B. Wolowelsky, from that Tradition issue last year that focused on women's leadership issues) The standards of the semikha might vary from yeshiva to yeshiva even though the text of the klaf certificate is generally the same. I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters of grave import. Very few rabbis are viewed as posekim, and their authority surely does not rest on any formal semikha they were awarded at an early stage in their professional career. Most rabbis even most pulpit rabbis are relied upon to relate what the accepted halakha is, not what it should be. They are not assumed to be posekim. Rabbi Menachem Penner, Dean of RIETS, recently made this clear when he stated that: not all individuals given the title of rabbi are entitled to serve as decisors of Jewish law... Following the halakhic opinion of a scholar or rabbi who is not recognized as a posek would represent a fundamental breach in the mesorah of the establishment of normative halakha... Musmakhim of RIETS, along with all learned individuals, are entitled to their personal opinions on halakhc matters and the halakhic system as it functions today and may publicize their views as opinions that are not halakhically binding. If this is true of musmakhim of RIETS, who have completed many serious and demanding years of study, all the more so for the myriads of rabbis who earned their semikha by simply sitting for a less-demanding final exam after self-study or learning in a beit midrash up until their wedding, at which time they received semikha. We should quickly note that this is not intended to imply a diminution of the value of semikha. Rather it reflects an unprecedented expansion of Torah study in our community. Which raises the obvious question: if so many men have semicha that shouldn't engage in hora'ah, what's the problem of having a woman in a similar position? [Email #2.] Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that in Israel, this doesn't seem to be so much of an issue. May I recommend an utterly fascinating article on this: A VIEW FROM THE OTHER SIDE By Rachel Levmore, Ph.D. - Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 05:42:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 12:42:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" ----------------------------------------------------- As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question (chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", on what basis are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" I'd say the debaters on this issue would be well served to read J Haidt's The Righteous Mind https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj_nMSM3abUAhUG7CYKHRfcAJgQFghZMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Frighteousmind.com%2F&usg=AFQjCNH2OB9Ny75lbVswde2ndpkNKXvilQ&sig2=hBXRmEu1I6x-J0radUdXqA to better understand why they aren't convincing each other KT Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 12:00:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lo Taamod In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605190033.GD3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:54:06AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Asher Weiss discusses in parshat Vayeitzeih on lo taamod al : dam reiacha that one would have to give up all his assets to save a : single life if he is the only one who can do it. However, "it's pashut" : that if others can also do it, that he doesn't have to give up all his : assets. Why is it so pashut if others refuse? (i.e. why isn't it a joint : and several liability?) I am not sure halakhah has the concept. The nearest I can think of is a zeh vezeh goreim, such as if a shor tam pushes another ox into a third party's bor bereshus harabbim. SA CM 410:32 rules that the baal habor must pay 3/4. Hezeq by a shor tam need only be reimbered 50%. So, the owner of the shor tam only has to pay 50% of his half of the guilt -- 25%. The baal habor therefore would cause the loss of the other 75%, so he has to reimberse it. But there is a machloqes about what happens when one of the two doesn't have the money -- does the other have to pick up the difference, or not? If not, then wouldn't that mean halakhah doesn't have a notion of joint and several liability?" But even if he does have to pay what the other can't... One may still be choleiq between someone who did something that incurs a fine and a chiyuv to spend money. It's not really a "liability". And this is beyond the usual limits of a chiyuv.... If there are others who can save the guy, RAW says I'm not chayav to spend all my money, but what about spending up to a chomesh, like for any other chiyuv? Maybe even if there is joint and several liability, it stops at 1/5 rather than 100%. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 12:33:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:33:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? In-Reply-To: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim : b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman : shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? The SA says "yekhavein lehispalel besha'ah shehatzibur mispallelim". Your question is why the Rama -- or is the Semag, I couldn't find the citation -- doesn't mention minchah. I think the MB s"q 31-32 *implies* that the emphasis is on Shacharis and Maariv since the solar landmarks vary the most, and therefore the minyan is more likely to have their own idiosyncratic time -- late Shacharis or early Maariv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The waste of time is the most extravagant micha at aishdas.org of all expense. http://www.aishdas.org -Theophrastus Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 11:49:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:49:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170605184905.GC3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 10:00:22PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : Can I burn something that was hefker without acquiring it? If I declare : something hefker (I'm not sure the legal implication of batel), and then I : burn it, wouldn't that imply I'm koneh it? Which makes things much worse. We might argue whether bitul chameitz means something other than hefqer. But even if it does, how can a formula that ends "vehefqer ke'afrah de'ar'a" not render it *also* hefqer? I am not sure what kind of qinyan burning would be. (Shinui? but shinui to something worthless is back to not having anything shaveh perutah to own.) Taking from hefqer means there is no maqneh, does that mean there is no qoneh? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 11:37:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:37:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a : conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of : YaVY... Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because there is no actual issur la'avor. : Since when is conversation : hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes : the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation : carries the din YvAY. I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from hirhurim. And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA: : That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, : causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of : hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and : certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? : : The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya : due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the downward character spiral. Tie'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:13:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? In-Reply-To: <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> References: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5424769a-057e-b1d6-87b8-130dad06850d@sero.name> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > : S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim > : b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman > : shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? It seems to me that "shacharit v'arvit" here may not mean the tefillot but the times: they should daven each morning and evening when they know the minyan in the city is davening. The city minyan presumably does mincha and maariv together in one evening session, so that's what individuals should do. This is so especially if this is from the Smag, and we know from Rashi and Tosfos Brachos 2a that the minhag in France at that time was to daven maariv immediately after mincha, while it was still daylight. We also know from elsewhere that minhag Ashkenaz at a later time was similarly to go straight from the Kaddish Tiskabel after Mincha to Vehu Rachum and Borchu, with no Aleinu or Shir Hamaalos/kaddish (or Ledavid in Elul) in between. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:55:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:55:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:40:56AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and : "redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually : to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many : others.... I think that bringing up pidyon and temurah just cloud the issue. IMinsufficientlyHO, it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that strikes me as a progression): - the go'el hadam - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) - and of people (ibid v 48) - the end of galus To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on its nachalah. But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first -- "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why there are different words in lh"q. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 14:06:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:06:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605210617.GB23709@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 03:18:13PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that : Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent : introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, : pages 48-52. Which ties to the other thread about how we're to view Yiftach or Shimshon -- baalei mesorah or amei ha'aretz? It's possible that at the nadir points in the days of shofetim, being the gadol hador didn't rule out also having fundamental flaws. : R' Zev Sero wrote: :> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the :> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. : It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it : something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus : and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus : then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. If it was some general Semitic notion of ge'ulah, then perhaps being common-law spouses in a 7 Mitzvos b' Noach sense would be enough to trigger ge'ulah, even if yibum would require real qiddushin. After all, the basis for ge'ulah was likely that the woman came to depend on the family for her support, and it would be wrong to let her down. Which is true of a Moaviah intermarrying into a Jewish family, even if the marriage only seemed real to her. I am also reminded of the Rambam IB 13, discussed hear repeatedly ad nauseum. Shimshon's and Shelomo's wives were p[resumed Jewish until their actions showed that they not only had ulterior motive, they lacked a true motive (qabbalas ol mitzvos) altogether. Geirei `arayos all are in that boat -- if we think they were mequbalos al mitzvos along with wanting to convert to marry, we presume they're kosher Jews but suspect and watch whether behavior matches presumption. Rus would be in a similar situation, no? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 14:55:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:55:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> References: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4674ee8c-5f5e-c740-051a-00191c18b4fb@sero.name> On 05/06/17 16:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > IMinsufficientlyHO, it pays to just stick to trying to find a common > theme to all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that > strikes me as a progression): > > [...] > > - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's not an > actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) Where is the word found in this context? My position is that the use in Megilath Ruth is an instance of the next meaning. > - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) - and of people (ibid v 48) This one. AIUI the underlying theme of this mitzvah is discharging ones own obligations, or those of a relative who is unable to do so himself. When one has sold the family patrimony, one must buy it back so that people will no longer look at one as someone who had to do that. If one can't, then whoever in the family can afford to do so must buy it back, to clear ones name. Included in this is a sub-obligation that if one is aware that a relative has to sell family land, and one can afford to buy it, one must offer to do so, so he is never subjected in the first place to the ignominy of selling it out of the family. (That, as near as I can tell, is what was happening in Ruth. Naomi and Ruth, having claimed Elimelech's property for their ketubot, were now purportedly looking for a buyer, and turned to the family to give them first refusal.) By extension this also includes discharging other obligations, not to do with the family land, such as ones obligation to a woman whom a relative has left destitute, so that her state will not be a disgrace to the family. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:56:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 20:56:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to comfort her > and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not make any > request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but she > did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion > of the community which did not presume a social negiah restriction. Was > Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, > what should he have done? I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to include any contact in any social situation in addition to more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly consistently not included are professional scenarios where your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors, nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says there that even in his generation he was unique in being able to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for this situation. But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei aveira then there is no issur of negia. I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred option. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 03:08:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 10:08:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? I heard from Rav Matis Weinberg that the final reference to Ruth Hamoavia emphasises that, despite the way we usually think of geirus, and despite everything she's gone through, she remains a Moavia. Meaning that she retains her Moavi roots and personal context, and brings the positive from that into Klal Yisrael. I understand him as polemicising against the tendency to destroy ones previous identity, consciously or otherwise, in order to join the Jewish world either as a ger or a baal teshuva. Ben ________________________________ From: Avodah on behalf of via Avodah Sent: 02 June 2017 03:34 To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 72 Send Avodah mailing list submissions to avodah at lists.aishdas.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org You can reach the person managing the list at avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." A list of common acronyms is available at http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms Avodah Acronyms ? The AishDas Society www.aishdas.org Here?s a hopefully useful but incomplete list of acronyms that are standard to Avodah, but aren?t in common usage. I marked each either ?A? for those specific ... (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) Today's Topics: 1. Re: Maharat (Rich, Joel via Avodah) 2. Re: Maharat (Ben Waxman via Avodah) 3. Re: Maharat (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 4. matched soldier and praying for them (M Cohen via Avodah) 5. Re: Maharat (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) 6. Elimelech's land (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 7. Ruth Hamoaviah (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 8. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (ADE via Avodah) 9. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (Zev Sero via Avodah) 10. A Holiday Afterthought (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) 11. Re: A Holiday Afterthought (Micha Berger via Avodah) 12. Re: Ruth Hamoaviah (Zev Sero via Avodah) 13. Re: Ruth Hamoaviah (Lisa Liel via Avodah) 14. Re: Elimelech's land (Ben Waxman via Avodah) 15. Re: Elimelech's land (Zev Sero via Avodah) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:06:28 +0000 From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" To: 'Ilana Elzufon' , "'The Avodah Torah Discussion Group'" , Micha Berger , "Akiva Miller" , Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05 at VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. ---------------------------------------------------- Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the debate on black letter law? KT Joel Rich (full disclosure-kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-not everything that is permitted to you should be done) THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:22:13 +0200 From: Ben Waxman via Avodah To: Ilana Elzufon , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Micha Berger , Akiva Miller , Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Probably the best and most succinct historical analogy I've seen for this question. Ben On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > > Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women > rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the > vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it > seems to be shaping up as the latter. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:59:33 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation. Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. How can this be? Dare we imagine that he did such things unauthorizedly? Certainly he must have had/received some sort of Heter Hora'ah. If so, then when and how did he get it - and without getting semicha at the same time? Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:01 -0400 From: M Cohen via Avodah To: , Subject: [Avodah] matched soldier and praying for them Message-ID: <014801d2d969$41c5c800$c5515800$@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A while ago on Avodah, a well known (chareidi) Baal machshava was quoted as disagreeing strongly with the concept of matching frum people with a nonfrum soldier in order to pray for them. "we have no brotherhood with secular Israelis" Recently, I posted to Avodah a link to a collection of 1400 short tshuvot from HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlitah (of Toronto) On the above topic, he writes there.. #600 Pray As They Go Q. There are two organizations here in Eretz Yisroel, one called; Elef LaMateh, and the other; The Shmirah Project. Basically, their intent is to match Israeli soldiers with Avreichim and bochurim learning. Each Avreich and Bochur who volunteers, receives the name of a specific soldier (his name and his mother's name) that he takes responsibility to daven for and learn specially for so that in the merit of the tefillos and learning, that soldier will merit to return home alive and well. (Is this a good idea) A. HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is a great mitzvah to pray, learn Torah and accomplish mitzvos for the benefit of all our brethren B'nay Yisroel in times of peril and need, especially for those who put their life in harm's way to save and protect others. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:39:53 +0200 From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah To: "Rich, Joel" Cc: Avodah , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Micha Berger , Akiva Miller Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should be identical for each community and each generation? - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:01:50 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" . I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start farming? I suppose it was pretty desolate after a ten-year famine, but did she even try? She must have at least gone there to see the place, if for no other reason than to be sure that no squatters took over while she was gone. Without making sure of such things, how could she even hope that anyone (even a goel) would buy it? Maybe she expected to get a better profit from Boaz than she'd get from farming it herself, but maybe there are other answers? Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:05:01 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the distinction? When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on this. Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:14:59 +0100 From: ADE via Avodah To: Zev Sero , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are still being machshiv some pesukim over others. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk > *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:32:23 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: ADE <9006168 at gmail.com>, The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: <510d4fd4-6c91-fb85-0c23-f6cdfa7ffcbf at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 02/06/17 05:14, ADE wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one >> pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this >> reason. > Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are > still being machshiv some pesukim over others. There is no requirement to treat all pesukim exactly the same. One is entitled to stand or sit during KhT as one wishes, and has no obligation to choose one policy and stick to it. The problem is only with standing up for special pesukim, such as Shma or the 10D. Since there's nothing special about the pasuk before the 10D, there's no problem with deciding to stand for it. And when the special pesukim come along one is already standing, so one has no obligation to sit down. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:46:10 -0400 From: Cantor Wolberg via Avodah To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50 at cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In our personal religious commitments there are those among us scrupulous in performance of the ceremonial mitzvot but at the same time displaying reckless disregard of our elementary duties towards our fellowman. Halacha embraces human life in its totality. One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social trait from our behavior! A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:31:31 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Cantor Wolberg , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <20170602153131.GA15356 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made : a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study : of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social : trait from our behavior! Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, among the aphorisms of his listed in R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I. :-)BBii! -Micha ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:28:00 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Akiva Miller via Avodah , "akivagmiller at gmail.com >> Akiva Miller" Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: <4dd6e4f1-2d00-a274-ace0-e5d2a803039a at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 01/06/17 23:05, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I only see four instances of "Ruth Hamoaviah", three in ch 2, and only one in ch 4, in Boaz's description of the situation to Tov. Since his purpose was to scare him off, it made sense to mention her origin, so Tov would be reluctant to risk his future. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:20:16 +0300 From: Lisa Liel via Avodah To: Akiva Miller , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 6/2/2017 6:05 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I can't cite a source for it, but I remember once reading that Ruth HaMoaviah was intended to praise her, since she gave up her position in Moav to join us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus [https://static2.avast.com/11/web/min/i/mkt/share/avast-logo.png] Avast | Download Free Antivirus for PC, Mac & Android www.avast.com Protect your devices with the best free antivirus on the market. Download Avast antivirus and anti-spyware protection for your PC, Mac and Android. ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:31:41 +0200 From: Ben Waxman via Avodah To: Akiva Miller , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Actually if the land had lied fallow for 10 years, it should be in good shape. Granted it needs weeding but the soil should be good. It only requires a relatively small amount of rain for grass to grow and re-invigorate the soil. Maybe she was too old to work the land and figured that a sale would provide her with enough money to live out the rest of her days in dignity? Ben On 6/2/2017 5:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:17:52 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Akiva Miller via Avodah , Akiva Miller Subject: Re: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: <272b8698-d5c1-55a1-560b-2bc6d0c39b74 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 01/06/17 23:01, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? It seems to me that finding a buyer for the property was not at all important to her, and in fact she had shown no interest in doing so until she saw how she could use it to get Boaz to marry Ruth. It was Boaz who spun the story out for Tov in order to scare him off; first he drew him in with the prospect of an easy transaction for Naomi's portion of the field, but then he threw in the Ruth monkey wrench. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/avodah http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org ------------------------------ End of Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 72 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 04:24:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:24:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <545028A09009CEB1.0C33F862-E0BD-4F09-B72B-2B14A928A471@mail.outlook.com> I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter, the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat, is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin and relay the answer. We have fine female educators like Shani Taragin etc and we have Yoatzot Halacha as above. I consider this ordination movement as a Western valued and inspired institution. Indeed, these days I know Shules look for husband *and* wife teams. The Rebbetzin occupies an increasingly important place. This is most certainly also true of successful Chabad Houses, and here I speak of people like Rivki Holtzberg hy'd whom I knew well personally and I watched as the women gathered around her and the men around her husband. This is the mimetic tradition not withstanding exceptions. That, I believe is the thrust of the OU proclamation and it is dead on the money. Judaism certainly adapts but it is not the plasticine for Western values and aspirations. Even at a funeral, where one expects little hope for Yetzer Hora, the Halacha mandates the Shura to be separate for males and females. This category of notion underpins our Mesora and always did; right back to the days when our tents were arranged with Tzniyus in mind. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 07:26:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:26:41 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap Message-ID: can anyone explain and show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from non-Kosher fat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 07:23:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:23:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh Message-ID: regarding Chamets buried under a collapsed building where we remain the owner - we intend to salvage it after Pesach but are not transgressing BY and BY without needing to make Bittul I explained that Halachic ownership is determined by ones perception of control and explained this is the reason that YiUsh means one is no longer an owner for example you forget your wallet holding your ID and some money in a restaurant even though you go back in the HOPE of finding it or are HOPING an honest person will return it this is nevertheless YiUsh you no longer believe you are in control although RaMBaM encourages that the finder return it Halachically the finder is entitled to tell you Once upon a time this was yours - but you were MeYaEsh so it is no longer yours and I picked it up AFTER you were already MeYaEsh This is the foundation for the Pesak of R Y E Spektor that money lost by a woman at a trade fair MUST be returned because there was NO YiUsh the money had been found and taken to the local Rav it matched perfectly the description given by the woman who lost it but the finder insisted he wants to keep the money unless he is obliged to return it even though the woman had Simanim Muvhakim there was no doubt the money found was the money she lost she was certainly MeYaEsh she is not the owner Reb Y E Spektor Paskened that there was no YiUsh her husband is the owner and he, sitting many miles away was unaware of the loss of the money so there was no YiUsh R Micha argues that this is not correct he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost so there is no YiUsh however if they would know it is lost they would be MeYaEsh I would suggest that there is no problem the Machlokes is simply a dispute about ACTUAL belief one is in control versus POTENTIAL belief one is in control for example walking behind a fellow Yid you notice a diamond fall off his ring he would be unaware of his loss if we say YiUsh requires DaAs then there is no YiUsh yet you would have to wait until you see the fellow stop and look around for something then you can take your foot off the diamond and take it home [BTW is such a person a Rasha? or worse, not a Mentsch?] If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs then you can take the diamond straight away because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 10:48:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:48:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> , <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a : conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of : YaVY... Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because there is no actual issur la'avor. I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where there's an issur involved? That's why I'm suggesting that since it's on pain of yeihareig then we know there must an issur la'avor so the point of the sugya is to work out what that is. The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below. : Since when is conversation : hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes : the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation : carries the din YvAY. I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from hirhurim. >From hirhurim? Chazal were gozer yeihareig on hirhurei aveira? If that were true we'd find the same din in a lot of other places. Which is why is seems to me we must be dealing with something else here. And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA: : That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, : causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of : hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and : certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? : : The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya : due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the downward character spiral. Me'heicha teisi that we're dealing with Hilkhos De'os here? Where do you find a din of yeihareig in Hilchos De'os? Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does. Your partially stated assumption is that this din in both man d'amrim is d'rabanan. Rambam strongly implies otherwise. Kol tuv Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 09:19:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha wrote: "In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable. And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving R Ploni answering questions. (The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the model.) This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads -- or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her rebbe's license?" me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using. They are hiding behind ambiguity. if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do hora'ah. AND, you cant use the model of semicha to prohibit women from hora'ah, becuase in the Venn diagram of the topic, there is hora'ah outside the lines of semicha. So R. Micha et al need to provide some other basis for their issur of hora'ah, AND, address all those who write that a woman can provide hora'ah. AND, address the quote from R. Penner that the semicha for REITS graduates is not one to pasken(or perhaps even to give hora'ah). AND, address why(rather than simply say) the Rabbanut semichah test system, perhaps the most popular semicha in Orthodoxy, does not undermine his entire thesis. One can give a woman 'heter hora'ah l'rabbim' because there has not been a cogent argument presented not to do so, and there are many poskim who write that a woman can give hora'ah. The argument regarding 'what would HKBH' want is interesting. Does he want us to restrict women from doing things just so that we can say there are differences between men and women? Or, did He establish Halakha to help us sort out those that He wants, rather than ancient ones that and are gradually being re-evaluated, similar to how we have gradually moved away from embracing slavery, polygamy(in the vast majority of instances), restrictions on the deaf/dumb, the devaluation of women(see Mishna in Horiyyot 'men's lives are saved prior to women....), the idea that a women's wisdom is only with the spindle, one who teaches his daughter Torah has taught her tiflut, etc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 11:28:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:28:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/6/2017 7:19 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all > those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to > clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using. They are > hiding behind ambiguity. if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then > saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do > hora'ah. Are you suggesting that the burden of proof is on those *opposed* to a radical change in Jewish practice? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 11:18:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:18:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> (And also some "Re: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim".) On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:48am CDT, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you : understand the OU panel as defining it. Otherwise you are just using a : nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning. To me, "semichah" is a secondary concept. My focus was to assert whose halachic decision-making can qualify as hora'ah. That question involves semichah in the discussion. We were discussing the Rama YD 242:14. The Mechaber writes in strong terms that a higi'ah lehora'ah is obligated to actually provide hora'ah. The Rama there adds that this is only if there is no barrier of kevod harav -- his rebbe passed away, gave him semichah, is a rebbe-chaver, or the like. He doesn't make semichah a definition of magi'ah lehora'ah, but only a removal of a barrier, a necessary condition in the usual circumstances. Not a defining feature. If we look at the Rama in se'ifim 5-6, he tells you he is basing himself on the Mahariq (113.3, 117 [and the OU panel adds, cf 169). The Mahariq's position is based on assuming that what was true for classical semichah is still true for modern day semichah. The Rambam (Sanhedrin 4:8) agrees with that comparison -- he derives the need today for netilas reshus from Mosaic semichah. IOW, who needs reshus for hora'ah? Someone who is magi'ah lehora'ah and has kevoad harav issues in giving hora'ah without one. A magi'ah lehora'ah can only be someone eligable to sit on a BD of [Mosaic] musmachim (or according to the Rambam, other mumchim). Not because "rabbi" is defined by "has semichah", but because "yoreh yoreh" or Yesivat Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim" declares someone to be a hegi'ah lehorah. I find the OU's argument compelling, fits the words of R/Prof SL's letter and is probably his intent, and how I understood the sugyah in general before the notion of an O woman as rabbi became a topic people would seriously discuss. I am interested to know if you asked R/D Novak which one of us understood his intent. Did he mean to explain R/Prof SL's position or explain why he differs with it in ways that makes Yeshivat Maharat an option? Agreed that few rabbis pasqen, and that we could have female clergy that avoid this first issue that I have even if a Maharat's semichah read "Rabbah uManhigah" instead of "heter hora'ah lerabbim". : The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship : between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah : to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here: : http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah ... : So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that : apply to beit din. That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist... And yet the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama all think that one continues enough of the other that we can draw conclusions across that bridge. It's not me doing the category taking, it's the Rambam and the SA. What greater authorities do you need? While on the topic of magi'ah lehorah... On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 11:24am GMT, Isaac Balbin wrote: : I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his : students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the : aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was : a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter, : the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat, : is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is : 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin : and relay the answer. There is a difference. Hopefully, someone who get "Yoreh Yoreh" is first magi'ah lehora'ah. But that's a sliding scale. They could get reshus to pasqn because there are less weighty or less involved questions they can and should be answering, while still being aware when they are in over their heads and should call RMF. Whereas the impression I got from RYHH's posts here on Avodah is that a Yo'etzet isn't supposed to ever be giving pesaq; only answering questions that the community has definite answers for -- reporting halakhah pesuqah. But then there's the second and third issues.... 2- How do we know shul is no supposed to be a men's club? Men's clubs work, or at least the Rotary and the Masons have for centuries. Movements that went egalitarian now have issues getting male participation in shul; this is a big topic in Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs (C umbrella organization) discussion. And more fundamentally, how do we know that this social dynamic was not Anshei Keneses haGdolah's intent? I would assume indeed it was. This would rule out having a woman for much of the congretational role of rabbi. 3- Halakhah is inherently non-egalitarian: a- Importing an external value over those implied internally. And more functionally, we are telling women that indeed, the traditionally male role is the better path to holiness -- let us help you run at that glass ceiling. b- This is bound to lead to greater frustration as soon as LWMO has gone as far as it could up to that halachic limit. and c- It is making a claim that is false. One is sacrificing Judaism's model of equal worth despite hevdel for the sake of egalitarianism and erasing havdalah. The last being more of a perceptual issue. And this may explain why you can get a bit further not using the word "rabbi". It's not merely a word game, there is an issue at stake; are we trying to be egalitarian, or to accept a system in which kohanim not only defy egalitarianism, but apparently start out holier than I am. Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW. On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 7:51am IST, Ben Waxman wrote: : For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community : that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like : Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi : community consider to be kefira. Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'" (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not! : If so, than kal v'chomer many of : the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are : some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in : getting hung up on multiple non-issues. There are two possible sources of division here. 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators, and therefore in practice will be a separate community. Comfort zone isn't only a psychological issue. it nostalgia, mimetic tradition, Toras imekha or minhag Yisrael sabba, communal continuity is a big issue. 2- The ideological problem isn't in the bottom-level issues but in how they highlighted the loss of common language. The opposition to these changes are talking about Mesorah, values, etc... and the proponents just see the issue as "if it's halachically allowed, why are you giving us a hard time?" This lack of common language, more specifically, the lack of a notion of metahalakhah* is disconcerting. So to my mind the schism-level battle isn't over ordaining women, Partnership Minyanim, or whether Document Hypothesis is a viable option without O as much as these decisions are apparently being made by a different set of rules. And that could quite validly be a schismatic level issue. (* In this sense of the "word" "metahalakhah". We on Avodah have also used "metahalakha" to refer to the halachos of making halakhos, even when the rules are more black-letter. Such as discussions of when we say halakhah kebasrai, or whether there is acharei rabbim lehatos in this post-Sanhedrin era.) Back to R/Dr Noam Stadlan... I believe in a role for women in the clergy that isn't that of poseiq, part of minyan, nor claiming to be egalitarian. The OU thinks that categorizing the resulting role set as "clergy" is itself too egalitarian. Again, I see that as a perceptual issue. But they too end calling for finding more venues for women to contribute communally and to be visible role models. (An Areivim-esque tangent: It would be interesting to see if the OU acts on these closing remarks as rapidly as they did about the 4 member shuls that already have Maharatos.) But then, the only difference between the position now taken by Aish or Chabad kiruv today and the actual permission granted in the driving responsum is perception as well. In terms of dry facts, both were premitting causing the non-observant to drive on Shabbos rather than let them remain disconnected. They only differed in how they let the person perceive his own driving. And yet one was a major part of a broad collapse of observance, and the other is apparently increasing observance. Presentation and perception matter. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:03:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:03:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606150330.GB26549@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:23:51AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : R Micha argues that this is not correct : he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control : then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs : i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost : so there is no YiUsh : however if they would know it is lost : they would be MeYaEsh Rather, I was saying ownership hinges on responsibility, which I suggested was both a consequence of and license for having actual control. : I would suggest that there is no problem : the Machlokes is simply a dispute about : ACTUAL belief one is in control versus : POTENTIAL belief one is in control It would help if you can find a case where somone has potential of believing they control an item for reasons other than having actual control, and has the din of ba'al, OR someone has potential to believe they lost control of an item for reasons other than actually losing control, and does not have ba'alus. Yi'ush is giving up on finding it again, not knowledge of loss of control, real or potential. Let me use your example to explain how I see it: : for example : walking behind a fellow Yid : you notice a diamond fall off his ring : he would be unaware of his loss ... : If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs : then you can take the diamond straight away : because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss But this is a case where he loses actual control. The yi'ush shelo mida'as is more of an expectation not to regain it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:06:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606150633.GC26549@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:26:41AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : can anyone explain and : show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim : to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from : non-Kosher fat "Preferable"? Because we make a point of using dish soap that is ra'ui la'akhilah. So, using a treif one means taking a position on akhshevei. I believe the OU knows they are just pandering to the market when they give such a heksher, though, and don't lehalakhah require it. (But you did say "preferable", and avoiding even a shitah dechuyah could be deemed preferable.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:55:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 09:53:30PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil : Siman 199, the Maharil writes: ... :> And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive :> commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we :> should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut ... :> And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible :> to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules :> and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in :> our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and :> hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by :> way of tradition from outside, I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather than knowledge of abstract ideas. However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. There I ass more promise. he quotes the Rambam (which you already discussed) and the Sema"q's haqdamah (from near the end). There the Maharil talks about oseiq beTorah as in kol ha'oseiq beparashas olah kei'lu hiqrivu qorban, and that this should apply even to mitzvos in which they are NOT obligated (like qorbanos). Is this exclusively TSBK? It might; the Maharil talks about men saying birkhos haTorah before reading pesuqim they do not understand. Ayin sham. : And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in : Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous : generations: :> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their :> upright fathers. Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. Which the Maharil you cited appears to be doing as well. I place more hope on the second Maharil. Which is why I disagree with: : But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the : ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach : women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was : taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in : the form of the Mishna?... Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an example to imitate. (Tosafos believe Rabbe compiled the mishnah; writing down didn't happen for centuries. So what the mishnah was to the amora'im was an official text to memorize and repeat. As in "tani tana qamei deR' ..." Not that it really touches on our discussion.) : So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what : the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women : to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al " peh... True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask why, etc... but it's not an "education" setting. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 16:57:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men gather. Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis. So that women can gather around women rabbis. certainly it is not an argument against women rabbis. And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals does not apply either. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 18:50:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:50:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: - R' Shalom Simon wrote: > I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value > as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters > of grave import. No one?!? I imagine this might be true about people who are relatively learned, and relatively savvy in the ways of certain yeshivishe circles. But I can testify that it is certainly not true of a typical less-learned nominally-Orthodox person. Towards the end of my first year in yeshiva in Yerushalayim, as I made my plans to returns back to the USA, my friends were nudging me to stay for a second year. I felt that the proper thing for me to do was to return, as per my plans. But their annoying reached a certain level, and I felt the most effective response would be to ask my gemara rebbe (who I was very close with), and then I'd be able to tell them to keep quiet. Surprise! He answered me honestly, that leaving the yeshiva would be a mistake, I needed a second year of chizuk, etc etc etc. I was devastated, having to choose between his p'sak and what *I* felt to be right. In the end, I wasn't strong enough to follow Hashem's halacha. I left the yeshiva, returned to YU for the one remaining year to get my degree, and then returned to my yeshiva in Yerushalayim. All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha. Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 19:25:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 22:25:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support? Message-ID: - R' Ben Bradley wrote: > I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur > derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what > consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to > include any contact in any social situation in addition to > more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly > consistently not included are professional scenarios where > your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors, > nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who > can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like > the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says > there that even in his generation he was unique in being able > to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for > this situation. > > But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively > certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei > aveira then there is no issur of negia. I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses, physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her, she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia. But in the case at hand, the physical contact is not incidental. It is the goal. Nay, I would argue even more strongly: The mere physical contact isn't the goal -- The EMOTIONAL RESPONSE to the contact is the goal! The whole point of hugging this person is for emotional support. I certainly agree that this sort of hugging is on a lower level that the sort of hugging that leads to sexual relations. But at the same time, it *IS* more intimate than the examples you cited. A person will choose a doctor, nurse or therapist, based on their medical ability -- but the sort of hugs we are discussing here are valued more when from a friend than from a stranger. > I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And > preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in > sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved > in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred > option. "The need to comfort the bereaved..." Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor" regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this "needed" comfort from someone else. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 20:28:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 03:28:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R Meir Rabi asked for mekoros. I suggest Yechaveh Daas 4:43 Although Chacham Ovadya is Meikel he does bring Rishonim who would hold its an Issur Derabonnon as in Pesach for 'off' Chametz. This is probably the place to look but I don't have the Sefer in front of me at the minute. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 03:38:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 06:38:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607103838.GC10990@aishdas.org> There are also sources in RAZZ's column in Jewish Action https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_kosher_soap (He sent me the link privately. Perhaps R/Dr Zivitofsky wanted to spare me being corrected in public.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 06:35:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:35:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> >Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed >incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis >are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community >in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to >do so?" >----------------------------------------------------- >As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question >(chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", >on what basis >are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a >Halachic reason to do so?" But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no? We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni or Tzlophad's daughters. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 06:49:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 08:49:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maharat Message-ID: R. Micha- if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL). It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is one of them. You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get semicha. You obviously hold that a woman cant be a judge, and the barrier to the woman is actually not semicha, but her not being qualified to be in the category of hl. Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness. There are others in that category. Since there is no reason to differentiate between those in the category, you are saying that all those others in the category also are forbidden, not from semicha, but from being in the category of HL. We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be dayyanim in some cases. So, the disqualification of women from HL actually wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot. So your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not claiming to be eligible for semicha. I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive lomdus. Is there a source that specifically states that women are forbidden from being HL? The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age. It seems that you may be distinguishing between hora'ah, and HL, there being hora'ah that is not in the category of being given by someone that is HL(if not, you have to deal with the myriads of sources that state specifically that women can give hora'ah). So you and the OU authors may be referring to HL in the mosaic understanding, and moderns, including YM, are using it in a different fashion, to refer to non-formal HL. Because if there is hora'ah that is not part of the formal HL, there is no restriction on women. And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? what is the basis for that? It seems that even assuming that you are correct(for which I have not found any support in any references), there is no basis for excluding women from having non formal hora'ah, someone acknowledging that they are capable of that non-formal hora'ah, and them functioning as a rabbi and doing what rabbi's do in shuls and elsewhere. Your restriction only keeps them from occupying a formal title which is not neccessary or needed for the job description. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 07:05:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 14:05:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> References: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> Message-ID: <94258eaf26e94a0ea0c49de3630ef2ce@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no? We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni or Tzlophad's daughters. ========================= So just to complete the loop-the question is who gets to answer this request for whom Kt Joel rich _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rn0JnHwKAKxEU5lYbmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGWm5q4mhsFBBsamlgbGDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAF5osAg&Z THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 09:38:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607163850.GA12495@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:49:45AM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL). It's not me positing it. Look again at YD 242:13-14, warning against the talmid shelo higia' lehora'ah against giving any, and the chakham who did higi'ah lehora'ah and was not moreh, applying condemnatory pesuqim to each. The SA is based on R' Abba amar R' Hunah amar Rav on AZ 19b. : It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can : give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is : one of them. So yes, it is clear. The SA says so outright. : You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get : semicha... Again, not me, Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq all assume comparability between the two. A Mahariq the Rama then cites (se'if 6) as the basis for his concluding how a musmach should behave toward the rav who gave him semichah, when not his rebbe. So it would seem the Rama buys into the notion that our "semichah" of declaring someone a hegi'ah lehora'ah (and in the case of a rebbe, implicitely that he has permission to be moreh) follows the rules of Mosaic semicha for beis din. So, thinking you are arguing against me, rather than centuries of dissentless precedent, you propose a line of reasoning at odds with the Rambam and Tosafos: : Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for : those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness... The Sema and Be'eir heiTev (on CM 7:4) does say yalfinan lah mei'eidus. See Nidah 49b But see the Y-mi, Shevuos 4:1 (vilna 19a) brings several derashos. One of them (R' Yosi bei R' Bun, R' Huna besheim R' Yosi) does learn is from a gezeira shava from eidus. ... : We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be : dayyanim in some cases. So, the disqualification of women from HL actually : wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot. So : your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not : claiming to be eligible for semicha. One thing at a time. Eligability for true Mosaic semichah and how it reflect on who can give hora'ah is what's relevant now. Not who can serve in other judicial roles that did/will not require semichah. : I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive : lomdus. Is there a source that specifically states that women are : forbidden from being HL? There are numerous sources that say women can't get real Mosaic semichah, and numerous sources that say that the laws of today's "semichah" are derived from those. The fact that I don't know anyone before the current dispute actually connect the two to deny something no (O and pre-O) observant community considered a plausible question even as recently as the late 1990s (including a statement by R' Avi Weiss) really doesn't make the argument less compelling. If you have A =/= B and B = C, do you really demand a source telling you that A =/= C? : The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara : and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age... No, that HL in the SA is the same. ... : And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the : requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? ... Never claimed that. I separated my problem with declaring a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" for women from my problem with a woman serving during services and from my 2 or 3 problems with giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings in halakhah. You have only responded to the first. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 10:33:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:33:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607173338.GB9596@aishdas.org> As I see it, the question WRT hora'ah is whether we follow the Rama's lead and hold like the Mahariq, or the Birkei Yoseif CM 7:12 a viable shitah -- and then, does "viable" mean "advisable"? (We aren't heter shopping, after all.) The Birkei Yoseif says Af de'ishah besulah ladun, mikol maqom ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah basing himself on one of the opinions in Tosafos (Yevamos 45b "mi", Gittin 88b, ve'od) about what it means that "Devorah melamedes lahem dinim". (Devodah vs. ishah asurah ladun is the topic of 11.) It seem to me that "melameid lahem dinim" is a different use of the word "hora'ah" than the SA is using in YD. And thus it seems to me that Birkei Yoseif would explicitly permit a yo'etzet, who is teaching established halakhah and defering questions that require shiqul hada'as to a rav. But he is not describing hora'ah as assumed in a Maharat's heter hora'ah lerabbim and the YD 242 sense of magi'ah lehora'ah and who needs such a heter when he does. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 10:12:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:12:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607171230.GA2858@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:25:57PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses, : physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a : "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one : will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so : too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked : her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her, : she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia. "Melakhah she'inah tzerichah legudah" is specific to the 39 melakhos, so "sort of" indeed. Besides, might be more of a pesiq reishei. In any case, when a professional violates negi'ah, the heter is ba'avidteih tarid (BM 91b). And it's specifically to professionals and the air of professionalism. (As well as the lowered odds of a problem for someone who has a license at risk.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 12:22:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 21:22:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/7/2017 3:50 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I > will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I > *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for > disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi > Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha. > > Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar > things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent. I would agree that this is an extreme example. I don't know you so I can't say anything about you in particular (not that I would anyway, not on a forum) but I would expect a yeshiva guy who had been learning with a teacher/rav for a year to take the teacher/rav's words much more seriously than the average ba'al habayit. The first thing a ba'al habayit would do is say "Well, I went to him for advice, not psak, so I don't have to listen to him". >I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value >as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters > of grave import. I don't know what constitutes grave import - an abortion? learning Biblical Criticism? Marrying someone of questionable yichus? Whether or not a particular business maneuver constitutes fraud in the eyes of halacha (or if it isn't but is illegal)? Accepting charity from criminals? Would the average MO Jew speak a rav and get his psak on these issues? Or do people limit themselves to strict Orach Chayim issues like eating on Yom Kippur? Are there issues that people will do whatever the rabbi says and ignore what he has to say about other things (obviously people ignore what rabbis have to say about a lot of issues, but I mean a straight psak)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 11:57:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maharat Message-ID: R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress. You are engaging in a theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls. (they were not arguing against specific wording on a claf, they were arguing against holding a specific position). Given what you wrote, we both agree that the OU argument against does not hold water. Even if they are technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are capable of doing so(even if according to you they actually do not need permission from their rav). Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R. Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and others. Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav) have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and the authority is in the sources, not the person. You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments. You have admitted that the issue of women semicha has not been considered until recently. So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong. (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an arguement, that it be consistent. So if you are claiming that the reason women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot. you cant have it both ways). Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.' Please read the article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier. He makes it very clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that external 'modern values' are an important part of that. Modern values are neither positive nor negative. Those that find resonance in the Mesorah are elevated. R. Nachum Rabinovitch and R. Lichtenstein point out that our goal is to make moral progress. You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'. It isn't about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion. As R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice. I happen to be married to a Maharat student and personally know many of them and their teachers. It is the ultimate in hubris and mansplaining for you and the others to claim to know what their motivation is. It was reprehensible of the OU panel to claim to know what the motivation is when they failed to talk to anyone actually involved in the enterprise. Even if we incorrectly grant that it is due to 'egalitarian yearnings,' is that wrong? I suggest that our Mesorah has incorporated egalitarian yearnings. The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way, and those that would probably would give all sorts of apologetics and rationalizations for it. (I am aware of the different shitot, and know that RSZA for example gave so many other rationales to decide that even though l'halacha he held this, there were so many other bases for deciding ahead of gender that practically it never would have been applicable.) Even the OU panel said that we value women the same as men. Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women. The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large or as small as possible? Because as we have decided above, if we go by strict halacha, there is no problem with women serving as shul rabbis. is it a value to have differences, and because you want to have differences, you are going to prohibit women from doing things? Just to have differences? There are differences between Jews and Converts. Is it a Halachic value to maximize the differences, or minimize the differences between Jew and Gerim? R. Moshe wrote that a convert can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah is not a problem. Would he have agreed that a women can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah is also not a problem for her? (rosh yeshiva does not require semicha). Mishpat echad yehiyeh lachem, ka-ger ka-ezrach. The OU paper brought up tzniut. I do not think that the MO community thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a violation of tzniut. So there is no violation of tzniut when women or men perform the functions of clergy on their side of the mechitzah(one could designate a man to take of things on the men's side of the mechitzah if you were worried about interactions across the mechitzah). if you are claiming that this is a tzniut problem, then it applies to every interaction of women and men, inside the shul and outside. The OU paper claimed that a synagogue required greater tzniut, and therefore women cant perform rabbinical duties. That is a non-sequitor. First of all, it hasnt been demonstrated that appropriately dressed and acting people are a problem with tzniut. and, why is this particular action the one picked to fulfill the mandate of more tzniut? perhaps the men fulfilling EH 21 would be a better starting place. I understand you and others not being comfortable with ordination for women. no one is asking for you to be comfortable with it. If you dont think it is a good idea(halacha v'ain mori'in kein), that is fine to say. But it isn't fine to say that Halacha bans it when it doesn't, and it isn't ok to try to kick people who are shomrei Torah u'mitzvot out of the tent because of your comfort or lack of comfort. I would hope that you are at least as uncomfortable with some of the people on the far right wing. No one is asking for you to go to their shul, ask them a shailah, or learn their Torah if you dont want to. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:10:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:10:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:57:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress. You are engaging in a : theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU : rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls... Well, my first point is a discussion of hora'ah, and consequently for whom is semichah meaninful. But my argument on this point is a subset of the OU's argument on that point. See their paper, pp 8-9 : Given what you wrote, we both agree : that the OU argument against does not hold water. Even if they are : technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give : hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are : capable of doing so (even if according to you they actually do not need : permission from their rav). HOW do you get from what I wrote an implication that we have agreement on that? I think it's firmly established by aforementioned rishonim (plus others in the OU's footnotes) that if someone is ineligable for Mosaic semichah they are ineligable to give hora'ah and therefore have no use for today's yoreh-yoreh. Or the Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim"? : Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch : who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R. : Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a : later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't : invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and : others. Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav) : have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and : the authority is in the sources, not the person. Asked and answered, although in a post after the one to which you replied. Some use the word hora'ah to mean "melameid lahem dinim". Which is not hora'ah as the Rama is discussing it. I pointed you to the Birkei Yoseif. The Chinuch is similar; his : You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments... Another? What's the first? : So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only : poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong. The OU paper doesn't make that argument. Not that I see everything the way the OU panel does. (But halakhah lemaaseh, I would be more likely to follow their opinion than my own.) Nor did I find RJF's analysis of this claim in neither (his general position on ordaining women) nor the only place where I saw him discuss the OU panel on Lehrhaus. As an activist on the subject, I'm sure you've spent more time reading up on it than I. Could you kindly provide more specific references? But let me deal with what you wrote: IOW, you are saying that because our ancestors thought the idea was absurd, we ought to go ahead? What such an argument would say is that we historically had numerous women capable of being rabbis and even so no one even considered making any of them one. The OU's section on mesorah should explain why such attitudes have precedential authority. But again, none of this reflects on what I myself was arguing : (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an : arguement, that it be consistent. So if you are claiming that the reason : women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from : being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including : that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot. you cant : have it both ways). I argued the opposite causality. Lo sosuru mikol asher YORUKHA refers to dayanim. So, someone who is excluded from becoming a dayan can't be the subject of the pasuq, and their decisions don't fall under the halakhos generated by this pasuq. Their decisions are not hora'ah, in the pasuq's sense. (YOu had me saying: Can't give hora'ah implies can't be dayan. I am really saying: Can't be dayan implies can't give hora'ah.) : Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.' Please read the : article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier. He makes it very : clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that : external 'modern values' are an important part of that. Modern values are : neither positive nor negative... Not because they're modern, no. But obviously some are positive, some negative. We can judge them. Mesorah and its values are logically prior to modern values. Numerous halakhos are unegalitarian. Even if egalitarianism is a good idea for benei noach, as a perspective it is inconsistent with that the Torah expects of Jews. : You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'. It isn't : about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers : to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion. As : R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice... The motive I attributed, really echoed back from what I heard in prior iterations, is not that anyone is about making halakhah more egalitarian, but a desire to make halakhah fit a more egalitarian reality. So I don't know what you're rebutting. I argued that some realities reflect values that must be resisted rather than accomodated. We can talk about the end of inequality in the workplace as a good thing, but can we talk about reducing the differences in avodas Hashem, differences that can't be eliminated because halakhah demands they're there, as a good thing? Good point here to address RSSimon's post. On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 09:35:14AM -0400, Sholom Simon wrote: : But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight : halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's : education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent : this", no? To avoid making this a false dichotomy, you have to define halakhah broadly, to include the obligation to live according to the values and general guidelines of aggadita -- mitzvos like qedoshim tihyu, vehalakhta bidrakhav, ve'asisa hayashar vehatov (a/k/a Chovos haLvavos or Hil' Yesodei haTorah and Hil' Dei'os). I think this is what the OU is trying to get to with the concept of "Mesorah". But if I may be frank, they are handicapped in their ability to discuss the aggadic by too many of them seeing the world with Brisker eyes. Back to R/Dr Stadlan... In addition to the question needing to be asked about the Torah's evaluation of a modern value before we simply adopt it (rather than tolerate, limit the scope, or entirely reject).... Second, I do not think justice is served by telling women to find their religious meaning in a headlong rush toward a glass ceiling. I think it's more just to teach them how to find meaning in ways that aren't dead-ended for them. More equal, if less egalitarian. ... : Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women. : The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large : or as small as possible?... That decision should be made by starting with "why does halakhah have those differences"? And what do our aggadic sources say? As I said above, we judge whether to adopt, tolerate or resist new values based on TSBP. : The OU paper brought up tzniut. I do not think that the MO community : thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a : violation of tzniut... Tzenius isn't about clothes. I don't agree with their argument, but don't fight strawmen. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 13:55:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:55:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a > woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken > that way I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:21:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 23:21:05 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB writes: >I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" >in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather than knowledge of abstract ideas. No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these were not "textual" sources - how would you translate ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? better though, to keep the flow and that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? >However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult to understand them as having been written by the same person. Indeed the Birchei Yosef, who seems to have only seen the first one inside, and seen the second one referred to in other sources, particularly the Beis Yosef,( who himself seems to have had the second on but possibly not the first) challenges the quotations from the second teshuva on the basis of the first, and seems to suggest (in the politest possible way) that the Beis Yosef got it wrong, because they just do not match. I do not know any real way to reconcile these two, and can only note that the two compilations of teshuvos were compiled by different students of the Maharil . : And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in : Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous : generations: :> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their :> upright fathers. >Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk, it is about actively teaching (albeit oral). Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting up of schools), but it is a strange pasuk to use if he was talking purely about mimeticism. >Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at all the experiential aspect. When the gemora cites a ma'aseh rav, is this *not* TSBP because it would seem to be mimetic? >I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an example to imitate. The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two types of TSBP. And the other alternative would seem to be to write this kind of teaching out of TSBP. But is not a lot of TSBP, even though by no means all of it, this kind of teaching. Is not the gemora etc filled with this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. : So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what : the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women : to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al " peh... >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting. But the Rambam doesn't say either - "but with regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she ba'al peh taught in a formal educational setting, but that not taught in a formal education setting is fine". And note of course that one cannot just observe Mum taking challa, one also needs to be told about the correct shiur. It is highly unlikely that anybody would necessarily conclude, by watching week after week, exactly what the correct shiur for taking chala and the bracha is by mere observation. That has to be communicated as a form of rule. Ok a situational rule, - taught in context, but the tradition would be lost in a generation if it was left for every generation to guess the correct shiur by watching closely enough week after week. >-Micha Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:53:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:53:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we have now is historically completely wrong. From "b'inyan semichat chachamim' published in Or Hamizrach: 'At this time when semicha is batel, all the mishpatim from the Torah are battel..based on lifneihem- and not lifnei hedyotot. And nowadays we are all hedyotot. And the only way it works is that we act as shlichim of Mosaic beit din' So everyone is a hedyot. More to the point in section five there is a detailed examination of semicha included what was required in various areas. 'The Chatam Sofer writes...that this semicha of morenu and chaver has NO BASIS IN SHAS but is a ashkenazi minhag and does not contain anything real'. 'They issue of semicha that they estabkished(tiknu), according to the Rivash, because it is forbidden for a student, even one who is hegiah l'hora'ah, to give hora'a or to establish a yeshiva(note that this obviously is not hora'ah)while his teacher is alive....therefore they had the PRACTICE of semicha...that he is no longer a student but can teach others(the word is l'lamed, not hora'ah)' There is a lot more. But it is quite clear in the sources brought in this article that the historical record clearly shows No connection between Mosaic semicha and what was begun in the Middle Ages. Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:53:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 22:53:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> References: , <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> Message-ID: <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 7, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > >> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: >> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way > > I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this Not really. They basically say either that there are other tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why.specific citations available upon request Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:07:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:07:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> References: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> Message-ID: On 07/06/17 18:53, Rich, Joel wrote: >> I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that >> this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this > Not really. They basically say either that there are other > tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it > would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why. That's what I thought too. I was surprised to read RNS not only insisting otherwise but deducing an entire shita from this supposed fact. In practise I doubt it was ever meant to be implemented kipshuto, because even on its own terms it applies only when all else is equal, and it rarely is. But it seems to me that when all else *is* equal, i.e. when we have no other information so all else is zero, and we are free to set our own priorities without fearing negative consequences (that too constitutes additional information which makes all else not equal), then the halacha must still apply. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:51:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:51:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170607225122.GA14289@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 05:48:13PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : > Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because : > there is no actual issur la'avor. : : I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on : pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where : there's an issur involved? Red shoelaces? : The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that : yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below. No, it could be preservational and still deOraisa. Like my example of a ben soreier umoreh, who Chazal say dies al sheim ha'asid -- we're also preventing the continuing deteriation in a downward spiral. This "downward spiral" was what I was calling Hil' Dei'os. Hirhurim and hana'ah -- devarim sheleiv in general -- aren't even punishable altogether, how could they allow a court to decide yeihareig? Most dinei nefashos don't even qualify. : Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context : of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must : be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as : issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does. And qiddush hasheim could involve avoiding something that is not assur either. (Agian: red shoelaces.) That too is death to preserve an attitude. I am just saying that your desire to make this yeihareig ve'al ya'avor is putting an overly formal halachic box. Whether or not something is a qiddush hasheim or otherwise worth dying for is not necessarily reducible to a Brisker chalos-sheim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:17:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:17:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we : have now is historically completely wrong... And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah? The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up to imitate the other with no continuity between them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:58:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> Message-ID: The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way, and that saying that modern semicha was set up to imitate ancient semicha(to such an extent that the same prohibitions apply) is a distortion of history and Halachic history. Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources. The Rama makes more sense when read in the context of the quotes that I provided from the Chatam Sofer et al. The Rambam, could well be discussing ancient semicha in the sources you describe........ On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun > 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: > : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we > : have now is historically completely wrong... > > And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based > on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical > study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah? > > The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up > to imitate the other with no continuity between them. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 23:40:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 09:40:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> References: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> Message-ID: <5938F16E.9010705@biu.ac.il> the topic is addressed in this article: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0048-0068.pdf ?A MAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER from Tradition in 2014 Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > >> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a >> woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken >> that way > > > I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this > is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? > What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument > is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the > question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O? > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 06:14:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:14:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check Message-ID: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> [RJR poses these questions at the start of his Audio Roundup column on Torah Musings . I prodded him to share them here as well, as questions work better in an actual discussion venue. But I didn't think he would do so without plugging his column! So, here's my plug: Worth reading, and if you have one -- pointing subscribing to on your news agreegator / RSS reader. -micha] A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled the commandment to wear tfillin. In fact, many pasul tfillin were pasul from the start (e.g., missing a letter). The Rav later reported that a listener heard the shiur and had his tfillin checked and found such a psul, even though he had bought the tfillin from a reputable sofer and had them checked earlier by another reputable sofer. The Rav was pleased with this result. Two questions: 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status) appropriate? 2) As a societal issue, how should current rabbinic leadership view the tradeoff of now requiring (suggesting) frequent checks? We will have some who will have the listener's result. OTOH, we will also have those whose tfillin will more likely become pasul due to uncurling the klaf and the increased costs of checking. BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan checking be appropriate? Kt Joel rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 06:15:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:15:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Parenthesis Message-ID: <1c9fcdd2c38f43e7af59d24ffe246c8b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> [See my plug of RJR's column in the previous post. His question about a distraught new widow and negi'ah as well... And that's just the column's *padding*! Extra credit if you answer the question about parenthesis while "vayehi binsoa'" and its upside-down nuns is still in parashas hashavua. -micha] 1. In the Shulchan Aruch -- who is the author of the statements in parenthesis in the Rama like print that don't start with Hagah? 2. In Rashi (or Tosfot), who decided to put certain words in parenthesis and why? (e.g., differing manuscripts, logic, etc.) Kt Joel rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 04:31:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 07:31:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . I would like to start a new thread to discuss exactly what we mean by "redemption". I will begin by quoting most of R' Micha Berger's recent post from the thread "Elimelech's land": > ... it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to > all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that > strikes me as a progression): > > - the go'el hadam > - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's > not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) > - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) > - and of people (ibid v 48) > - the end of galus > > To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even > something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on > its nachalah. > > But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more > to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first -- > "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of > redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why > there are different words in lh"q. Several years ago I tried working on this as part of my preparations for Pesach. The first obstacle I encountered was (as RMB mentioned in the last line here) that there are so many interchangeable synonyms. The first two that came to my mind are "geulah" and "pidyon", such as in Yirmiyahu 31:10: > Ki fadah Hashem es Yaakov, > Ug'alo miyad chazak mimenu. I agree that a good starting point, as suggested by RMB, is "restoration". This carries over to English as well, and I could cite several pieces of literature whose theme is "the chance to redeem myself," where someone suffered a significant loss of status (justified or not) and is trying to correct that loss, and restore himself to his prior status. This is very much what Naomi was trying to accomplish. But I'm not so sure how relevant it was to Mitzrayim, where the problem was not merely social status, but physical danger. And that brings more synonyms into the mix: yeshuah and hatzalah. A useful tool for distinguishing synonyms is when they occur near each other in the same context. I brought an example of pidyon and geulah above from Yirmiyahu, and here is a case of hatzalah and geulah: Shemos 6:6-7: "V'hotzaysi... V'hitzalti... V'gaalti... V'lakachti..." On this, Rav SR Hirsch explains: "Whereas hitzil is deliverance from a threatening danger, gaal is deliverance from a destruction which has already occured." In Shemos 8:19, RSRH seems to say that "padah" refers to redemption when "anything has fallen into the power of someone else, to bring it out of that power." I suppose that relates to kedushah (Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, etc) because the redeemed object is no longer encumbered by the halachos that applied before. On the other hand, Vayikra 25:24-54 teaches about using money to redeem land, or a house, or an eved. In those pesukim, the word "redeem" appears as some form of geulah 17 times, but as pidyon not even once. How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? Looking forward to your thoughts Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 04:49:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:49:29 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500 From: Noam Stadlan via Avodah > R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men > gather. Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis. So that women > can gather around women rabbis. I'm sorry this does not compute halachically or logically. The men don't gather around the Rabbi either, and I have never seen a problem when the Rav who has been directing everything requests women on one side and men on the other. > certainly it is not an argument against > women rabbis. It was a comment that even in a place where the Yetzer Horah is least likely to have an influence, we are asked to be separate from each other. > And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like > the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly > dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual > immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals > does not apply either. Ger does not make that their focus. They have Gedorim for their own wives even if dressed Tzniusdikly etc One doesn't have to be modern orthodox to encounter women in the workplace either. It would be good if there were more women asking shaylos period. For Nida shaylos there have always been ways to treat a matter discretely. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 07:30:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of > any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even > punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of > the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? Yes, it's what the victim's blood needs and deserves, and the victim is unable to provide it for himself, so as the closest relative it's his duty to provide it for him. The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. Ya`akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because Kel Nekamos Hashem. We are commanded to love our fellow Yidden so much that we forgive them and *forgo* our natural and just desire for revenge, just as we would do of our own accord for someone we actually loved without being commanded. Even the neshama of a murder victim is expected to forgive his Jewish killer, and Navos was punished for not doing so. But we can't forgive on someone else's behalf, especially on our father's behalf, or assume he's such a tzadik that he must have forgiven his killer. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 09:13:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:13:39 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Psak of a Musmach Message-ID: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> The Maharat thread got me thinking about this, but it is a bit of a tangent, hence the new thread. It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don?t recall that it is mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 07:23:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 10:23:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170608164150.ETSG4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> At 09:43 AM 6/8/2017, via Avodah wrote: > >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather >than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she >noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask >why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting. Surely, *some* of it is. Rn Ch L gave the example of a shiur, but there's an awful lot that goes on in the kitchen, and I would guess (I don't know, as I've never been a mother or a daughter) that the mother would be almost negligent if she didn't actually explain some various rules. (I'm using a slotted spoon here, but in cases x, y, z, I can't use a slotted spoon; or: when I do this it's not considered borer because x, y, z; or: if I want to return the pot to the blech, I have to have in mind x,y,a; or: this is how you make tea, and this is how you make coffee, and this is why I can't melt the ice in a cup, and this is why you can defrost the orange juice, etc etc etc). I have a teacher who told me that any women who is doing a competent job in the kitchen has to have learned TSBP. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:28:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:28:47 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> Message-ID: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of >> any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even >> punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of >> the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? > > The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like. Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:45:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 14:45:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <3c673353-b5e9-d704-9cb0-52aff2f213c7@sero.name> On 08/06/17 14:28, Daniel Israel wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not >> Jewish. > An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. > Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos > chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an issur on doing so againstyour own people, because you are commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in itself does not come from any Jewish source. > That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like. > Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam > should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise > above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes. He's not go'el ha'emes, he's go'el hadam. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 13:43:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 20:43:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? ------------------------- The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an extension of the beit din. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:40:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 18:40:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Psak of a Musmach In-Reply-To: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> References: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <70d0ce58d48443a8a6b7fb558f001745@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From: Daniel Israel via Avodah Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 12:14 PM > It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, > then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying > on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or > her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not > obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don't recall that it is > mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha. Good starting point is first Mishna in horiyot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 14:01:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:01:33 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> References: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2D819FCB-5A0D-497C-8E21-EE99A6A9069A@kolberamah.org> A few points that have been swirling around my head reading through this thread. 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? Let?s concede, for sake of argument, that there are halachically permissible ways for a woman to do much of what communal rabbis actually do in practice. Not everything that is mutar is advisable. I don?t see why we should be embarrassed that community policy is being set by Torah principles which are not purely halachic. And while we are all entitled to our own opinions, community policy must be set by gedolei Torah of a certain stature. I don?t believe any of the Rabbaim who are supporting these ventures, with all due respect to their legitimate scholarship and accomplishments, are among the select few who a significant portion of the Torah world look to for answers to these kinds of questions. They were never among those who set gedarim for the community before they become involved in this issue, and so it should be no surprise that their taking the initiative on this issue is widely not accepted. 2. As far as hora?ah, we are discussing it like there is a clear line: halacha p?sukah and hora?ah. (And some comments make a third distinction, between what a local Rav can pasken, and what requires phone call.) But every case requires some amount of shikul hada?as. Sometimes it is so trivial we don?t notice it (?is this specific package of meat marked ?bacon,' treif??). But there are lots of questions we essentially MUST pasken for ourselves. Things like, ?is my headache painful enough to justify taking asprin on Shabbos??. OTOH, most of the questions we ask a Rav (?is this spoon okay??) aren?t really about shikul hadaas, they are more about his knowing all the relevant sugyos. I.e., they are topics that we could (should?) learn enough to answer for ourselves. Note also that any responsible Rav is continually evaluating which questions he feels capable of answering on his own. Just to be clear, I?m not saying there is no distinction to be made. Given that hora?ah lifnei Rabo is assur, clearly there is such a category. But what it is is not so clear cut. Also, I?m not pointing this out to support Rabbanus for women (although one could formulate such an argument), rather to suggest that hora?ah is not this place this needs to be argued out. 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher.? I think this is a good model. First, I would note that there are definitely still circles which strongly disagree with aspects of the chassidic approach. What has changed is that no one is seriously concerned that it will degenerate into widespread k?firah. (Keep in mind there was precedent. Chassidus arose soon after exactly that happened with regard to the Sabbateans.) That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, much as happened with the Conservative movement. Fifty years from now, if that happens, the question will be answered. If it doesn?t happen, then those who are still opposed may be willing to make their peace with it as part of Orthodoxy, even they don?t themselves hold that way. Given this long term view, perhaps the vehement opposition is an important part of the processes (as it may well have been with regard to chassidus). 4. Related to the prior point, RnIE (I think) suggested that this is less of a big deal in E?Y. And RSS posted a link to an article by Dr. Rachel Levmore that concludes with a list of reasons the situation may be different in E?Y and the US. For myself, WADR to those involved, who I am sure really feel they are acting l?sheim shemayim, I share RMB?s concern that they are aiming at a glass ceiling (extremely well put!). And, consequently, I suspect that there will eventually be a schism with at least some of that camp transforming into a neo-Conservative movement. After reading the above mentioned article by DrRL, perhaps another reason for the difference is that in E?Y these developments are fundamentally a response to a need. That is, there are specific issues having nothing to do with female clergy which are creating a need, and in some natural way it has come out that the best solution is the creation of these new roles for women. Whereas, in the US, the driver seems to be a conviction that there should be some form of female clergy, in and of itself. Which leads to a concern I?ve long had about many issues where people point to historical halachic change to justify contemporary changes. Perhaps certain changes are okay if they happen on their own, but we really shouldn?t be pushing for them to happen. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 14:25:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 17:25:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170608212546.GB25737@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 06:58:57PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam : Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way... But you neither explain 1- If it is a "distortion of history and Halachic : history" to claim that current yoreh-yoreh is an imitation of the elements of true Mosaic semichah that are still meaningful, how and why the Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq the Rama quotes lehalakhah all derive laws of yoreh-yoreh from Mosaic semichah for dayanus? Nor 2- How the CS's claim -- citation would be helpful -- that today's semichah is "merely" an Ashkenazi minhag means that this minhag was not set up to certify who is standing in the shadow of the true Mosaic musmach? Don't we need something explicit from the CS before we can just assume he would not deduce the rules of the minhag from the rules of true semichah. After all, you're setting him up against the precedent of doing just that (in Q #1). See the AhS YD 242:29-30. He explains that contemporary "semichah" is to announce to the nation that (1) he is higi'ah lehora'ah, and (2) his hora'ah is by permission of the ordaining rabbi. (He also requires a community to have a rav ha'ir, and others need the RhI's reshus to pasqen in his town as well.) This is much like what you said the CS says, as well as the Rivash. And the Rivash, which appears from your quote is the CS's source, talks about hora'ah -- just as the AhS does. In any case, I am looking for the Tzitz Eliezer's discussion of Sepharadim and their not accepting the notion of contemporary "semichah". Because IIRC, his discussion about semichah, not higi'ah lehora'ah. Recall, AISI the real question isn't the nature of a semichah, but how can be higi'ah lehora'ah. Semichah is only a good belwether, because it's not meaningful to say yoreh-yoreh to someone who can't give hora'ah with or without that permission. And it's semichah the CS dismisses as minhag; the extra gate can be minhag without changing who is allowed to enter. The discussion of semichah doesn't touch on who can give hora'ah, it is just out one precondition before actually doing so. : Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of : the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the : Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources... I don't know what you mean. Does the Rambam derive halakhah from dayanim musmachim with Mosaic semichah to today's morei hora'ah or not? Does Tosafos? Do they not take it for granted that the laws are consistent between the two, without which those derivations would not work? What exactly is your other understanding? (To reword Q #1.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 19:36:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:36:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will bow out. A few details: I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look up the underlying sources to be sure. The article is in Or HaMizrach 44 a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski(I hope the transliteration does him justice). There are other sources on the the Halachic/ historical aspects of semicha including one by R. Breuer in the journal Tziyon. and many others. I do not have time to find and read them all, but I think the point is clear in the article cited above. In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may explain my difficulty in finding it. I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot both of which are not applicable(or have not been applied) to modern semicha. So it is a stretch to state that this Rambam implies anything about current Hora'ah or semichah. I have not found any specific statements that a woman is not qualified to reach the state of 'hegiah l'hora'ah', and certainly not in the modern(non-Mosaic) context. I am not arguing that some of the sources cant be read to come to this conclusion, but it seems to be a novel halachic statement(similar to the OU rabbis making a new halachic category of "stuff that a shul rabbi does") and the only characteristic is that women are forbidden from it. I suggest that if someone on the left had made a similar claim, they would be accused of pretzeling the Halacha to support a pre-existing mahalach. I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable understanding of the Halacha. And perhaps even that those who oppose are the ones who are trying to find arguments when a fair reading of the sources indicate that there really is none specifically applicable to the issue at hand. Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical Ethics on the topic of triage. thanks Noam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 20:55:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 05:55:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Cherlow's Post Message-ID: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> https://www.facebook.com/RabbiCherlow/posts/1442987509096046 In response to a question regarding a psak that supposedly allows women to recite Sheva Brachot and an accusation that certain rabbis are distorting the halacha because of feminism, Rav Cherlow wrote a response. I am summarizing a few points. Full text is in the link above.. Introduction: Your words are a perfect example of how someone can break the Torah's most serious commandments and yet act as if he is a yirei shamayim. 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah. 2) Never mock rabbis (or anyone) because you disagree with their opinions. Mocking people publicly is one of the most serious aveirot. 3) Never use a nickname for others, in this case "Dati Light". 4) Always be careful about generalizing. 5) Never accuse someone of being guilty of what you assume to be their hidden motivations. You don't know and accusing someone violates "M'devar sheker tirchaq". More importantly, you're assuming that you're a tzaddiq and don't have an agenda. 6) Never use a group name to mock someone. The Torah world owes feminism a great debt for things its done (Talmud Torah for women, leading the fight against sexual harassment, etc) along with strong criticism for other things done in its name. 7) Always try and live according to Halacha as it is written. Don't have other gods, like opposition to chiddushim. 8) Bring halachic arguments to halachic discussions. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 02:15:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:15:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: On 6/8/2017 9:28 PM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah > > wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. > > An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. > Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos > chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. > Where is there any issur on taking revenge? Against fellow Jews, yes, of course. But generally? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 04:21:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:21:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Cherlow's Post In-Reply-To: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> References: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <9f3eaf48-0c03-fc88-cc90-e84a27b77ea9@sero.name> On 08/06/17 23:55, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in > Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to > do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you > guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah. And yet in this case the newspaper seems to have got it right, and R Cherlow's correspondent simply hadn't bothered to read it before fulminating. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:06:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:06:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption Message-ID: Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it. Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time before they went into exile was simply waiting time? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 07:32:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 17:32:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern > day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? Who says it was? > What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin > (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah > tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work > to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It > doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it. Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite. But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. I don't think their much more lengthy exile was a punishment. I think it was simply necessary. Had they rejoined us, by which I mean all of them, and not just those who Jeremiah brought back, and we had been exiled as a single nation, things would have been different. But viewing themselves as a separate nation from us, how would you envision things having worked in the ancient world? I don't think it would have been significantly different from what happened with us and the Samaritans. In fact, the Samaritans called themselves Israelites; not Samaritans. (That's the root of the mistake in the Christian "good Samaritan" story, btw.) > Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time > before they went into exile was simply waiting time? Not at all. Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 07:50:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:50:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 09/06/17 11:06, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern > day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? Assuming that it was, and that Yirmiyahu didn't bring them back. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:20:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:20:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <019f7de8-108b-d533-3e11-4556470c1c43@sero.name> On 08/06/17 22:36, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is > that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the > time of the Gemara. I think that is obvious, and it didn't occur to me that this could be what R Micha was referring to. I thought there must be some other Rambam, perhaps a teshuvah, where he discusses "modern" semicha to whatever extent such a thing even existed in his day and place. BTW I have seen it suggested that the original semicha was kept alive at the yeshivah in Damascus (they would cross into the borders of EY to confer it) until it was destroyed in the 2nd Crusade, which, if true, would mean there may still have been living musmachim in the Rambam's day. > Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. > That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar > statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical > Ethics on the topic of triage. But that article doesn't support the claim you made, that there exist poskim -- and in fact that it is the unanimous position of MO poskim -- that this halacha is no longer operative. The article cites sources relevant to the entire topic of triage, in all circumstances, including the mishneh and gemara in Horiyos, and I didn't see any suggestion that they are less authoritative or applicable today than they ever were. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:00:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1af6febd-3d16-f901-472d-92f0a5cd66e7@sero.name> Another idea: To expect a redeemer from the House of David one must first subject oneself to that House. Those who reject its sovereignty can't (by definition) expect one of its members to save them, so on being exiled they would naturally assume that this would be their new home and these their new neighbors, with whom they must assimilate. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 11:08:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 05:32:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: :> Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any :> modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? : Who says it was? First, I think we concluded among ourselves that the 10 lost tribes are really 9+1 lost tribes, with Shim'on, living in Malkhus Yisrael, being a separate case. With, perhaps, it's own spiritual malais. They lived amongst sheivet Yehudah; is it likely their culture was more like Yisrael than their own neighbors? With that tangent out of the way... It's a machloqes tannaim in Sanhedrin 10:3 (110b), no? "The 10 shevatim are not destined to return, 'Vayashlikheim el eretz achares kayom hazah' (Devarim 29) [derashah elided]... divrei R' Aqiva. "R' Eliezer omer: [his own derashah] ... even as the 10 shevatim went through the darkening, so too it will grow light for them. The gemara's discussion focuses on the previous part of the mishnah's machloqs -- their olam haba. But Rebbe says they do have olam haba and seems to be implying that the kaparah is total -- so they will return to EY. The Sifra (Bechuqosai 8:1) has R' Aqiva saying they won't return, but based on (Vayiqra 26:38), "vavadtem bagoyim..." And it has R' Meir as the one disagreeing with R' Aqiva. In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman, we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim. Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. R' Chaim Brisker uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. Which R' Aharon Lichtenstein uses as a snif not to support giving them Israeli citizenship in "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity." :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:19:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:19:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema Message-ID: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in the famous midrash about Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry halacha guide demands that they be sourced? Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 09:39:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:39:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170609163954.GA24832@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:36:08PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will : bow out. A shame, as we went in circles on one issue and didn't touch the others. Including my assertion that the Chinuch (142) speaks "ishah chokhmah hare'uyah lelhoros" and "assur lo leshanos letalmidav" -- whether someone who has the skills to give hora'ah shouldn't be teaching when drunk. No mention of hora'ah, but ra'ui lehora'ah and teaching. Because, he explains, their teaching will be accepted by those who look up to them, as if it were hora'ah. Similarly the Chida (Birkei Yoseif, CM se'if 7:12) rules out ordaning women, following the example of Devorah. People can voluntarily listen to Devorah (or, it would seem, to a yo'etzes), but she cannot be appointed a rabbi nor ordained as one because her opinion could not be imposed. Picture the town hiring a rabbi that any chazan can say, "Well, I don't follow him" and therefore can break from the shul's norm, or even "I don't follow him on this one." But more to the point, following the Chinukh (who is cited), he says "deDevorah haysah melamedes lahem dinim." R' Baqshi Doron mentions this problem in his letter, which RGS has scanned at http://www.torahmusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Rav-Bakshi-Doron-on-Women-Rabbis.pdf#page=2 REBD concludes that because of this, women should not be tested or given semichah, as that would be an appointment rather than voluntary acceptance of a particular teaching. And, while the Chida (and thus REBD) says "ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah", he is defining this as teaching law, not interpresting law -- nidon didan. Which is consistent with the Chinukh the Chida is building on. Nor did we get to my non black-letter-halakhah concerns. Including my concern that the whole project reflects a misrepresentation of Judaism's demands by thinking that anything that can fit the black letter of the law is in compliance with the Torah. That there is none of the more nebulous side of the law; an obligation to pursue a given value system and ethic. The fact that "Mesorah" is dismissed as political rather than a real Torah issue is to my mind a blunder; and your disinterest in discussing this aspect actually hightened those concerns. Nor the question of telling women that they are correct to seek value in a manner that has a glass cieling for them. Nor the question of whether a woman belongs in shul service, or whether it was designed to be a Men's Club. And if not designed, whether its function as a Men's Club is too useful to be sacrificed. As one example, but not the whole problem: Will male attendance lessen if we lose that character; will Tue, Wed and Fri (workdays with no leining) Shacharis attendance among O men go the way of Shabbat attendance among their C counterparts? But on, the topic we did discuss... : I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing : certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look : up the underlying sources to be sure. The article is in Or HaMizrach 44 : a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski... But having a reference in the CS itself would have been more ... : In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of : the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may : explain my difficulty in finding it. It's the Rama who says 113. (It's either that the copy in OhC is idiosyncratic, or, the OU copied a typo in the Rama and didn't check. I know that's what I did.) : I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he : is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the : Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz : Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot ... Limnos ledavarim yechidim is not always to be a dayan. One can get reshus lehoros be'issur veheter or lir'os kesamim but not ladun. It's the same process as geting reshus ladun or ladun dinei kenasos, or... Do you think "lir'os kesamim" was ever limited to dayanim? The fact that the Rambam treats reshus lit'os kesamim and reshus ladun as one topic that's the whole point! (And that addresses Zev's recent post, which I approved while this one was sitting around mid-edit.) Now that you found the Mahariq that the Rama se'if 6 says he bases himself on, I would have like to have heard if you disagree that he too is treating the rules for yoreh-yoreh and the rules for Mosaiq semichah as one topic. And Tosafos? : I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the : discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very : least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of : women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable : understanding of the Halacha... I haven't heard a complete defense, but I didn't see at all a positive case for. After all, the burden of proof is on the innovator. We didn't touch the whole conversation of proving that the innovation is positive enough *in Torah values* to justify settling for just what could be read as a not 'beyond the pale' understanding. On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 03:01:33PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? ... : 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My : example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were : huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are : today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher." ... : That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two : camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that : this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically : okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, : much as happened with the Conservative movement... My own concern is (as Avodah long-timers should expect) more meta. Why is the only quesiton that of black-letter halakhah? Why the ignoring of -- what do I call it, "gray-letter halakhah"? -- laws that don't codify cleanly, that require a feel for what seems in line with the Torah, that which RHS calls "Mesorah"? (Although "mesorah" has become an ill-defined concept, including both Torah-culture values and mimetic practice. For that matter, I find that R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's use of "mimeticism" also blurs both, as both are transmitted culturally.) To me, that's a critical meta-innovation that warrants asking if we're still all playing by (evolving our practice with) the same rules. I am not worried about a slippery slope to C. To my mind, that's worrying about when the problem, if there is one, becomes symptomatic. To me the question is whether procedurally, the process R/D NS is defending is already unlike the rest of O IN A DEFINITIONAL WAY. After all, once you define MO to include an openness to modern values, following the Torah becomes just using the halakhah as a test -- can this new idea fit black-letter law or do we have to do without? But also our test itself changes. Deciding which shitah to follow depends in part on our priorities, and in LWMO, those modern values also define the priorities. As R/Dr Stadlan put it: : ... I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very : least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of : women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable : understanding of the Halacha... Thinking something is okay to do as long as one can find understandings of shitos that can combine to show the idea is plausible and not "beyond the pale" is to my mind itself beyond the pale. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 12:07:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:07:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> On 09/06/17 11:19, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in the famous midrash about > Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem > Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a > source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry > halacha guide demands that they be sourced? > > Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice? I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. When we say the Rambam doesn't give his sources, we mean that he doesn't tell us where in the gemara he derives the halachos. He doesn't expect his audience to be familiar with the gemara, and he's not interested in convincing those who are, or in defending himself to them. But he always gives the pasuk where a mitzvah or halacha is stated, or tells us that it comes "mipi hashmuah", or was instituted by chazal or by the geonim. When he gives a psak which doesn't come directly from the gemara he says "ken horu hage'onim", "ken horu rabosai", or "ken nir'a li". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 12:51:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:51:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> On 09/06/17 14:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman, > we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim. Only if he's from the countries where they were taken. > Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his > day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact; the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. As for the men's descendants by nochriyos, according to the first lashon Shmuel derived from the pasuk that they're nochrim, and according to the second lashon it's a halacha pesukah ("lo zazu misham"). But according to either lashon the problem of the women was solved. Also, there's no "by his day". Either the problem was solved within one generation, or it was never solved at all. Not by his day. By at latest the 2nd BHMK. Either Yirmiyahu brought them back, so they're not there any more, or the first generation had no children so they died out then and there, or the Sanhedrin decreed them to be goyim. > R' Chaim Brisker Where is this R Chaim? > uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not > halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. On what basis? Unlike the ten tribes' descendants, these children exist. How can they not be Jewish? Even if you want to say the second lashon applies to both the men and women, and it means they lost their Jewish status, this was not a gezera, it was derived from a pasuk, that Hashem took away their Jewish status, so in the absence of any pasuk about other people how can it be extended? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:03:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:03:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >In Yevamos... : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. : : Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke; he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...") : the : women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there : never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. That's Ravina. Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu". Which is inconsistent with Ravina. Whom I forgot about entirely. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 11:31:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:31:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check In-Reply-To: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 01:14:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is : needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without : knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled : the commandment to wear tfillin... : Two questions: : 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha : by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status) : appropriate? We're discussed variants of this question before. Usually WRT whether a person in the same situation buit with their mezuzah will get less shemirah. My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was really cheilev. And if that is true of cheilev and timtum haleiv, why not the protection of mezuzah or the effects of wearing tefillin? But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely, are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome. And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... If someone is doing everything they're supposed to, and we're not talking about the teva necessary to allow for human planning, then why wouldn't Hashem just give a person as per their deeds. Why have a whole metaphysical causality if it doesn't aid bechirah, nor Din, nor Rachamim? .... : BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has : changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan : checking be appropriate? I take this as evidence of the "Litvisher" answer. If it were really a problem, why wouldn't halakhah reflect a greater need to check? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:33:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:33:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 12:15:04PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos : >chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. : Where is there any issur on taking revenge? Against fellow Jews, : yes, of course. But generally? "Revenge is bad" is not the same as "revenge is assur". The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim. In which case, he would hold that only lo siqom would hold for them, whereas only lo sitor would apply to a yisra'el chotei. But Shabbos is coming, so I can't check about "chaveirim". But in any case, the notion that hene'elavim ve'inam olevim shome'im cherpasam ve'einam mashivim, aleihem hakasuv omeir, "ve'ohavav ketzeir hashemesh bigvuraso" (Shabbos 88b) has nothing to do with who the counterparty is. Not a chiyuv or issur in and of itself. But the person who doesn't take offense nor act on taking offense is among "ohavav". Similarly, the Rambam (ibid) talks about lo siqom in terms of "ma'avir al midosav al kol divrei ha'olam", not just offenses by chaveirim. This appears to be included in his "dei'ah ra'ah hi ad me'od". :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:26:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check In-Reply-To: <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> References: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <781fc94e-241d-e738-5060-522eeeb4f325@sero.name> On 09/06/17 14:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When > something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell > the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about > the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was > really cheilev. But if it's nisbarer afterwards that it really was chelev the kelim need to be kashered. Ditto if it's nisbarer after someone toveled that the mikveh was pasul all the taharos he touched since then are retroactively tamei. In fact if a mikveh is found to have been pasul all the taharos touched by all the people who used it since it was last known to be kosher are retroactively tamei. > But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely, > are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk > to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the > case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome. That's not a mystical position, it's a plain rational Litvisher position on risk assessment. > And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... Now *there's* mysticism! To a Litvak that shouldn't be a consideration. The din is the din, and it's not up to us to justify it. But IIRC you never deal with the explicit gemara about mikvaos. A gemara that explicitly distinguishes the case of kohanim who were found to be pesulim from *every other case* in the Torah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:40:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:40:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <81e3d31e-aa58-5f1a-fefb-bdc0297298a2@sero.name> On 09/06/17 16:03, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : >In Yevamos... > : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his > : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. > : > : Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact > > "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke; > he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the > issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...") No, he wasn't. Lo zazu misham has no connection to finding a solution to any problem, and there's no indication that "they" were even thinking of this problem. It's simply a statement that it was agreed upon by all that the pasuk makes the ten tribes (or at least their men) nochrim. No connection to any practical problem. > : the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there > : never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. > > That's Ravina. No, it isn't. It's Shmuel himself, answering why the womens' descendants are not a problem -- they didn't have any. Ravina is the one who says the halacha we all know, that the child of a nochri and a Yisre'elis is a Yisrael. > Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu". > Which is inconsistent with Ravina. It's irrelevant to Ravina, because in this lashon he isn't citing the general halacha about the child of a Yisrael and a nochris being a nochri, but instead says those children (of the men with nochriyos) were ruled to be nochrim from the pasuk. The women's children still aren't a problem, because there weren't any. But even if you say that according to the second lashon Shmuel didn't say the women were sterile, and he meant the pasuk to apply to both the men and the women, still it's specifically about them, not meshumadim in general. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:51:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:51:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: > The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any > Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different objects. > I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only > those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim. I don't believe so. The only non-Jewish "chaverim" I can think of are the sect that ruled in Persia in the Amoraim's times -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 15:36:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 18:36:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not > Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, > but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min > ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world. Me'am Lo'ez (R' Aryeh Kaplan's The Torah Anthology, pg 293) explains: "You must realize that your brother is suffering very much because he has no place to go. If his soul comes to heaven, it will be all alone, since no one else is here. If it comes down to earth, it feels great anguish when it sees its body's blood spilled on rocks and stones." > Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source? > And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because > Kel Nekamos Hashem. I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples, but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than "yikom". In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean it's appropriate for us. RZS continues in another post: > But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an > issur on doing so against your own people, because you are > commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want > revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in > itself does not come from any Jewish source. Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 14:07:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:07:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> Message-ID: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other places. I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? This one stands out. On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and > sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the > previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons > for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third > parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha > four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 14:16:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:16:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' AM wrote: 'Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor" regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this "needed" comfort from someone else.' Halachos of contact between husband and wife are more strict than with strangers, vis all the harchakos during nidda which are unique to a spouse, due to the familiarity of pas b'salo. So I wouldn't be as surprised. Although just to return my theme for a moment, If I'm right then the act is one of outright mitzva, probably including kiddush hashem. If I'm wrong, then the act is one of aveira lishma. Now I realise that we don't hold with aveira lishma these days, but when the overall cheshbon is as stated, I think I'd be willing to chance it. Especially when you add the possibility, as R'MB mentioned, that if you don't do it you're a chasid shoteh. Because then the cheshbon becomes tzadik or chasid shoteh for not doing it vs big mitzva or aveira lishma for doing it. Given that in any given circumstance we wouldn't be able to be clear about which of these would apply, I think the worst of those four options is probably the chasid shoteh. If this was on Areivim I'd sign off with :) Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 19:04:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:04:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170611020429.GA20848@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: : >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any : >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. : : Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase : with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei : amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different : objects. See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. Gut Voch! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 20:45:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:45:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <720f24ed-7e17-74ae-afc7-3e7d2a0f3a7b@sero.name> On 10/06/17 17:07, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and >> sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the >> previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons >> for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third >> parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha >> four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. > Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the > Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other > places. > > I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he > often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat > haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? > This one stands out. He has to give the source, explain why we do this, and he uses as few words as he needs to. He says mesorah hi beyadeinu; what else could he say? How could he express that any more concisely? BTW he cites medrash all the time; that's where halachos come from, after all. But here he doesn't mention any medrash, just this mesorah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 22:39:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 07:39:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Who says it was? As was stated in other posts on this thread, it is a machloqet in the Gemara if they will or won't come back. That more or less proves my point - their return, if it happens will be something completely different than what happened with the rest of the tribes. Even if we take the claims of various people claiming to be descendants seriously, they still have to convert. Their return will be tipot-tipot, individuals, that have to be re-integrated and not whole groups. > > Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of > assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where > they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite. But > even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . . Not at all. > Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were people from the > northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first > posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two separate exilic > populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our exile to have ended successfully? The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, it doesn't speak well of our history. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 23:54:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 09:54:49 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03c78b43-410c-30ec-c2bf-33691b72f348@starways.net> On 6/10/2017 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > > R' Zev Sero wrote: > >> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because >> Kel Nekamos Hashem. > I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. > Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is > intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. You're mistaken about the Hebrew. Yikom is not "uphold". That would be yakim. Yikom has a dagesh in the quf because of the dropped nun. There is literally no question whatsoever that Hashem yikom damo means may God avenge his blood. > It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples, > but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an > experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh > apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem > mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 > hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both > numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than > "yikom". Yinkom is a mistake. Just like the future of nosei'a is yisa and the future of nofel is yipol, the future of nokem is yikom. > In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean > it's appropriate for us. Consider Bamidbar 31. In the second verse, Hashem tells Moshe: Nekom nikmat bnei Yisrael me-ha-Midyanim. Take the vengeance of Israel against the Midianites. In the next verse, Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael latet nikmat Hashem b'Midyan. To take the vengeance of Hashem against the Midianites. Moshe isn't arguing with Hashem here. When we take vengeance upon our enemies, it *is* Hashem's vengeance. I recommend that you watch the video of Rabbi David Bar Hayim debating Jonathan Rosenblum at the Israel Center back in 1991 (I think). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYefNy1D0DY They both bring sources for their arguments on the subject, and rather than repeat all of them here, have a look. > RZS continues in another post: > >> But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an >> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are >> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want >> revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in >> itself does not come from any Jewish source. > Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo > sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) It doesn't just say lo tikom v'lo titor. It says lo tikom v'lo titor *et bnei amecha*. Do not take vengeance or hold a grudge *against* your own people. Detaching the first part of that from its object is unjustifiable. It would be like taking lo tochal chametz, dropping the object, and saying that we're forbidden to eat. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 02:02:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:02:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. > Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is > intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. > "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will avenge". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 20:40:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:40:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68dacd1f-f6c7-8792-daad-b5b21531f3bc@sero.name> On 09/06/17 18:36, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not >> Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, >> but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min >> ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. > Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in > pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world. Interesting, I'd never heard that. But in that case why "eilai"? That implies wanting something from Me. >> Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. > I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source? Yismach Tzadik ki chaza nakam, pe`amav yirchatz bedam harasha. When Chushim knocked Esav's head off, his eyes fell onto Yaakov's feet and Yaakov sat up and smiled. >> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because >> Kel Nekamos Hashem. > I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. Yikkom does *not* mean uphold, it means avenge. There's no such word as "yinkom"; the nun disappears into the kuf and becomes a dagesh. Perhaps you are thinking of yakim. > experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh > apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem > mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 > hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both > numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than > "yikom". For a non-existent word that's pretty good. I'm relieved that it doesn't outnumber the correct word :-) > In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean > it's appropriate for us. It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not something to be ashamed of. >> But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an >> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are >> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want >> revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in >> itself does not come from any Jewish source. > Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo > sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) Es benei amecha. [Email #2. -micha] On 10/06/17 22:04, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: >: >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any >: >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase >: with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different >: objects. > See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. > This doesn't answer the question. Lo sikom has the same subject as lo sitor. It's not even the identical object, it's literally the *same* object. So how can we pry them apart? Beside which, if netira is forbidden against a Jewish non-chaver, then how is nekama against him even possible? Netira would seem to be a necessary prerequisite for nekama (which is why the pasuk lists them as lo zu af zu). [Email #3 -mi] On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" > (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will > avenge". Is yinkom even a valid form? AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that have it in Av Harachamim are in error. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 09:11:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:11:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <83aef0cf-edbb-3ac8-3727-cc086f348ffa@sero.name> References: <83aef0cf-edbb-3ac8-3727-cc086f348ffa@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > >> >> "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" >> (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will >> avenge". >> > > Is yinkom even a valid form? AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that > have it in Av Harachamim are in error. > > It's irregular, but I would hesitate to say it's a mistake: there are a few exceptions to the rule that the initial nun assimilates, e.g. yintor in Yirmiahu 3:5; yinkofu in Yeshayahu 29:1; or tintz'reni in Tehillim 140:2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 11:29:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <2f8fdb3a-11ac-11d2-eea8-d064a7265bda@sero.name> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> <20170611020429.GA20848@aishdas.org> <2f8fdb3a-11ac-11d2-eea8-d064a7265bda@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170611182926.GA20138@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:56:06PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase : >: with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei : >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different : >: objects. : : >See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. : > : : This doesn't answer the question... But you didn't ask the question. You asserted that what I said was "not true". Since the Maharshal and Avodas haMelekh said it, and I don't know of a dissenting interpreter of the Rambam, I would assume it is indeed true. This was a bit of a hasty judgement on your part. But you said a great question, and worth exploring. Doesn't change that the Rambam apparently does hold what I said he did: > The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any > Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 12:32:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 22:32:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> References: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 6/11/2017 8:39 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of >> assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point >> where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were >> Israelite. But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . >> . Not at all. Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were >> people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards >> that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two >> separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been >> disastrous in very many ways. > That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our > exile to have ended successfully? Why harsh? Causes have effects. > The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of > (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them > (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal > with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this > feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, > it doesn't speak well of our history. Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind. And we don't gloat over their downfall. Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, which they were. And what kind of attempts would you have wanted? Jeremiah brought some of them back. I'm sure others joined us in Bavel after we were exiled. But their exile was their own doing. Though it affected us as well. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 16:18:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:18:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170611231815.GA29585@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:32:22PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind. And we don't gloat over : their downfall. Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, : which they were. (Quibbling about the orogin of the word "Jews" and whether or not Malkhus Yisrael and their descendents qualify aside. We all know we mean "Benei Yisrael", right?) Actually, one of the topics raised was whether the descendents of Malkhus Yisrael exist, bdyond the refugees absorbed into Malkhus Yehudah. And if they do, R Chaim Brisker takes the gemara as concluding the descendents are not part of the community of Beris Sinai. Yes, but in either case, as we cited numerous source showing in the past, "binfol" is not only about the fall of fellow Jews... Which I then collected into a blog post : The most common reason we pass around [for spilling wine at the mention of the makkos at the seder], however, is that we're diminishing our joy out of compassion for the suffering of other human beings, even the Egyptians. This reason is relatively new, but it is found in such authoritative locations as the hagaddah of R' SZ Aurbach and appears as a "yeish lomar" (it could be said) in that of R Elyashiv (pg 106, "dam va'eish").... ... The Pesiqta deRav Kahane (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a) gives us a different reason [for chatzi hallel (CH) during the latter days of Pesach]. It tells the story of the angels singing/reciting poetry at the crossing of the Red Sea... ... This is midrash is quoted by the Midrash Harninu and the Yalqut Shim'oni (the Perishah points you to Parashas Emor, remez 566). The Midrash Harninu or the Shibolei haLeqet ... The Beis Yoseif (O"Ch 490:4, "Kol") cited the gemara, then quotes the Shibolei haLeqet as a second reason... Sources from RAZZivitofsky (same blog post): The Taz gives this diminution of joy as the reason for CH on the 7th day (OC 490:3), as does the Chavos Ya'ir (225). The Kaf haChaim (O"Ch 685:29) brings down the Yafeh haLeiv (3:3) use this midrash to establish the idea that we mourn the downfall of our enemy in order to explain why there is no berakhah on Parashas Zakhor (remembering the requirement to destroy Amaleiq). Amaleiq! R' Aharon Kotler (Mishnas R' Aharon vol III pg 3) ... Then I listed others' suddestions here: ... R' Jacob Farkas found the Meshekh Chokhmah ... R' Dov Kay points us to the Netziv's intro to HaEimeq Davar... (Since we're going from Maharat was to ethics wars, might as well play the game to its fullest...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 16:27:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:27:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170611232725.GB29585@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 06:36:45PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" : actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is : often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. : Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is : intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. : Hashem yiqqom damam does indeed refer to revenge. : In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean : it's appropriate for us. Keil neqamos H'. (A little obvious this discussion didn't span a Wed yet.) But the whole point, to my mind, for sayibng HYD is a longing to see Divine Justice in the world. HYD undoes the chilul hasheim of the wicked prospering. Hinasei shofit ha'atzetz... Ad masair recha'im ya'alozu... If we were to take neqamah (qua neqamah; pre-empting a repeat attack is a different thing) we rob most of the possibility of that happening. Even the Six Day War gave people the opportunity to say it was luck or human skill -- "Kol haKavod laTzahal" Implied in HYD is that revenge is G-d's, not ours, to take. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 19:49:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 22:49:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . When I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong. I was wrong, and I thank all the chevreh who pointed out my error. "Yikom" does mean to avenge. Thank you all. But the main question is our attitude towards revenge in general. R' Zev Sero wrote: > It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not > something to be ashamed of. He seems to feel that there's nothing wrong with wanting to take revenge in general, except that we're not allowed to do it if the object of the revenge is a fellow Jew. I suppose he might compare vengeance to eating meat: right and proper in general, but sometimes forbidden. (Pork in the case of meat, and Jews in the case of revenge.) Exactly *why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew? RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct source. But either way... I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be in the "Ribis" category. There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a non-Jew.) Setting Nekama aside for a moment, does anyone know of a source which goes through the various Bein Adam L'chaveiros, and categorizes them in that manner? (I can easily imagine that most people would avoid publishing such a list, to avoid supplying the anti-Semites with ammunition, but I figured I'd ask.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 20:07:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 20:07:35 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists Message-ID: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into hashem's business. And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the future even though they were right. One surmises he would not have been surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land... Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 22:57:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:57:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> References: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9b2f0d53-8794-4b0d-43b7-3bb0ee4d6e3c@zahav.net.il> On 6/6/2017 8:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW. > > Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'" > (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL > Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not! However one defines the Chareidi opposition to Zionism and Zionists, the former wrote book after book justifying it and explaining why Zionism is so awful and why it is so wrong to participate in the Zionist enterprise. It is still going on today. Back in the 20s, people used extremely strong language about Rav Kook, language which was much worse than anything used today, not to mention what the Satmar Rebbe wrote about RK. > There are two possible sources of division here. > > 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were > only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My > predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply > de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators, > and therefore in practice will be a separate community. Here I have a couple of questions. 1) Like my wife always tells me, if someone is triggered by something he has to ask himself why. I know people who would walk out of shul if a woman gave the dvar Torah on Friday night. Yet the same people are perfectly OK having a Rosh Hashana tefilla that incorporates a lot of Sefardi piyuttim. Completely different prayers, tunes, flavor. But in order to have an experience of "b'yachad" we do it. 2) What what exactly would change? Does one see more women in shuls that have a maharat? Do the maharats come to Tuesday afternoon Mincha? If they do they're behind the mechitza, yes? What changes are people talking about? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 03:09:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 06:09:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:49:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" : only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of : morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be : in the "Ribis" category. : : There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even : to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed : against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. : (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a : non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I : admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B : or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, : things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a : non-Jew.) IOW: (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited. (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition when you do them against your sibling. (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito neshekh vesarbit". As for neqamah, I argued from quotes like kol hama'avir al midosav and ne'elavim ve'eino olvin that it's in (B). I would add now that this is implied by the Rambam's inclusion of these two issurim (lo siqom velo sitor) in Hil' Dei'os p' 7 that he is considering the middah bad, not only the act wrong. Interesting to note, the Rambam puts them after LH. Also, I noted that the only commentaries on the Rambam that I could find that discuss his change in terminology between Dei'os 7:7 and 7:8 explain that he is prohibiting neqamah against all chaveirim but netirah "mei'echad meYisrael". Meaning you now need a B' and C' where the category is only observant Jews. (And I still have a nagging recollection that the Rambam's "chaveirim" in general includes geirei toshav and other observant Noachides.) And neqamah is in one of those. So, (B'). How you get such a distinction in two issurim that are written in the pasuq as verbs sharing the same object is a good one. But the Avodas haMelekh says that the Maharshal reaches the same conclusion in his commentary to the Semag, and I see the Semag uses the same difference in nouns. Lav #11 - "[Lo siqom.] Hanoqeim al chaveiro". #12 - "Kol hanoteir le'echad miYisrael". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 03:53:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:53:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> References: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> On 6/13/2017 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > IOW: > > (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited. > > (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition > when you do them against your sibling. > > (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family > nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito > neshekh vesarbit". I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews. Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 04:37:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal > judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C (Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 04:33:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:33:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> References: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170613113340.GA11269@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:53:18PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: ... : >(B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition : >when you do them against your sibling. ... : : I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an : outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly : doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against : non-Jews. Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal : judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. But there are things that are morally wrong and yet not prohibited. "Stretch goals" like the Rambam's take on ego and anger in Dei'os pereq 2, the Ramban's "hatov vehayashar". Here, the gemara talks about (1) a ma'avir al midosav, (2) taking insult and not responding, it even says (3) a tzadiq is one who never takes revenge -- which, if it were about neqamah when assur, would be heaping overly high praise on someone for just keeping the din. So, two or three times that I am aware of, the gemara talks positively of the middos that would avoid ever taking revenge. It seems neqamah in particular is a moral wrong even when the black-letter halakhah allows the act. The Torah does manage to relay to us goals beyond those it prohibit or demand in black-letter halakhah. (Something Chassidus and Mussar were each founded on...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 06:44:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:44:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] restaurants Message-ID: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From the OU: Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example, one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility. Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food. Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based? For example, in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in a treif restaurant, what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % threshold for concern? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 07:16:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 10:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6388500a-9329-9367-9de2-e75ed55d6022@sero.name> On 12/06/17 22:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Exactly*why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew? > RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that > "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct > source. But either way... It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. > There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even > to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed > against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh *re`ehu* basater". > (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a > non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I > admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B > or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, > things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a > non-Jew.) Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 19:11:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shelach Message-ID: " We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." (Numbers 13:32-33). One of the greatest teachers of Torah of our age, Nechama Leibowitz, zt'l, in one of her essays on this parsha, asks an important question: how did the spies know what the "giants" thought of them? If they really were giant beings, then one could understand the feeling that "we seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes," but how did they know if the "giants" even noticed them? Unfortunately, although Nechama Leibowitz posed this great question, she didn't give any hint as to an answer. The following is a Midrash in which God rebukes the spies: "I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11). On the other hand, Rashi says that the spies reported overhearing the giants talking to one another, saying that "there are ants in the vineyard that resemble human beings.? (Rashi is also quoting an ancient midrash from the Talmud). Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities and an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties. Harry S Truman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 09:10:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:10:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/13/2017 2:37 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R"n Lisa Liel wrote: >> Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal >> judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. > My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category > A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C > (Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)? I would have to say that, by definition, if it's permissible to speak LH against non-Jews, it isn't immoral. But of course there are numerous subcategories of LH, and it'd be interesting to see if all of them are mutar against non-Jews, and if so, why? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 10:49:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:49:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shelach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170613174946.GA24674@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 10:11:31PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The following is a Midrash in which God rebukes the spies: : "I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to : ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to : them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? : Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11). ... : Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear : not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies : but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon : His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, : and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). Good -- is the yeitzer hatov, *very* good -- is the yeitzer hara. But in any case, the spies are an imperfect example, because they had G-d's promise that this specific mission would succeed. We don't have such reason to be optimistic. Related: I wonder if the difference between Chassidic or the Alter of Novhardok's view of bitchon is related to history. The AoN said that sufficient bitachon generates success, to the extent that he felt that being a "baal bitachon is an objective reality provable by experience and he signed his name with a B"B without fear of it being bragging. The CI's view is that bitachon is not prognostic, but the attitude that everything is happening according to Hashem's plan. I may fail and suffer, ch"v, but knowing it is all for a purpose makes it easier to cope. The history that I think divides them -- the CI's Emunah uBitachon was written in the shadow of the Holocaust. (It was published in 1954, a year after the CI's passing.) Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:57:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:57:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists In-Reply-To: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> References: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> Or they were part of a self fulling prophecy. Instead of going in confident in themselves and in God's ways, they chose to second guess God. The Bnei Yisrael who had actually seen Yitziat Mitzrayim would have gone into Israel. Instead a weakened Bnei Yisrael went in and almost immediately got trapped in the lure of the local idol worship. Ben On 6/13/2017 5:07 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into hashem's business. And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the future even though they were right. One surmises he would not have been surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:53:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:53:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Does it make a difference that the woman in the hypothetical scenario is - unfortunately - no longer an eishet ish, and presumably at her stage of life also not a niddah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:22:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:22:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. Can one enter a non-kosher establishment to buy a can of soda or use the bathroom? Message-ID: <1497385351309.31544@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. Can one enter a non-kosher establishment to buy a can of soda or use the bathroom? A. Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example, one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility. Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 18:09:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:09:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists In-Reply-To: <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> References: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170614010904.GA6321@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:57:19PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Or they were part of a self fulling prophecy. Instead of going in : confident in themselves and in God's ways, they chose to second : guess God. The Bnei Yisrael who had actually seen Yitziat Mitzrayim : would have gone into Israel... Or not. After all, Hashem didn't pick that generation for a reason. Apparently they didn't just sin, but they sinned in a way that made working with them a bad idea. And even before that Vayehi beshalach Par'oh es ha'am velo nacham E-lokim derekh Eretz Pelishtim ki qarov hu, ki amar E-lokim, "Pen yinacheim ha'am bir'osam milchamah veshavu Mitzrayim" Remember, they were also stuck with a slave mentality. But I agree with your point, about the self-fulfilling prophecy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 18:33:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:33:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special > consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah > of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not > hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend > him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip > about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. I would think that killing and stealing are in this category too. But you would then point to the phrase "special consideration". In other words, there is a particular shiur of consideration. Some actions are below that shiur; they are so basic that they apply even to non-Jews. And other actions are above that shiur; it is "special" consideration that we extend to family, but not to outsiders. I would accept such a response, but it isn't very helpful. Exactly what is that shiur? Where do we put the line? I have always thought that *all* these things are basic menschlichkeit, and apply to everyone, Jewish or not. > Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? > The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh > *re`ehu* basater". That's just two pesukim. Sefer Chofetz Chayim brings a lot more than that - 31 if I remember correctly. Granted that one doesn't violate these particular mitzvos if the object of the Lashon Hara isn't Jewish. But the others aren't so simple. At the very least, you're gambling that the Lashon Hara will remain secret and not result in a Chilul Hashem. > Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. True. I have always thought of ribis in a class of its own, for the simple reason that the entire world considers it to be a generally acceptable business practice. This includes Chazal, who felt it important to find a way to structure certain business activities in ways that would skirt this issur. The point is that ribis is NOT inherently immoral. It *can* be abused and thereby *become* immoral. But if done properly, it is a neutral (or even benevolent) business tool. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 21:17:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:17:28 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Anyone have access to HaRav Sh Goren's Terumas HaGoren? Message-ID: Anyone have access to HaRav Sh Goren's Terumas HaGoren? I am looking for 3 pages to be copied [pictured?] and sent to me - meirabi at gmail.com Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 21:02:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:02:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ac357ec-2fb0-c5c8-e187-ccbd26cd60f9@sero.name> On 13/06/17 21:33, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special >> consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah >> of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not >> hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend >> him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip >> about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. > I would think that killing and stealing are in this category too. No, those are inherently wrong, no matter who is the victim. You don't need to love someone in order not to kill them, hit them, steal from them, damage their property, etc. They have the right not to have these things done to them, so you may not do so even if you actively hate them. They have the right to be treated with common decency. Or, in the lashon of libertarianism, non-aggression, i.e. not to have you initiate force or fraud against them. Whereas they have no right to any favors from you; you have no duty to lift a finger to help them or to give them anything. Doing favors for people is a gift which you naturally give only to those you love; the Torah therefore commands you to give it to those whom it wants you to love. > But > you would then point to the phrase "special consideration". In other > words, there is a particular shiur of consideration. Some actions are > below that shiur; they are so basic that they apply even to non-Jews. > And other actions are above that shiur; it is "special" consideration > that we extend to family, but not to outsiders. No, it's not a matter of degree but of kind. > I would accept such a response, but it isn't very helpful. Exactly > what is that shiur? Where do we put the line? I have always thought > that *all* these things are basic menschlichkeit, and apply to > everyone, Jewish or not. No, they are not. >> Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? >> The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh >> *re`ehu* basater". > That's just two pesukim. Sefer Chofetz Chayim brings a lot more than > that - 31 if I remember correctly. The hakama to CC is mussar, so he piles on pesukim, but it you look at them they all pretty much flow from a very few sources, all of which specify "re'echa" or "amecha", etc. > The point is that ribis is NOT > inherently immoral. It *can* be abused and thereby *become* immoral. > But if done properly, it is a neutral (or even benevolent) business > tool. So are all these other things. They're normal and natural behaviour between people who don't necessarily like each other, but one would never treat someone one genuinely loved like that, so the Torah tells us that we must not treat our fellow yisre'elim like that. [Email #2] Google produced this: http://www.havabooks.co.il/article_ID.asp?id=1046 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 00:50:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 10:50:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 241) explains the prohibition of lo sikom as follows (my rough translation): "A person should understand in his heart that everything that happens to him good or bad is caused by Hashem and between people there is nothing but the will of Hashem. Therefore when someone bothers or hurts you, you should know that your sins caused this and whatever happened is a gezera from Hashem. Therefore, you should not think about taking revenge because the other person is not the cause of your troubles, rather your sins are the cause. " Based on the Chinuch's explanation there should be no difference between taking revenge on a Jew or a Goy. In either case they are not the cause of your suffering they are just the instrument of Hashem and therefore there is no reason for revenge. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 06:44:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:44:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/06/17 03:50, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 241) explains the prohibition of lo sikom > as follows (my rough translation): > > "A person should understand in his heart that everything that happens to > him good or bad is caused by Hashem and between people there is nothing > but the will of Hashem. Therefore when someone bothers or hurts you, you > should know that your sins caused this and whatever happened is a gezera > from Hashem. Therefore, you should not think about taking revenge > because the other person is not the cause of your troubles, rather your > sins are the cause. " > > Based on the Chinuch's explanation there should be no difference between > taking revenge on a Jew or a Goy. In either case they are not the cause > of your suffering they are just the instrument of Hashem and therefore > there is no reason for revenge. That is the basis for Chazal's dictum that "Whoever gets angry [over *anything*] is as if he serves idols", but there is no actual mitzvah against anger. Obviously one who truly believes in and fully accepts what we on Avodah have dubbed "strong HP" has no need for either of these two mitzvos, because it will never occur to him to hold a grudge, let alone to take revenge; but one who *does* gets angry or upset at what a fellow Jew does to him, but doesn't hold a long-term grudge against him over it is not violating a mitzvah. One mitzvah is that even if you *do* feel upset you shouldn't hold it against the person who did it, and another mitzvah is that even if you do hold it against him you shouldn't punish him for it. Therefore despite the Chinuch's relating this mussar idea to these two mitzvos, it cannot be the actual reason. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 09:16:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:16:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Akiva Miller wrote: 'I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be in the "Ribis" category. There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a non-Jew, such as Ribis.' I think this categorisation may need refining. It assumes that the Torah doesn't want us to do unethical things to non Jews either by black letter law or by unlegislated preference. The problem with this is that the Torah assumes that non-Jews are ovdei Avoda Zara and some mitzvos are specifically intended to malign them as such. Take Lo Sechaneim - The gemara learns that we can't even praise a non Jew, never mind be kind in a more concrete way. Gerei Toshav don't have this prohibition but the pshat din of the Torah is that it applies to non-Jews stam. In other words the mitzvos of the Torah treat non-Jews as transgressors and so it's likely that at least some of thing the otherwise unethical things we are allowed to do to them are due to this status. So we need at least to distinguish between what is allowed to any non-Jew and what is prohibited to a Ger Toshav. For example Ribis is clearly allowed even to a Ger Toshav. It's not unethical per se, just prohibited to a family member viz a Jew. So we need possibly, categories of: A) forbidden to everyone B) Forbiden to Jews and Gerei Toshav but totally allowed to Ovdei Avoda Zara C) Technically allowed to non-Jews of whichever category but best avoided as a bad midda D) Forbidden to Jews but totally allowed to all non Jews Re nekama, I think, subject to correction, that it is only ever positive when by Hashem or on his behalf. The nekama on Midian is 'nikmas Hashem m'es HaMidianim'. We needed to be commanded in order to do it. Hashem is 'El nekamos Hashem' in Tehilim. If anyone has a source for it being a positive thing to take personal revenge then let's hear it. Not sure the agadeta of Yaakov waking and smiling fits that bill. Otherwise the Rambam's placing of nekama in De'os as a bad midda should tell us what we need to know about it. That would be consistent with nekama being forbidden against Gerei Toshav, although we haven't found a source for that (yet). Lisa Liel wrote: 'I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews. ' The Torah clearly allows things which it considers morally wrong - Shivya Nochris for example. And the gemara says that's assur to bring one's wife as a Soteh, yet it's a whole parsha in the Torah. And the Ramban's naval birshus haTorah. Seems to me the Torah sets a floor, not a ceiling, and prompts growth through the mitzvos. Isn't that the whole thrust of Hilchos De'os? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 12:45:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:45:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish optimism [was: Shelach] Message-ID: <23c6ce.6a161a0e.4672ec49@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah ... : Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear : not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies : but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon : His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, : and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). [--Cantor Wolberg] RMB wrote: >> ...But in any case, the spies are an imperfect example, because they had G-d's promise that this specific mission would succeed. We don't have such reason to be optimistic.... ....Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? << Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> I once heard a powerful and inspiring talk given by R' Joseph Friedenson a'h. He had survived a number of different concentration camps in hellish circumstances, and had lost all or most of his family. He said in his talk that the last time he ever saw his father, his father said, "I don't know if you and I will survive this war, but no matter what happens, remember this: Klal Yisrael will survive!" R' Friedenson said that he never saw his father again but he went through the war with an unshakeable optimism. That's what he called it, optimism. He underwent horrendous suffering, but nevertheless he had a firm conviction that the Nazis would ultimately fail. He always held onto his father's words, "Klal Yisrael will survive." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 13:25:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:25:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shoah Message-ID: <842320B8-8657-4A22-98E8-76CAA22765DC@cox.net> R? Micha wrote in regard to the Shelach posting: Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? Along the same lines there was a fascinating book written many years ago by a legitimate, authentic, respected orthodox rabbi who wrote that someone who was not a victim in the holocaust has no right to say there is no God. Here is what was really an astonishing and somewhat shocking statement he made: if someone was actually in the Concentration Camp, this person has the right to deny God. I can see many raised eyebrows, but I would greatly appreciate someone remembering this book. Since it was rather revolutionary to be coming from a musmach who is respected by other orthodox rabbis. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 15:39:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:39:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: <20170614223903.GA14026@aishdas.org> In some, more Zionist, circles, the Satmar Rebbe's position that Israel is a maaseh satan is often left not understood. Many of the RZ camp have summarily dismissed it as overly polytheist for their liking. However, it is possible -- even if I or you do not find it plausible -- that Zionism was a challenge to the Jewish People. To see if after the Holocaust we would be so desperate for political relief that we would stop working toward true ge'ulah. As per the title of the SR's response to the mood after the Six Day War -- Al haGe'ulah ve'Al haTemurah (About the Ge'uilah and about the Replacement; perhaps "Decoy"). And, there is a particular mal'akh charged with posing spiritual challenges for us to grow through overcoming -- the satan. Thus, such a temurah would be a maaseh satan. Pretty conventional metaphysics, even for those who find the other religious positions bothersome. I mentioned this because of R' Gidon Rothstein's latest column in TM on the Ramban. "Ramban to Re'eh, Week Two: Avoiding False Prophets, Hearing From Hashem" http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/06/avoiding-false-prophets-hearing-hashem Along the way, RGR writes: It Might Actually Be From Hashem In the last verse in this passage, Moshe warns that this false prophet is a nisayon, a test, from Hashem. Ramban points out that back inBereshit, he had already dealt with the question of why Hashem "tests" us (doesn't Hashem know the future, and therefore know the outcome of the test? There are many answers, this is Ramban's). It's only a test from our perspective, he said. Hashem indeed knows the outcome, and is engaging in it to bring our potential into actuality (that implies that everyone always passes these tests, which works well for figures like Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov. It seems to me less convincing about the nisayon here, since the Jewish people have in fact occasionally followed such false prophets). Still, that's the less surprising part of this Ramban, since it is the face value of the verse, that the wonder did in fact come through the Will of Hashem, Hashem showed him this dream or vision to test our love of Hashem. Ramban doesn't say more, but I think he means--and this is the part that is more surprising and a bit challenging- that all people involved must realize that this is not what Hashem wants. I think he means the prophet him/herself was supposed to refrain from giving this prophecy (the other option is that Hashem was commanding and condemning this person to be a false prophet, to forfeit his/her life in doing so, and that someone we would put to death as a false prophet is actually a hero of Hashem's service. I find that unthinkable, unless the prophet said "I had this vision, but you clearly shouldn't listen to because we're not allowed to ever worship any power other than Hashem." But it's logically possible). The prophet aside, anyone who hears that prophecy, even if it's supported by uncannily accurate predictions, must both refuse to obey and react to this person as a false prophet. That is what true ahavat Hashem would lead us to do, a reminder that acting on our love of Hashem sometimes means doing that which under other circumstances should be distasteful. Putting someone to death for sharing his/her vision is not usually conduct we applaud. Here, it would still be upsetting, but necessary for those whose love of Hashem fills their beings. If the Ramban could say that there could be a navi sheqer who gets his message from Hashem for the sould purpose of challenging us, is it such a far stretch to the SR's anti-Zionism? IMHO, it's easier to understand Satmar or Munkacz anti-Zionism than Agudah's classical position of non-Zionism. The former agrees with the RZ that the Medinah is a huge event of vast import, but disagree about what the import is. The Agudist (at least classically, there were exceptions in the early years of the state, and things seem to be wearing down now) believe that Jews can regain sovereignty over EY for the first time in 2 millenia without it being religiously significant. (I am not talking about those of Neturei Karta who protest with the Palestinians and their supporters, or who visit Iranian gov't officials. They pose a whole different and perhaps even more fundamental set of problems. The SR's anti-Zionism included praying for Tzahal, as these were Jews led to danger through a horrible (in his opinion) error; an error that exists in part for the purpose of putting Jews in danger.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: RGR -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 18 10:59:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:59:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Korach Message-ID: <2943596C-CE9C-488B-B333-D25328C619BD@cox.net> 1) 16:1 "Vayikach Korach...." "And Korach, the son of Yitzhar, the son of Kehoth, the son of Levi took, and Dathan and Aviram, the sons of Eliav,etc.? The question is what did Korach take? The verb has no object. Resh Lakish said: "He took a bad 'taking' for himself" (Sanhedrin). Rashi said: "Korach...separated [lit.,took] himself. Korach placed himself at odds with the rest of the assembly to protest against Aaron's assumption of the priesthood." Ibn Ezra said it meant: "Korach took men..." 2) In the Ethics of the Fathers 5, 17 it states: "Every controversy that is pursued in a heavenly cause, is destined to be perpetuated; and that which is not pursued in a heavenly cause is not destined to be perpetuated. Which can be considered a controversy pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And that not pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Korach and his congregation." An analysis of this by Malbim explains in quite a compelling fashion why the Mishnah was not worded as we would have expected it to be: "A controversy pursued in a heavenly cause...that is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. That not pursued in a heavenly cause is the controversy of Korach and Moses." Instead it reads: "Korach and his congregation." As Malbim explains-- they would be quarreling amongst themselves, as each one strove to attain his selfish ambitions. The controversy therefore was rightly termed "between Korach and his congregation." They would ultimately fight among themselves. And the denouement would be their self-destruction. 3) "Korach quarreled with peace, and he who quarrels with peace quarrels with the Holy Name." (Zohar, Korach 176a [ed.,Soncino], Vol. V, p.238). The bottom line here is "Don't Mess with Hashem." In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves. Buddhal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 18 17:07:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 17:07:22 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: the aguda made a very practical decision-- to not make a halachic decision, but rather to seek support economically and non-military . the only halachic issue was to determine that the State's money is muttar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 01:17:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shalom Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:17:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shoah Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg's reference to the Orthodox Rabbi who wrote about who has the right to disbelieve after the Holocaust is most likely Eliezer Berkovits in his Faith After the Holocaust. Shalom Rabbi Shalom Z. Berger, Ed.D. The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education Bar-Ilan University http://www.lookstein.org https://www.facebook.com/groups/lookjed/ Follow me on Twitter: @szberger NETWORK*LEARN*GROW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 09:40:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:40:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. I am required to attend a business meeting at a non-kosher restaurant. How do I avoid the issue of maris ayin? Message-ID: <1497890418438.2614@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. I am required to attend a business meeting at a non-kosher restaurant. How do I avoid the issue of maris ayin? A. The general rule regarding maris ayin is that one can avoid the prohibition of maris ayin if there is a heker (sign) that indicates that the action is permitted. For example, Rama (YD 87:3) writes that one may not cook meat with almond milk, since this gives the impression that one is violating the prohibition of cooking milk and meat together. This would constitute maris ayin. However, this situation is permitted if one places almonds near the pot, since the almonds will alert a bystander that the milk comes from almonds and not from an animal. Therefore, if one must enter a non-kosher restaurant, one should do so in a manner that makes it clear that one is entering for business and not for pleasure. For example, one should enter carrying a briefcase or a stack of papers. Rav Schachter, shlita said that in such an instance it would be preferable to wear a cap instead of a yarmulke. Rav Schachter also said that once seated, one may order a drink -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 12:56:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:56:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur Message-ID: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> This is a comment on R Yaakov Jaffe's article at http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2017/6/13/get-your-hashkafa-out-of-my-chumash Since the Lehrhaus doesn't take comments, I thought we could discuss it here. (CC-ing RYJ.) He writes: Lehrhaus Get Your Hashkafa Out of My Chumash! [R] Yaakov Jaffe ... It has become commonplace in Modern Orthodox circles to lament the lack of alignment between the beliefs of the movement and some of the editions, translations, and versions of ritual texts that members of the movement use. These critiques are often welcome, such as Deborah Klapper's[13] recent excellent essay about the Haggadah for Pesach, and tend to frame ArtScroll Publishers as the almost villain who has taken the ideologically open, natural, innocent, uncorrupted foundational texts of Judaism and colored them with an Ultra-Orthodox translation, skew, or commentary.... Okay, that's the general topic. Here's the point I wanted to discuss: For me, there is a more grave concern when Modern Orthodox Jews flock to a different ritual text because it aligns more purely with their own ideology, and that is that the ritual text ceases to be important for its own sake (as a Siddur, Humash, or Hagaddah), a vehicle for transmitting sacred texts and values through the generations, but instead becomes a mere bit player in a larger drama about movements and self-identification. ("I use this Siddur because in many ways it demonstrates that I am a proud Modern Orthodox Jew.") This carries the risk that readers will stop reading the text of the Humash or being taken by the poetry of the Siddur and instead become hyper-focused on ideological markers that appear in those ritual texts. And for reasons that we will demonstrate below, the subordination of prayer within the mind of the person at prayer, beneath the selection of outward identifiers of ideology undermines the very purpose and notion of prayer itself. In 1978, Rabbi Soloveitchik authored a[15] short essay entitled "Majesty and Humility" in Tradition, in which he poses a dichotomy critical for Jewish religious experience and prayer. He describes one pole as majestic humanity, striving for victory and sovereignty, as "Man sets himself up as king and tries to triumph over opposition and hostility." The other pole is humble humanity, full of "withdrawal and retreat," which appreciates the smallness of human beings in the scope of the cosmic order. In the essay, prayer is an example of man in the mood of humility, of withdrawal, who finds the Almighty not when humanity triumphs over the forces of nature, or in the scope of the galaxies, but when humanity recognizes its own limitations, and, as a result, causes that "God does descend from infinity to finitude, from boundlessness into the narrowness of the Sanctuary," or: All I could do was to pray. However, I could not pray in the hospital... the moment I returned home I would rush to my room, fall on my knees and pray fervently. God in those moments appeared not as the exalted majestic King, but rather as a humble, close friend. While at prayer, the individual is constantly focused on his or her own inadequacy compared to the Divine Creator and his or her own limitations. The individual cannot be engaged in the battles of denomination supremacy, as he or she is paralyzed by his or her own smallness while attempting to pray. Moreover, prayer is generally a uniquely unsuited vehicle for conveying specific, unique, or modern ideologies and beliefs. It focuses on requests and aspirations, not on statements of creed. The text of the Siddur also serves as a unifying tool for the Jewish people (given the enormous general similarity despite centuries of division and dispersal) and highlights what we have in common and not what we have apart. 13. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-haggadah-without-women-2/ 15. http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2017/No.%202/Majesty%20and%20Humility.pdf 16. http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/?author=5886cfaabebafbcb2d43550f My problem is that tefillah is all about ideology, and the siddur runs from statement of creed to statement of creed -- Yigdal to Ani Maamin. (Not saying AM is mandatory, but it's there...) For example, RYBS's is one approach to prayer. It's different than that of Nefesh haChaim, where the focus of baqashos are what the world needs for G-d's sake, not our own needs for our sake. Curing the sick because His Presence is enhanced when people are healthy. Etc... It's different than RSRH's approach to berakhos, where they are declarations of personal commitment. So that we ask for health so that we can contribute to His Say in the world -- "berakhah" lashon ribui, after all. Etc... (I think I dug up 7 different theological resolutions to how to undertand "barukh Atah H'" given that ribui and HQBH don't mix.) This is taking a specific hashkafah's side in order to argue that tefillah shouldn't be taking a specific hashkafah's side. As for Tanakh... It is true that in one community, maximalist positions that magnify G-d's Greatness -- whether it's a description of qeri'as Yam Suf or Rivqa's age at meeting Yitzchaq -- have a near-exclusive currency. Saying that the sea simply split vehamayim lahem chimah miyminam umismolam is seen as the product if ignorance; of course it split into 13 tunnels, each providing all of our needs, ready to be grabbed out of the walls. Whereas the other prefers more rationalist positions, and in any case there is a broader array of Chazal's statements taken as possibly true. Or, does an MO Jew relate to a chumash in which the only topic of footnotes on the berakhos of Yissachar & Zevulun is their possible precedent for kollel life? (Despite there never having been an entire community where kollel was the norm until the past century.) In a community where wearing hexaplex (the snail formerly known as murex) dyed strings is a significant minority, isn't there more interest in sefunei temunei chol than in a community where it's unheard of? Then there is just different communities having different tastes in what kind of Torah thought they find more appealing / satisfying / moving. People who gravitate to the words of the Rav like the ideas in Mesores haRav for that reason. Just as Chabadnikim are more likely to find things to their taste in the Guttenstein Chumash than in the Stone Edition. Shouldn't, then, all these options exist? And is that any less true when thinking of how to relate to some complex poseq in Tehillim or a line composed by Anshei Keneses haGdolah (or the typical Ashkenazi paytan) to be a palimpsest of meanings? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 03:25:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:25:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: <> R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah poisition basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful but is against the wishes of G-d. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 06:19:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yaakov Jaffe via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:19:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Hi, Regarding the first point that "This is taking a specific hashkafah's side in order to argue that tefillah shouldn't be taking a specific hashkafah's side." I confess that I am guilty as charged. But one approach to tefilah (let's call it the one that resonates with me) is that it is purely a communication between the speaker and his or her Creator, and that consequently, it is not the time and place to be focused on proclaiming our ideologies. Obviously others may argue, and there are numerous siddur options for them. But we shouldn't pretend that this is the only approach to prayer, or that every Jew must use ideology in chosing a siddur. Regarding the second point, which I understand to be saying "each occasion of Torah study involves someone chosing an approach they prefer to understand the text, so they should chose a Chumash that furthers the approach that they prefer" I also tend to agree as well, but here my post focuses on the reductio ad absurdum problem of splitting hairs and hyper-focus on details hashkafa. I did not conduct a comprehensive study of the stone Chumash, but wonder whether the troubling explanations are ubiquitous, occasional, or somewhere in between. The problem with a "Modern" chumash, is that there are many "modern" explanations that could be equally troubling, depending on how modern the chumash and conservative the reader. Did Bilaam's donkey talk or was it a dream (Ramban versus Rambam)? If Artscroll said he spoke, and for example a new chumash says that he did not - then which one most accurately reflects my hashkafa? And if you imagine 100 different texts that can be each read multiple ways, how do we find the chumash that on all 100 provides the perfect match? Hope this makes sense, happy to continue the conversation further, Yaakov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 08:07:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:07:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Shmitta fund Message-ID: <2A3CAC10-A501-4AF5-A666-AB7B0D35E90C@gmail.com> http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2017/06/proposed-law-shmitta-fund.html?m=1. Is that the general psak, that heter mechira is no better than nothing? Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 15:02:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:02:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] restaurants In-Reply-To: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170620220230.GB29839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:44:00PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From the OU: : Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher : restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would : be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness : the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad : (giving the appearance of impropriety)... A question about that "and"... I agree with their parenthetic definition, but I will rephrase to show why I think it's rare-to-impossible for something to simultaneously be both mar'is ayin and cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone who sees the action will assume it's mutar, or at least informally "not so bad". Cheshad is where someone who sees the action is sure it's assur, and therefore think less of the person doing it. How many actions involve two conflicting default umdenos? So, being confused, I looked up the Igeros Moshe. The teshuvah is primarily about a frum minyan in a room in a non-O synagogue. The last paragraph begins "Ubedavar im mutar le'ekhol berestarant..." ("Restaurant" transliterated in Yiddish or hil' gittin style.) The line is "yeis le'esor mishum mar'is ayin vecheshad". But if someone is mitzta'er tuva, so that these gezeiros do not apply, they could eat betzin'ah something that has no actual kashrus problem. Does "ve-" here have to mean both? Or could it mean that between the two, it is assur in all circumstances? Like "lulav hagazul vehayaveish pasul" doesn't refer only to a lulav that is both stolen and dried out. Chazal's "ve-" is more complex than "and". (I am tempted to discuss de Morgan's laws and ve-, but I will just leave in this hint rather than detour into a class in symbolic logic.) If it does have to mean both mar'ish ayin and cheshad, can someone : Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based? I am not clear how they could NOT be. : For example, in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in : a treif restaurant, what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % : threshold for concern? In NYC, if you see two people, only one of which in O uniform, entering a restaurant, it's common to just assume this is a business meeting and accomodations were made. Restaurants in Manhattan routinely take delivery for a kosher meal when catering a group; it's a matter of the minimum size of the group they'll make such accomodation for. (I have been one of three, and got Abigails delivered double-sealed.) In such a climate, I don't think people would assume you're there to eat treif even if it's just two people meeting and no kosher could possibly be brought in from the outside. It's just a known thing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 16:11:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 19:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170620231132.GC29839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:33:00PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. : : True. I have always thought of ribis in a class of its own, for the : simple reason that the entire world considers it to be a generally : acceptable business practice... According to the Rambam, it's a mitzvas asei. The SA (YD 159:1) holds like the Tur, it's mutar de'oraisa, and usually prohibited derabbanan "shema yilmod mima'asav". Bikhdei chayav, tzurba derabbanan and if the profit is only defined derabbanan as ribbis are three exceptions. (Charging ribis from a mumar shekafar be'iqar is also mutar, because we are not obligated lehachayaso; but paying ribis to him is not.) The Levush says "shema yilmod mima'asev" doesn't apply in the current economy. Chazal assumed a primarily Jewish economy where we have a few exceptional deals with non-Jews. So for us, ribis is always mutar lemaaseh. I wonder whether this heter of the Levush would apply to Jews in Israel today. In any case, halakhah pesukah (assuming the reader isn't Teimani) doesn't mention any mitzvah asei. In terms of the taam being because their own economy is based on interest... Would you argue that it's wrong to lend a Muslim or an Amish person money with interest? (Even in the Levush's opinion?) Particularly in a Moslem country. where they have their own parallels to heter isqa , and the person's whole culture (I presume) reviles interest. So is it whether or not ribis is considered immoral by the person being charged, or whether or not kelapei Shemaya galya ribis is moral? I argued the latter, but your wording left me wanting to articulate the chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 13:49:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:49:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting Message-ID: What would you like the first thing that HKB"H says to you at 120 when you report to the beit din shel maaleh(heavenly study hall)? Kt Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 13:50:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban Message-ID: What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:53:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:53:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 11:21:05PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : > I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi : > haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, : > like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" : > in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather : > than knowledge of abstract ideas. : No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these : were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi : haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and : that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? "They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..." :> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. : These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult : to understand them as having been written by the same person... Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position. ... :: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in :: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21... ::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us ::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the ::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers ::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their ::> practice on their upright fathers. :> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. : Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the : pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] : and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk... But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write: : Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the : context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting : up of schools)... Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's derashah. I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with "chadash assur min haTorah".) :> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. : Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas : etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody : define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at : all the experiential aspect... Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect? :> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when :> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an :> example to imitate. : The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is : as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with : Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her : ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." : The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard : to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, : excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of : Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily : in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education. After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior? In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49. : And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they : could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward : etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two : types of TSBP... Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah. : Is not the gemora etc filled with : this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it occuring... So I am toally lost here. Maybe the "this" has been stretched further than I can follow. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 19:00:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Message-ID: The gematria for Rosh Chodesh is 813. In the whole of tanach there is only one verse with the gematria of 813. It is B?reishis, Chapter 1, verse 3. ?Vayomer Elohim ohr, vay?hi ohr? ?And God said: Let there be light and there was light.? Music is moonlight in the gloomy night of life. Jean Paul, Author From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:42:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:42:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170621234200.GF18168@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 09:19:46AM -0400, Yaakov Jaffe via Avodah wrote: : But one approach to tefilah (let's call it the one that resonates with me) : is that it is purely a communication between the speaker and his or her : Creator, and that consequently, it is not the time and place to be focused : on proclaiming our ideologies. Obviously others may argue, and there are : numerous siddur options for them. But we shouldn't pretend that this is : the only approach to prayer, or that every Jew must use ideology in chosing : a siddur. But if a person wants to approach tefilah as a pure communication, then shouldn't they pick a siddur whose ideology is that tefillah is a pure communication? Having a siddur of a given ideology is not necessarily about proclaiming that ideology. (But if you want to rail about the fact that too often this call for an MO siddur /is/ about proclomation, there is room to do so.) It is about having a siddur that aids the kind of prayer you want to do. Which is why I never understood why people assign value to having "their siddur". I have a collection, as I go from more cerebral to more experiential moods, and want different siddurim depending on where my head is just then. For example, the as-yet-unpublished RCA siddur has something in it about shelo asani that would say something that a Mod-O Jew is more likely to be concerned about saying than someone who is less engaged with the more egalitarian west would feel a need to say. ... : I did not conduct a comprehensive study of the stone Chumash, but wonder : whether the troubling explanations are ubiquitous, occasional, or somewhere : in between... In my experience, occasional. But the rationalists are under-represented, given the chareidi tendency toward more maximalist approaches. That's not troubling, but it's promoting one worldview and not allowing the other to reach the market-share it deserves. : or was it a dream (Ramban versus Rambam)? If Artscroll said he spoke, and : for example a new chumash says that he did not - then which one most : accurately reflects my hashkafa? ... My ideal chumash would present both, or if space requires, inform me that both possibilities are discussed without full presentation. If two hashkafic ideas are viable, why should I let an editor choose between them for me? But that's a different story. The problem the MO nay-sayers have with the absence of a vaiable alternative to ArtScroll is less that there is a specific problem with a comment. As I wrote, those are rare. But that without variety, without a survey that includes ideas current and popular outside the Agudist community, those ideas will cease being thought of as normative. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:20:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:20:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170621222015.GB18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:50:41PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? #1 Qedoshim Tihyu -- naval birshus haTorah #2 The end of Bo (although you didn't ask for a runner-up) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:28:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:28:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170621232850.GE18168@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:07:45PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : >I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons : >and sources, and this chapter is a perfect example... In the Bavli "Mai ta'ama?" is a request for a reason. In the Y-mi, it is a request for a pasuq as source. Reasons and sources are different things, and I think the difference helps clears up the question. : Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites : the Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than : in other places. Zev was saying that the Rambam usually opens or close with a reason, a ta'am hamitzvah. (And, as he explains in the Moreh, he only expects these to cover the generalities.) Usually, these are unsourced. But, kedarko, when he can paraphrase a source he does. Which is what he is doing here. : I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he : often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or : "pashat haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a : Midrash? This one stands out. This paragraph addresses the Rambam's not spending much time on sources, not about reasons. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:16:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:16:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170621221634.GA18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:49:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What would you like the first thing that HKB"H says to you at 120 when : you report to the beit din shel maaleh(heavenly study hall)? (After introducing me to my daughter...) "I'm proud of you, son!" "I would help you get used to this, but techiyas hameisim will be underway..." "So THAT'S why I did that..." But according to Rava (Shabbos 31a) I should expect, "Nasata venatata be'emunah?" Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:24:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:24:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170621232402.GD18168@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 08:43:42PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : > How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of : > any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even : > punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of : > the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? : : The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an : extension of the beit din. Perhaps according to the Rambam (Rotzeiach 1:2), who says "mitzvah beyad go'el hadam..." and if the go'el doesn't want to or there is none, "BD memisin es harotzeiach besayif". Rashi al haTorah appears to hold that "ein lo dam" means the go'el is killing an already dead man, and therefore bears no guilt. Not a mitzvah, but a reshus. (But see below.) And if the go'el only has reshus, it's hard to say he is operating as beis din's appointee. Sanhedrin 45b says "mitzvah bego'el hadam", but if there is no go'el, BD appoints one. There is no sayif. BUT, Makos 2:7 has a machloqes: R Yosi haGelili says that if the killer is found outside the techum, it is a mitzvah on the go'el hadam and a reshus for everyone else to kill him. (According to the beraisa on 12a, if there is no go'el, there is reshus...) R' Aqiva disagrees, saying it's a reshus for the go'el and a non-punishable issur for anyone else. (According to the beraisa, they are chayav.) And here's the weird part -- despite what I quoted above from the Yad, the Rambam on the mishnah says halakhah is like R' Aqiva. Rashi on Makkos 12a says about Bamidbar 35:27 "ika leferushei lashon tzivui ve'ika leferushei lashon tzivui. In sum, I think RJR is understating it. It's not "only" the pesuqim that are unclear. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 01:29:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:29:00 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: : No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these : were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi : haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and : that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? And RMB replied: >"They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..." I like "the root principles and the general rules .." - thanks, that is better than my use of source - but I think "osmosis" is not quite right either. I don't think "osmosis" as we understand it would necessarily have been within the Maharil's conception, and that it is not a great translation for "al pi hakabala" - maybe "from tradition" - but osmosis isn't right. The girls in question probably learnt how to speak the local language by osmosis (even if eg Yiddish was spoken in the home), but you would not say that is "al pi hakabbala". There is a big difference. :> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. : These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult : to understand them as having been written by the same person... >Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position. I don't think you can say that. First of all, the second one, ie the one from Maharil HaChadashos, made it into the Shulchan Aruch, - it is quoted by the Rema - and you can't just dismiss that. And the first one was in the possession of the Birchei Yosef, who is very influential in a whole host of ways in terms of psak. I think rather you have to treat them as two different rishonic teshuvot, and give them weight on that basis. It may well be that they were influenced by, or even possibly penned by, the student of the Maharil who collected them (hence my note that they came from two different collections) , and we may never know which one was really the Maharil's opinion and which one was in fact that of his student or some other rishon from around that time and attributed to the Maharil, but they are both rishonic source material, and I don't think we can ignore either of them. ... :: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in :: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21... ::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us ::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the ::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers ::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their ::> practice on their upright fathers. :> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. : Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the : pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] : and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk... But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write: : Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the : context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting : up of schools)... >Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's derashah. Yes, but even in terms of pshat, it seems very difficult to come away from the idea of transmission of tradition from father to children when using this process. "Asking" is not about osmosis - it is about an attempt at formal learning, and answering in response to an ask is exactly the process of formal learning in pretty much all contexts (it is why we still have teachers even in Universities, and not just books). If you have system where you are supposed to "ask" and somebody else is supposed to then answer, you have formal education. This is a step up from where you are expected to learn by watching (but not asking) - but where at least sometimes the educational aspect is clear - eg, I want you to watch and see how I go to place X, so you can find it yourself next time, is a less formal process than asking, but it is still a form of education, which is a step up from osmosis, where nobody on either side necessarily realises that something is being learnt, it just seeps in (language is a classic case, or how about accent - kids pick up their accent from school by osmosis, it is not a conscious process, and maybe the parents would in fact prefer, and maybe even they would prefer, that they talk with the parent's accent, rather than that of their peers, but it doesn't happen that way, you send a kid to school, they start talking like the locals in their school). >I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with "chadash assur min haTorah".) Because the proof text resonates, it does even in the pshat. In the pshat it is clearly linked to "vshinantam l'vanecha" - ie is the flip side of it (which is why the extension into drash makes sense, just as v'shinantam l'vanecha is the basis of the command for Torah study, this is the basis of the need to listen to the master of Torah). And if you know the drash, even when you use it in the pshat form, you will get the resonance. "V'shinantam l'vanecha" is the pasuk from which the obligation for boys to learn is learnt (banecha v'lo banotecha) - with the emphasis then on the father's teaching - the formal school process came later, when the father's obligation was delegated to a school teacher. Ask you father (in the masculine) is similarly in the pshat about a boy's obligation to learn. Applying it to girls is an odd stretch in the first place. What you are saying is that the proof text when applied to girls suddenly doesn't mean what it means when applied to boys, in either pshat or drash, that to me seems odd. :> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. : Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas : etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody : define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at : all the experiential aspect... >Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect? Well the CC is explaining the Rambam. The Rambam says: ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????, ???? ??? ??????, ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????, ???"? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????, ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????, ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man, because she is not commanded and all who do a thing that they are not commanded to do, there reward is not like the reward of one who is commanded and does rather [their reward] is less than these, and even though she gains a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning, and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut. So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav (note that the Rambam himself in Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 Halacha 11 - says a man is required to divide his time into thirds, a third in Torah shebichtav, a third in Torah sheba?al peh, and a third in understanding and weighing - what he calls Gemora, so there he seems to have three categories, but the third requires a knowledge of the other two, and presumably cannot be taught). So, in terms of your question "does anybody force the CC to define the set of TSBP that was classically prohibited as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including the experiential aspect" - it seems to me that the Rambam does. Ie given that the CC is explaining the Rambam, and the Rambam has only two categories of Torah, then either the experiential aspect is Torah shebichtav or it is not Torah at all. But saying that the experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase. I therefore think it very difficult to say that experiential teaching, especially when linked with the formality of "asking", as the CC does, can be defined as not Torah at all. So that leaves Torah shebichtav. I did try and say that was the Tur's point, what you are should not teach are the laws as written down, but to say that the experiential is Torah shebichtav seems to me a very difficult assertion. :> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when :> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an :> example to imitate. : The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is : as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with : Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her : ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." : The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard : to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, : excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of : Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily : in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". >I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education. >After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior? Yes he does, the minute he is "asked", or if he says "watch what I do" (similar to when I take my children somewhere to show them how to get there on their own, eg a new school, including pointing out the landmarks, that is most definitely active teaching, despite the fact that it is experiential, and not done from giving them a map and teaching them to map read). >In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49. And "look, let me show you how ..." is formal teaching, whether it is a maths problem or it is how to bake chala. And if that particular aspect of teaching falls within the definition of Torah, then one is teaching Torah, albeit informally. And the danger with understanding "lelameid" to only mean formal teaching, not informal teaching, is that you then write out of a father's obligation to a son an awful lot, as it is not within the mitzvah. You can't have it both ways, either when a father teaches a son informally (eg shows him how to put on tephillin, as that seems very difficult to learn from a book) he is teaching him Torah or he is not. Which is it? : And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they : could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward : etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two : types of TSBP... >Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah. So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect, showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn?t take the bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid? Isn't that the consequence of what you are saying? That the only Torah that men are obligated to learn as Talmud torah are the formal abstract rules and regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially? : Is not the gemora etc filled with : this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. >The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it occuring... I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules. If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? -Micha Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 06:27:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:27:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> On 22/06/17 04:29, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: >> The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or >> memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it >> occuring... > I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the > formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the > formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules. > > If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of > the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? Indeed, it's an explicit gemara: "*Torah* hi, velilmod ani tzarich". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 09:32:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:32:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170622163247.GA19841@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:27:07AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: :>If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of :> the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? : Indeed, it's an explicit gemara: "*Torah* hi, velilmod ani tzarich". I am excluding informal education from "lelameid bito", not excluding the acquired info from "Torah". When the R' Eliezer (as quoted by the Rambam) talks about learning or teaching, is he thinking about mimetic osmosis and the like or is he referring only to formal education? It is indeed a key way to learn how to practice. In many cases -- eg milah, safrus, mar'os, tereifos, etc... -- it's the /only/ way to learn the necessary Torah. "Mimetic osmosis *or the like*" is my acknowledgement that Chana managed to convince me that my dichotomy is really a spectrum from the informality of unconscious imitation to raw text study. And therefore there will be gray are that is more or less likely to be included by R' Eliezer or the Rambam rather than a yes-or-no. My talk of mimeticism and osmosis overstates where I am going, and created needless problems with the CC's use of "she'al avikha". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 06:26:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:26:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Letter from Europe Message-ID: <84dd8782469149f99c23cf85a031e37b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I seem to remember a letter from a European (German) Jewish community to someone/thing in Eretz Yisrael with the general message that their hometown was where they intended to wait for Moshiach whether moving to Eretz Yisrael was possible or not. Does this sound familiar? If so, do you know the source? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 07:06:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:06:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple Message-ID: <20170623140615.GB17536@aishdas.org> SA EhE 62:11 says that if the benei hachupah have to divide up into chaburos, they all make sheva berakhos. Even if the locations are not open to each other nor is there a common server -- none of the normal things that combine a zimun. The AhS #37 adds that they each make their own 7 berakhos. Does this mean that if a man needs to leave a wedding early, he should really invest the effort to find 9 others and not just 3, not only because zimun requires trying, but also because the 10 of you would be passing up a chance to bentch the chasan & kallah! To add more weight to the idea, earlier in the siman the AhS discusses the function of panim chadashos at 7 berakhos. In #23-24 he says that the Rambam (Berakhos pereq 2) implies that the reason why we need panim chadashos for 7 berakhos is that the whole thing is to fulfill *their* chiyuv to bentch the chasan & kallah. As guests of the couple, they have a chiyuv to give them a berakhah, which is fulfilled at the minimum by their amein. Whereas if everyone there already fulfilled that obligation, the berakhos are levatalah. Then in #35 he gives besheim "rov raboseinu" the usually quoted reason (at least in my circles) that it's their addition to the simchah that legitimizes the berakhah. Which is why the neshamah yeseirah and Shabbos meal can serve in the same role. (However, he warns, this only works for a real se'udah shelishis. A yotzei-zain shaleshudis lacks that requisite simchah.) So, it could be that according to the Rambam, walking out of the se'udah without 7 berakhos is neglecting one's chiyuv to give the couple a berakhah! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 10:46:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:46:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> <20170621234200.GF18168@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170623174657.GA20760@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:00:14PM -0400, Yaakov Jaffe wrote: : Thank you for your perspective. I understand your argument - rather than : my three-options (hashkafa a, hashkafa b and hashkafa c), you suggest a : fourth with a & b side by side, for the reader to chose. I hadn't : considered it - but it does have a lot to offer! We need to distinguish between a specific commentary -- R' Hirsch's Pentateuch, Mesoret haRav works, Divrei Moshe -- and an anonymous collector of footnotes as in the Stone Chumush, the ArtStroll or RCA siddurim, etc... And I want to acknowledge the gray areas. R/Lord Sack's siddur can be either, depending upon whether someone bought it out of esteem for R' Sacks and wanting to know his position, or it's as just Koren's contender in that market. I am only talking about the latter category, the anonymous shul chumash or siddur. Chareidism is founded on the need to protect ourselves from the modern. And only after dealing with the thread, one considers the opportunities. And part of that defense mechanism is deffering decisions to those more knowledgable. In contrast, Mod-O embraces the West's admiration of autonomy. Thus leaving a gap between the communities about when one turns to gedolim for answers, and when not. A side-effect of how "daas Torah" is formulated is that it has little tolerance for plurality. "The gedolim hold" is an oft-repeated idiom, in my hometown of Passaic, even by people who -- if you made them stop and consider the question -- know "the gedolim" often disagree. Because if we need to choose between valid answers, we could run the risk of choosing wrongly, a dangerous variant of one, the other, or in combination. A comparative unknown yeshivish rav or collection of avreikhem providing such commentary, choosing a consistent style of comment over others is perceived from that mindset. As promoting one position as the sole truly normative approach. The same often happens with Rashi. We think of Rashi's position as the default, because it's girsa diyenuqa, and another rishon is seen as the machadesh. Did the brothers sell Yoseif or did they find the pit empty after the Moavim got there first and selling him? There is a machloqes tannaim about Rivqa's age when married, but Rashi quotes one, and that becomes the default in some circles. In other circles, peshat is more likely to trump medrashic stories. With the position of numerous rishonim and acharonim (are there cholqim?) that medrashic stories are repeated for their nimshalim, not the story itself. Which brings me to a second effect of daas Torah... The more one takes pride in deferring to authority the more likely one is to embrace the maximalist position, to accept that which is further from rationalist, from what the autonomous decision would have been. A second reason why Rivqa must have been 3 when married, not 15. Yes, many people know both, but isn't there a clear emotional attitude about one position being normative rather than the other? I therefore think that giving a survey of opinions is itself an inherently MO way of doing this kind of text. It allows someone to choose autonomously between rationalism, mysticism, maximalism, etc... without the relatively-unknown rabbi -- or anyone but my own rav, his rav, his rav's rav... ("my gadol" is a much more MO view than "the gedolim) -- setting himself to tell large numbers of the observant community what to view as the mainstream, and what is an acceptable but avant-gard alternative, even if they ever learn of the other options. If we want RYBS's position to be viewed as part of the mainstream, or R' Herschel Schachter's (which is far closer to yeshivish but still not something ArtScroll would quote too often) or R' Aharon Soloveitchik or RALichtenstein, R' Amital, R CY Goldvicht or any other rosh yeshivas hesder, R' Kook, etc... there has to be chumashim that put these ideas in the hands of the common people, the ones who aren't spending spare time hanging out in the sefarim store or following e-zines, blogs, email lists or even FB groups that discuss (usually: argue) such things. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 15:56:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:56:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d2ec73$fba1e110$f2e5a330$@gmail.com> R' Joel Rich: What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? ------------------------ The one about being a naval b'rshus haTorah. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 14:04:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 23:04:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: <2a88576c-335d-3d30-a014-301f177029c1@zahav.net.il> References: <2a88576c-335d-3d30-a014-301f177029c1@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <297327dc-ba39-c064-1bd4-0a61c750d11f@zahav.net.il> Mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisrael, including conquering it. Ben On 6/21/2017 10:50 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? > KT > Joel Rich > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 06:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 16:10:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple Message-ID: "Does this mean that if a man needs to leave a wedding early, he should really invest the effort to find 9 others and not just 3, not only because zimun requires trying, but also because the 10 of you would be passing up a chance to bentch the chasan & kallah!" Actually, even without regard for Sheva B'rochos, the din of zimmun requires that one not who has eaten with a minyan not bentsch with less than a minyan. There is mention on OC 193:1 that only where there would be difficulty in a minyan hearing, thus necessitating the bentsching calling attention to itself and thus offending the host, that it can be done in groups of three; it would seem to be a kal vachomer that gathering ten and saying Sheva B'rochos would be even more noticeable, and thus more hurtful. It would also seem that if one person has to leave, he should not request two others to join him in zimmun unless they, too, must leave early, since otherwise they should not violate their obligation of proper zimmun so that the one leaving have an incomplete fulfillment of his obligation. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:01:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 01:01:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: . R' Eli Turkel wrote: > R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He > understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah position > basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a > state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful > but is against the wishes of G-d. Could you please explain to me what the Agudah position is, and *how* it denies that G-d affects history? Personally, I do not know what the Agudah position is about the Medinah. I'm not convinced that they even *have* a position. Over the years, I have gotten the impression that they have deliberately avoided publicizing their views, because at this point in history it is so difficult to be sure of such things. You yourself concede that the state "APPEARS" to be successful. Who knows? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:21:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:21:57 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] perhaps not such a well-known RaMBaM, but ... Message-ID: in his intro to Sefer Shemos Matan Torah was just a device employed to re-attain the standards that had already been accomplished by the Avos when they came to Mount Sinai - made the Mishkan and HaShem returned His Shechinah amongst them, that is when they restored their status to be like their Avos .... and that is when they were deemed to be redeemed [from the servitude in Egypt] Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:42:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:42:05 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] redemption - The GoEl HaDam Message-ID: the family can come to terms with the killer. when circumstances are such that the killer is deemed too negligent, he can not seek refuge in the Ir Miklat and they MUST come to terms, of the aggressor lives his life in constant fear of being executed. Lo SikChu Kofer LeNefesh RoTzeach Hu - is a warning [to BDin] NOT to take redemption money, NOT to avert the death penalty, NOT to come to terms; but in other circumstances it seems we ought to seek strategies to come to terms. That may include but is not limited to offering money - it probably has more to do with Teshuvah, which is the need to persuade the victims that the regret is sincere, which is why BDin cannot provide a ruling, it can only be negotiated through direct communications, and finding friends of the victims and persuading them of the sincerity and getting THEM to intercede - this is the Shurah that is described in Halacha and RaMBaM. Why are they defined as the GoEl the redeemer? It is a redemption for the society - an evil [negligence of this magnitude, especially when Chazal indicate it is a reflection of other misdeeds, is an evil] of this magnitude leaves an impression on the collective mind of the community, the Eidah, those whose lives is a testimony to HKBH, and if it goes unpunished, the community is tainted. So the community requires redemption. This too feeds into the coming to terms with the aggressor - it is not only the friends of the victim who are impressing upon their traumatised consciousness the need to forgive to accept that the aggressor truly regrets [and that the victim is also as Chazal say, a contributor to his untimely own end] but the community is a sort of spectator to these negotiations and the aggressors feel a need to be accepted by the community and not be seen as being too harsh and vengeful or rapacious in their demands for compensation. This is a very redeeming experience for everyone Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 10:10:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:10:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] most famous ramban Message-ID: <000b01d2edd5$f855df80$e9019e80$@actcom.net.il> First Ramban in Yayera-polemic with the Moreh Nevukhim. After that, 'Kedoshim tihiyu', (which many people are horrified by or completely misunderstand and yes, the Ramban was an ascetic and makes a brilliant case for asceticism) but we could probably have a whole lot of fun on this list making a list of Rambans that everyone should know. In fact, we may actually have done this already. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 10:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:05:14 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting from God Message-ID: <000601d2edd5$3d08f5a0$b71ae0e0$@actcom.net.il> I'd be thrilled to hear: "It's okay-don't worry about it" but I'm not counting on it. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 07:06:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:06:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170626140643.GD29431@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 04:10:45PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : hurtful. It would also seem that if one person has to leave, he should not : request two others to join him in zimmun unless they, too, must leave : early, since otherwise they should not violate their obligation of proper : zimmun so that the one leaving have an incomplete fulfillment of his : obligation. OTOH, if they have an obligation to bless the chasan and kalah, perhaps the threshold for "must leave early" has to be raised. After all, there are cases of need where we do break a zimmun, but we would never (e.g.) walk out on a beris milah over the same motivation. "Need" is a relative term. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 09:15:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 12:15:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> On this thread, did any of us mention birkhas ge'ulah? "Ufdeih khin'umekha Yehudah veYisrael" expresses our expectation that Hashem will redeem both malkhios. Or is there another way to talk separately about Yehudah and Yisrael. So I would think the siddur pasqens, and this is in all traditional nusachos, that the 1- tribes are not permanently lost. I am assuming since this is a birkhas shevakh rather than baqashah, this is an expectation "you will surely redeem", and not a request. Requesting the impossible is a tefillas shav. So... As a baqashah, the berakhah would only prove they could be redeemed; as shevakh (which is, I believe, the correct category), the berakhah is expressing our faith they will be redeemed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 14:51:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:51:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Talmud Torah vs Mitzvah Maasis Message-ID: <20170626215120.GA8220@aishdas.org> Another data point... AhS EhE 65:4 says "mevatlin talmud Torah lehakhnasas kalah lechupah", even toraso umenaso. But limited to someone who sees them going to the chupah. If you just know of a wedding in town, you aren't obligated to stop learning to go. For sources, the end of the se'if cites 1- Semachos 11[:7], which RYME summarizes as "dema'aseh qodem leTT". The mishnah itselces cites both Aba Sha'ul and Rabbi Yehudah, that "hama'aseh qodem letalmud". (Rabbi Yehudah would enjoin his talmidim to participate as well.) 2- Qiddushin 40b which discusses whether talmud gadol or ma'aseh gadol. R' Tarfon: ma'aseh R' Aqiva: talmud "Ne'enu kulam ve'amru: talmud gadol" because talmud leads to ma'aseh. (And so on, discussion elided.) This gemara concludes that talmud is greater. 3- And for exaplanation of how to resolve Semachos vs Qiddushin, he points you to Tosafos BQ 17[a] "veha'amar". The gemara there says "gadol limud Torah shemeivi liydei ma'adeh", much like Qiddushim. Rashi says "alma ma'aseh adif". R' Tam asks on Rashi, from the gemara in Qiddushin. Tosafos then explains the gemara's distinction between learning and teaching in two opposite ways: 1- It's teaching which has priority, because it brings the masses to action. Whereas one's own learning or acting are one person either way. 2- It's learning, which tells one how to act, that has priority. But since teaching doesn't inform the teacher how to fulfilll a mitzvah, it does not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 08:22:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:22:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chukas Message-ID: <9B3AD7FA-3712-4F5A-B2FC-BAC8F688CD87@cox.net> Rashi picks up on the juxtaposition of the consecutive sentences where we first read of Miriam?s death and immediately following ? of the lack of water. This would indicate some connection which Rashi points out that the existence of the water was on the z?chus of Miriam. Nonetheless, the question of the Sifse Chakhamim is also quite valid. Weren?t Aaron and Moses worthy enough to warrant the existence of the water on their z?chus? As a chok has no rational explanation, so, too, there is no logical explanation as to why as long as Miriam was there, offering her inspired leadership, the waters of the be?er, the wells of Torah, flowed ceaselessly and with her death, the waters stopped; whereas, the greatness of Aaron and Moses paled in comparison. This shows the error of those who downplay the role of women in Judaism. Remember, it?s the mother who determines the child?s religion and it?s the mother who plays a major role in her children?s development. The dedication and devotion of the exemplary Jewish mother are a shining example to all who would seek idealism in a Jewish woman. "The Lord gave more wit to women than to men." Talmud - Niddah ??And the Lord God built the rib which teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, endowed the woman with more understanding than the man.? Niddah 45b ?A beautiful wife enlarges a man?s spirit.? [adapted from] Talmud, Berakhot 57b -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 15:15:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:15:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <78965e20-72ab-5232-fd11-bfbe6b3a4ee2@sero.name> On 26/06/17 12:15, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On this thread, did any of us mention birkhas ge'ulah? "Ufdeih > khin'umekha Yehudah veYisrael" expresses our expectation that Hashem > will redeem both malkhios. Or is there another way to talk separately > about Yehudah and Yisrael. > > So I would think the siddur pasqens, and this is in all traditional > nusachos, that the 1- tribes are not permanently lost. It is not in all traditional nuschaos. TTBOMK it's found only in Nusach Ashkenaz. Sefarad substitutes the pasuk "Goaleinu", Italians substitute "Biglal avot...", I don't know what other traditional nuschaot do. (Modern Nusach Ashkenaz and some versions of the Chassidic "Sfard" combine the old Ashkenaz and Sefarad endings; this was originally Nusach Tzorfat, back when that was distinct from Ashkenaz.) (The reason for the Sefaradi ending with the pasuk rather than the other two versions is that the bracha is about Geulat Mitzrayim, not the future Geulah, hence the chatima "Ga'al Yisrael" as distinct from "Go'el Yisrael" in the 7th of the 18, so ending with a prayer for the future Geulah is off topic. I don't know how the other two nuschaot would respond, but maybe that's why NA ended up adopting the Tzorfati combination.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 22:08:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:08:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Agudah [was: Support for Maaseh Satan] Message-ID: <15180d.31f3d54b.4685e552@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <> [--I don't know who is being quoted here] R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah poisition basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful but is against the wishes of G-d. -- Eli Turkel >>>>>> All through Tanach there are examples of reshaim who succeed (if only for a while). Obviously it is Hashem's wish that they succeed, even if it is not His wish that they sin. What is remarkable and miraculous about the last century of history in Eretz Yisrael is how Eretz Yisrael has been built up, the growth of agriculture, cities, the economy, the Jewish population, and most of all the amazing growth of Torah living and learning -- despite secular socialist Zionism. The Medinah gets some credit but what is most remarkable is that so much good has happened despite the Medinah or even very much against the will of the secular government. There is so much ohr vechoshech mishtamshim be'irbuvya. Nevertheless it is impossible /not/ to see the Yad Hashem in the overall course of events over the past century. How many prophecies are coming true before our very eyes! A thriving economy grew up under the very feet of the socialists! Is that not a miracle?! Has such a thing ever happened in any other country?! :- ) So what is the Agudah's position? In November 1947, when the UN voted for the establishment of the Jewish State, the Agudah made the following declaration: --begin quote-- The World Agudas Yisroel sees as an historic event the decision of the nations of the world to return to us, after 2000 years, a portion of the Holy Land, there to establish a Jewish state and to encompass within its borders the banished and scattered members of our people. This historic event must bring home to every Jew the realization that ***the Almighty has brought this about in an act of Divine Providence*** [my emphasis] which presents us with a great task and a grave test. We must face up to this test and establish our life as a people, upon the basis of Torah. While we are sorely grieved that the Land has been divided and sections of the holy Land have been torn asunder, especially Yerushalayim, the holy city, while we still yearn for the aid of Mashiach tzidkeinu, who will bring us total redemption, we nevertheless see the hand of Providence offering us the opportunity to prepare for the geula shelaima if we will walk into the future as G-d's people. --end quote-- [quoted in __To Dwell in the Palace: Perspectives on Eretz Yisrael__ edited by Tzvia Ehrlich-Klein, 1991] The above is still fairly representative of the hashkafa of broad swaths of Klal Yisrael who are charedi or charedi-leaning, yeshivish or chassidish, neither Satmar nor Dati Leumi. That is, the majority of all frum Jews in America and Eretz Yisrael. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 22:31:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:31:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? Message-ID: <151979.a3a1c08.4685eabc@aol.com> From: Chana Luntz via Avodah I Well the CC is explaining the Rambam. The Rambam says: --quote-- A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man, ...and even though she gains a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning, and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. --end quote-- That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut. So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav ... ....But saying that the experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase.... .....So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect, showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn't take the bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid? Isn't that the consequence of what you are saying? That the only Torah that men are obligated to learn as Talmud Torah are the formal abstract rules and regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially? Regards Chana >>>>> I think that different uses of the word "Torah" are being confused here. The very word "Torah" has many meanings, depending on context. It can refer to just the Chumash -- the Torah shebichsav -- about which the Rambam says "but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." Some chassidishe schools to this day do not teach girls Chumash. The word Torah can mean both Chumash and Gemara. "The Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut." There is universal agreement that "Torah" in this context means Gemara. NO ONE thinks that teaching halacha to girls is tantamount to teaching tiflus. The word "Torah" can refer to the vast corpus of everything that has ever been written by or about the Tanaim and Amoraim, Rishonim and Achronim. The word can refer to halacha, to hashkafa, to everything that makes up Jewish life and thought. "Torah" can also refer to that which is taught and learned by example, or by osmosis, or by a mother's tears when she bentshes lecht and davens for her children. "Al titosh Toras imecha." Every language has words like that, words whose precise meaning depends on context. Certainly in the Gemara itself there are many such words. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 29 06:18:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:18:11 +0000 Subject: What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem’s name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? Message-ID: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem's name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, HY"D the Av Bais Din of Shomloy in Hungary, once wrote a letter on this subject. It reads in part, "We have a tradition in our hands from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty, that the reading of the honored and awesome name of Hashem is AH -- DOY -- NOY (AH-DOE -- NOY or AH-DOW-NOY) using the vowelization of Chataf Patach for the Aleph, a Cholam for the Daled and a Kamatz for the Nun..." "Our master the Chasam Sofer and the author of the Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah, zt"l and a whole group of Geonim and Kedoshim have already warned us that unfortunately there are many mistakes concerning this. One needs to be very careful about this matter for a common mistake has spread among the masses and even among those with fear of Hashem. Through a lack of concentration, the Daled (of Hashem's pronounced name) is said with a Sheva as "AHD-ENOY." It is certain that whoever pronounces Hashem's name this way has not said Hashem's name at all and must repeat the bracha again, and so did the Chasam Sofer rule." Rav Shimon Schwab, zt"l in his classic work on Siddur, Iyun Tefilla (p. 25), adds that one should also be careful not to say AH -- DEE -- NOY. He writes: "One must pronounce the Daled with a Cholam (DOY, DOE or DOW) and the Nun with a Kamatz, and not use a Chirik under the Daled (DEE) as is the custom of some who are mistaken and think that they are pronouncing the Name properly... This is a disgrace of the honored and awesome Name. One who pronounces Hashem's name with a Chirik even a hundred times a day is not transgressing the prohibition of saying Hashem's name in vain." Rav Pinchas Scheinberg, zt"l was once asked if Ahd-enoy or Ahdeenoy are acceptable be'dieved, after the fact. His response was a resounding "No!" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 29 06:30:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zalman Alpert via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:30:39 -0400 Subject: What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem’s name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? In-Reply-To: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> References: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 29, 2017 10:18 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > From today's OU Halacha Yomis > > *Q. What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem?s name in Shmoneh Esrei > and other brachos?* There are different ways in Ashkenazi hebrew to pronounce many vowels like cholom zeira segol etc so this answer isof little meaning Galicianer Lithuanian German Ukrainian Hungarian and Central Polish jews each have their own pronunciation See Michtvei Torah by Gerer rebbe Imre Emes where opines different than what is written here Rabbi Heschel of Hamodia several yrs ago discussed this issue in a very cogent manner Although many American college educated frum Jews believe there is only 1way of halachic practice that is absurd,there are many authentic practices to the chagrin of a group of yedhivashe people seeking to impose uniform practicr namely their own Nehare nehare upishteh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 30 06:56:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:56:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Forgotten Fast Days Message-ID: <650c141a32674be8bd8ee65a52bc1d83@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see the article at https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5929 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 30 09:04:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:04:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Authority of Cherem deRabbeinu Gershom Message-ID: <20170630160442.GA20546@aishdas.org> AhS EhE 1:23,25 etc... refers to taqanos or gezeiros passed by Rabbein Gershon meOr haGolah and his contemporaries. Not the idiom I heard in the past, "cheirem deR' Gershom" -- not even the same last letter on the name. Since this was well after the last beis din hagadol / Sanhedrin (so far), we have discussed in the past where the authority to pass such laws came from. My own suggestion revolved around them being charamim for anyone who... rather than direct issurim. But the AhS would be more medayeiq to call them charamim if he thought that was a critical part of the mechanism. But here is something that had me wondering all over again. AhS EhE 119:17... The question is how a gett given without the wife's agreement would be valid if one holds "i avid lo mahani" (like Rava). And yet the Rama says "avar vegirshah ba"k" he is an avaryan (and thus in nidui) until she remarries. One it can't be fixed, because he cannot remarry his gerushah anymore, the nidui is removed. But the AhS writes, if this is true for a derabbanan (Kesuvor 81b) *kol shekein* dChdR"G hu kemo qarov le'isur Torah. Without explaining why. And I can't even figure out how it has the authority to be more than minhag altogether... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 13:45:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:45:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Aruch HaShulchan was not happy with the minhag that the baal haseder has his wine poured by someone else. He writes that it's a bit haughty to order his wife to pour for him and that in his city it was not the minhag. Aside from the interestingly contemporary sound of his concern, it seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for everyone to pour for everyone else, which would avoid the concern of the ArHaSh. 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? 2. If so is it a) based on the poskim, b) an old practice without formal endorsement, or c) a new-fangled sop to modernity? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 17:49:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzav: "As Long As The Soul Is Within Me, I Will Give Thanks Unto Thee, O Lord, My God And God Of My Fathers" Berakhot, 60b Message-ID: <476D9522-69B8-43D1-9E77-D0491911541D@cox.net> Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the korban todah, Thanksgiving Offering. The Medrash (Lev. R., 9.7) tells us that in the future all the sacrifices will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering. Rashi (Leviticus 7:12) states (paraphrased): A man offers a thanksgiving offering (in the Temple) when he is saved from potential danger. There are four types: sea travelers, desert travelers, those released from prison and a seriously ill patient who has recovered. As the verse says in Psalms (107:21), "They should give thanks to God for His kindness, and for His wonders to mankind.? Interestingly and providentially, the mnemonic for this group of four is Chayyim, which stands for [Chavush (jail), Yisurim (illness), Yam (sea), Midbar (desert)], (Shulchan Aruch 219:1). In our times, we fulfill this concept with the recitation of the blessing, HaGomel ("He who grants favors..."). There is a beautiful insight in the Avudraham on laws and commentary on prayers. The author was student of Ba'al HaTurim (R. Yaakov ben Asher) and was a rabbi in Seville. When the hazzan says Modim, the congregation recites the "Modim d'Rabbanan" (The Rabbis' Modim). Why is that? The Avudraham says that for all blessings in the Sh?moneh Esrei we can have an agent. For 'Heal Us', for 'Bless Us with a Good Year' and so forth we can have the sheliach tzibbur say the blessing for us. However, there is one thing that no one else can say for us. We must say it for ourselves. That one thing is "Thank You". Hoda'ah has to come from the individual. No one can be our agent to say 'Thank You.' (This is similar to asking for forgiveness. You must obtain it from the individual wronged. Not even the Almighty can forgive you for wronging a fellow human being). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 20:28:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:28:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: <5101c.42bfc52f.460fb895@aol.com> References: <5101c.42bfc52f.460fb895@aol.com> Message-ID: > "The Halachic Adventures of the Potato" ? by R' Yitzchak Spitz > https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5184 > [...] > In fact, and this is not widely known, the Chayei Adam does actually > rule this way, Sigh. This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location, but do *not* cheat by copying a citation from some secondary source; I will not accept it, because I know very well that there are many secondary sources who claim this, but none of them give a *valid* reference to where he wrote it. What I *have* seen in the Nishmas Adam is an aside, in the course of writing something different, that by the way in Germany they treat potatoes as kitniyos. In fact I'll go further: I don't believe that there has ever been a posek of any stature who forbade potatoes as kitniyos, nor any community that ever accepted such a practice. I have seen many sources claiming that someone else, somewhere else forbade it, or that some other community far away treats it as kitinyos, but never any first hand acccount. When the Rosh writes that in Provence they said Tal Umatar from Marcheshvan 7th I believe it, because he was there and saw it with his own eyes. But I have never seen anyone report having seen with his own eyes a community that forbids potatoes, or a psak din to that effect. It's always someone else somewhere else. Until I see a first hand account I don't believe it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 20:30:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:30:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked about guests in a shul where the guest's practices differ from the shul's. I am bothered by the question, and even more so by the responses. What has happened Porush Min Hatzibur? What has happened to Derech Eretz and simple good manners? (Previous discussions here on Avodah have claimed that some poskim actually hold that a visitor who davens Nusach Sfard should use that text even if he is in the tzibur of a Nusach Ashkenaz shul. Ditto for responding to Kedusha, so I will not discuss those particular examples.) But: > Would your shul allow a guest to say 13 middot aloud > by Tachanun (if local practice is not to)? We're not talking about a few words here, but approximately a whole page worth, that the tzibur would be forced to say. It's not clear from the question whether this guest is the shliach tzibur or not, but I think it is safe to say that in my shul, a shliach tzibur who tries this would be quickly informed of his error, and if it came from someone in the seats he'd simply be ignored. > Would your shul allow a guest to read his own Aliya? >From your use of the word "guest", I am presuming that this was not arranged in advance. If the guest had approached the gabbai a few days in advance to make this request, I don't know what the answer would be. But it sounds like the guest was called up, and at that point he asked the koreh, "May I read it myself?", as in the story that R' Josh Meisner told. I am horrified by the lack of consideration that this guest has toward the time and effort that the baal koreh put into preparing the laining. In RJM's story this happened on Rosh Chodesh, and I do concede that RC is by far the most frequently read parsha of all. But the question as posed was more general, applicable to any laining whether weekday or Shabbos. I am particularly surprised by the reaction of RJM's rav, who <<< insisted ... that the next two olim also read their own aliyos so as not to directly draw a distinction between those who read their own aliyah and those who do not. >>> While I appreciate the sensitivity involved, I am really surprised that this shul has such a large pool of people who can be called upon to lain properly, even for Rosh Chodesh - literally at a moment's notice. How common is this? Are there shuls where any randomly chosen person is able to lain? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 03:40:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:40:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chazkah that changed Message-ID: <> I would venture that according to everyone chazakot in financial matters can change. The famous case is a borrower who denies everything (kofer ba-kol) according to the Torah he doesn't pay anything and is not required to swear since no borrower would be brazen to completely deny a lie. The gemara says that "today" people are brazen and so we require a "shevua". I would guess that other financial chazakot for example that someone doesnt repay a loan ahead of time would depend on the current situation. If today there would be some reason for people to pay back a loan early that I would guess that the halacha indeed would change. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 04:01:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:01:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Visiting a Shul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJRich asked: > Visiting a shul questions-actual practices and sources appreciated: > * Would your shul allow a guest to read his own Aliya? > * Would your shul allow a guest to say his own nussach of kaddish (not as shatz)? > * Would your shul (in galut) allow the shatz not to say baruch hashem l'olam in maariv? > * Would your shul allow a guest to say 13 middot aloud by Tachanun(if local practice is not to)? > * Would the answers be different if requested before prayer (vs. gabbai intervention at time of event)? Me: In all those cases, in our shul, local minhag trumps the wishes of the guest, though we won't jump at anyone for adding vekooraiv mesheechay or werewa'h weassalah. Sometimes the reading of one's own aliya may be tolerated. When I was an avel, I mostly davvened in shuls that did not adhere to my minhag (though I layer "converted" to one of those other minhaggim), and as shaliach tzibbur, always followed their respective minhaggim. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 06:15:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:15:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked about guests in a shul where the guest's practices differ from the shul's. I am bothered by the question, and even more so by the responses. What has happened Porush Min Hatzibur? What has happened to Derech Eretz and simple good manners? ----------------------------- I have seen them all occur. What triggered the question was a shiur on yutorah where a pulpit rabbi mentioned that a visiting guest sfardi scholar asked in advance and was granted the right to read his own aliya. I was surprised and then thought of other situations that I had a similar reaction to. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 19:16:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 22:16:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Poisoning in Halacha Message-ID: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> Tonight my chevrusa and I learned the sugya in Bava Kamma 47b of one who puts poison in front of his friend's animal. A brief synopsis and application of the sugya is at http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/infected: ?A person put some poisoned food in front of his neighbor?s animal,? Rabbi Dayan said. ?The animal ate the food and died. The owner sued the neighbor for killing his animal. What do you say about this case?? ?I would say he?s liable,? said Mr. Wolf. ?He poisoned the animal.? ?I?m not so sure,? objected Mr. Mann. ?The neighbor didn?t actually kill the animal. Although he put out the poison, the animal chose to eat the food.? ?Animals don?t exactly have choice,? reasoned Mr. Wolf. ?If they see food, they eat! Anyway, even if the neighbor didn?t directly kill the animal, he certainly brought about the animal?s death.? ?But is that enough to hold him liable?? argued Mr. Mann. He turned to Rabbi Dayan.?The Gemara (B.K. 47b; 56a) teaches that placing poison before an animal is considered grama,? answered Rabbi Dayan. ?The animal did not have to eat the poisoned food. Therefore, the neighbor is not legally liable in beis din, but he is responsible b?dinei Shamayim. This means that he has a strong moral liability to pay, albeit not enforceable in beis din (Shach 386:23; 32:2).? It struck us that it follows that if one poisons another human being by, say, placing cyanide in his tea, which the victim then drinks and dies, the poisoner is exempt from capitol punishment. It would seem that such a manner of murder falls into the category of the Rambam's ruling in Hilchos Rotze'ach u'Shemiras Nefesh 3:10: Different rules apply, however, in the following instances: A person binds a colleague and leaves him to starve to death; he binds him and leaves him in a place that will ultimately cause him to be subjected to cold or heat, and these influences indeed come and kill the victim; he covers him with a barrel; he uncovers the roof of the building where he was staying; or he causes a snake to bite him. Needless to say, a distinction is made if a colleague dispatches a dog or a snake at a colleague. In all the above instances, the person is not executed. He is, nevertheless, considered to be a murderer, and "the One who seeks vengeance for bloodshed" will seek vengeance for the blood he shed. (translation from http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1088919/jewish/Rotzeach-uShmirat-Nefesh-Chapter-Three.htm) Perhaps this was a davar pashut to everyone else, but for me, tonight, it was a mind-boggling revelation! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 06:05:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:05:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hilchos Chol HaMoed Message-ID: <1491224727245.62311@stevens.edu> >From the article at http://tinyurl.com/l8ll4lf The following is meant as a convenient review of Halachos pertaining to Chol-Hamoed. The Piskei Din for the most part are based purely on the Sugyos, Shulchan Aruch and Rama, and the Mishna Berurah, unless stated otherwise. They are based on my understanding of the aforementioned texts through the teachings of my Rebbeim. As individual circumstances are often important in determining the psak in specific cases, and as there may be different approaches to some of the issues, one should always check with one's Rov first. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 12:50:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:50:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> > RZS: > In fact I'll go further: I don't believe that there has ever been a > posek of any stature who forbade potatoes as kitniyos, nor any community > that ever accepted such a practice. I have seen many sources claiming > that someone else, somewhere else forbade it, or that some other > community far away treats it as kitinyos, but never any first hand > acccount. When the Rosh writes that in Provence they said Tal Umatar > from Marcheshvan 7th I believe it, because he was there and saw it with > his own eyes. But I have never seen anyone report having seen with his > own eyes a community that forbids potatoes, or a psak din to that > effect. It's always someone else somewhere else. Until I see a first > hand account I don't believe it. > This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade potatoes. David Riceman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 09:15:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 12:15:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: <7f1aa7e091a1468c8cc6c5df61f610ac@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <7f1aa7e091a1468c8cc6c5df61f610ac@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <29.EA.10233.B3572E85@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 11:57 AM 4/3/2017, Ben Bradley wrote: >The Aruch HaShulchan was not happy with the minhag that the baal >haseder has his wine poured by someone else. He writes that it's a >bit haughty to order his wife to pour for him and that in his city >it was not the minhag. > >Aside from the interestingly contemporary sound of his concern, it >seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for everyone to >pour for everyone else, which would avoid the concern of the ArHaSh. > > >1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? In my home the children poured my wine once they were big enough and now my older grandchildren do this. And they pour for my wife also. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 10:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:10:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bourbon no Longer an Automatic, Faces Kashrus Issues Message-ID: <1491239439011.48127@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/kh92xxv "Companies that once distilled just a few barrels of bourbon every year are now churning out dozens of other drinks-Sherries, brandies, flavored vodkas-which might not be kosher. They can contaminate the bourbon, Rabbi Litvin said, if the liquors are run through the same pipes or tanks." The Litvins, a family that lives in Louisville, "have taken it upon themselves to keep bourbon kosher." Despite the fact that Jews are proportionately poor Bourbon consumers (it is an $8.5 billion industry), there has been a dramatic increase in demand in recent years, particularly by younger kosher consumers. "Alcohol consumption has definitely increased manifold," said one kosher wine and spirits expert. Heaven Hill, one of the largest liquor companies in the world, is owned by a Jewish family, but only a few of the bourbons-Evan Williams, the company's largest brand, and the high-end single-barrel whiskeys-are still guaranteed to be kosher. The others are run through the same pipes and storage tanks as other products, including untold flavors of vodka, spiced rum and mint whiskey. ______________________________________________________________ I guess that I have been ahead of the trends, because I have been drinking bourbon for decades and never liked Scotch. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 12:21:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:21:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Good manners will open doors that the best education cannot. Clarence Thomas Message-ID: <708AB73F-9427-468E-AAEE-C0DD97D63B94@cox.net> One of my doors recently broke and I?m having a new one installed Wednesday. It brought to mind a MIdrash I once learned telling of the basic distinctiveness of the Jewish door and the secret of its architectural design, which served as a protection against annihilation. ?And strike the upper doorpost through the merit of Abraham, and the two side-posts, in the merit of Isaac and Jacob. It was for their merit that HE saw the blood and would not suffer the destroyer? (Midrash Rabbah XVII - 3 Exodus). It set me to thinking. Aren?t the doors to a home indicative of the nature and character of those who live beyond them? I began to think of doors with various emblems displayed upon them. Some say: ?We have given.? ?No Beggars or Peddlers Allowed.? ?Nobody lives here,? etc. But next Monday evening, the Jewish emblem on the entrance door will say: "Let all who are hungry, come and eat." On this Festival of Pesach, let not Judaism pass over our doors. When we open our doors to welcome Eliyahu Hanavi, let us keep it open wide, to welcome all that is positive, invigorating and creative in Jewish life. Let our doors be indicative of proud Jewish occupants. Let us display our Mezuzot not as mere adornments but as emblems which proudly proclaim for all to see: ?We are proud to be the sons and daughters of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and we are determined to carry on in their tradition. Grief is a room without doors but Passover?s power not only changes that situation but it sends Eliyahu Hanavi right through. Truncated clich?, rw From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:11:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> References: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> Message-ID: On 03/04/17 15:50, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: >> > This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a > friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly > gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one > ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. > Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras > kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade > potatoes. That comes close, but not close enough. If the name of the town were given, so that one could track down other families from that town and verify it, then I'd accept it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:17:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:17:00 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach Message-ID: *<<*This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location >> *Nishmas* *Adam*, *Hilchos* *Pesach*, Question 20 (from the article on Potatos) mentions retzke that are called tatarka which are used to make flour are kitniyot My yiddish is very limited I saw one place that translated this as corn while another used buckwheat later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called erdeffel which I saw a translation as potatos. If this translation is accurate then the Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that allowed potatos on Pesach in case of a major famine. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:43:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:43:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170403204335.GC6792@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:17:00PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not : true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or : whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location >> : : Nishmas Adam, Hilchos Pesach, Question 20 (from the article on : Potatos) mentions : retzke that are called tatarka which are used to make flour are kitniyot It's Kelal 119, Q 20. : later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called erdeffel which : I saw a translation as potatos. If this translation is accurate then the : Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that allowed potatos on Pesach : in case of a major famine. And so, as Zev pointed out, it is untrue that the CA advocated this position. Which is what is commonly retold. (At least, in my experience.) The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:47:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:47:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 01:15:37PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What triggered the question was a shiur on yutorah where a pulpit : rabbi mentioned that a visiting guest sfardi scholar asked in advance : and was granted the right to read his own aliya. I was surprised and : then thought of other situations that I had a similar reaction to. Isn't there a problem that the second you let those who are able to lein for themselves, you destroyed the minhag of leveling the playing field with a baal qeri'ah? Along thse lines, my father -- who certainly doesn't have to -- reads the berachos from the card on the bimah. The whole procedure is built around avoiding embarassing those less educated Jewishly. And today, where so many who get aliyos may be newer baalei teshuvah who don't know the berakhos by heart, shouldn't everyone read the berakhos, just the way everyone has a shaliach do the reading? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 14:34:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:34:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> References: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 03/04/17 16:47, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Along thse lines, my father -- who certainly doesn't have to -- reads > the berachos from the card on the bimah. The whole procedure is built > around avoiding embarassing those less educated Jewishly. As I understand it, the purpose of reading the brachos from a card is to make it clear that one is not reading them from the Torah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 14:30:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:30:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> On 03/04/17 16:17, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not >> true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or >> Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the >> location > Nishmas/ /Adam/, /Hilchos/ /Pesach/, Question 20 (from the article > on Potatos) Yes, I'm obviously aware of this reference, which *does not say* what so many people cite it as saying, because they saw it cited to that effect somewhere else, and have not bothered looking it up. This is frankly getting up my nose, which is why I specified that I am not interested in citations that the poster has not looked up himself and verified that they actually say what they are represented as saying. > mentions retzke that are called tatarka which are used to > make flour are kitniyot My yiddish is very limited I saw one place > that translated this as corn while another used buckwheat Retchke, or Gretchke, means normal buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum). Tatarke means Tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum). > later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called > erdeffel which I saw a translation as potatos. Yes, bulbes are potatoes. as in the famous song "Zuntik bulbes, Montik bulbes". > If this translation is > accurate then the Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that > allowed potatos on Pesach in case of a major famine. He reports having heard that in 1771-72 there was a famine and the community of Frth convened a beis din which permitted potatoes and kitniyos, but not buckwheat. His purpose in citing this is simply to demonstrate that buckwheat is worse than kitniyos, since even in this extreme case they refused to permit it. Of course this immediately causes the reader to wonder why they'd need a heter for potatoes, so he throws in the explanation that in Germany they don't eat them on Pesach. Of course anyone who sees this can see immediately that (a) he reports this practise neutrally, without expressing any support for it, and (b) he doesn't claim first hand knowledge that it even exists, but merely repeat a rumour he'd heard about some other place. Somehow, in the hands of irresponsible people, this seems to have transformed into the received wisdom that he forbade potatoes, or wanted to forbid them, or thought they ought to be forbidden, etc, none of which has the slightest tinge of truth, and it's perpetuated by lazy and dishonest people who repeat it as fact, complete with a fake citation which they have not bothered to verify. This, in turn, by exaggerating the extent of gezeras kitniyos, is used to make it seem ridiculous, onerous, impractical, and ripe for reform. On 03/04/17 16:43, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. and did so merely as a rumour. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 20:11:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:11:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder Message-ID: R' Ben Bradley wrote: > it seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for > everyone to pour for everyone else, which would avoid the > concern of the ArHaSh. > > 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? The ArtScroll Haggadah says (in the instructions for Kiddush), "The participants fill each others' cups", without mentioning any minhagim to the contrary. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat, in Halachos of Pesach, on pg 468, cites Haggada Kol Dodi (Rav Dovid Feinstein) 7:2, writing: > The Ramoh (473;1) specifies that the leader of the Seder > should not fill his own cup, but should allow others to pour > for him, as this displays cheirus (freedom). > > Although the wording of the Ramoh seems to imply that this > requirement only applies to the host and leader of the Seder, > the general custom is to do this for all the participants. > Most people therefore pour the wine for each other at each > juncture of the Four Cups. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 03:40:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 06:40:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> References: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170404104004.GA3715@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 05:30:34PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. : and did so merely as a rumour. What he repeated was a story about someone making an exception to their minhag. The explanation as to why the minhag was needed isn't given as part of the story. And if the CA puts the story into writing and uses in halachic argument, he obviously thought it was more than mere rumor. Still, not his own position, not even something he advised in theory, even before ein hatzibur yakhol laamod bah considerations. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 05:52:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 12:52:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman Message-ID: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> There is a shiur about this at http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 19:29:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 22:29:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Isn't there a problem that the second you let those who > are able to lein for themselves, you destroyed the minhag > of leveling the playing field with a baal qeri'ah? Yes, that's what MB 141:8 says. Actually, that MB goes a bit farther, and points out that "harbeh" such people *don't* know the laining so well, and the result is that the tzibur isn't yotzay. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 06:42:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:42:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato Message-ID: "This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade potatoes." This has nothing to do with potatoes but I was talking to the wife of a Moroccan this morning and she said that he told her (third-hand again) that many Moroccan towns had their own minhagim. For example, in one town they didn't use sugar because it was stored in bags near grain. So it's certainly possibly true about potatoes as well. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 06:23:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:23:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: from an OU bulletin My grandparents, may they rest in peace, would be startled to discover that I can purchase OUP kosher for Passover items such as breakfast cereals, pizza, bread sticks, rolls, blintzes, waffles, pierogis and farfel. OTOH the OU has many chumrot on what is kitniyot I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily be mixed up with chametz. It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 08:58:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:58:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> On 04/04/17 09:23, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer > makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as > kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. > > To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and > bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our predecessors made. Thus the machlokes acharonim about newly discovered legumes and pseudo-grains: was the original gezera only on certain species, or was it on the entire class? Most acharonim seem to say it was on the entire class, but then argue about how to define that class, and thus how to decide what it includes. But very few if any say zil basar ta`ma to include new things that definitely don't fall in the original definition of the banned class. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 09:45:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 19:45:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> References: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> Message-ID: <6bd3ddad-9fb6-b9ae-d7e5-edded0b2f267@starways.net> On 4/4/2017 6:58 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 04/04/17 09:23, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> >> It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer >> makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as >> kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. >> >> To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and >> bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. > > It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no > authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our > predecessors made. I was under the impression that gezeirot weren't something that could be instituted after the Sanhedrin. Even Rabbenu Gershom only instituted his rules as chramim, rather than gezeirot. And the minhag (not gezeira by any stretch of the imagination) was made by local rabbis for local conditions and local situations. Conditions and situations change. I realize that the reason we differentiate between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan law is because there's a meforash commandment of bal tosif. But we can learn out from that on some level that we shouldn't be jumbling up gezeirot and takkanot and cheramim and minhagim and siyagim and treating them like they're all the same. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:43:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 20:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58ee56f4-ffb7-2f3d-6cf8-93f18c2d7746@zahav.net.il> See my post a week ago in which I cited Rav Yoel Ben Nun and Rav Yosef Rimon as both taking the position that we need to ban flour substitutes and relax on kitniyot. Ben On 4/4/2017 3:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals > and bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:13:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:23:37PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer : makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as : kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. : : To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and : bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. In this era of packaged foods and heksheirim, the whole minhag makes no sense. People aren't deciding on their own whether quinoa is qitniyos. Or whether some sack contains pure peas with no wheat from the bottom of the silo. Or would eat a porridge based on a guess about whether it was pea or oatmeal. (The fact that I get my *unflavored* gourmet whole-leaf teas without a KLP symbol -- something little different than buying any [other] vegetable -- makes my wife nervous.) The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:58:06AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no : authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our : predecessors made... Well, they lacked that authority too. This is minhag, not gezeira. And the notion that we should be bery mimetic and work with what our ancestors actually did rather than what their rationale would imply in our context works even better with minhagim than with gezeiros. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:01:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman In-Reply-To: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> References: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170404180132.GB8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : There is a shiur about this at : http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz So, I am listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on YUTorah at this link. He opens by saying that the afiqoman (epikomion) must be before chatzos, and very likely the 4th cup too. So, kol hamarbeh means adding to the END of the seder, not having a longer Maggid that will push past chatzos. (Eg tzeis is 8:12pm in NY, as MyZmanim computes it -- 36 min as degrees, and chatzos is 12:56. So, we're talking Qadeish to the end of Hallel in 4 hr 44 min. Unhitting pause...) The Avnei Neizer (R Avrohom Bornsztain, the first Sochatchover Rebbe, descendant of both the Ramah and the Shach) argues that if you are finishing by chatzos to fulfil R Gamliel's shitah, then you could eat other foods after chatzos. And if you are not eating the rest of the night, that's because you're worried that if the mitzvah is indeed alkl night (unlike RG), ein maftirin achar hapesach would also be all night. So, the AN suggests that a moment before chatzos, eat a piece of matzah al tenai that if the halakhah is like Rabban Gamliel, it will be your afiqoman. Then, don't eat the minute or two until chatzos -- for R' Gamliel's en maftirin. Then, go back to eating (as long as you finish before alos), concluding with another afiqoman, also al tenai -- thus fulfilling the other ein maftirin. (BTW, note that the seder in the hagadah that went until zeman qeri'as Shema didn't include Rabban Gamliel.) R Meir Arik in Kol Torah uses this to answer a problematic Rashbam (Pesachim 121). The Rashbam says you're allowed to bring qorbanos todah or nedavah on erev Pesach. But you're not allowed to bring a qorban where you are mema'et the zeman akhilah, and the zeman akhilah for these qorbanos is until the morning. So how could you bring them on a day where ein maftirin achar hapesach will limit the time in which they could be eaten? But according to the Avnei Neizer, you can fulfill ein maftirin for both shitos and only limit eating for a moment before chatzos, by eating that 2nd afiqoman at the last possible time. However, there is a lot of opposition to the AN's chiddush. RALebowitz says there are 6 questions, but he's running out of time. 1- The Baal haMaor and the Ran's explanation for why ein maftirin would work with the AN. But the Ramban says the problem was that having so many people needing to eat their kezayis qorban pesach bein hachomos before chatzos, there was a worry that people would eat early, when still famished. (Which is assur derabbanan, gezeirah maybe they'll break bones. The question of why ein maftirin wouldn't then be a gezeira al hagezeira was not raised in the shiur.) Which means that even if the zeman for the qorban is until chatzos, if people could still plan a late dinner, they could rely on that and still eat their pesach while very hungry. 2- RMF (IM OC vol 5, pg 123) brings several objections. One basic one: even the AN says he never saw anyone do this before. RMF found it tamuha to rely on a sevara be'alma to change so many generations of mimeticism. (An argument that touches on some hot topics today.) 3- RMF adds that one needs to prove that the zman akhilah and the zeman ta'am are the same. Maybe the chiyuv of having the taste in your mouth happens to run longer? 4- The Chasam Sofer writes against doing a mitzvah mitoras safeiq. Similar to Rabbeinu Yonah's (on Berakhos) explanation for why an asham talui is more expensive than a chatas. Because we need to correct the "I probably didn't do anything wrong" attitude. If you never know when you're fulfilling the mitzvah, kavah will be lacking. RALebowitz then gives eidus from R Wolf that R Willig finishes his 4th kos right before chatzos. And timing then becomes a central theme during the seder. R' Avraham Pam said on many occations that we have to be aware of those who spent all that time making the seder. (Typically the wives and mothers.) Sometimes we spend so much time on Magid, that we then rush through the beautiful se'udah they made to get to the last kos on time. RAP thought that this bein adam lachaveiro issue is sufficient to justify relying on the Avnei Neizer. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 12:21:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 21:21:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <496ab467-1c33-a721-97d2-48512539e648@zahav.net.il> Rav Rimon's Hagaddah specifies that the minhag is to pour the wine/grape juice of the ba'al habayit alone. He also notes that there are those who don't follow the custom. In the footnotes, he cites that when people put water in their wine, it wasn't derech cheirut for the home owner to do it himself. Today, that isn't the case and it is common for everyone to pour his own wine/grape juice. He also cites the AHS' opposition. Ben On 4/4/2017 5:11 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? > > The ArtScroll Haggadah says (in the instructions for Kiddush), "The > participants fill each others' cups", without mentioning any minhagim > to the contrary. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:21:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:21:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Fungibility of Mitzvos Message-ID: <20170404182125.GD8762@aishdas.org> As y'all know, I'm obsessed with this topic. The notion of metaphysical causality that interferes with "you get what you deserve / need" bothers me. So I appreciated RNSlifkin finding these sources. http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2017/04/can-you-do-mitzvos-to-benefit-others.html Tir'u baTov! -Micha Can You Do Mitzvos To Benefit Others? April 03, 2017 Can you do mitzvos in such a way that the merit for them will benefit other people? Can you designate them to receive the reward for your mitzvah in their mitzvah bank account, such that they receive more Divine favor? A friend of mine recently forwarded to me a request on behalf of someone who is tragically unwell. The community was requested to pray for his recovery, which is certainly a time-honored Jewish response. But there was also a request to do mitzvos on his behalf, as a merit for God to heal him. My friend wanted to know if there was any classical Jewish basis for this. In my essay "What Can One Do For Someone Who Has Passed Away?" I noted that classically, one's mitzvos are only a credit to those people who had a formative influence on you. One's mitzvos cannot help the souls of other people. Rashba cites a responsum from Rav Sherira Gaon on this: "A person cannot merit someone else with reward; his elevation and greatness and pleasure from the radiance of the Divine Presence is only in accordance with his deeds." (Rashba, Responsa, Vol. 7 #539) Maharam Alashkar cites Rav Hai Gaon who firmly rejects the notion that one can transfer the reward of a mitzvah to another person and explains why this is impossible: "These concepts are nonsense and one should not rely upon them. How can one entertain the notion that the reward of good deeds performed by one person should go to another person? Surely the verse states, 'The righteousness of a righteous person is on him,' (Ezek. 18:20) and likewise it states, 'And the wickedness of a wicked person is upon him.' Just as nobody can be punished on account of somebody else's sin, so too nobody can merit the reward of someone else. How could one think that the reward for mitzvos is something that a person can carry around with him, such that he can transfer it to another person?" (Maharam Alashkar, Responsa #101) The same view is found explicitly and implicitly in other sources, as I noted in my essay. There is simply no mechanism to transfer the reward for one's own mitzvos to other people. It seems that only very recent mystical-based sources claim otherwise. Now, I don't see any reason why there should be any difference if the person that one is trying to help is deceased or alive. Nor do I know of any source in classical rabbinic literature that one can do a mitzvah as a merit to help someone that is sick. Prayer, yes. And Tehillim are also a form of prayer (though it may depend upon which Tehillim are being recited). But I know of no classical source that one can honor one's parents or learn Torah or send away a mother bird as a merit for somebody else. (The most common example of people attempting to do this may be the custom of women to separate challah on behalf of a sick person. Here too, though, it appears that the classical basis of this is not that the mitzvah of separating challah is crediting the sick person, but rather that the person separating the challah thereby has a special time of power/inspiration, which makes their prayer more powerful.) If I'm wrong in any of the above, I'll be glad to see sources showing otherwise. But so far, I have found that while people are shocked when one challenges the notion that you can learn Torah on behalf of someone who is sick, nobody has yet actually come up with any classical sources demonstrating otherwise. Furthermore, if this indeed was a part of classical Judaism, we would certainly expect it to have prominent mention in the writings of Chazal and the Rishonim. We appear to have another situation of something widespread that is believed to be an integral and classical part of Judaism, and yet is actually a modern innovation that has no basis in classical Judaism whatsoever. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:33:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:33:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> References: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we > start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system > will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. > > Mehila, but aren't you being rather Chicken Little (or is your tongue somewhere in the direction of your cheek?) We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other minhagim that people are so set against any change? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 12:22:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 19:22:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot Message-ID: > The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we > start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system will > collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and many modern oils RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and cottonseed oil and this is being expanded by many I don't see this as destroying a Mimetic tradition the reason to include canola oil is that it is similar to Kitniyot even though it or even corn oil did not exist at the time of the generation So the question is why extend the minhagim to canola oil when the problem of the confusion doesn't exist but we don't extend it to non chametz cereal or breadstick where the possibility of mistakes is greater As previously mentioned rsza was against these chametz look a like products as are several contemporary rabbis OTOH the outside is nachman in lecithin in candies where there are many reasons to be making and they are making in chametz looking and tasting products where many are machmir From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 13:15:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170404201511.GI8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:33:22PM +0300, Simon Montagu wrote: : We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha : hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other : minhagim that people are so set against any change? Sorry if this will sound like circular reasoning, but it isn't because of the time lag: Minhagim that are *currently* treated very seriously can't be broken *going forward* as readliy simply because of the psychological / experiential impact of bending or breaking something that is so vehemently held. Since my argument is about mimetics, halakhah-as-culture, you can't necessarily get a textual / theory-based answer. On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 07:22:32PM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote: : We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them : My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and : many modern oils RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and : cottonseed oil and this is being expanded by many .. Well, RMF didn't actively permit peanut oil as much as report that back in Litta, peanuts were commonly consumed on Pesach. According to R/Dr Bannet, within my lifetime peanut oil was THE go-to oil for Pesach. But that's Litta. Minhag Litta didn't expand qitniyos to legumes found in the New World, after the original minhag formed. (Although they did take on avoiding New World grain -- maize / corn.) Minhag Litta was also lenient on mei qitniyos, and a far broader range of the northern half of Eastern Europe (I don't know what Yekkes hold) were lenient on shemes qitniyos in particular. Yes, by my minhagim, there are two reasons not to need a special formula for KLP Coke. If we could get anyone to give a hekhsher to certify there is nothing "worse" than mei New World qitniyos in it. But other parts of Europe went by reasoning, and did have stringencies including liquids and oils. That's their minhag, and it always was their minhag. Which gets me to my point: It's not really that any rav is expanding minhagim. It's that the heksher industry is going to be cost efficient. Heksheirim that say something is okay for 2/3 of their audience don't survive. Causing a lest-common-denominator approach to the spread of minhagim. Like trying to find reliable non-glatt meat in the US; the larger hekhsheirim don't even try. And so, as more move into the area whose minhagim exclude using peanut oil on Pesach, it becomes harder to find KLP certified peanut oil, and all too quickly people forget what was once the norm. I think that framing it as pesaqim and machloqes is imprecise. It's more like watching the evolution of new minhagim as our new communities from mixtures of the old ones. Not necessarily in directions we would like, but at least that's the framework in question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:11:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:11:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/17 15:22, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them We have no more authority to limit them than to eliminate them altogether. > My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and > many modern oils What people do has no relation to what they have the right to do. > RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and cottonseed oil RMF (almost alone) holds that the original gezera was on particular species, and peanuts were never included. The machlokes about cottonseed oil is precisely about whether it is a kind of kitnis or not. > the reason to include canola oil is that it is similar to Kitniyot > even though it or even corn oil did not exist at the time of the > generation Whether the oil existed then is lechol hade'os irrelevant. If the species is included in the ban then all forms are included. RMF however would presumably say that since rapeseed was not an edible species at the time, it was not included. Most acharonim, who hold that the ban was on the whole category, would presumably include it. > So the question is why extend the minhagim to canola oil when the problem > of the confusion doesn't exist but we don't extend it to non chametz cereal > or breadstick where the possibility of mistakes is greater Once again, because no individual rav or group of rabbanim have the authority to permit what is already forbidden, or to forbid for the entire people what is currently permitted. > As previously mentioned rsza was against these chametz look a like products That he was against something doesn't make it assur. > as are several contemporary rabbis OTOH the outside is nachman in lecithin > in candies where there are many reasons to be making and they are making in > chametz looking and tasting products where many are machmir But what authority do they have for this? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:33:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 17:33:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman In-Reply-To: References: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <0A.54.10233.A4114E85@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:01 PM 4/4/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via >Avodah wrote: >: There is a shiur about this at >: http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz > >So, I am listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on YUTorah at this link. >R' Avraham Pam said on many occations that we have to be aware of >those who spent all that time making the seder. (Typically the wives >and mothers.) Sometimes we spend so much time on Magid, that we then >rush through the beautiful se'udah they made to get to the last kos on >time. RAP thought that this bein adam lachaveiro issue is sufficient to >justify relying on the Avnei Neizer. Rav Schwab in his shiur on the seder (to be found in Rav Schwab on Prayer) suggests eating very little during the Seder besides the required amounts of Matzah and Moror, so that one will have room and appetite for the Afikoman and not have to "force" oneself to eat it. I do not know what Rebbetzen Schwab prepared for the Seder meal, but I assume it was not an elaborate meal based on what she knew Rav Schwab would eat. I know that R. Miller would not allow his children or grandchildren to read from the sheets that they came home with from Yeshiva. He told them to save it for later, probably the next day. And since I mentioned all of the material that the kids come home with from school, let me say that IMO the schools "spoil" the seder. To me it is clear from the Gemara in Pesachim that the children are not supposed to be "primed" with all sorts of knowledge about the Seder. The things we do are supposed to be new to them so that they will ask questions. My children when they were young and my younger grandchildren now know enough to conduct the Seder themselves! There is nothing new for them. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:59:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:59:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah Message-ID: I understand that one cannot use Egg Matza for the mitzva of Achilas Matza, but I'm not sure exactly why. I'm aware of two different reasons, and they seem mutually exclusive. 1) The Torah requires that this mitzva be done with "lechem oni" - poor bread, plain and lacking the richness that it would have if it were made with eggs, juice, oil, or the like. 2) Matza must be something that could have become chometz, but was baked before chimutz could occur. According to those who hold that flour and pure mei peiros will not ever become chometz, "matza ashira" isn't really halachic matza at all. I suspect that I am conflating various shitos, and that according to any individual shita, one reason or the other will apply, but not both. Can someone help me out? Thanks! Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:27:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:27:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I understand it, the purpose of reading the brachos from a card is to make it clear that one is not reading them from the Torah. I believe that's the reason for turning one's head to the side, haven't seen that as the reason for using a card. And that's only according to the opinion that the oleh leaves the Sefer Torah open while making the brachos. The opinion that the Sefer Torah should be closed is for the same reason if memory serves, and then of course no card would be needed at all. So I presume the reason for the card is simply for people who need it. Given that the whole reason for having a designated baal koreh in the first place was to save the embarassment of those who can't read their own aliya, I'm bemused by the permission for someone to decide they'd like to read their own aliya. Unless you say that a well known talmid chacham, or a guest of honour, would not embarrass the other olim by reading his aliya since he's known as a scholar. It does seem that avoiding the chashash of embarrassment was more important to chazal than to many contemporary kehillos. Maybe it needs some chizuk. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 23:41:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 06:41:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot Message-ID: And so, as more move into the area whose minhagim exclude using peanut oil on Pesach, it becomes harder to find KLP certified peanut oil, and all too quickly people forget what was once the norm. Which is a difference between Israel and USA Israel with a large sefardi community has top level hasgacha on kiniyot products also many candies now list that they contain lecithin so that the consumer can decide rather than the hasgacha deciding -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 20:45:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 23:45:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/17 17:27, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > Given that the whole reason for having a designated baal koreh in the > first place was to save the embarassment of those who can't read their > own aliya, I'm bemused by the permission for someone to decide they'd > like to read their own aliya. Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone wants to do his own, why not? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 21:53:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:53:50 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Are Mitzvos Fungible Message-ID: Obviously, and in spite of all the stories of people selling their Olam Haba it is a nonsense - good and evil deeds cannot be redeemed or transferred by a financial transaction or any agreement HOWEVER if anyone is inspired to do a good [or evil] deed or desist doing an evil [or good] deed because of another persons influence clearly that influencing person is rewarded accordingly and so when we learn Torah or do any other other Mitzvah and we are inspired to do it because of an institution or a person be they in Olam HaEmes or in this world a Zechis accrues for that person Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 21:18:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:18:03 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru - We have no authority to decree new gezeros Message-ID: Although it has been said on these hallowed pages Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru - We have no authority to decree new gezeros yet many felt that the new stainless steel Shechitah knives were forbidden machicne Matza was forbidden Ben PeKuAh is forbidden they're even arguing that soft Matza is forbidden for Ashkenazim etc. But it is Kula Chada Gezeira Thus newly discovered foods are Kitniyos And whatever the truth is we are V lucky that potato was not included and not reversed remember when peanuts were KLP? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 03:01:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:01:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pate de Foie Gras Message-ID: <20170405100107.GA16249@aishdas.org> Daf Yomi learners just learned BB 73b. It looks to me like the gemara is condemning, although on an aggadic level, the preparation of pate de foi gras. Since I can't quote the gemara, here's R' Steinzaltz's commentary (from : And Rabba bar bar Hana said: Once we were traveling in the desert and we saw these geese whose wings were sloping because they were so fat, and streams of oil flowed beneath them. I said to them: Shall we have a portion of you in the World-to-Come? One raised a wing, and one raised a leg, [signaling an affirmative response]. When I came before Rabbi Elazar, he said to me: The Jewish people will [eventually] be held accountable for [the suffering] of [the geese. Since the Jews do not repent, the geese are forced to continue to grow fat as they wait to be given to the Jewish people as a reward.] Rashbam ("litein aleihem es hadin"): For in their sins, they delay mashiach. They, those geese, have tza'ar ba'alei chaim because of their fat. Apparently even the messianic se'udah is insufficient grounds to justify torturing geese for their fat. Also implied is that the sin of making the geese suffer in their obesity is not a sin so great at to itself holding up the mashiach's arrival. Otherwise, R' Elazar would be describing a vicious cycle. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 03:51:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:51:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on > kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU > gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be > prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily > be mixed up with chametz. > > It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if > no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the > same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. I am both surprised and confused, by this post and almost all the ones that followed. It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and gebroks. Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right? So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate gebroks. I am not surprised that amei haaretz like myself have trouble understanding the definitions of kitniyos. But one thing is for sure: That our rabanim ought to understand that kitniyos and gebroks are two different things. Some might respond that today's "farfel, bread sticks etc" are being made not of matza meal but of potato and tapioca. I don't see that as relevant. *ANY* definition of kitniyos has to be one that doesn't include matza meal. And if matza meal is excluded, then you can't include potatoes merely because they are so useful. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 05:20:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:20:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <50BEA150-B533-4159-AFEB-ADE8B18EB7E1@sibson.com> > Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone wants to do his own, why not? > > -- Synagogue practices in particular are a very sensitive area, at least according to rabbi Soloveutchik. THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 08:56:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:56:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170405155630.GA29273@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:45:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any : given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, : it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone : wants to do his own, why not? Since when does logic have to do with emotions? Your line of reasoning would work for robots, not people. If everyone else is leining their own aliyah that day, someone who can't may still be embarassed and decline taking an aliyah with the ba'al qeri'ah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 05:57:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 08:57:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Tefillin on Chol Moed Message-ID: R Samuel Svarc wrote on Areivim >This, as it turns out, is a minority view. Not all Ashkenazim hold >that way, nor do Sefardim, nor a nice junk of the Litvishe wing. From http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/tefillinONmoed.htm The Aruch Hashulchan notes that "recently" a practice among some Ashkenazic Jews has developed to refrain from wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. He is referring to the practice of Chassidim, which was also the practice at the famed Volozhiner Yeshiva (as recorded by the Rav, Shiurim L'zeicher Aba Mori Zal p.119) And from http://dinonline.org/2014/04/07/tefillin-on-chol-hamoed-pesach/ The Rema adds that the Ashkenaz custom is to wear Tefillin and recite a berachah, but because of the sensitivity of the topic the berachah should be recited quietly. Later authorities espouse the compromise noted by the Tur, meaning that Tefillin are worn but the berachah is not recited (see Taz 31:2; Mishnah Berurah 31:8). YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 09:29:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:29:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170405162920.GB19562@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 06:51:14AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and : gebroks. I think the conversation works better as is. Gebrochts is a minhag to avoid the possible manufacture of real chameitz from any flour that happened to stay dry when the matzah was made. Qitniyos is a minhag or multiple minhagim to avoid things that either: 1- are stored in the same silos as with chameitz, in which case it's much like gebrochts in function. Or 2- are used in a manner similar to chameitz, and people might eat chameitz thinking it's pea porridge or mustard seed or whatnot. And these could indeed be divergant minhagim, where different explanations became primary drivers in different areas, leading to difference in how practice evolved. But explanation #2 does open the door for the original question. Pretzels made from oatmeal make it possible for someone to accidentally eat real chameitz pretzels. And if your ancestral version of qitniyos includes growing it to include new items that make the same mistake possible, eg corn, then why not all these gebrochts or potato / potato starch products -- not because they're gebrochts (if they are), but because reason #2 applies. : So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever : arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they : were rejected by communities that ate gebroks. No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) This really is a recent development. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 07:48:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:48:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Fungibility of Mitzvos In-Reply-To: References: <002801d2ae0d$a752e040$f5f8a0c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: R? Micha Berger quoted R? Natan Slifkin: <<< I have found that while people are shocked when one challenges the notion that you can learn Torah on behalf of someone who is sick, nobody has yet actually come up with any classical sources demonstrating otherwise. >>> I?d like to suggest a very slight difference between two scenarios: Suppose I say, ?Hashem, I am going to learn some Torah now, and I?d like the s?char for this mitzvah to go to Ploni, instead of to me.? That seems to be the situation that RNS is talking about. But suppose I say, ?Hashem, I am going to learn some Torah now, and I?d like *MY* s?char for this mitzvah to be that You heal Ploni, who is currently ill?, or ?? that You elevate Ploni to a higher level in Gan Eden?, or something similar. My point is that if there is no mechanism to transfer s?char from one person to another, perhaps we can still request that the s?char should take a particular form, and it would result in the same effect. I?m pretty sure that there *are* sources for requesting that the s?char should take a certain form. More accurately, I recall cases where one requests that his *onesh* should take a particular form, such as if it has been decreed that one should lose a certain amount of money, it should occur in tiny amounts over a long time, or some other similar request. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 08:52:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:52:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos HaGadol Message-ID: It is not easy to explain the origin of the Hagadol which is applied to this coming Shabbos. In the Haftorah, the prophet Malachi speaks of a Yom Hashem Hagadol which according to various customs is to be read when the Sabbath before Pesach happens to be Erev Pesach. And yet the term Hagadol as applied to the Sabbath before Passover has been accepted by all whether or not it falls on Erev Pesach. The Midrash offers additional insight as to why this Shabbos is termed Hagadol and tells us something most of us have learned that on the Shabbos preceding the 14th of Nissan (when the Pascal lamb was to be brought as an offering), the Egyptian masters entered into the homes of the Jews and noticed that each family had a sheep tied to its bedposts. The Egyptians asked: ?What are you doing with our sheep?!? The Jews replied: ?We are going to slaughter it as an offering to our God.? The Egyptian masters gritted their teeth in exasperation and walked out. This is another basis for the Shabbos preceding Pesach to be called the ?Great Shabbos.? It is the Shabbos that the Jewish people experienced a miracle ? they were not killed by their masters because of their subordination to the Will of the Almighty and they were not deterred by concern for their personal safety. THAT was ?greatness? and they were, indeed, truly ?great.? It is also interesting that every Shabbos symbolizes complete freedom ? freedom from technology and the mundane. Pesach typifies freedom and redemption. The parallel to Shabbos is profound. May this Shabbos be the ?GREATEST!? "The price of greatness is responsibility.? Winston Churchill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 14:25:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:25:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a5b4365-260b-ab41-7882-0043d896073e@zahav.net.il> On 4/5/2017 12:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone > who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from > gebroks, right? Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can get today which is no different than cake flour? [Email #2. -micha] On 4/4/2017 8:33 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and > halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all > other minhagim that people are so set against any change? If this one is different it is because people have set out to take down this minhag. Whereas something like changing from an Ashkenazi white with black stripes tallit to a more Sefardi all white one wouldn't be such a big deal because no one is making an issue out of it. In my community there is a back lash against the kitni-chumrot so I see it changing, somewhat. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 01:32:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:32:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Food in the desert questions Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: "In the mishkan, a mincha offering was brought. other offerings too. Some : required flour and oil. Where did they come from? " I just saw a Tosafos in Menachos 45b that discusses the question of flour in the midbar. Tosafos quotes Rashi as saying that they did not make the shtei halechem in the midbar because all they had was man (so they had no flour). Tosafos disagrees and says that they bought flour from merchants (based on the Gemara Yoma 75b). I would assume that Tosafos would say the same thing about oil. The Rambam in the Peirush Hamishnayos (Menachos 4:4) agrees with Rashi that they had no flour in the midbar. So to answer your question according to Rashi and the Rambam they had no flour and therefore did not bring anything flour based. According to Tpsafos they bought flour from merchants in the midbar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 22:03:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Meisner via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 01:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > I understand that one cannot use Egg Matza for the mitzva of Achilas > Matza, but I'm not sure exactly why. I'm aware of two different reasons, > and they seem mutually exclusive. > > 1) The Torah requires that this mitzva be done with "lechem oni"... > 2) Matza must be something that could have become chometz, but was baked > before chimutz could occur. According to those who hold that flour and pure > mei peiros will not ever become chometz, "matza ashira" isn't really > halachic matza at all. If matzah is baked with mei peiros and a kol she-hu of water, it would not be lechem oni but would be halachically matzah. Josh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 04:16:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:16:49 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller asked: "It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and gebroks. Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right? So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate gebroks." There is no question that this is a new problem, even 50 years ago no one made things out of matzo meal or potato starch that looked almost exactly like the equivalent chometz item. There has been an explosion of "imitation" chometz products over the last 20 years that look and even taste like chometz. This is more a spirit of the law issue. One of the reasons given for not eating kitniyos is that since kitniyos look like and/or can make things that look like chometz we are afraid that people will confuse them with chometz and come to eat chometz. This concern certainly applies much more to these modern products. If I can get kosher l'pesach cereal that looks exactly like chometz cereal there is certainly a risk of confusion. No one is saying that these things are kitniyos, what they are saying that in the spirit of kitniyos these should be prohibited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 05:06:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those measures should be. I wrote: : So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? : Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 : years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate : gebroks. and R' Micha Berger responded: > No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks > that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) > This really is a recent development. Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my mother made at home? I'm sorry, but I can't buy that. It is true that today's factory kitchens allow an amazing variety of technologies and abilities, including products that are almost indistinguishable from regular bread. But I maintain that this does NOT translate to an increased chance that someone will mix flour and water in their home kitchen, precisely because the factory and home are so far apart - both geographically and sociologically. If someone is enticed by the quality of a store-bought breadstick or pizza slice, I cannot imagine that they would attempt to duplicate it at home nowadays without a recipe. Seeing a breaded chicken cutlet at one's neighbor's home *IS* something that you might duplicate in your own home, and there is great danger there. But I just don't see that happening with factory-made goods. Anyone who is awed by the quality will read the box to figure out how they managed such a feat, and they will immediately see the potato and tapioca listed. (But I am willing to listen to other arguments.) My suspicion is that the anti-potato sentiments may have originated in the non-gebroks sectors. Pesach pizza and pancakes are very new to them, and I suppose I can understand their concern. But among those who have been eating gebroks for generations, I just don't understand why these new products bother them. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 03:35:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:35:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah Message-ID: R' Joshua Meisner wrote: > If matzah is baked with mei peiros and a kol she-hu of water, > it would not be lechem oni but would be halachically matzah. That's true. Theoretically, if one would bake it fast enough, before it becomes chometz, it would be real matza. But because of the mei peiros, it isn't plain matza, but it is "rich" matza - matza ashira, and thus disqualified from Mitzvas Achilas Matza. But as far as I know, no one makes such matza, because (there is a fear that) the combination of both water and mei peiros will allow the dough to become chometz much faster than usual. That's not the case with the stuff on the shelves that's labeled "Egg Matza" or "Matza Ashira" - This has no water at all, and its dough can never become chometz. If so, then it seems to me that the term "Matza Ashira" is a misnomer. It isn't matza at all, because it was incapable of becoming chometz. A better term for it might be "Matza-style squares" (which is the term that the industry has chosen for the potato and tapioca stuff). I suspect that at some point in history, some educator felt that the logic of "the fruit juice makes it rich bread" was more easily accepted by the masses, and the logic of "it can't be chometz and therefore it isn't matza" was too difficult for them. And from that point onwards, it was the go-to explanation, despite the technical shortcomings. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 05:28:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat Message-ID: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I've been thinking (pun intended) about staam daat" . (I have in mind "whatever HKB"H wants me to have in mind without actually knowing what that is [e.g., to be yotzeih the chazan's bracha]). Firstly what is the source of the concept. Secondly, Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal says works, that's what I want to think/occur). [relatrd to daat makneh and koneh issues] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:07:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:07:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru Message-ID: We all assume we can't have new gezerot. Is this really true? At least according to some opinions bicycles and umbrellas are allowed on shabbat. According to RSZA electricity (without a heat or fire) is really allowed on shabbat and certainly yomtov. Years ago many held that electricity was allowed on yomtov. Today we have things like fitbit watches which many feel are allowed on shabbat. Yet in practice the poskim prohibit all these things. Other things are prohbited in davening because it is a slippery slope etc. In essence these are all new gezerot perhaps without the nomenclature -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:21:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:21:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:06:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos : understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect : people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is : acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those : measures should be. Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change a minhag. And if we were talking about gezeiros, then we'd need a Sanhedrin or universal consensus to create one. ("Universal consensus", eg RSZA on electricity.) But we would also need that level authority to modify or repeal one. So there too there is a high barrier to change. So in either case, while I could appreciate R' Aviner's reasoning, I don't know if I would be comfortable applying it lemaaseh. :> No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks :> that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) :> This really is a recent development. : Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in : the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my : mother made at home? While, really I'm suggesting that an environment where -- even a bagel or a loaf of bread -- could be a gebrochts or potato starch replacement poses bigger problems than we faced 50 years ago. Because a person can pick up anything and mistake it for a KLP alternative. Much like one of the reasons given for qitniyos. The same was not true when the only KLP pancakes were rare and homemade. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:41:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:41:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Working on Chol Moed Message-ID: <1491493270335.3143@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If I don't work on Chol Hamoed my paycheck will be much smaller. Is this a davar behaved (irreparable loss)? Am I permitted to go to work on Chol Hamoed? A. A loss of profit is generally not considered a davar ha'avud. As such one cannot automatically assume that it is permissible to work on Chol Hamoed. Nonetheless there are situations where davar ha'avud would apply. For example, if a person will use up vacation days by not working during Chol Hamoed, and there is a preference to take vacation at a more convenient time, this may be considered a davar ha'avud. (See Shmiras Shabbos Kihilchoso, vol. 2, chapter 67, footnote 47.) Furthermore, if a person is struggling financially, and not earning a salary on Chol Hamoed would be stressful, this may be treated as a davar ha'avud. Nonetheless these leniencies are not ideal, and Rav Belsky, zt"l stressed that it is preferable to not work on Chol Hamoed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 09:44:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:44:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat In-Reply-To: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <958e2160-18d0-985e-70d4-9c571dea3a3f@sero.name> On 06/04/17 08:28, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Secondly, Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., > I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal says > works, that?s what I want to think/occur). Isn't that *exactly* what we do when we write in a shtar that we stipulate to having made whichever kind of kinyan is most effective ("be'ofan hayoser mo`il")? We don't know which of the various kinyanim we should be doing so we stipulate that whichever one it is, we did it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 10:01:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 20:01:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/6/2017 6:07 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We all assume we can't have new gezerot. Is this really true? ... > In essence these are all new gezerot perhaps without the nomenclature The nomenclature is vital. As I said in my previous email, we don't blur the distinctions between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan, and we don't blur the distinctions between gezeirot, takkanot, chramim, siyagim, minhagim, etc. Yes, it's forbidden to eat chicken parmesan. And it's forbidden to eat a pork chop. There's no wiggle room. Both are forbidden. So to someone on the outside, those prohibitions might look like the same thing, "perhaps without the nomenclature". But the nomenclature matters, because there are different rules for the two. Just as there are different rules for the various "add-ons". Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:49:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:49:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7c4f2947-d6c6-62b2-40fd-a9b977d026f4@starways.net> > Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy > in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes > that my mother made at home? Matza meal pancakes, which I grew up with as well, are nothing at all like regular pancakes. The difference is clear and obvious. Ditto for cakes. We used to have sponge cake at Pesach. And we thought of it as a Pesach cake. It wasn't something we had all year. I don't have a problem with fake treyf. So I don't really have a huge problem with fake chametz. But to pretend that there's no difference between what we used to have in the 60s, 70s, etc, and today is just silly. The difference is enormous. And while I don't have a huge problem with fake chametz, I see another distinction between fake chametz and fake treyf. You can't ever eat bacon. So making fake bacon is reasonable. But fake chametz? Really? We can't make it a week without waffles and pizza and pretzels? [Email #2. -micha] On 4/6/2017 6:21 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be > mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very > overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change > a minhag. WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be determinative. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 10:54:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:54:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:03:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept : of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be : determinative. Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei For that matter, the topic here is qitniyos -- which is itself a minhag avos, not halakhah. It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the accepted ruling in practice. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 13:59:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:59:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> I am confused by the term mimetic. I understand it in the sense of tradition, We are discussing various situations that didn't exist years ago, My parents didnt use Canola oil because it was not available but they did use cottonseed oil. What is my mimetic custom for lechitin? When I grew up we had mainly macaroon cookies. Any cakes even with matza meal tasted and looked different than chametz items. No one I knew used CI shiurim. In EY on the radio I still hear about the necessity of using CI shiurim at least lechatchila. I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. I recently heard a shiur from R. Aviner attacking much of these chumrot and R. Lior also has many kulot and these are considered right wing DL rabbis. As I stated before one difference between EY and the US is the existence of a large charedi sefardi community, This gives rise to kitniyot products with top level hasgachot. The easy availability of soft matzaot etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 12:10:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:10:26 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder Message-ID: is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a korban pesach? i think we all agree that the matzot to make a korech were soft matzot [and presumably mashiach will rule that's the way we should all be making them ]. if the zaytim were like larger then , would the sandwich have been the size of a big mac? or half a pizza? kiddush would have started the meal . then some form of maggid [ 3 hrs long? would the korban be edible that many hours later?] . so people washed and then what? hamotzi on 3 matzos? but the mitzva matza was to eat the korech no? so the rest of the meal was not matza followed by marror, but rather that of korech. so then the chiyuv-matza was the afikoman matza? or people would have chazon ish'ed it up twice---at the matza they washed on and again on korech? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 07:46:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:46:29 +0000 (WET DST) Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Apr 6, 2017 11:03:15 am Message-ID: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> > > ... This is another basis for the Shabbos preceding Pesach to be > called the "Great Shabbos." > No, it is not. Haggadol is not an adjective modifying Shabbath, because Shabbath is feminine. No one who speaks Hebrew uses masculine adjectives to modify Shabbath, ever (pedantic footnote: except in the fixed expression "Shabbath shalom umvorakh", which is said by people who do speak Hebrew, but which for other reasons is clearly an idiomatic expression that does not follow the rules of grammar, unless you want to call it a mistake, which is also fine with me). It is the same reason why we know that Lshon Hara` and `Eyn Hara` are not nouns modified by adjectives, because lashon and `ayin are feminine nouns. No one who speaks Hebrew would ever use the masculine adjective ra` to modify the feminine nouns lashon or `ayin. They are nouns modified by other nouns, and so is Shabbath Haggadol. (Whether lshon hara` and `eyn hara` are the correct pronunciation turns on whether the smikhuth forms in Rabbinic Hebrew are the same as the smikhuth forms in Biblical and modern Hebrew, a question that is irrelevant to the current discussion. They are unquestionably smikhuth forms, however they should be pronounced.) This alone is not sufficient reason to reject your translation "The Great Shabbos", because languages do not have to be translated literally and word-for-word. I do not reject the translation "the holy tongue" for "lshon haqqodesh", even though "lshon haqqodesh" literally means "the tongue of holiness", because languages do not have to be translated literally. If you want to translate "lshon haqqodesh" as "the holy tongue", fine. But you cannot do that with "Shabbath Haggadol", because we do not say Shabbath Haggodel, or Shabbath Haggdula, we say "Shabbath Haggadol", and gadol is an adjective, albeit a masculine one. As for what it does mean, well, if you want to say that Hagadol is a kinuy for God ("the Great One"), I think that is far-fetched, but I won't post an article publicly saying that you are wrong. It is clear to me that we say Shabbath Hagadol for the same reason that we say Shabbath Xazon or Shabbath Naxamu or Shabbath Shuva. You may disagree. But what you cannot plausibly say is that it means "the great Shabbath". Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:24:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:24:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matzah Meat (was Kitnios In-Reply-To: <728a7944561447f0984b79952cedf5a5@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <728a7944561447f0984b79952cedf5a5@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <86.ED.07959.212B6E85@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:03 PM 4/6/2017, Ben Waxman wrote: >On 4/5/2017 12:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone > > who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from > > gebroks, right? > >Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for >matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can >get today which is no different than cake flour? I must admit that I have no idea what you are referring to when you write about "roughly ground matza meal." Is this what is called cake meal? If so, it is good for making many things. See for example http://tinyurl.com/n6yo95b Also, do a google search for cake meal recipes, and you will see how many recipes come up I use "regular" matza meal to make matzah balls and they come out fine. See http://tinyurl.com/kl5tljs for a recipe for matza balls that calls for matza meal. I have never seen shmura cake meal. Has anyone? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 13:30:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:30:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 4/6/2017 8:54 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:03:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: >: WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept >: of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be >: determinative. > Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel > Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei > > It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering > cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the > accepted ruling in practice. I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:48:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:48:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170406214806.GH26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:30:40PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : >It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering : >cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the : >accepted ruling in practice. : : I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi : is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that : we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea : that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible. You are only discussing the absolutes, the case where the halakhah isn't known, and that where it is, but common practice differs. But in the part I left above, I described the gray area. There are cases where the logic for one position is more compelling than the other, but not muchrach. In fact, this is more common than a case where two rishonim or noted acharonim disagree and one opinion is found to be outright wrong. Between the brilliance of the people involved and the "peer review" as to which ideas reach us, it is very rare for us to find a true incontrovertable mistake, and even harder to know if we really did, or if it is our own assessment that's in error. In that situation, where we have to choose between multiple viable shitos, there are a number of things a poseiq would weigh. Different schools of pesaq may give each different weights. This kind of comparison of apples and oranges requires real shiqul hadaas, and is why pesaq is an art, not an algorithm. This is my usual list of categories of factors that go into pesaq. 1- Textualiam 1a- Logicalness of the rationale 1b- Authority of those who back each postion: majority, expertise (eg the Rambam and Rosh carry more weight than some other rishonim) 2- Mimeticism 3- Aggadic concerns -- whether it's chassidim not wearing tefillin on ch"m or some of RSRH's innovations. My point in #2 is that there are many times that we continue following what we do because it has a sound textual basis -- even though some other shitah may have a stronger such basis. And again, this is minhag, not halakhah. The whole topic of qitniyos rests on mimeticism, not formal halachic reasoning. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] P.O.P. Paradox Of Pesach Message-ID: <5204F12E-00B5-47B0-92DD-2D93AB3E7C87@cox.net> A great ambivalence is to be found in the symbolism of the Seder. On one hand, the white kitel is a manifestation of joy and purity, and on the other hand, it is also the shroud of death. An egg is a token of mourning, but at the Seder it recalls the korban chagigah, the additional sacrifice brought to assure joy on Pesach. The matzah is the bread of affliction as well as the food of freedom baked in haste as our forefathers rushed out of Egypt. The very word individual which refers to a single person ends with DUAL. Pesach brings out the duality of man but through the unity of the family, we are able to live with cognitive dissonance, paradox and conflict. ?We may have different points of arguments from perspectives of belief, faith and religion. But we must not hate each other. We are one human family.? ? Lailah Gifty Akita, (Think Great: Be Great!) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:04:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:04:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406220429.GK26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:59:51PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be :> mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very :> overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change :> a minhag. : I am confused by the term mimetic. I understand it in the sense of : tradition, Mimetic is from the shoresh mime, to copy. (Like a mimeograph.) Mimeticism is Judaism as culture. Things like absorbing that "Shabbos is coming" feeling of the erev Shabbos Jew. The pious Jew of today may be able to work himself up emotionally on Yom Kippur, the mimetic Jew of 100 years ago was simply terrified, without such work. (Both kinds of religiosity have their pros and cons.) Mimeticism evolves because culture evolves. Textualism is also tradition. But it's the formal tradition passed off from rebbe to talmid. RYBS's dialog down the ages that he watched gather around his father's table, or later, in his own shiur room. So the mimetic-textualist axis is not quite the same as the tradition-ideology one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:07:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:07:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> References: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> Message-ID: <20170406220711.GL26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 02:46:29PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote: : Haggadol is not an adjective modifying Shabbath, because Shabbath is : feminine. No one who speaks Hebrew uses masculine adjectives to : modify Shabbath, ever (pedantic footnote: except in the fixed : expression "Shabbath shalom umvorakh", which is said by people who : do speak Hebrew, but which for other reasons is clearly an idiomatic : expression that does not follow the rules of grammar, unless you want : to call it a mistake, which is also fine with me). What about Shabbos morning, and "veyanuchu vo"? The previous night it was "vahh". I agree with your thesis, I am more trying to get from you what the masculine noun "vo" refers to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:27:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav Message-ID: Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik heh under my understanding and also be milera. Is my understanding of the word incorrect? Kol tuv and Chag Kasher v'Sameach to all, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 00:29:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:29:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot Message-ID: from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) BTW the sefer contains 3 sections ; main, dvar halacha and orchot halacha. I am assuming that all 3 are from RSZA or notes of students. I will do my best in the translation but have added some of the notes in Hebrew RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who determines this minhag?) He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat. He adda that PERHAPS there is a reason to prohibit potato flour (serach kitniyot - based on chiddishin of RSZA to Pesachim). Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be prohibited (ie even according to those that eat gebrochs) (yesh ladun behem - Pesachim 40b - Rashi that when people are "mezalzel one should be machmir) In the notes that this was what RSZA said in shiurim and when asked a question responded that one should follow the family minhag. Nevetheless he remarked several times that cakes with matzah flour that look like chametz cakes that he didn't understand the heter when we go to lengths to avoid things that might be confused with chametz -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 23:27:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 06:27:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Afikoman_-_=93Stealing=93_and_Other_Rel?= =?windows-1252?q?ated_Minhagim?= Message-ID: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> Please the article at http://seforim.blogspot.com/2017/04/afikoman-stealing-and-other-related.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 20:28:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:28:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: > ... Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., > I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal > says works, that?s what I want to think/occur). [related to daat > makneh and koneh issues] I think Mishne Berura 649:15 might be exactly what you're looking for. I am paraphrasing him, and he was paraphrasing the Magen Avraham and Pri Megadim. But basically, the point is: >>> Suppose it is the first day of Sukkos, and you want to use someone else's lulav, but you can't, because on the first day you need to own it yourself. So l'chatchila, the best option is make it explicit that you want to acquire his lulav in a "matana al m'nas l'hachzir" (gift on condition of returning) manner. >>> But b'dieved, if you borrowed it in a "stam" manner so that you could be yotzay with it, then we presume that he gave it to you intending to do it in whatever manner would allow you to be yotzay, namely, "matana al m'nas l'hachzir". >>> However, if you explicitly used the word "borrow" rather than "gift", then you would not be yotzay. Also, if the lulav's owner is unaware that a borrowed lulav is pasul, it would not work then either. (End of Mishne Brura.) Here's my commentary: There are two requirements for "stam daas" to help us here. The first is that the conversation must be vague, because if it were explicit we would not be able to assign a meaning to the words. But the second requirement is very relevant to RJR's question: The lulav's owner has to be aware that a borrowed lulav is pasul. If the owner does have that awareness, then we say that his stam daas was to grant ownership to you. But if the lulav's owner is not aware of this halacha, then his stam daas is to *lend* the lulav, which would not be valid. We see from this that "stam daas" is not a magic wand that can be applied conveniently to any vague comment. Rather, it is applied with a lot of care and understand of what the person's likely intention really was. Please read the MB yourself and see what he means. Even better, check out the MA and PM that the MB was summarizing (because I did not go into that much depth. Maybe over Shabbos.) [Press Pause button... Okay, continue...] I have now reread RJR's post, and I noticed that while the MB ruled how the halacha views these two people and the lulav, RJR's post is much more "me"-oriented. He asks about the case where > I have in mind ?whatever HKB?H wants me to have in mind > without actually knowing what that is ..." It seems to me that this is an explicit vagueness. If "stam daas" works where outsiders are trying to figure out what Ploni probably meant, it should certainly work where Ploni himself is being deliberately vague. I never studied Logic to the depth that R' Micha and other have, but even I can see a serious flaw in the above paragraph. In the MB's case of the lulav, the owner had *something* in mind, and we are presuming to know what it was. But in RJR's case, the individual made an effort have nothing in mind at all, and I can easily understand someone who says that this simply won't work. I would suggest this as a practical solution: One should never say simply, "I have in mind whatever Hashem wants me to have in mind," because that is essentially admitting that he really has nothing in mind. Rather, one should use an explicit tenai: "If Hashem wants me to have A in mind, then I do have A in mind; but if He wants me to have B in mind, then I do have B in mind." Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#m_3151624698786785420_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:24:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav Message-ID: > Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH > translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". > Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik > heh under my understanding and also be milera. Upon reviewing the pshat in the word "bushala", it is possible that my understanding was incorrect and the structure would be similar to "yochLUha" where the translation of the suffix in both cases is "it" as opposed to "its" and thus not requiring a mapik heh. Shabbat Shalom, HT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:25:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:25:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67447a90-4764-0dce-4f82-b0f11d5c55af@sero.name> On 06/04/17 18:27, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: > Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH > translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". > > Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik > heh under my understanding and also be milera. It's a verb, not a noun. If it were written as you would have it it would be a noun, presumably meaning "its cooking", but then it would be "bishulah". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 08:46:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:46:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170407154652.GD32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:27:30PM -0400, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: : Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH : translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". : : Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik : heh under my understanding and also be milera. That would make it a posessed noun, "if its cooking was in a copper vessel". RSRH is treating is as a verb. In more contemporary American English, "if it had been cooked in a copper vessel". :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:47:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Afikoman_-_=E2=80=9CStealing=E2=80=9C_and_Othe?= =?utf-8?q?r_Related_Minhagim?= In-Reply-To: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> References: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <0a933758-f6de-9e33-4fd0-33f89b9dc517@sero.name> > http://seforim.blogspot.com/2017/04/afikoman-stealing-and-other-related.html My father gives presents to all those children who *don't* steal. He also explains that if the hidden matzah is stolen he will not pay any ransom for it but will simply use a different matzah. Thus the purpose of the minhag is preserved but the bad chinuch is avoided. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 08:44:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:44:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:10:26PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a korban : pesach? I assume koreikh was the norm. Not that Hillel argued they were necessary and no one else made wraps, but that everyone made a wrap, which is why a machloqes could arise as to whether one is yotzei if not. : i think we all agree that the matzot to make a korech were soft matzot [and : presumably mashiach will rule that's the way we should all be making them ]. One could be yotzei koreikh just putting a tiny lump of meat on a cracker. Not difficult. OTOH, we seem to have proven in numerous years that until the acharonic period, softa matzos were the norm in every community. (Ashkenazim too; see the Rama.) : if the zaytim were like larger then, would the sandwich have been the size : of a big mac? or half a pizza? But they were smaller, so no problem. Another perrennial is whether the growth of the kezayis is halachically binding even after archeology proved the historical assumptions wrong. : kiddush would have started the meal... And Ha Lachma Anya would have been 4 days before, as you can only invite people to join the chaburah BEFORE the sheep is set aside. For that matter, I'm convinced Ha Lachma Anya is not part of Maggid. Maggid ought to begin with questions, so let's assume it does. HLA is an explanation of Yachatz. And then, once we fact out qwhat it's like to have to ration our lachma anya, we express empathy for the dirtzrikh and dichpin. So perhaps Yachatz too would be before picking the sheep. . then some form of maggid [ 3 hrs : long? would the korban be edible that many hours later?]. Sure! How quickly does meat go bad where you live? It looks like there is a fundamental machloqes about the seider. Notice that Rabban Gamliel wasn't present at R' Aqiva's seider in Benei Beraq. OTOH, in the Tosefta at the end of Pesachim Rabban Gamliel hosts big seider in Lod, where they spent the whole night "osqin behilkhos haPesach". (This Tosefta goes with "ein maftirin achar haPesach afiqoman". A whole answer-to-the-chakham vibe here.) Notice that at R' Aqiva's seider "vehayu mesaperim beytzi'as mitzrayim". R' Aqiva held that a seider is all about the story. R' Gamliel -- the mitzvos. Most of Maggid we do R' Aqiva style: 1- We follow R' Yehudah, and tell the story of physical redemption. Avadim Hayinu. 2- Then (after an intermission in which we explain why we're doing multiple versions -- 4 banim, etc...) we follow Rav, and tell the story of spiritual redemption. Betechilah ovedei AZ. 3- And we tell the story using Vidui Biqurim and other texts. 4- Then, at the very end, we make sure to do the least necessary to be yotzei according to Rabban Gamliel. So it would seem we basically hold like R' Aqiva, that the main role of the foods is as aids to the story-telling. But Rabban Gamliel would have Maggid as /during/ the other mitzvos of the seider. We discuss the foods. : washed and then what? hamotzi on 3 matzos? but the mitzva matza was to : eat the korech no? so the rest of the meal was not matza followed by : marror, but rather that of korech. so then the chiyuv-matza was the : afikoman matza? or people would have chazon ish'ed it up twice---at the : matza they washed on and again on korech? The afiqoman was the sheep, all matzos umorerim. Before that was the chagiga, re'iyah and shulchan oreikh. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:48:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Meisner via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:48:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:10 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a > korban pesach? The Rambam in Ch. 8 of Hil. Chametz uMatzah provides a step-by-step description of the seder that includes the eating of the Korban Pesach, which is probably a good start. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 09:32:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:32:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4167b94e-52b7-16a4-0069-0697990750d6@sero.name> On 07/04/17 11:44, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And Ha Lachma Anya would have been 4 days before, as you can only invite > people to join the chaburah BEFORE the sheep is set aside. Not true. One can join or leave a chavurah right up to the moment of shechitah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 09:58:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 17:58:36 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Surely either we'd pasken like Hillel, and eat the full portion of Pesach, Matza and Maror in one sandwich, or else we wouldn't, and there'd be no Korech at all? On 7 April 2017 at 16:44, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > One could be yotzei koreikh just putting a tiny lump of meat on a > cracker. Not difficult. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 10:15:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:15:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170407171523.GI32239@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 05:58:36PM +0100, Allan Engel wrote: : Surely either we'd pasken like Hillel, and eat the full portion of Pesach, : Matza and Maror in one sandwich, or else we wouldn't, and there'd be no : Korech at all? I assume everyone ate koreikh. It's most reasonable to assume that a machloqes over an annual practice kept by everyone is theoretical, not pragmatic. Not that one person is saying what a significant number of people are doing is pasul / assur. For similar reasons, I assume that until the rishonim, people considered both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam tefillin to be kosher. Otherwise, how were both styles in existence and common use since the days of the Chashmonaim until some 1,300 years later when rishonim started voicing preferences? Note my use of the phrase, "I assume". Li mistaber, I have no strong arguments for it. Back to our topic... I figure everyone ate the matzah, marror and lamb in a wrap. Otherwise, how did Hillel come around and argue that what everyone was doing was pasul? And why would it stay with Hillel, wouldn't he have the Sanhedrin vote on it? Rather, the machloqes was whether one was yotzei if they did the weird thing and eat them separately. If this was a rare event, multiple opinions could persist without resolutions. Now when it came time to commemorate, rather than fulfill the mitzvah.... Matzah we have to eat separately from maror, because without the pesach, there may be a problem with our fulfilling the mitzvah of eating matzah without it being the only tast in the mouth. And then there's the question of what are we commemorating -- eating all three in one meal, and the wrap aspect was not a critical facet that needs commemoration, or are we commemorating a wrap? So, we do both. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 10:28:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel In-Reply-To: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> References: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:05:30PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : My son who lives in EY told me that Ashkenazim have to very careful : about the products that they purchase for Pesach, since many products : that are certified for Pesach contain kitnios. The item below reinforces : this. ... : Eretz Yisrael: Strauss Cottage Cheese Contains Kitnios : : April 3, 2017- from the Arutz 7 : : : "Badatz Mehadrin, the hashgacha of Rabbi Avraham Rubin Shlita, alerts... I was wondering about this. Qitniyos is batel berov. Ah, you may say: but they're intentionally mixing in the qitniyos, there is no bitul! So here's my question: If a Sepharadi makes cottage cheese containing qitniyos, he isn't really having Ashkenazim in particular in mind. And for him the qitniyos are mutar. By parallel, a non-Jew mixing 1:61 basar bechalav for his own use or for a primarily non-Jewish customer base isn't bitul lkhat-chilah, as a permitted person's intent doesn't qualify as lekhat-chilah. So, does this Sepharadi man mixing qitniyos in run afowl of the problem of bitul lekhat-chilah? Why can't one argue that as long as the qitniyos is a mi'ut of the cottage cheese, and as long as it's not against the mixer's own minhag or that of the main bulk of people for whom he is mixing, the food is permissible for Ashkenazim too? And does it have to be both the mixer's own minhag AND that of most of the people the cottage cheese if for? After all, this is minhag, not pesaq. It's not like an Ashkenazi holds a Saphradi ought to be holding like us too. What if an Ashkenazi was doing the mixing on a product where most of the target customer base is Sepharadi? (Now, add to that mei qitniyos, and whether corn should have been added to the minhag, the observation that it is primarily NOT made for Ashkenazi Jews, and ask the same thing about Coca Cola.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 15:48:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: <<< I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. >>> Is this only in the DL community? If so, can anyone suggest why this would be so? I can this of two very different possibilities: One is negative, that there is some sort of jealousy to the sefardim, or taavah for the many products that are available. The other is positive, that this is simply a natural development of how minhagim change over the centuries when communities mix. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 13:42:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 22:42:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel In-Reply-To: <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> References: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <43acd44d-c45c-b481-7dfb-2671547565a7@zahav.net.il> This is part of the backlash. People want the labels to read "contains kitniyot", not "for ochlei kitniyot only". Ben On 4/7/2017 7:28 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Qitniyos is batel berov. > > Ah, you may say: but they're intentionally mixing in the qitniyos, there > is no bitul! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 10:44:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:44:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58E92189.9030803@zahav.net.il> [Part 2, a mid-post detour. -mb] And as long as I am writing, a comment on the next posting in the Digest 48. Matza meal is the coarse version and is used for making latkes and kneidlach. Cake meal is the fine ground version for making cakes. Both were on the market and used by my mother in the US some 70- 80 years ago. And R' Micha mentioned a week or so ago that R/Dr Bannet pointed out that in my youth, peanut oil had the most machmir heksher of all Pesach oils. Three comments: It is true that chasidim used only peanut oil made by a Shomer mitzvot Jew. I am neither a R nor a Dr, and my family name ends with two t's. PKvS. David Bannett From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 10:44:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:44:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58E92189.9030803@zahav.net.il> [RCD tried to sneak multiple topics into the same email. For the sake of threading, I split it and fixed the subject lines. -micha] Without commenting on the meaning of Shabbat Hagadol, I'd like to comment on the "fact" that Shabbat is feminine and one would have to say Shabbat Hag'dola. The Rambam in Hilkhot Shabbat 30:2 says Shhabat Hagadol. I then looked in the Bar Ilan Shu"t and found that there are a dozen other sources for a male Shabbat. [End of part 1. Now, part 3. -mb] And then R' Micha on the vayanuchu va, vo and vam in the tefila: There were three nuschaot. One said Shabbat and va, Another said yom haShabbat and vo and the third said Shabbatot and vam. PKvS. David Bannett From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 20:22:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2017 05:22:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If the issue was jealousy of sefardim, people would want to drop the minhag entirely. There is that, but only on the fringe. These chumrot seem like a false imposition, something someone invented. You can only hear "when I was a kid, we ate X, Y, Z" or "I went to a shiur and the rav said X, Y, Z are muttar" so many times before asking yourself "so why don't we eat X, Y, Z"? And yes, intermarriage is a huge factor. On 4/8/2017 12:48 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I can this of two very different possibilities: One is negative, that > there is some sort of jealousy to the sefardim, or taavah for the many > products that are available. The other is positive, that this is > simply a natural development of how minhagim change over the centuries > when communities mix. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:00:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:00:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) > ... > He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak > was never accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat. > He adds that PERHAPS there is a reason to prohibit potato flour > (serach kitniyot - based on chiddishin of RSZA to Pesachim). > Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be > prohibited (ie even according to those that eat gebrochs) ... To me, it seems contradictory to allow gebroks yet forbid matza meal cake. Yet it certainly seems that this is how RSZA held. I think I'm going to have to retract most of my recent posts. Or add least append a big "tzorech iyun" to them. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:22:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimetics [was:kitnoyot] Message-ID: > Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be > mimetically defined, by definition, .... [--RMB] WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be determinative. Lisa >>>>> "Shema beni mussar avicha, VE'AL TITOSH TORAS IMECHA." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:19:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <23551cea-98c2-5446-2323-d0fb7e82cc09@starways.net> On 4/8/2017 1:48 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Eli Turkel wrote: > > <<< I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been > a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. >>> > > Is this only in the DL community? If so, can anyone suggest why this > would be so? I think it's because the DL community is the community that is (a) committed to the Torah and (b) not stuck in fear mode. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 01:16:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 11:16:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller asked why in the dati leumi community there is a backlash against kitniyos? I think there are a number of reasons for this: 1. Theological - The Dati Leumi community views the establishment of the State of Israel as a significant theological event, the beginning of the Geula. They view the state as having significance. Therefore, they view the Jewish people as much more of an organic whole and want to eliminate things that separate the Jewish people into groups. Kitniyos very much does that. There is no question that whan Moshiach comes the division between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no machlokes. The Charedi world on the other hand believes that we are still fully in Galus and nothing has changed. 2. The Dati Leumi community isw much less segragated between sefardim and Ashkenazim. There are no ashkenazi or sefardi yeshivas and there is quite a bit of "intermarriage". If your daughter marries a Sefardi do you suddently not go to her for Pesach because she eats kitniyos? 3. People realize the hypocrisy of not eating kitniyos while eating kosgher l'pesach pretzels. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:31:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:31:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Why can't one argue that as long as the qitniyos is a mi'ut of > the cottage cheese, and as long as it's not against the mixer's > own minhag or that of the main bulk of people for whom he is > mixing, the food is permissible for Ashkenazim too? > > ... What if an Ashkenazi was doing the mixing on a product where > most of the target customer base is Sepharadi? I would like to focus on the words "target customer base". We have to distinguish the manufacturer's customer base from the hashgacha's customer base. The two might be identical for a small brand that markets only to frum neighborhoods, but not for an industry giant like Strauss. We can presume that the manufacturer and their target customer base is mostly not makpid about kitniyos. Therefore, the manufacturer is doing nothing wrong by putting kitniyos into the product, and once they have done so, it is acceptable even for Ashkenazim, exactly as RMB suggests. But the hashgacha cannot put their certification on it. The target customer base of this hashgacha seems to be people who *are* makpid on kitniyos. (If they're not the majority of the hashgacha's clientele, they are at least a very significant minority.) And as such, the hashgacha has accepted the responsibility to act in place of their clientele at the factory. This turns it into a "bittul lechatchila" situation, and the hashgacha cannot grant an official okay to such products without an accompanying warning, which is exactly what they seem to have done. > (Now, add to that mei qitniyos, and whether corn should have > been added to the minhag, the observation that it is primarily > NOT made for Ashkenazi Jews, and ask the same thing about Coca > Cola.) Not just Coca Cola. Weren't we discussing chocolate bars a few weeks ago? Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 23:42:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 02:42:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman Message-ID: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> I tend to agree with the negative aspect of stealing the Afikoman. Very similarly, I feel the minhag to get so drunk on Purim so that you can?t distinguish between blessed be Mordecai and cursed be Haman is a very bad minhag and more offensive than stealing the afikoman. You are encouraging people to get drunk and that also has caused many problems in recent times. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:02:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:02:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman In-Reply-To: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> References: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 02:42:40AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : I tend to agree with the negative aspect of stealing the Afikoman. : Very similarly, I feel the minhag to get so drunk on Purim so that : you can?t distinguish between blessed be Mordecai and cursed be Haman : is a very bad minhag and more offensive than stealing the afikoman. Yeah, I don't see how teaching kids to steal the afiqoman is going to weaken their knowledge that it's wrong to steal. Should kids playing baseball not steal home? Just because the rule of the game is called "stealing"? But there is backlash against the drunk-on-Purim minhag too. The OU and RCA each put out something like annually. Hatzola puts out warnings. There are black-n-white wearing yeshivos that clamped down on their kids getting drunk when doing their Purim fundraising. And there has been backlash to the backlash, by people who value minhag. Really, the treatment of the two has been pretty parallel. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:19:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman In-Reply-To: <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> References: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <621677e8-92b7-ca89-7197-201a3af3f7e6@sero.name> On 09/04/17 09:02, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Yeah, I don't see how teaching kids to steal the afiqoman is going > to weaken their knowledge that it's wrong to steal. Should kids > playing baseball not steal home? Just because the rule of the game > is called "stealing"? That's a different sense of the word: "4. to move or convey stealthily". As in "with cat-like tread upon our prey we steal". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:48:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:48:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > There is no question that when Moshiach comes the division > between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The > Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no > machlokes. This is news to me. There is no machlokes here to be paskened. Everyone agrees that the halacha allows even rice to Ashkenazim. It is all minhag. Even if the Sanhendrin would want to, I don't know where they'd get the authority to do away with minhagim. On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim! > The Dati Leumi community is much less segregated between > sefardim and Ashkenazim. There are no ashkenazi or sefardi > yeshivas and there is quite a bit of "intermarriage". If your > daughter marries a Sefardi do you suddently not go to her for > Pesach because she eats kitniyos? That depends on your posek. By my memory, many poskim, including among the DL, hold that one can eat from the keilim, but to avoid actual kitniyos. And many other shitos in both directions. > People realize the hypocrisy of not eating kitniyos while > eating kosher l'pesach pretzels. I was arguing strenuously against this until a few hours ago, when I was reminded that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach held this way too. Perhaps I have overdosed on inoculations of matza meal cake and matza meal pancakes, and I cannot see myself ever sharing this view. But having seen RSZA's words, I cannot claim that it is only the little people who say this - it's the big guns too. And I would be indebted to any listmembers who would quote other gedolim on this topic. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 15:47:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 08:47:40 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyos - Why do today's Poskim argue with the Mishneh Berurah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can anyone show some Halachic source that argues with the Mishneh Berurah who Paskens that Foods containing LESS THAN 50% Kitniyos that is at the same time not visually discernible Although its taste is certainly discernible, is Muttar during Pesach? Is a Rov permitted to refuse to identify a Kosher product as Kosher (or worse, declare a product not Kosher) because of other considerations? See this article http://www.kosherveyosher.com/chocolate-pesach-lecithin-1001.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 01:45:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:45:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] order of the seder Message-ID: < See "leil haPesach be-taludum shel chachamim" (Hebrew) by David Henshkr who has a detailed discussion -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 01:47:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:47:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Matzah meal Message-ID: <> In Israel it is readily available in many supermarkets -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 02:04:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:04:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism Message-ID: <> Doesn't answer my question of how mimeticism deals with new situations. Sticking to kitniyot by patents used cottenseed oil but knew nothing about Canola oil or Lecitisthin <> Let me use this to sound off. I have a major problem with textualiism. In some circles it means studying a sugya and coming to a conclusion without any regard to the outside world. In regard to shiurim the Noda Yehuda has a question. One doesn't suddenly change minhagim because of a question. In recent years this doubling of shiurim has become popular because of CI. First there is evidence that CI himself did not use his own shiur. It is well known that some descendants of the CC don't use his kiddush cup because it is not shiur CI. However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. Even a slightly smaller shiur would hit various walls making it impossible to walk around while various testimonies make it smaller. There is now a new exhibition of a virtual 3D reality of walking around the bet hamikdash. It is based on aerial photographs of the current Temple mount and supplemented by details in the Mishna and archaeology using the topography of the land. Theis construction places the holy har habayit on the currently raised portion of the Temple mount. This yields an amah of about 38cm (CI=57, CN=44-48) Other proofs included the length of the Siloam tunnel which is documents in amot and can be measured. One of the strongest proofs is based on the meitzah of the cohen gadol which could not possibly hold the shiur of CI (note that if his hands were bigger this would redefine the amah). As to changes over the generations olive pits from the Bar Chocba era are the same size as today. In spite of a preponderous evidence that the shiur of CI is way too large almost all seforim in Israel give the amount of matzah to eat and wine to drink based on CI (at least lechatchila). This is textualism at the extreme in contrast to common sense -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 03:15:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "I have an opportunity to kill the terrorist..." Message-ID: <20170410101557.GA14700@aishdas.org> Anyone want to try this one, with meqoros? RSE raises two issues: killing a neutralized terrorist, and (I guess) dina demalkhusa on the topic. Chag Kasher veSameaich (belashon "lo zu af zu"), -micha The Jewish Press Tzfat Chief Rabbi Was Asked in Real Time whether to Kill Ramming Terrorist By David Israel -- 11 Nisan 5777 -- April 7, 2017 http://www.jewishpress.com/news/jewish-news/tzfat-chief-rabbi-was-asked-in-real-time-whether-to-kill-ramming-terrorist/2017/04/07/ Chief Rabbi of Tzfat Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, who is not known for particularly leftwing sympathies (he encourages his flock to refuse Arab renters, for instance), on Thursday night told a class he was teaching that one of his students had phoned him from the scene of the ramming attack that killed an IDF soldier. The student posed a halachic inquiry: "He told me, I see my buddy here lying down dead," Rabbi Eliyahu recalled, adding that his student had asked, "I have an opportunity to kill the terrorist - should I kill him or not?" Advertisement Around 10 AM, Thursday, an Arab terrorist rammed his vehicle into two IDF soldiers waiting at a hitchhiking post on Rt. 60, outside Ofra in Judea and Samaria. Sgt. Elhai Teharlev HY"D, 20, was killed, and the other soldier was injured. The terrorist was arrested by security forces. Rabbi Eliyahu said that his response was that "this terrorist deserves to die. However, unfortunately, the laws in this country are not well constructed, and so there is no legal way to do to him what needs to be done." "I told him that had he been able to do it while the attack was on it would have been possible, but we were after the event, unfortunately." Advertisement From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 03:39:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed Message-ID: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ > Let me run an idea by you guys... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha > 2. Melacha is forbidden on chol hamoed > 3. One of the permits for doing melacha is for tzorech hamoed, but in this > case, if possible you should do the melacha before the chag > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. > 5. If you find yourself on chol hamoed without pre-torn toilet paper, you > can tear it, however preferably not on the lines. > Am I crazy? :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 04:54:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:54:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> References: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2017 1:40 PM, "Micha Berger via Avodah" wrote... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha > 2. Melacha is forbidden on chol hamoed > 3. One of the permits for doing melacha is for tzorech hamoed, but in this > case, if possible you should do the melacha before the chag > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. > 5. If you find yourself on chol hamoed without pre-torn toilet paper, you > can tear it, however preferably not on the lines. > Am I crazy? Not at all. Please see Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa perek 66 footnote 78. RSZA was machmir for himself, though the author suggests that nowdays it would be unnecessary. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 06:39:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:39:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12e4046f8d104931a3a60fafe99b3947@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > There is no question that when Moshiach comes the division > between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The > Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no > machlokes. This is news to me. There is no machlokes here to be paskened. Everyone agrees that the halacha allows even rice to Ashkenazim. It is all minhag. Even if the Sanhendrin would want to, I don't know where they'd get the authority to do away with minhagim. On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim! --------------------------------------- Aiui there is some debate as to how much practice was/will be standardized-some believe (IIRC R'HS) that the shevet Sanhedrin set local practice and few issues went to great sanhedrin for standardization. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 06:41:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:41:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170410134127.GB29583@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:04:31PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> Mimeticism evolves because culture evolves. : Doesn't answer my question of how mimeticism deals with new situations. It answers your question by implying there is no answer. There is no rule for how common practice will evolve. Rules are textual. But the truth is, halakhah requires both. Not every evolution of a minhag is valid. That way lies Catholic Israel. It has to pass muster against the sources and sevara. :-)|,|ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 07:54:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Misc interesting Halacha questions from R Shlomo Miller shlitah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <035201d2b20a$5ef3d1a0$1cdb74e0$@com> Misc interesting Halacha questions from R Shlomo Miller shlitah http://baisdovyosef.com/rabbi-past-questions/ Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlitah for a printout of all the Q&As (100 pgs) https://www.dropbox.com/s/70y971r0ct2l7x8/RS%20miller%20bartfeld%20questions .doc?dl=0 or email me offline mcohen at touchlogic.com GYT, mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 12 12:45:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:45:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz Message-ID: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy A rav gave over some quick halachot and cited the Shulhan Aruch that if one finds chameitz in one's home, you cover it (if you find it on shabbat/yom tov) and later burn it, or burn it right away (cholo moed). I asked, if one sold one's chameitz, how can you burn it? It now belongs to the non-jew. This rav (and second rav) said that the sale only includes the chameitz that you specify. If you don't have a piece of chameitz in mind, you didn't sell it. OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz, everything in all of his properties. It makes no mention of what you have in mind. If a contract say "ALL" it means all, n'est pas? So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 12 21:09:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:09:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taanis Bechoros - Women? Message-ID: My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros. So I read her Mishne Berurah 470:4, which gives the reason as because there are no halachos in which female firstborns have any such kedusha. That seemed to satisfy her, but it didn't satisfy me. After all, if a boy is his father's first but not his mother's first, then he has no kedusha which would require Pidyon Haben. Aruch Hashulchan 470:2 gives that same logic, but explains that although the father's first doesn't get a Pidyon Haben, he *does* have special halachos about inheritance, and Aruch Hashulchan 470:3 says the same thing regarding a boy who was born after a miscarriage, or a firstborn Kohen, or a firstborn Levi. My question is: So what? Why is the special status of "firstborn for inheritance" more relevant than "would've been killed in Mitzrayim"? (Please note that there is another case that I'm *not* asking about, namely, where none of the people at home was a technical bechor, then whoever was oldest was subject to Makas Bechoros. Since that could vary depending on who was home in any particular year, I can easily understand why it never got included in the minhag.) Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 13 13:24:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 23:24:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefirot Ha`omer Message-ID: Every year I would like to get deeper into the combinations of sefirot (or middot) that appear in siddurim with the counting of the Omer, and every year I get lost and confused. For example, what is the difference between hesed shebigevura and gevura shebehesed? If tiferet is a synthesis of hesed and gevura, how does it differ from either of the above? And so on and so on. There seem to be a thousand books and websites that explain the sefirot and their combinations in modern terms, but I haven't found any that quote or even cite primary sources. Where might one look for such sources? Mo`adim lesimha! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 13 22:56:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:56:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim!" Given the illogic of the minhag of kitniyos I think not. Why would they impose a din that makes no sense in today's world. With regards to visiting children R' AKiva Miler wrote: "That depends on your posek. By my memory, many poskim, including among the DL, hold that one can eat from the keilim, but to avoid actual kitniyos. And many other shitos in both directions." I was saying that facetiously. WADR you missed the forest for the trees. Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child and can't eat all the food. You are looking at this from a pure halachic perspceticve but in truth, there is a non-halachic sociologcal perspective here that needs to be addressed as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 14 01:12:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 11:12:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefirot Ha`omer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71537556-72e6-e4ec-3ea1-61c0f913fb9b@starways.net> Lama li kra? It seems pretty clear on the face of it. Hesed she'b'Gevura means that you're doing Hesed by means of Gevura. Your intended result is Hesed. The way you're achieving that Hesed is by an act of Gevura. So let's take R' Aryeh Kaplan's understanding of the two Middot, where Hesed means going above and beyond what is required, and Gevura is restraining yourself, and here are a couple of examples. You're at the grocery store, and there's one box of Wacky Macs left on the shelf. You see a mother with a bunch of her kids coming down the aisle, and the kids are beginning for Wacky Macs. So you don't take it. You're limiting yourself in order to do something nice (but not required) for the mother. That's Hesed she'b'Gevura. You're at the grocery store, and you've taken the last box of Wacky Macs. You know you shouldn't eat it, because it's all starch and fat, but you can't help it. You're standing at the checkout line, and there's a mother behind you whose kids are giving her a hard time because they wanted Wacky Macs, but the store is out. So you decide that this will help you keep your diet, and you offer the mother the box of Wacky Macs. You're doing something nice (but not required) for the mother in order to limit yourself. That's Gevura she'b'Hesed. It's a thin line, sometimes. Figuring out what the actual action (or inaction) is and what the purpose is. Means and ends. As far as Tiferet, while you can see it as a synthesis of Hesed and Gevura, which is nice if you like the thesis-antithesis-synthesis paradigm, it's really the point of balance between them. Where you aren't refraining and you aren't overdoing. Another term for Tiferet is Tzedek. Meaning doing what you're supposed to do, or what you're allowed to do: no more and no less. I think that one of the reasons there aren't books that cite primary sources about this is simply because there aren't any. There are primary sources about what the meaning of each of the Sefirot mean, but the combination should be fairly clear. That said, I know it isn't. When I was a camper as a kid, we had discussion groups about whether we were "Jewish Americans" or "American Jews". I was 12 the first time we did it, and it was a mess. The next time, I think I was 14 or 15, and I already realized what the problem was, although the counselor leading the discussion didn't. It's a matter of definitions. If you look at it in terms of language, one of those words is the noun, and the other is the adjective. The noun is what you *are*. The adjective just modifies it. So "American Jew" is putting being Jewish first, and "Jewish American" is putting being American first. But a lot of the other kids (and the counselor) were looking at it from the point of view of which *word* came first in the phrase. And theoretically, I suppose, you could interpret X she'b'Y in the opposite way from what I've described above, but I'm not sure there's a real nafka mina, because we cover all the combinations. It just seems to me that the first week, we deal with the concept of *doing* Hesed, with all 7 possible intents, since these 7 Sefirot are fundamentally Sefirot of action (and interaction), as opposed to the first three, which are Sefirot of mind. But can you say that the first week, we talk about the concept of *intending* Hesed, with all 7 possible methods? I suppose. It's not the way I look at it, but absent primary sources to determine which way is right, I suppose it's possible. Shabbat Shalom and Moadim L'Simcha, Lisa On 4/13/2017 11:24 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > Every year I would like to get deeper into the combinations of sefirot > (or middot) that appear in siddurim with the counting of the Omer, and > every year I get lost and confused. For example, what is the > difference between hesed shebigevura and gevura shebehesed? If tiferet > is a synthesis of hesed and gevura, how does it differ from either of > the above? And so on and so on. > > There seem to be a thousand books and websites that explain the > sefirot and their combinations in modern terms, but I haven't found > any that quote or even cite primary sources. Where might one look for > such sources? > > Mo`adim lesimha! > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 14 06:40:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:40:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <491b0760-73a4-cf76-550a-2c2dfb57aeb3@sero.name> On 14/04/17 01:56, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > I was saying that facetiously. WADR you missed the forest for the trees. > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child and > can't eat all the food. If you think that's a problem now, wait till Moshiach comes and you have parents visiting their daughter who married a Cohen. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 11:52:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 20:52:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8fe0a1db-6349-9011-e2d4-ea78a89684eb@zahav.net.il> I've said this before but it bares repeating. I was married to someone with multiple food allergies. Cooking even at home was always a challenge. Going out to eat at someone else's house and giving them the list of what yes, what no made that it even harder. Whenever we had guests, we always asked about food allergies, kashrut requirements, and preferences. Compared to allergies, kashrut stuff was kid's play. More than that, I learned that it is perfectly OK to have food on the table that not everyone can eat. Any vegetarian who came over expecting to be able to eat everything was disappointed. Not being able to eat rice and having to settle for the five other dishes doesn't even make it on my radar. Thinking that one should be able to eat everything is a sense of entitlement that I don't accept. Ben On 4/14/2017 7:56 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child > and can't eat all the food. > > You are looking at this from a pure halachic perspceticve but in > truth, there is a non-halachic sociologcal perspective here that needs > to be addressed as well. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 18:36:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:36:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > Given the illogic of the minhag of kitniyos ... ... > Why would they impose a din that makes no sense in today's world. I could easily argue that avoidance of poultry and milk "makes no sense in today's world." I'd like to hear whether other people think that din to be logical or illogical. (One is a minhag, and the other is d'rabbanan, but that's a side issue. My question is whether one is less logical than the other.) Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 18:22:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:22:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini Message-ID: One of the main areas this portion deals with is kashruth. There is an overriding concept in the laws of kashruth that the characteristics of what we eat somehow have a great influence on the way we behave. We do not want to associate ourselves with cruelty, therefore we are forbidden to eat cruel animals, and in this case certain fowl. Among the fowl that are listed as being non kosher is the chasidah, the white stork. You may ask what cruel character trait does the stork possess. Rashi mentions that the reason it is called a "chasidah" is because it does chesed with its friends regarding the food it finds. On the surface this seems strange. If the stork acts kindly with its food, why is it disqualified as being kosher? A beautiful explanation to this difficulty has been given by the Chidushei Harim, a Chassidic 19th century Talmudic scholar, in which he explains the nature of the stork. He says that the fact the stork only shows its kindness with its friends defines its cruelty. A fowl who is not in the circle of the stork's good buddies is excluded from getting any help from the stork in finding food. In other words, the stork is very selective in its kindness. This type of kindness is misleading. We, as Jews, are commanded to help our foes. If we come across someone we dislike intensely who needs help, we are commanded to help. The stork, on the other hand, helps only his friends. It is this character trait of differentiating between close friends and others when it comes to providing food that makes the stork non-kosher. Chesed means reaching out altruistically, with love and generosity to all. The process of maturing involves developing our sense of caring for others. This is crucial for spiritual health. The Talmud likens someone who doesn't give to others as the "walking dead.? A non-giving soul is malnourished and withered. It is only through unconditional love that our successful future will be built. In the words of King David (Psalm 89:3): Olam chesed yibaneh - "the world is built on kindness.? May we live to see this kindness and care infused in all our lives. Kindness is the language the deaf can hear and the blind can see. Mark Twain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 12:40:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:40:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: <042313fe1c2b495fbe8f8efad437f69d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <042313fe1c2b495fbe8f8efad437f69d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: I was reminded of this question this evening. Our shul is nominally nusach Sefard. However if someone (like moi) does daven Ashkenaz, the gabbi is OK, but insists on things like: Saying Shir Ha'ma'lot in Maariv Saying Keter during Mussaf Ben On 3/30/2017 2:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Visiting a shul questions-actual practices and sources appreciated: > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:45:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:45:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ff40b88-0f88-fb08-9c92-10e44bbdfc3d@zahav.net.il> A bit of perspective here: this is the Orthodox version of a first world problem. 100 years ago how many Ashkenazim and Sefardim even met, much less intermarried or lived in the same neighborhoods? At most, this is a bit of growing pain. Ben On 4/14/2017 7:56 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child > and can't eat all the food. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:34:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:34:27 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: How do we determine when the dough is baked to the point where it can no longer become Chamets? when there are no Chutim NimShaChim When the Matza is torn apart there are no doughy threads stretching between the two pieces. These days this test is not available because so little water is added to the flour that there is no opportunity for the chemical reaction that activates the gluten and even when the Matza, or the batch of dough is torn BEFORE it is put into the oven there are NO Chutim NimShaChim [this is noted by the Chazon Ish] So if one suggests that there is a possibility that some flour within [but not on the surface of] the Matza which is protected from the heat of the oven and does not become baked [as once it is baked, flour can not become Chamets] then the Chashash that this flour might become Chamets if it becomes wet pales into insignificance and is completely eclipsed by the much greater risk that the middle part of the Matza which may not have been baked may actually be Chamets [Gamur] The fact that it is now now dry means nothing that is simply dehydrated dough AKA Chamets, maybe Chamets Nukshe Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:40:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:40:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed Message-ID: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ > Let me run an idea by you guys... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha....... > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. >>>>> It seems to me you are no more obligated to tear toilet paper for the whole week than you are to do all your cooking for the whole week before the yom tov. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:49:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:49:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taanis Bechoros - Women? Message-ID: <63e57.57f1ef36.46246de8@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros. << Akiva Miller >>>>> That's a pretty obscure medrash. It is seemingly contradicted by the Torah itself, which specifies that a pidyon haben is required for a firstborn boy because the firstborn boys were spared makas bechoros in Egypt. Nothing about a pidyon habas. On the other hand, according to Sefer HaToda'ah (Book of Our Heritage), "There are different customs associated with this fast. Some say that every firstborn, male or female, whether from the father or from the mother, must fast on that day. If there is no firstborn, then the oldest in the house must fast.....However others say that only firstborn males need to fast and this is the generally accepted custom." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 21:50:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Martin Brody via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:50:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Fast of the First Born. Message-ID: Akiva Miller posted "My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros etc." Maybe because the fast has nothing to do with the 10th plague at all? They should be celebrating, not fasting! Fasting is for repentance. More likely the Sin of the Golden Calf, when the firstborn lost their priestly status. On the 14th the first born have to watch the Aaronite priests slaughtering the Pascal offering instead of them. Cheers Martin Brody From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 20:55:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:55:38 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen son in law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: when Moshiach comes parents will seek a cohen for a son in law because it's a great investment, they can feed their son in law and his family with their tithes. It's like having the Bechor reinstated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 06:28:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:28:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is > impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har > habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. > ... > This construction places the holy har habayit on the currently > raised portion of the Temple mount. This yields an amah of about > 38cm (CI=57, CN=44-48) > Other proofs included the length of the Siloam tunnel which is > documents in amot and can be measured. ... I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction as well. The minimum shiur for a mikveh is 3 cubic amos, as this is the size that a typical person could fit into. Who among us could fit into a space 38x38x114 cm? (15x15x45 inches)? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 06:41:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:41:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > If you think that's a problem now, wait till Moshiach comes and > you have parents visiting their daughter who married a Cohen. Indeed! And I think an even more common case will be a husband (regardless of shevet) who wants (or needs) to eat taharos, but his wife is nidah. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:28:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:28:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170416212823.GC13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 09:28:13AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Eli Turkel wrote: : > However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is : > impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har : > habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. I pointed out that we know length of the water tunnel in meters and rounded to two digits precision amos. In contrast, the current Har haBayis platform post-dates Hadrian y"sh lobbing off the top of the mountain and dumping it into the valley between the kotel and the current Moslem and Jewish Quarters. So we really only have part of one wall to go on. The floor can't possibly date back to either BHMQ. But that doesn't mean the shiur is impossible. The shiur may indeed be at odds with historical interpretations of the halakhah. Even perhaps by accident. But would that necessarily mean it's not binding? In either case, the CI's ammah is textual. RCNaeh's ammah is a textualist's attempt to formalize a precise number that is basicallhy consistent with the praactice of the Yishuv haYashan. Mimeticism-driven. RAM himself replied: : I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction as well. : The minimum shiur for a mikveh is 3 cubic amos, as this is the size : that a typical person could fit into. Who among us could fit into a : space 38x38x114 cm? (15x15x45 inches)? According to http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13993-stature , in 1906, the average Jewish man was about 162cm high. Let's make his miqvah 165 x 31 x 31 cm. Same volume of water. A maximum belt size of something like 97 cm (39") would fit. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:49:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 10:29:56AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) ... : RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who : determines this minhag?) Well, if it's mimetic, you just watch what people do. And if so, RSZA's statement is descriptive, not descriptive. As in: Lemaaseh, people are nohagim not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach. : He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never : accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason than the one given. ... : Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be prohibited (ie : even according to those that eat gebrochs) (yesh ladun behem - Pesachim 40b : - Rashi that when people are "mezalzel one should be machmir) Who is being mezalzel on chameitz? If he saying that because some people are questioning qitniyos, we should strengthen qitniyos, then what does that have to do with foods not already under that umbrella? And even among those who question the minhag's sanity, is there really a major zilzul going on among Ashkenazim doing less and less to avoid qitniyios? On the contrary, as your translation opens, avoiding shemen qitniyos has spread well beyond the communities that originally had that minhag, to the extent that it's being applied to foods that in the past weren't on the list of qitniyos! The questioning is a counter-reaction to the growth of the minhag. Who is being mezalzel? : In the notes that this was what RSZA said in shiurim and when asked a : question responded that one should follow the family minhag... Ascerting mimeticism over his own textualism. Sevara aside, minhag is whatever is the accepted practice. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:30:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:30:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach - Lecithin does not render chocolate non-KLP for Ashkenasim In-Reply-To: References: <0b78331e-194b-c586-6de0-fc623959e4e3@sero.name> <32449da1-df34-d5e8-7170-a2c8676adf0e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170416213032.GD13509@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 07:25:10AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 2) The prohibition of being m'vateil an issur applies to the super : corporations that run the milk industry? This is a case where buying Chalav Yisrael, which is de rigeur in Zev's Chabad community, would be more problematic. After all, something done for CY milk is being done for Jews. Something done for stam OUD milk would not be. :-)||ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:38:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Poisoning in Halacha In-Reply-To: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> References: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170416213850.GE13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 10:16:10PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: : Tonight my chevrusa and I learned the sugya in Bava Kamma 47b of one who : puts poison in front of his friend's animal. A brief synopsis and : application of the sugya is at : http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/infected: ... : It struck us that it follows that if one poisons another human being by, : say, placing cyanide in his tea, which the victim then drinks and dies, : the poisoner is exempt from capitol punishment. It would seem that such : a manner of murder falls into the category of the Rambam's ruling in : Hilchos Rotze'ach u'Shemiras Nefesh 3:10: It might be similarly true, but I don't know if "it follows". After all, gerama in Choshein Mishpat has a more limited definition than in hilkhos Shabbos. So, it didn't have to be true that the same definitions of gerama and garmi apply in dinei mamunus as in dinei nefashos. Lemaaseh, they are consistent. I would ask the Y-mi-style question: How is retzichah more similar to mamon than it is to Shabbos? :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:10:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:10:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> References: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> Message-ID: <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 2:40am EDT, RnTK wrote: :> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook :> https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ :> Let me run an idea by you guys... :> 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha....... :> 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the :> beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. : It seems to me you are no more obligated to tear toilet paper for the whole : week than you are to do all your cooking for the whole week before the yom : tov. Actually, the heter is that the food tastes better when made closer to eating time. But if one is talking about food that would taste as good if made days ahead (including the logistical limitations of storage), one is actually supposed to be cooking it before YT. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 15:44:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:44:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> References: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> On 16/04/17 17:49, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never > : accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... > > But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod > bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason > than the one given. again, no he doesn't. We just went through this last week. He never proposed it, even as a hava amina, and never gives a reason against it. He merely reports, as a matter of fact and completely without comment for or against it, that he heard that in Germany they forbid potatoes because over there they make flour from them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 15:36:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:36:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> References: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8d50d8fe-f514-fdbf-c460-9971ad347ed9@sero.name> On 16/04/17 17:10, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Actually, the heter is that the food tastes better when made closer to > eating time. But if one is talking about food that would taste as good > if made days ahead (including the logistical limitations of storage), > one is actually supposed to be cooking it before YT. But not before chol hamoed. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 20:00:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:00:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> References: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170419030020.GA29092@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 06:44:54PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 16/04/17 17:49, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >: He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never : >: accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... : >But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod : >bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason : >than the one given. : : again, no he doesn't. We just went through this last week... And given the relatice abilities of RSZA and you to read the Chayei Adam, you're obviously mistaken. : never proposed it, even as a hava amina... He reports the existence of such a minhag, and recommends against its adoption. Close enough. You're setting yourself up as a baal pelugta of RSZA by splitting hairs to crration a distinction without a difference? Really? -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 19:56:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:56:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Isru Chag Message-ID: <68F6CB3B-3D32-4BF0-A68E-3AD77FD7EE69@cox.net> The gematria for Isru Chag is 278, the same gematria for l'machar found in Bamidbar, Ch.11, vs.18. This is in the Sidra, Beha?a'lotcha, where God has Moshe establish a Sanhedrin because Moshe complained that he could not carry on alone. God says to Moshe: "To the people you shall say, 'Prepare yourselves for tomorrow and you shall eat meat..." There is an interesting tie here. The day after a festival is the "morrow" and even though the holiday is over, we must always be preparing ourselves. (Also, in counting the omer, we are preparing ourselves for the climax of our faith in 50 days). A good Isru chag to all. ri ?By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.? Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 21:06:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:06:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: R' Meir G. Rabi explained his logic: > if one suggests that > there is a possibility that > some flour > within [but not on the surface of] the Matza > which is protected from the heat of the oven > and does not become baked > [as once it is baked, flour can not become Chamets] > then the Chashash that this flour > might become Chamets if it becomes wet > pales into insignificance > and is completely eclipsed by the much greater risk > that the middle part of the Matza > which may not have been baked > may actually be Chamets [Gamur] I do not follow this logic. He is comparing two distinctly different risks. For simplicity, I'd like to call one risk "insufficiently kneaded" and the other one "insufficiently baked". "Insufficiently kneaded" means that there might be some flour in the middle of the matza that never got wet and is still plain raw flour, and that if it gets wet it will become chometz. "Insufficiently baked" means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not get baked, and it is already chometz. And RMGR feels that the second of these is a "much greater risk". I don't know where he gets the statistics to say that "insufficiently kneaded" is a small risk (his words are "pales into insignificance"), and that "insufficiently baked" is a "much greater risk". Personally, my opinion is that *IF* one checks his matzos to be sure that they are uniformly thin, *AND* checks to be sure that they have none of the kefulos or other problems that halacha warns us about, then he can be confident that no part of the matza was insufficiently baked, and they are NOT chometz. Thus, there are steps that the consumer can take to minimize the risk that his matzos were insufficiently baked. In contrast, I don't know of any way that the consumer can check the matzos to verify that they were kneaded well enough; who knows if there might be a few particles of flour that never got wet? I guess the consumer has to rely on the manufacturer and hechsher to insure that they are doing a good enough job of kneading the dough. Anyway, my main point is that these two risks are distinct from each other. I don't see any logical connection between them. From the way he worded the subject line, it sounds like RMGR is making a "kal vachomer", that if one is worried about one of the risks, then he must certainly worry about the other one, but I don't see that. (In fact, I can't even figure out which risk he feels leads to the other.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 13:17:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:17:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: I am moving this to Avodah. >From: Ben Waxman via Areivim >To: Simon Montagu via Areivim , areivim > >Why is this even an issue? Meaning, why is it such an issue that people >with a different minhag are davening together*? Or is the issue that >both sides feel that the other is doing an aveira**? > >*Sefardim and Ashkenazim wrap their teffilin differently. That factoid >doesn't stop anyone from praying together. >** Which brings up other issues. >Ben My understanding is that people who wear Tefillen during Cho Moed are not supposed to wear them in a minyan where the custom is that no one wears Tefillen. I know that in a couple of shuls near me they are makpid that those who wear Tefillen and those who do not do wear them do not daven together until after the kedusha of shachris when Tefillen are taken off. In the Kivasikin minyan that I normally daven with, those who were Tefillen are upstairs in what is normally the ladies section. After Kedusha of Shachris, those upstairs join those downstairs for a Hallel. I have been told that in the Agudah in Baltimore those who wear Tefillen are on one side of the mechitza and those who don't are on the other side until after kedusha of shachris. So, apparently there is a problem with having a mix of Tefillen wearers and non-wearers during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 14:17:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:17:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:17:21PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : So, apparently there is a problem with having a mix of Tefillen : wearers and non-wearers during Chol Moed. Lo sisgodedu. The pasuq behind the whole notion of minhag hamaqom altogether. Eg see MB 31 s"q 8. The AhS OC 31:4 is okay with minyanim that are mixed between wearers and non-wearers. Nowadays, when the concept of minhag hamaqom is so weak and has so little to do with our sence of belonging, I think the psychology is the opposite as that assumed by those who apply lo sisgodedu. Having two minyanim is more divided, and certainly if it ends up an argument about which part of the minyan is behind the mechitzah. Look how in Israel, many minyanim ignore the halakhos of having a set nusach for the beis kenesses and just let each chazan use his own minhag avos! And this enables a single minyan to function in spite of diversity; a variety of Jews from different cultures able to daven together! Tir'u baTov! -Micha (PS: "wfb" summarized a nice list of sources about whether they should be worn from R Jacob Katz's article in Halakhah veQabbalah at .) -- Micha Berger Today is the 8th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed for another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 14:41:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:41:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Why would tefillin be any different to the various different practises about who does and doesn't wear a tallis? I have never heard of a non-tallis-wearing post-bar-mitzva boy being banished behind the mechitza at a yekkishe shul, or vice versa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 01:20:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:20:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> I didn't understand the question. My daughter married a sefardi and they eat kitniyot. I was by them for seder and everything served was without kiniyot. BTW I not aware of any shitah that there is a problem with keilim used for kitniyot. BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given modern communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a problem but there might be technological answers to that also. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 01:38:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:38:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kiniyot Message-ID: <<: RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who : determines this minhag?) Well, if it's mimetic, you just watch what people do. And if so, RSZA's statement is descriptive, not descriptive. As in: Lemaaseh, people are nohagim not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach. ... Sevara aside, minhag is whatever is the accepted practice. >> The question is "whose minhag". RSZA is stating what he saw. In my area of New York everyone used cottenseed oil. I recently saw a discussion of women saying kaddish. After a lengthy discussion the author concludes that the minhag is for women not to say kaddish. Well in almost all the shuls in my town women do say kaddish. I understand that even the Rama in SA in quoting minhag means Polish (Krakow) minhag and many other existing minhagim in Russia, or Italy were ignored. Similar things in the Sefardi communities. There are several cases that ROY opposes Morrocan customs as being against (sefardi) halacha but are heatedly defended by Moroccan rabbis. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 05:15:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:15:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Look how in Israel, many minyanim ignore the halakhos of having a set nusach for the beis kenesses and just let each chazan use his own minhag avos! And this enables a single minyan to function in spite of diversity; a variety of Jews from different cultures able to daven together! ---------------------------------- Which gets to the heart of the matter - some see diversity of Minhag as lchatchila (all the shvatim had their own Sanhedrin/practice) while others see it as a result of galut. IMHO this debate will continue ad biat hagoel (may it be very soon) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 05:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41e2d260-e360-8e8e-4d15-6f524b655121@sero.name> On 20/04/17 04:20, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make > sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given > modern communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush > hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a problem but there might be > technological answers to that also. The simplest method of getting word of kiddush hachodesh to the whole world on Shabbos/Yomtov is to have a goy send a tweet, which every Jewish house or shul could be set up beforehand to receive. Amira lenochri is of course midrabbanan, so the Sanhedrin can authorise an exception. But there's an even better solution: Kidush hachodesh (as opposed to notifying people about it) is docheh Shabbos/Yomtov. Eidim can be positioned in advance in places guaranteed to have no cloud cover and a good view of the moon (perhaps Ramon Crater?), and they can then drive to Yerushalayim, arriving in plenty of time to testify as soon as the beit din opens in the morning. They could even be positioned on desert mountaintops in chu"l, and fly in. Thus we could guarantee in advance that Elul will never again have a 30th day, and everyone could rely on that without actually being notified on the day. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 09:38:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:38:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:20:04AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make sense I : vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given modern : communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush : hachodesh instantaneously.... I would like to suggest a different angle on YT Sheini. It's not so much that Chazal were afraid of the same problems might arise in bayis shelishi. After all, the language in the gemara isn't the usual that we find with (eg) chadash on Nisan 16 or other taqanos to avoid that kind of problem. I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh ought to be al pi re'iyah. It is that important to remember that the progression is "meqadesh Yisrael vehazmanim", that people sanctify time, rather than the times imposing themselves on people. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 10:13:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:13:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> On 21/04/17 12:38, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I would like to suggest a different angle on YT Sheini. > > It's not so much that Chazal were afraid of the same problems might > arise in bayis shelishi. After all, the language in the gemara isn't > the usual that we find with (eg) chadash on Nisan 16 or other taqanos > to avoid that kind of problem. The language is "sometimes the kingdom will decree a decree"; therefore in an era when -- according to all opinions -- we will never again be subject to hostile kingdoms, it would seem no longer relevant. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 10:45:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:45:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:13:27PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The language is "sometimes the kingdom will decree a decree"; : therefore in an era when -- according to all opinions -- we will : never again be subject to hostile kingdoms, it would seem no longer : relevant. The language of the azhara to keep the minhag talks about zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah. Rashi ad loc says that the said gezeira would be against studying Torah, the community would lose the sod ha'ibbur and mess up their version of the calculation. But that's not the cause for keeping the minhag going. Because that rationale has nothing to do with where the messengers could arrive on time back when we needed them. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 11:23:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:23:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:58:36PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: :> The language of the azhara to keep the minhag talks about zimnin degazru :> hamalkhus gezeirah. :> Rashi ad loc says that the said gezeira would be against studying Torah, :> the community would lose the sod ha'ibbur and mess up their version of :> the calculation. :> But that's not the cause for keeping the minhag going. : The letter explicitly says that *was* the reason. You don't address my claim, just deny it. What the gemara says the letter read was: Hizharu beminhag avoseikhem! Zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah, ve'asi le'ilqalqulei. This is a motive given for "hizharu". (The letter expliticly says so.) Yes, it could mean that it's the motive for the minhag, which is so strong that that justifies not only keeping it going, but being warned But, given that the potential oppression does not justify the format of the minhag, this explanation must be for the caution alone. :> Because that :> rationale has nothing to do with where the messengers could arrive on :> time back when we needed them. : Those places never had a minhag of two days, so Chazal weren't going : to institute one now. Why not? If the problem is the unreliability of a computed calendar that is done once for centuries ahead without a Sanhedrin, this is new to those in Israel too! I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. Then they add, that one shouldn't say it's not /that/ important, because there is a pragmatic benefit as well. (In any case, Chazal were instituting a derabbanan based on a pre-existing minhag. I don't think you intended to imply that the "one" being instituted now was a minhag.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 11:42:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> On 21/04/17 14:23, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > What the gemara says the letter read was: > Hizharu beminhag avoseikhem! > Zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah, ve'asi le'ilqalqulei. > > This is a motive given for "hizharu". (The letter expliticly says > so.) > > Yes, it could mean that it's the motive for the minhag, which is so > strong that that justifies not only keeping it going, but being warned > But, given that the potential oppression does not justify the format > of the minhag, this explanation must be for the caution alone. No, it's not the reason for the minhag in the first place; we know what that was, and it no longer applies. That's why they wrote to the Sanhedrin asking whether they should abandon it. Hizharu means don't abandon it, keep it going anyway, and the reason for doing so is Zimnin degazru. > : Those places never had a minhag of two days, so Chazal weren't going > : to institute one now. > > Why not? Because that would be an innovation and Zimnin degazru is not enough reason to do so. But it *is* enough reason to continue an already existing practise that has just become obsolete. It takes a lot more to justify changing existing practise than it does to continue it. > I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that > qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices > from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. But there's no hint of this, and the letter explicitly says otherwise. > (In any case, Chazal were instituting a derabbanan based on a pre-existing > minhag. Yes, exactly. It's a din derabanan that behaves *as if* it were a mere minhag, because that's what the rabbanan said it should do. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 12:26:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:26:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421192640.GA20001@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 02:42:49PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : No, it's not the reason for the minhag in the first place; we know : what that was, and it no longer applies. That's why they wrote to : the Sanhedrin asking whether they should abandon it. Hizharu means : don't abandon it, keep it going anyway, and the reason for doing so : is Zimnin degazru. No, hizharu means "be careful", not "keep it going anyway". This is NOT "kevar qiblu avoseikhem aleihem. Shene'emar 'Shemi beni musar avikha, ve'al titosh toras imekha.'" (Pesachim 50b) ... : >I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that : >qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices : >from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. : : But there's no hint of this, and the letter explicitly says otherwise. Again, only once you mistranslate what it means lehazhir. This "explicitly" is not only far from explicit, it's not even there! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 13:37:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:37:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer > make sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside > Israel. Given modern communications, the whole world would know > the time of kiddush hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a > problem but there might be technological answers to that also. Shavuos mochiach. Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. If you can discover all of them, and explain all of them, and explain how Shavuos fits, *then* we can discuss "gezerot that no longer make sense". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 14:21:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:21:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> On 4/21/2017 7:38 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole > taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh > ought to be al pi re'iyah. That's a real possibility. In addition, I suggest that halakha is intended to be feasible without any technology. Just imagine changing something this fundamental to rely on an electronic network that will inevitably be subject to attack by EMPs at some point. I don't think it would be responsible. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 10:35:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 20:35:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole > taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh > ought to be al pi re'iyah. > It is that important to remember that the progression is "meqadesh > Yisrael vehazmanim", that people sanctify time, rather than the times > imposing themselves on people. Even more so once a Sanhredin is reconstituted and there is qiddush hachodesh ougal pi re'iyah.there is no use for YT sheni From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 19:18:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:18:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170423021813.GC19870@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:21:23AM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : That's a real possibility. In addition, I suggest that halakha is : intended to be feasible without any technology. Just imagine : changing something this fundamental to rely on an electronic network : that will inevitably be subject to attack by EMPs at some point. I : don't think it would be responsible. While I get your basic point... What EMPs? Even by Shemu'el's rather prosaic version of the messianic era, ein bein olam hazeh liyamos hamoshiach ela shib'ud malkhius bilvad. Gut Voch! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 00:03:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 03:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: <59924.64874017.462dabd2@aol.com> [1] From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" >> My understanding is that people who wear Tefillen during Cho Moed are not supposed to wear them in a minyan where the custom is that no one wears Tefillen. I know that in a couple of shuls near me they are makpid that those who wear Tefillen and those who do not do wear them do not daven together until after the kedusha of shachris when Tefillen are taken off. << YL [2] From: Allan Engel via Avodah >> Why would tefillin be any different to the various different practises about who does and doesn't wear a tallis? I have never heard of a non-tallis-wearing post-bar-mitzva boy being banished behind the mechitza at a yekkishe shul, or vice versa. << >>>> The difference between the tallis-or-not issue and the tefillin-or-not issue is that the former is in the realm of minhag while the latter is in the realm of halacha. People are not so makpid about differing minhagim in the same shul, but differing piskei halacha in the same shul -- that is much more serious. When you have some men wearing tefillin and others not wearing tefillin in the same minyan on chol hamoed, the presence of each subset implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 00:14:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 10:14:12 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> Hard to imagine that all communication would be lost for 15 days. It certainly is less likely than some problem with lighting fires between mountains. Remember that originally the "entire" galut knew the correct date of Pesach and Succot and so there was only one day of yomtov. Only when there was a deliberate attempt to mislead was the system changed. Also interesting is that there is no discussion of communities beyond Bavel. What was done in Alexandria and Rome? In any case even if locally they kept 2 days it was widespread. BTW I assume it took months to reach Rome. If there was a community in Spain (sefarad) it was even longer. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 12:34:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:34:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tazria Message-ID: <60DB8D20-7368-440D-830C-67A3C69835DD@cox.net> Rabbi Zelig Pliskin, in his book ?Love Your Neighbor,? quotes a hilarious true story about Lashon Hora. Someone asked a cerain woman if she wished to borrow a copy of ?Guard Your Tongue? to study the laws of lashon hora. Her response was: ?I don?t need it. I never speak lashon hora. But my husband really needs it. He always speaks lashon hora." We all know about lashon hora and how speaking ill of others is rather a poor reflection of ourselves. However, taken to another level, it was the S?fat Emes who said that it also can refer to having failed to speak lashon tov. This brings to mind the poignant story of a man weeping uncontrollably at the grave of his young wife. When the rabbi tried to console him by saying how good he was to her, he replied: ?Oh, rabbi, how I loved her so much and once I almost told her.? We have friends who take the time and effort to say nice things, and it would even be nicer if more of us did that. You never know the ripple effect a good word can have. ri After receiving another notice from school about bad behavior, a frustrated father sat to explain to his child the source of each one of the gray hairs in his once black beard. ?This one is from the last time the principal called about your misbehavior. This one is from the time you were mean to your sister. This one is from the time you broke our neighbor?s window,? etc., etc. The father looked at his child for a response to his appeal for better behavior, to which the child calmly replied: ?Oh, now it makes sense why Zaide has such a white beard!? Speech is the mirror of the soul Publilius Syrus, Latin Writer 85BCE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 11:47:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 18:47:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 256 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 25 15:03:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 22:03:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> "When you have some men wearing tefillin and others not wearing tefillin in the same minyan on chol hamoed, the presence of each subset implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment." Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people conscientiously following their family customs and davening together nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. Just a thought from a different perspective. Joseph Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 05:02:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:02:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "Shavuos mochiach. Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. If you can discover all of them, and explain all of them, and explain how Shavuos fits, *then* we can discuss "gezerot that no longer make sense"." The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 04:52:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:52:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Metzorah "LEPERS DO CHANGE THEIR SPOTS" Message-ID: On this, the Shabbos preceding Yom Haatzmaut, we read the Haftarah containing the following verse referring to the four lepers: ?And they said to one another: ?We are not doing the right thing; today is a day of good tidings and yet, we remain silent! If we wait until the light of dawn (until it?s too late), we will be adjudged as sinners; now come, let us go and report to the king?s palace.? Second Kings 7:9 It is fascinating that in our own times, this verse contains a challenging message. It is remarkable how the events of modern Israel ran parallel to the the story told in this Biblical chapter. The Arab armies besieging the Jewish community in Israel, their panic and sudden flight, the great deliverance which followed, and the birth of the State of Israel ? do we not see the hand of Providence in all these events? In one respect we are deeply worried. The lepers of the Haftarah possessed the moral obligation to proclaim the miracle. ?We are not doing the right thing. This is a day of good tidings and it is not proper that we should be quiet about it.? Many of us today (outcasts of yesterday) have still not risen to the moral height of recognizing that a miracle has transpired before our very eyes and therefore our duty to proclaim the greatness of the day! Let us, therefore, proclaim it to our children and to the world. Let us, with a firm belief in the future of Israel, do everything possible to assure its existence, strengthen its foundations, and thus look forward to the day of good tidings, the day of Israel?s total and quintessential Independence! rw John Adams: "I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations? They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews.? John F. Kennedy: "Israel was not created in order to disappear ? Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 13:29:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:03:43PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: :> implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This :> makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look :> bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. : Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly : perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people : conscientiously following their family customs and davening together : nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out : of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that : anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. I think we've lost sight of the original topic. Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. When I was a kid, we tefillin-wearers davened Shacharis in the basement, joining the rest of the shteibl only for the latter part of davening. We are therefore starting with data, the pesaq, and trying to figure out what that means aggadically. Not just blindly guessing about how things look in heaven. If things are as you portray it, the original question is stronger -- what you said doesn't resolve anything. BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos as self-identifications. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 15th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in Fax: (270) 514-1507 harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 14:42:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 21:42:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com>, <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> Lost sight of original topic? If that were a valid criticism we'd hear it at least once if not more in every issue. As to substance. I've been davening in shuls on chol haMoed for more than 50 years and every shul I've davened in, all Modern Orthodox led by rabbis who were well respected talmedei chachamim, had men with and without teffilin davening in one minyan together, sitting next to each other without problems or, I'm pretty sure, thinking of transgressors. That's MY data which I would hope is as valid as shteibl data. And that's what my response to my good friend Toby was trying to deal with. I wasn't the one to raise the perspective of Heaven but I found Toby's thoughtful comment refreshingly interesting and, as always, articulate, so I thought about it a bit and responded. I thought that what we do here on A/A. Joseph Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 26, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:03:43PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: > :> implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This > :> makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look > :> bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. > > : Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly > : perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people > : conscientiously following their family customs and davening together > : nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out > : of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that > : anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. > > I think we've lost sight of the original topic. > > Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in > a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises > evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. > > When I was a kid, we tefillin-wearers davened Shacharis in the basement, > joining the rest of the shteibl only for the latter part of davening. > > We are therefore starting with data, the pesaq, and trying to figure > out what that means aggadically. > > Not just blindly guessing about how things look in heaven. If things > are as you portray it, the original question is stronger -- what you > said doesn't resolve anything. > > BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are indeed > motivated by a consciencous following of family customs and the > perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. And how much > is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification with Litvaks or > Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than identification with the > Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos as self-identifications. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Today is the 15th day, which is > micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. > http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in > Fax: (270) 514-1507 harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 16:11:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:11:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:42:41PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : As to substance. I've been davening in shuls on chol haMoed for more : than 50 years and every shul I've davened in, all Modern Orthodox led : by rabbis who were well respected talmedei chachamim, had men with and : without teffilin davening in one minyan together, sitting next to each : other without problems or, I'm pretty sure, thinking of transgressors. : : That's MY data which I would hope is as valid as shteibl data. And : that's what my response to my good friend Toby was trying to deal with. Those are both anecdotes. (BTW, it was a pretty MO shteibl. We had more professors and other PhDs than you can shake a stick at. R/Dr SZ Leiman, R/Dr David Berger, Rs/Drs Steiner, Rs/Drs Sachat, progessors of Asronomy, Physics (R/Dr Herbert Goldstein, likely author of you physics textbook), Topology...) What is data is that the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed between tefillin wearers and not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 18:24:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:24:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com>, <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB wrote: "What is data is that the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed between tefillin wearers and not." Here's some "data" from R. Chaim (Howard) Jachter: "Nevertheless, in many North American congregations on Chol Hamoed, some wear Tefillin and others do not wear Tefillin in one Minyan. Are all these congregations disregarding the Mishna Berura and the Aruch Hashulchan? One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent authorities. The Gemara (ibid.) states that the coexistence of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad ? two distinct communities maintaining disparate practices in one community ? does not violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 1:158 and 159) notes that in this country Jews have gathered from the various sections of Europe and continue the Halachic practices of their former communities. Subsequent generations continue the practices of their parents. Rav Moshe asserts that American Jewry constitutes ?a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad? and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. The Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan addressed a situation in Europe, which radically differs from the situation in North America, as explained by Rav Moshe. However, it appears that one violates Lo Titgodedu if he wears Tefillin in public in Israel on Chol Hamoed." Joseph Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 22:54:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 01:24:46AM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent : authorities. ... Rav Moshe asserts : that American Jewry constitutes "a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad" : and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) : writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single : community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does : not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of : Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. : The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed... So, that answers the OP. Next question.. How long are we /supposed/ to continue being 2 BD be'ir echad, following the minhagim of our ancestral communities, rather than invoking lo sisgodedu and combining into communal minhagim in our current communities? EY is nearly there WRT tefillin on ch"m, with only a few holdouts like KAJ. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 04:29:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> , <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <36AE5716-00CB-4838-A9CE-5321370B72B4@tenzerlunin.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 27, 2017, at 1:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > > Next question.. How long are we /supposed/ to continue being 2 BD be'ir > echad, following the minhagim of our ancestral communities, rather > than invoking lo sisgodedu and combining into communal minhagim in our > current communities? Considering modern mobility, the world has been made so much smaller that I think the idea of strong communal minhagim imposed on all members of the community may be a thing of the past but not of the future. Joseph From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 16:48:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:48:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. ...<< Akiva Miller >>>>> I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 11:15:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent Message-ID: <20B9894A-31AD-494D-8049-66C38175C660@cox.net> It has been taught that a man must recite 100 b?rachot daily. There are different explanations why 100 and the following are a few: Rabbi Mayer said: a person is obligated to recite 100 Brachos each day. In the Jerusalem Talmud we learned: it was taught in the name of Rabbi Mayer; there is no Jew who does not fulfill one hundred Mitzvos each day, as it was written: Now Israel, what does G-d your G-d ask of you? Do not read the verse as providing for the word: ?what? (Mah); instead read it as including the word: ?one hundred? (Mai?Eh). King David established the practice of reciting one hundred Brachos each day. When the residents of Jerusalem informed him that one hundred Jews were dying everyday, he established this requirement. It appears that the practice was forgotten until our Sages at the time of the Mishna and at the time of the Gemara re-established it. There is an additional hint to the need to recite 100 blessings each day from the Prophets as it is written, Micah, Chapter 6, Verse 8: What does G-d ask of you (Hebrew: mimcha). Mimcha in Gematria is 100. There is also a hint to the need to recite 100 blessings from Scriptures as it is written in Psalms, Chapter 128 Verse 4: Behold, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the Lord (the Hebrew words: Ki Kain appear in the verse. The letters in those words total 100 in Gematria). I?d like to proffer another explanation. In most tests you take in school, a perfect score is 100 or an A+. Hence, when reciting a hundred brachot a day, we come as close to perfection as possible. ?If sin becomes an abomination to you, you will have a hundred percent victory over it.? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 17:35:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:35:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> References: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> Message-ID: <1210e77c-beca-a075-ee6d-2fb9df2cafe8@sero.name> On 27/04/17 19:48, via Avodah wrote: > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the > mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman matan toraseinu. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 18:13:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:13:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> On Areivim we were discussing how some activity could be labeled yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. Along the way I wrote that it couldn't be because the enviroment includes gender mixing. I concluded: : Arayos isn't yeihareig ve'al ya'avor until it's : actual relations. I'm not even sure that yeihareig ve'al ya'avor would : apply to bi'ah with a willing penuyah (who is not a niddah). Two people asked me off list to look at Sanhedrin 75a. In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he could speak to her; at least through a fence. According to either R' Yaaqov bar Idi or R Shemu'el bar Nachmeini, she was even a penuyah. (Peligi bah... chad amar...) But one could learn from that gemara that it would NOT be yeihareig ve'al ya'avor: Bishloma according to the man da'amar she was an eishes ish, shapir. But according to the MdA she was penuyah -- mah kulei hai? Two answers: R' Papa says because it's a pegam mishpachah, R' Acha berei deR' Iqa says "kedei shelo yehu benos Yisrael perutzos ba'arayos". So what's the exchange saying? That it is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor because of the consequent peritzus? Or that bishloma an eishes ish would be YvAY, but a penyah, who isn't, why wouldn't the guy be allowed to speak to her? As I said on Areivim "I am not even sure" which, because the gemara could be taken either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:03:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:03:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: R' Micha Berger concluded: > BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are > indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs > and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. > And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification > with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than > identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos > as self-identifications. That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the MB and AhS were on. By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? Do we really want to accuse the MB and AhS of that? I think there is another way we can look at this whole topic. Let's ask what makes Chol Hamoed Tefillin so unusual. Why is this case different than so many others? Someone else asked why there isn't any enforced uniformity regarding unmarried men wearing a tallis in shul. Why is that different? How about the differing ways of avoiding simcha during sefira? One person will make a wedding during the last week of Nisan, and another person FROM THE SAME SHUL will make a wedding after Lag Baomer. Not only is this tolerated, but the entire shul is allowed to attend both weddings! Why don't we insist that the whole town should go one way or the other, like with the tefillin? Sometimes I feel that our perspective on these issues is so very different than what prevailed in the unified kehilos of yesteryear, that we cannot ever hope to understand it. I think the confusion comes from try to impose one perspective on a differing situation. Perhaps we ought to "agree to disagree". Specifically: *WE* get strength from our diversity; *THEY* got strength from their uniformity. I personally worry about the misfits in those cultures, and the losses they suffered. But perhaps their leaders accepted that as an acceptable price for the chizuk that came to the larger group. We have been trained to be unwilling to accept such a price, and we fight for every single individual. But that too has a price, and we are often unable or unwilling to admit it. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:12:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:12:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement > in the mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. Yes, there is a disagreement over whether the Torah was given on 6 Sivan or on 7 Sivan. And there are lots of cute vertlach about whether Shavuos is about *Matan* Torah, or *Kabalas* HaTorah (and whether or not they happened on the same day). But the bottom line is the the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after Pesach. If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty about Shavuos. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:52:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:52:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025454.YQWS32620.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in >a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises >evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. There's something about this that I've never understood. Suppose a person is having a stomach problem -- isn't he supposed to refrain from wearing tefillin? So, in a shul, a guy is not wearing tefillin -- how do we even know what his reason is? (In fact, I think I recall hearing that R Moshe himself didn't wear tefillin many times towards the end of his life for this reason). So, of all the things regarding lo sisgadedu -- why tefillin? Why not all the other things that daveners wear differently? (E.g., different minhagim via-a-vis wearing a tallis before marriage?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:54:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:54:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Rabbi Mayer said: a person is obligated to recite 100 Brachos each >day. In the Jerusalem Talmud we >learned: it was taught in the name of Rabbi Mayer; there is no Jew >who does not fulfill one hundred >Mitzvos each day, as it was written: Now Israel, what does G-d your >G-d ask of you? Do not read the >verse as providing for the word: ?what? (Mah); instead read it as >including the word: ?one hundred? >(Mai?Eh). IIRC, there's a fun Ba'al HaTurim on this pasek: If you add the alef into the pasuk -- not only does it turn the word into "100" -- but the pasuk will then have 100 letters in it. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:58:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:58:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> > > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the > > mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. Indeed. Machlokes over whether it was Sivan 6 or 7. OTOH, the 50th day could also have fallen on Sivan 5, no? >The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed >calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman >matan toraseinu. Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? (I'm not being snarky -- it's a genuine question) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 21:45:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:45:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170428044535.GC2155@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:58:07PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" : when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? The explanation I like (eg from Maadanei Yom Tov) is that "zeman matan Toraseinu" is not a date in Sivan, but a number of days after Yetzias Mitzrayim or of the omer. Your question is based on the idea that "zeman" is a time on the calendar, not a point in a process (be it redemption or of omer). The MYT I mentioned earlier explains why Matan Torah was on the 7th whereas our Zeman Matan Toraseinu is on the 6th: He (the Tosafos Yom Tov?) notes that omer is both tisperu 50 yom and sheva shabasos temimos. It is 50 days or 7 x 7 = 49 days? So, uusually we think 49 days of omer, Shavuos is the 50th. The MYT says that 49 days of omer and the first day of Pesach is the 0th. Zeman Matan Toraseinu is thus after 50 days of process. For our Pesach, that's day 1 of Pesach + 49 omer, yeilding Sivan 6th. The first Pesach, though, Yetzi'as Mitzrayim was at midnight. So the first full day, usable as day 0, was the 16th of Nissan. Shifting everying off one day, so that process from physical ge'ulah to matan Torah ended on 7 Sivan. But whether you like that vertl or not, the idea that would answer your question is just that "zeman" is not necessarily a date; just as Shabbos is a time based on interval, not date. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:33:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:33:49 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <40e6067e-a5cf-689b-619a-908d5249a8a8@zahav.net.il> When was that prayer written, before or after the calendar was set? Ben On 4/28/2017 4:58 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" > when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 02:33:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:33:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the Exodus. Lisa On 4/28/2017 5:58 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed >> calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman >> matan toraseinu. > > Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" > when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:18:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:18:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428061804.GA19887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : "Insufficiently kneaded" means that there might be some flour in the : middle of the matza that never got wet and is still plain raw flour, : and that if it gets wet it will become chometz. "Insufficiently baked" : means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not : get baked, and it is already chometz. And RMGR feels that the second : of these is a "much greater risk". But... If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently kneeded, would any of the dry flour that went through the oven be still capable of becoming chaneitz if wet? If the dough is now too baked to rise any further, wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be to toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5, which discvusses things not to do because "shelma lo qulhu yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is that possible? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:22:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. Lo zakhisi lehavin. All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty. Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays being of the form of an uncertainty. But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain about the date. What am I missing in the CS's sevara? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 22:03:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:03:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite Message-ID: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> I signed up for something called Carbonite, which uploads everything on your computer to the Cloud where it might be possible to retrieve it all if your computer dies or is stolen. The thing is, either I have way too much on my computer or my computer is way too old and slow, but anyway, Carbonite started uploading on Sunday afternoon and now, Thursday night, it is STILL uploading. It continuously shows what progress it has made, and it is showing me that it has uploaded 43% of my computer. I am no math whiz but I can figure out that if it took from Sunday to Thursday to upload 43% it is not going to reach 100% before Shabbos. I asked the Carbonite tech person what happens if you turn off your computer in the middle, and he said Carbonite will just continue where it left off when you turn your computer back on. Interestingly we had a test case on Monday when my neighborhood lost power for six hours. When the power came back on, Carbonite did NOT resume where it had left off. Instead, I had to call Carbonite and ended up being on the phone for an hour while they told me to do this and that and then they did whatever and finally got Carbonite to resume its weary work. So here is my question for the learned chevra here on Avodah: Can I just leave my computer on all Shabbos, in another room with the door closed where I won't see it and it won't fashtair my Shabbos, and let Carbonite keep running and running? (It looks like it will take a whole nother week to finish.) Or should I sell my laptop to a goy and buy it back after Shabbos? (That was a joke, for those of you in Rio Linda.) Should I turn it off and resign myself to talking to tech support again for another hour to get it working again after Shabbos? Oy, siz shver tsu zein a Yid! Is leaving a laptop on all Shabbos with Carbonite uploading more like [A] leaving your lights, fridge and air conditioning on all Shabbos or [B] leaving a TV or radio on -- dubiously muttar, definitely not Shabbosdik or [C] making your eved Canaani work for you all day Shabbos -- a no-no or [D] giving your clothes to the Greek dressmaker to fix and telling her you need them some time next week, and if she for her own convenience decides to do the work on Shabbos, that's copacetic? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 06:44:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:44:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite In-Reply-To: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> References: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:03 AM, [Rn Toby Katz] wrote: > I signed up for something called Carbonite... > Can I just leave my computer on all Shabbos, in another room with the door > closed where I won't see it and it won't fashtair my Shabbos, and let > Carbonite keep running and running? (It looks like it will take a whole > nother week to finish.) ... What tzurus. I use crash plan. They each have their share of grief. I leave my computer on 24x7 except 2 day yomtov. I turn off the monitor and make sure the keyboard and mouse are secure before Shabbat. Why is it any different than leaving on the A/C? Back in the day, people would set the vcr to record a show over shabbat. That was a bit more dubious but was done. Good Shabbos From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 04:02:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:02:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org>, <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From: Micha Berger Sent: 27 April 2017 13:13 ... > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he > could speak to her; at least through a fence... > Bishloma according to the man da'amar she was an eishes ish, > shapir. > But according to the MdA she was penuyah -- mah kulei hai? ... > So what's the exchange saying? That it is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor > because of the consequent peritzus? Or that bishloma an eishes ish > would be YvAY, but a penyah, who isn't, why wouldn't the guy be > allowed to speak to her? Of note, that gemara is brought in Rambam Yesodei HaTorah in the context of acheiving cure for illness through hana'as issur. Meaning that it's not a halacha of gilui arayos per se, rather hana'as issur. He paskens it's assur even with a pnuya so that bnos yisrael won't be hefker. No mention of pgam mishpacha. (Parenthetically this seems to be an din of yeihareig v'al ya'avor midrabannon (so that bnos yisrael etc..). Any other such cases? I'd assumed YvAY is always d'oirasa, almost by definition) The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought. There is no suggestion that conversation in any normal situation is an issur hana'a per se, so therefore is not assur, certainly not Yeihareig V'al Yaavor. Therefore can't see how this gemara would be relevant to the army issue any more than the familiar dinim of r'eiyas einayim, kirva l'arayos etc which are no less relevant in the workplace and on the street. [Email #2. -micha] On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua. Nonetheless the whole gemara is still only relevant to a case of clear hana'as issur. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 07:57:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:57:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite In-Reply-To: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> References: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> Message-ID: <247ffd82-32aa-3bf1-c6ef-36c008a1a4a3@sero.name> On 28/04/17 01:03, via Avodah wrote: > Is leaving a laptop on all Shabbos with Carbonite uploading more like > [A] leaving your lights, fridge and air conditioning on all Shabbos > or [B] leaving a TV or radio on -- dubiously muttar, definitely not > Shabbosdik or [C] making your eved Canaani work for you all day Shabbos > -- a no-no or [D] giving your clothes to the Greek dressmaker to fix and > telling her you need them some time next week, and if she for her own > convenience decides to do the work on Shabbos, that's copacetic? It's A, shevisas keilim, which is a machlokes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. The halacha of course follows Beis Hillel, that we are not commanded on shevisas keiliim, so it's completely OK. The problem with B is hashma`as kol, which is a species of mar'is ho`ayin; passersby will hear the sound of work being done in your home and will suspect you, if not of actual chilul shabbos, then at least of amira lenochri. It is muttar if there are no Jews within a techum shabbos. C is of course completely out, mid'oraisa, even if the eved sets his own schedule. Avadim are obligated to keep Shabbos. D is amira lenochri, which is completely muttar mid'oraisa, but the chachamim forbade it lest you come to do melacha yourself. Thus it's muttar if the decision to do the work on Shabbos rather than during the week is completely up to the nochri. BTW you don't need to leave it to sometime next week; you can ask to have it ready when the shop opens on Sunday morning, and it's up to the cleaner whether to do it on Shabbos or to stay up all night motzei shabbos to get it done. It's only assur if there are literally not enough weekday hours between now and when you want it, so that the nochri *must* do some of it on Shabbos. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 07:27:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:27:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:14 PM 4/27/2017, R. Micha Berger wrote: >EY is nearly there WRT tefillin on ch"m, with only a few holdouts >like KAJ. This statement does not seem to be correct. See http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x Note the following from there. Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau?er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. and (I do not know what all of the ? stand for.) Here are a few names, a sampling of some past gedolim who wore tefillin on chol hamoed IN ERETZ YISROEL (either betzinoh or otherwise) ? Moreinu HaRav Schach, Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, Rav Michel Feinstein (eidem of the Brisker Rav), Pressburger Rav, and Rav Duschinsky, ????. The ???? ????? was in Eretz Yisroel. In his siddur Shaarei Shomayim, he has tefillin on chol hamoed. Rav Moshe Feinstein ???? writes in a teshuvoh that he knows of thousands of bnei Torah who put on tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel. ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????, ????? of Edah Charedis was heard also taking the position that someone whose minhog is to put on tefillin on chol hamoed cannot just suddenly drop it totally in Eretz Yisroel. The above and previous post is based on what I heard about this inyan ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????, ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????. I think there is an Oberlander minyan in Yerushlayim where they wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed as well, if I recall correctly. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 08:03:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:03:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7af7f734-f777-e833-2997-5d8daf3057af@sero.name> On 28/04/17 02:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos > : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not > : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day > : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a > : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most > : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But > : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the > : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. > Lo zakhisi lehavin. > > All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a > taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty. > > Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the > uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays > being of the form of an uncertainty. > > But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was > like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain > about the date. I think what he means is that even in their days, when most YT Sheni were safek d'oraisa, the 2nd day of Shavuos was a vadai d'rabanan pretending to be a safek d'oraisa. Nowadays that describes *all* YT Sheni (except the 2nd day of RH, which is a vadai d'rabanan not pretending to be anything else, because even in their days this was occasionally the case). So his explanation is merely historical, that what we have is not a new situation, because they had it on Shavuos. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 08:27:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:27:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is > the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the > case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which > we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the > Exodus. Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th day but on the 51st. So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the pseudo-Julian anniversary. Therefore I assume they did *not* say ZMT. In fact I assume they didn't say it even when it *did* fall on the 6th, since that was just a coincidence. Only when it was set to fall on the 6th every year did it take on a new nature as ZMT. This is all, however, on the assumption that we hold like the opinion that yetzias mitzrayim was on a Thursday. This is the basis of the entire sugya in Perek R Akiva Omer that we all know. But right at the end of that sugya, at the top of 88a a new source is suddenly cited, the Seder Olam, that YM was on a Friday, and the gemara seems to say "Aha! Forget everything we said till now, trying to reconcile the Rabbanan's opinion, now everything is simple: the Seder Olam follows the Rabbanan, YM was on a Friday, and MT was 50 days later on the 6th of Sivan, and the sources we've been working with, that say YM was on a Thursday, follow R Yossi, who says MT was on the 7th. So for years I've wondered why it is that we seem to ignore this source and continue to maintain that YM was on Thursday, even though it means accepting the strained explanations the gemara comes up with to reconcile them before it found the Seder Olam. If the SO was enough for the gemara to overthrow its earlier discussion, why isn't it enough for us? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 11:16:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:16:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: <24769a.1d3ee4d4.4634e11b@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> But the bottom line is the the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after Pesach. If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty about Shavuos. << Akiva Miller >>>> In the days when they kept two days Pesach because they didn't know when Rosh Chodesh had been, perhaps you can say that by the time Shavuos rolled around, the messengers had arrived to tell them when Rosh Chodesh Nissan (and therefore when Pesach) had been so by then they knew for sure when Shavuos was. But of course we still keep two days of Pesach until now, as we've been discussing, despite the fact that we no longer have a safeik about the date. So your statement, "If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty" is not really true or maybe is true but not relevant. After all, didn't you start counting Sefira on your [second] Seder Night? Was that not a stira -- counting sefira at the seder? After all, we're supposed to start counting "mimacharas haShabbos" -- the day AFTER yom tov, i.e., the first day of chol hamo'ed. So "fifty days after Pesach" turns out itself to be a slightly slippery concept. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 12:07:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:07:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent In-Reply-To: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> References: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Message-ID: I heard this from the late R Hershel Fogelman, of Worcester MA: The passuk says "ha'elef lecha Shelomo, umasayim lenotrim es piryo". What does this mean? The Gemara (Chulin 87a) says that the opportunity to say a bracha is worth ten golden coins. So we owe You, Melech Shehashalom Shelo, 1000 coins. But on Shabbos we are short 200. Who makes up these 200? Those who keep it with fruit. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 03:17:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 20:17:11 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: "Insufficiently baked" means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not get baked and it is already chometz. RMGR feels that this is a "much greater risk" than the risk of Gebrochts. I hope the following clarifies my argument that G is an utterly fake concern IF one is Choshesh that the baking has NOT reached the central part of the Matza as are Choshesh all those who do not eat G [bcs if it is properly baked then even if some flour remains bcs the dough was insufficiently kneaded that flour which has been baked CANNOT become Chamets] The problem is once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash that the central part of the Matza is not fully baked then never mind the problem of flour which will BECOME Chamets when it gets wet and given time WE HAVE A MUCH GREATER PROBLEM according to the Gebrochts-nicks argument we ALREADY HAVE CHAMETS in the Matza since the dough that is insufficiently baked is ALREADY Chamets -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 19:44:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:44:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently > kneaded, would any of the dry flour that went through > the oven be still capable of becoming chameitz if wet? > If the dough is now too baked to rise any further, > wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be > too toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5, > which discusses things not to do because "shema lo qulhu > yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is > that possible? What's the shiur of "qulhu yafeh"? Maybe roasting flour is more time-consuming than baking matzah? You want to say they're the same, but who knows? If we had a better handle on these things, our Pesach breakfasts could be farina or oatmeal made with chalita, but we have forgotten how to do that correctly. I have a friend who has been a Home Economics teacher at the local public high school for about 40 years. She likes to point out how different baking is from cooking. Cooking, she says, is about flavors, and you can put just about anything you like into a pot, cook it for a while, and it will be okay. "But baking is all about chemistry." You have to get the right ingredients in the right proportions at the right temperatures for the right time, or it will be a disaster. This distinction doesn't show up in Hilchos Shabbos, but it certainly does in Chometz UMatzah. Timing is key. I have no idea what the poskim say about varied situations of "shema lo qulhu yafeh", but it is very easy for me to imagine that if there is some dry flour inside the matza dough, the matza could be adequately baked while that flour is still not yet roasted enough to prevent later chimutz. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 04:10:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 21:10:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe Message-ID: R Micha points out RaMBaM does record the Halacha that we may not cook in water during Pesach toasted grains nor the flour ground from them because Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe perhaps they were not fully toasted and they may become Chamets one assumes this is because over-toasting the Camel grains ruins the taste and it was therefore far more likely that they were under-toasted than over-toasted Furthermore there is no test to apply to toasted grains as there is to baked Matza Matza is tested for being baked by tearing it apart and ensuring there are no doughy threads stretching between the torn pieces -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 19:17:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Acharei Mot Message-ID: Acharei Mot is the only Torah portion with the word ?death? in its title. The two words together are captivating: ACHAREI mot. In other words, we should be focusing on ?Acharei,? AFTER death. As depressing, difficult and mysterious as death is, we must not dwell on it. We must go on with our lives ?Acharei" AFTER. Life is eternal, and love is immortal, and death is only a horizon; and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight. Rossiter Worthington Raymond (April 27, 1840 in Cincinnati, Ohio ? December 31, 1918 in Brooklyn, New York) He was an American mining engineer, legal scholar and author. At his memorial, the President of Lehigh University described him as "one of the most remarkable cases of versatility that our country has ever seen?sailor, soldier, engineer, lawyer, orator, editor, poet, novelist, story-teller, biblical critic, theologian, teacher, chess-player?he was superior in each capacity. What he did, he always did well." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 20:58:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 05:58:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <77074713-e49c-4af3-1f69-39b611caa0e0@zahav.net.il> Read further down on the page: Your exceptions prove the rule. Sorry you are unfamiliar with minhagei eretz yisrael. They are esentially minhagei Hagra, brought here by the famous ?prushim? clan, and these minhagim have been accepted throughout Israel, with some exceptions.In Yerushalayim , they are accepted almost uniformly. The Tukotchinsky Luach for minhagim of the davening is a reflection of this and it is accepted by almost all. True, here and there, as your friend noted, there is a minyan that puts on tefillin. To each his own. But there are thousands of minyanim that don?t, and many of them do not hesitate to unceremoniously throw anyone out that dares put them on, even in the corner or in another room. I have seen this myself. Rav Schach?s custom, and certainly the Erlauer Rebbe indicate that the general custom is not to put on tefillin. None of the yeshivas, including Rav Schach?s yeshiva, adopted his minhag.None of the chassidim here do either except the relatively small numbered Erlauer. Ben On 4/28/2017 4:27 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > This statement does not seem to be correct. See http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x > > Note the following from there. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 20:53:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:53:56 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I had asked whether people had a view on the halachic propriety or otherwise of using a sous-vide machine over Shabbos and received no response. The sous-vide is a method of cooking which one might call very slow cooking. Bags with the food (e.g. meat) are places in a bucket or the like, and the machine is placed inside the bucket together with water which covers the plastic bag(s). It can take a really cheap cut of meat and make it tender and delicious. It?s buttons can be covered if someone is worried about Shehiya, I think the issue is Harmono. It can?t be both. One thing I noticed is that nobody seems to fiddle or touch the bags until the ?given time period?, and then one just pulls the plastic bags out. One can pre-program to turn the machine off, or it can continue keeping the water at the set temperature. There are various scenarios. Where the food is ready on Friday night. Where another bag of the food has a different texture is left till lunchtime on shabbos Where the meat is Mamash Raw (let alone not Maachol Ben Drusoi) on Erev Shabbos but will be good on Shabbos Where the concept of Mitztamek Veyofe Lo has nothing to do with Mitztamek, but rather a quantitative improvement that is still possible without it shrivelling The final issue is whether you say that since it might have had another 12 hours cooking and the temperature does not rise, that the meat is of a different VARIETY as opposed to quality. For example cooked versus roasted steak. Either way, here is a link to the only Tshuva I know of on this issue. I?m interested in reactions. There is a touch of Choddosh Ossur Min HaTorah from Rav Asher Weiss, but in the main, I can?t think of a reason why it?s not Hatmono. Disclaimer: I have not reviewed Hatmono for many years, and started to in dribs and drabs with the Aruch HaShulchan. This is the link to the Tshuva http://preview.tinyurl.com/kvxswnp or http://tinyurl.com/kvxswnp I spoke to Mori V?Rabbi Rav Schachter about it, and interchanged with his son Rabbi Shay, but they haven?t managed to show him the device and he won?t pasken until he has seen it (of course). "It is only the anticipation of redemption that preserves Judaism in Exile, while Judaism in the Land of Israel is the redemption itself." ______________________ Rabbi A.I. Hacohen Kook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 06:34:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:34:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >: The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos >: Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not >: differentiate between holidays... > All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaint[y]... > But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was > like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain > about the date. The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about second day of Yom Tov apply. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 09:48:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:48:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170430164805.GA11800@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 04:34:17PM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: : The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made : b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about second day of : Yom Tov apply. I know. That's my question. He says YT sheini of Shavuos was mishum lo pelug. So, if it's really lo pelug, then how/why would it be different in form than YT Sheini Sukkos, Shemini Atzeres or Pesach (x 2)? If it's lo pelug, then the usual qulos of pretending we're dealing with the old-time safeiq should apply -- or else, there is a pelug. No? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 09:57:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:57:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:02:29AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he : > could speak to her; at least through a fence... ... : The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone : who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as : issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought. ... : [Email #2. -micha] : : On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar : pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned : with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as : arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua. Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy for letting his taavos get so worked up. I see a slight conflict in your answers. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 11:05:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:05:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From AudioRoundup at Torah Musings: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/864540/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-sous-vide-cooking-for-shabbos-(and-through-shabbos)/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-From The Rabbi?s Desk ? Sous Vide Cooking For Shabbos (and Through Shabbos) Sous vide cooking (another thing we?ve lived without but now sounds like it will be the next sushi). If you do it for, or over Shabbat, is there an issue of hatmana or shehiya? FWIW the hashkafa at the end of R?Asher Weiss?s tshuva is well worth thinking about ? we seem to live in an age where any sacrifice is difficult. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 13:50:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> , <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I didn't think I was giving two answers, just clarifying further. So, let's work through it again. I must admit I have looked at neither Rishonim (except Rambam) nor achronim. But here goes: The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of YaVY. The gemara then says that this works fine for an eishes ish, The first question should be why that's obvious? Since when is conversation with an eishes ish YvAY? We answered that by saying, al pi Rambam, that the point of the gemara is to clarify how far we apply YvAY to hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation carries the din YvAY. That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. However, the bottom line for our original reason for analysing this gemara remains that it's not part of the cheshbon governing any standard interactions in which any ben Torah might participate, as it only applies to someone sick enough to have inevitable sexual hana'a from a conversation. R Micha's two correspondents can feel free to challange that whether off or on list. BW Ben Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy for letting his taavos get so worked up. I see a slight conflict in your answers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:22:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:45:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy : ... : OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the : rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very : clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz.... : : So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? I think the "out" is the clause "sheyeish lanu ba'alus alava". So, chameitz that you didn't have baalus on, but was delivered on Pesach wouldn't be included. (And would be a davar shelo ba le'olam, even if you did try to include it.) No, that doesn't cover things you owned since before Pesach and were unware "delo chazisei" that you only found on Pesach. OTOH, wasn't that stuff already mevutal anyway? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:30:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430173012.GB27111@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are :> indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs :> and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. :> And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification :> with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than :> identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos :> as self-identifications. : That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the : MB and AhS were on. : By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they : putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, : ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on : identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? ... I don't see how they are. If someone says there should be a single pesaq for a location and the shul could be consistent is talking about unity. Not about whether our community's minhagim are better or worse than those of another community -- they aren't present to suggest we're comparing. I was contrasting two different motives for breaking that unity: The first archetype is the one who does so because he takes more self-identity from his Litvisher (eg) ancestry than in being in part of the observant community, or Jewish community in general. The second is the one who is motivated by the logic of the pesaq or the hashkafah payoff. Such as someone who is "into" qabbalah for whom "qotzeitz bintiyos" means something and motivates not feeling happy in tefillin on ch"m. I was suggesting that lo sisgodedu only rules out the first motivation, not the second. But the acharon who promotes everyone following one practice isn't a question of whether their motivation is more important than lo sisgodedu to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:30:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430173012.GB27111@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are :> indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs :> and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. :> And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification :> with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than :> identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos :> as self-identifications. : That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the : MB and AhS were on. : By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they : putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, : ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on : identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? ... I don't see how they are. If someone says there should be a single pesaq for a location and the shul could be consistent is talking about unity. Not about whether our community's minhagim are better or worse than those of another community -- they aren't present to suggest we're comparing. I was contrasting two different motives for breaking that unity: The first archetype is the one who does so because he takes more self-identity from his Litvisher (eg) ancestry than in being in part of the observant community, or Jewish community in general. The second is the one who is motivated by the logic of the pesaq or the hashkafah payoff. Such as someone who is "into" qabbalah for whom "qotzeitz bintiyos" means something and motivates not feeling happy in tefillin on ch"m. I was suggesting that lo sisgodedu only rules out the first motivation, not the second. But the acharon who promotes everyone following one practice isn't a question of whether their motivation is more important than lo sisgodedu to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:08:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:08:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430170851.GD19139@aishdas.org> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 08:17:11PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The problem is : once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash : that the central part of the Matza : is not fully baked : then never mind the problem of flour : which will BECOME Chamets : when it gets wet ... Again, if gebrochts were about the middle not being baked, it would be worries about chameitz whether or not the matzah later gets in contact with water. It's about flour that didn't become kneaded. As the SA haRav states, the Besht ate gebrochts because in his day the 1 mil timer was stopped for kneading. We came up with this chumerah of trying to fit everything, including the kneading in the time limit. Which caused us to start rushing the kneading. (Yet, the Alter Rebbe of Lub lauded this new chumerah, despite it coming with new risks.) And so he justified chassidim of his generation following a new hanhagah that the Besht did not. (We discuss this teshuvah annually.) The question I asked is based on the fact that toasted flour doesn't become chameitz. And by simple physics, we expect that if dough, a huge lump, can bake through, then of course we would have completed the toasting of the same chemicals present in fine powder form, like any dry unkneaded flour within the dough. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 17:49:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 10:49:28 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <384BCE1C-0255-4CD6-9547-033963F2DA9C@gmail.com> Rich, Joel wrote: > > > From AudioRoundup at Torah Musings: > http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/864540/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-sous-vide-cooking-for-shabbos-(and-through-shabbos)/ > Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-From The Rabbi?s Desk ? Sous Vide Cooking For Shabbos (and Through Shabbos) > Sous vide cooking (another thing we?ve lived without but now sounds like it will be the next sushi). If you do it for, or over Shabbat, is there an issue of hatmana or shehiya? > > > FWIW the hashkafa at the end of R?Asher Weiss?s tshuva is well worth thinking about ? we seem to live in an age where any sacrifice is difficult. > > KT > Joel Rich R Joel, yes indeed. I got the Tshuva from R Aryeh :-) The other question is why does Halacha entail sacrifice. IF it's halachically sound it may be a hiddur! I know we have it on Tuesdays and everyone loves it. It is a superior form of cooking. If it's NOT Hatmono then why (if one has the implement) would one not use it. I find that a Hungarian Posek approach in general. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 17:34:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:34:13 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on Monday besides Hallel on tues Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 08:39:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 08:39:29 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> References: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <138374BA-01AB-4BF3-8554-304B33684B81@gmail.com> Young Israel century city holds both kulot. No tachanun Monday. Hallel Tues. Curious how most chul shuls do it. .I expect most follow israel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 09:51:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 18:51:40 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/1/2017 2:34 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on > Monday besides Hallel on tues Mine didn't and that was my experience in other shuls as well. The Tfilion app doesn't have Tachanun (but does have an added chapter of Tehillim for the fallen). Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 06:15:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:15:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> On Monday, May 1, 2017 6:02 AM, saul newman wrote: > Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on > Monday besides Hallel on tues Rav Ahron considered Hey Iyar to be Yom Ha'atzmaut and the day that Hallel (without a Bracha) is said and Tachanun is not said -- regardless of when Israel celebrates it (for whatever reason it may be delayed). I (and Yeshivas Brisk) did not say Tachanun at Mincha yesterday (Erev Yom Tov) nor today at Shacharis... nor will I say it at Mincha. I will say it tomorrow. HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 10:23:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:23:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Last year, in http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n055.shtml#10 , RHM gave R' Aharon Soloveitchik's shitah. Much like this year, although last iteration he added: One can review the Halachic sources RAS used in his book 'Logic of the heart, Logic of the Mind'. I responded in the post right below it, quoting RGS, http://www.torahmusings.com/technology-halakhic-change-yom-ha-atzmaut , who in turn was commenting on R/Dr Aaron Levin of Flatbush's evolving practice: In America, where the celebrations can be more easily controlled to avoid the desecration of Shabbos, many authorities did not recognize the change of date, among them Rav Ahron Soloveichik and Rav Hershel Schachter. They insisted that people recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar -- the day of the miracle of the declaration of the State of Israel -- regardless of when Israelis celebrate the day. Rav Aaron Levine's son, Rav Efraim Levine, told me that his father had to change his position on this question over time. Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a community to determine its own date to celebrate. To which I added: RAS might have decided similarly or not had he lived to see the day when the primary intercontinental communication was the telephone, not the aerogram. We can't know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 11:59:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 20:59:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: For Hebrew readers, Rav Yoni Rosensweig sums up Rav Rabinovitch's position on the matter: https://www.facebook.com/yonirosensweig/posts/1761639697197955 Bottom line: Moving Yom Aztmaout doesn't entirely remove the uniqueness of the day. While he does state that the rabbinate holds that one skips Tachanun only on the day Yom Aztmaout is celebrated, RYR doesn't accept that psak. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 12:35:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 15:35:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> On a lighter, more aggadic note, my father suggested that the existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to minimize chilul Shabbos is the very thing a Religious Zionist would be celebrating on Yom haAtzmaaut. Which reminds me of something Rav Dovid Lifshitz said about Yom haAtzma'ut. Rebbe said that Atzma'ut is something special, and certainly worth celebrating. But for now YhA is only half a holiday. We established the atzma'ut of Yisrael, but are still missing its etzem. To rephrase into my father's words: It is worthwhile to celebrate the existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to minimize chilul Shabbos, but what we pray for is the existence of a country that wouldn't have to! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 14:42:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 23:42:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the reading is pushed off until Sunday. Ben On 5/1/2017 9:35 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > It is worthwhile to celebrate the > existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to > minimize chilul Shabbos, but what we pray for is the existence of a > country that wouldn't have to! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 17:38:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 20:38:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:42:18PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the : reading is pushed off until Sunday. Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 22:29:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 07:29:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> Message-ID: 1) It is part of a package deal, the first part of which can fall on Shabbat. 2) When we go back to setting the month based on witnesses, it could fall on Shabbat. Ben On 5/2/2017 2:38 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. > > -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 23:12:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 09:12:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:42:18PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: > : It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the > : reading is pushed off until Sunday. > > Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. > 5 Iyyar certainly can fall out on Shabbat, and as it happens it doe so in exactly the same years when there is Shushan Purim Meshulash: Adar has 29 days and Nisan 30, so from 15 Adar to 5 Iyyar is 29 + 30 - 10 = 49 days or exactly 7 weeks. In other words, Shushan Purim and Yom Ha`Atzmaut (when not postponed or advanced) are always on the same day of the week. This last happened nine years ago in 5768 and will happen again in 5781 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 21:39:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 14:39:34 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Looking Jewish Message-ID: Gemara AZara 58a - R Yochanan b Arza and R Yosiy b Nehuroi, were drinking wine - they requested someone nearby to fix their drinks. After he fulfilled their request they realised he was not Jewish. May they drink the wine, is the Gemara's Q. But how could they make such a mistake? And how might the wine be permitted? the Gemarah 58b explains it was clear to the G that the Sages were Jewish, it was also clear that he thought that they knew he was not Jewish, and it was also clear that he as a non-J knew that if he handled the wine, they wold not be permitted to drink it So he thought - they MUST be drinking mead [which he may handle and mix for them] so even though he was actually handling wine, thinking it was mead, he would not make his usual pagan worship and so it did not become disqualified. So here is the tough part HE was CERTAIN they knew he was not J [that's why he was certain that they were drinking mead and not wine] however the truth was they DID IN FACT THINK he was J [and that is why they did invite him to fix their wine drinks] could this happen today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 04:48:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 07:48:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Ha'atzmaut Message-ID: <3866CC37-90C9-4337-8257-616B6EB01940@cox.net> The story is told of the Chafetz Chayim, zt"l, that he asked one of his visitors who had come from a great distance, "How are you?? which in Yiddish is, "Vos makhst du," literally, "What do you do?" So in answer to this inquiry, the visitor replied, "Thank God, I have a thriving business, I have no financial problems, I have a beautiful home with a swimming pool,? etc. etc. The Chafetz Chayim repeated, "Vos makhst du?" and the visitor, a bit confused as to why the question was repeated, gave the same reply. So for the third time, the same question was asked of the visitor, at which point the visitor looked at the saint and he said: ?I don?t understand why you asked me three times 'How I am.? I told you that thank God, I have a thriving business, a lot of money, a beautiful home, etc.? The Chafetz Chayim replied: ?You don?t understand. You told me what GOD is doing for YOU, but I asked, 'What are YOU doing?' I therefore repeat: 'Vos makhst du?'" How does this apply to Israel Independence Day? We know what Israel has done for US. The question remains: What are we doing for Israel, and what are we doing for each other? May we become ?Independent" enough to help others who "depend" on us. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 11:50:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Avram Sacks via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 13:50:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Cong Or Torah in Skokie said tachanun at shacharit, but not at mincha on erev Yom Ha-Atzmaut. On YhA, at ma'ariv we added additional tehillim at the end of davening, as found in the Koren siddur for Yom HaAtzmaut. At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. Kol tuv, Avi Avram Sacks From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 13:16:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 16:16:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Looking Jewish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170502201609.GB17585@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:39:34PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Gemara AZara 58a ... : the Gemarah 58b explains ... : So he thought - they MUST be drinking mead : [which he may handle and mix for them] : so even though he was actually handling wine, : thinking it was mead, he would not make his usual pagan worship : and so it did not become disqualified. ... : could this happen today? Their wine was this thick syrup that required dilution (mezigas hakos) to be drinkable. They also often had to add spices and/or honey to make it palatable. Inomlin / yinomlin (spelled with a leading alef or yud, depending on girsa; Shabbos 20:2, AZ 30a) was wine mixed with honey and pepper (Shabbos 140a). So, if the grapes were particularly sour, and more honey was added, perhaps it wasn't that easy to determine that it was wine (enomlin) and not meade. A problem 2 millenia of vintners eliminated through breeding better grapes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 14:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 17:20:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5908F811.8040504@aishdas.org> Beautiful sentiments, to be sure, but 100% emotional and 0% halachic. Was there live music on 6 Iyar? KT, YGB On 5/2/2017 2:50 PM, Avram Sacks via Avodah wrote: > Cong Or Torah in Skokie said tachanun at shacharit, but not at mincha > on erev Yom Ha-Atzmaut. On YhA, at ma'ariv we added additional > tehillim at the end of davening, as found in the Koren siddur for Yom > HaAtzmaut. At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel > (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and > ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it > is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet > observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in > Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added > that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about > those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA > on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 15:17:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 18:17:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akrasia and Ritual Message-ID: <20170502221754.GA25834@aishdas.org> Akrasia is a classical Greek term for why we so often don't do what we believe. In more mesoretic terms -- the problem of akrasia is the question of "what is the yeitzer hara?" In http://www.thebookoflife.org/akrasia-or-why-we-dont-do-what-we-believe there is an interesting piece on how ritual helps solve akrasia. It might help one's qabbalas ol mitzvos: ... There are two central solutions to akrasia, located in two unexpected quarters: in art and in ritual. The real purpose of art... (Fans of RAYK or Dr Nathan Birnbaum might want to read the part I'm skipping here.) Ritual is the second defence we have against akrasia. By ritual, one means the structured, often highly seductive or aesthetic, repetition of a thought or an action, with a view to making it at once convincing and habitual. Ritual rejects the notion that it can ever be sufficient to teach anything important once - an optimistic delusion which the modern education system has been fatefully marked by. Once might be enough to get us to admit an idea is right, but it won't be anything like enough to convince us it should be acted upon. Our brains are leaky, and under-pressure of any kind, they will readily revert to customary patterns of thought and feeling. Ritual trains our cognitive muscles, it makes a sequence of appointments in our diaries to refresh our acquaintance with our most important ideas. Our current culture tends to see ritual mainly as an antiquated infringement of individual freedom, a bossy command to turn our thoughts in particular directions at specific times. But the defenders of ritual would see it another way: we aren't being told to think of something we don't agree with, we are being returned with grace to what we always believed in at heart. We are being tugged by a collective force back to a more loyal and authentic version of ourselves. The greatest human institutions to have tried to address the problem of akrasia have been religions. Religions have wanted to do something much more serious than simply promote abstract ideas, they have wanted to get people to behave in line with those ideas, a very different thing. They didn't just want people to think kindness or forgiveness were nice (which generally we do already); they wanted us to be kind or forgiving most days of the year. That meant inventing a host of ingenious mechanisms for mobilising the will, which is why across much of the world, the finest art and buildings, the most seductive music, the most impressive and moving rituals have all been religious. Religion is a vast machine for addressing the problem of akrasia. This has presented a big conundrum for a more secular era. Bad secularisation has lumped religious superstition and religion's anti-akrasia strategies together. It has rejected both the supernatural ideas of the faiths and their wiser attitudes to the motivational roles of art and ritual. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 21:48:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 06:48:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0a07acaa-4c79-5eb5-b387-1887573b3cd1@zahav.net.il> There is an oversimplification here, that the issue is the secular. Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed off even if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash. Getting the country ready for these days means hundreds, thousands of people have to be in place. This includes soldiers, policemen, etc who are 100% dati. Holding these events on a date that would force these people to work on Shabbat is simply a non-starter and everyone understands that point. I have to add the following: My dream is that people will come to understand how wrong it is to make people (including dati'im) work on Shabbat when Lag B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate steps. Ben On 5/2/2017 8:50 PM, Avram Sacks wrote: > He added that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 21:30:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 21:30:06 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] nidche Message-ID: since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on thurs, does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded this way already in the 50's? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 06:38:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 16:38:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:30 AM, saul newman via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on thurs, > does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded this way > already in the 50's? > To be precise, they are only nidche if Pesah starts on Tuesday, like this year. If it starts on Shabbat or Sunday they are brought forward to Wednesday & Thursday. If my memory is accurate, the bringing forward has always been in practice, but the postponement from Sunday-Monday to Monday-Tuesday was introduced later, within the last 10 or 20 years. When I was first in Israel in the 1980s, YHA was still sometimes observed on a Monday. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 06:06:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 09:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> On 5/3/2017 12:30 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on > thurs, does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded > this way already in the 50's? It was instituted during the tenure of Rabbis Amar and Metzger. [Email #2. -micha] On 5/3/2017 12:48 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > There is an oversimplification here, that the issue is the secular. > Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed off even > if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash... > I have to add the following: My dream is that people will come to > understand how wrong it is to make people (including dati'im) work on > Shabbat when Lag B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate > steps. That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to 5 Iyar. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 14:34:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 17:34:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5a7c4dde-aeda-0d6e-0a6f-3824d06a66da@sero.name> On 03/05/17 09:06, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is > no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- > certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically > viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to > 5 Iyar. Why can't a religious holiday be defined by the day of the week, like Shabbos Hagodol and Behab? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 16:28:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 19:28:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: R' Micha Berger reposted from elsewhere: > Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this > subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on > the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his > position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, > Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut > celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with > perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a > community to determine its own date to celebrate. Why should telecommunications affect the day that my community says Hallel? Should we all start reading Megilas Esther on 15 Adar? R' Ben Waxman wrote: > Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed > off even if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash. Maybe not as unique as it seems. Isn't there a gezera against Motzaei Shabbos weddings for exactly this same reason - because of the likelihood that the preparations would begin on Shabbos? RBW also wrote: > My dream is that people will come to understand how wrong it > is to make people (including dati'im) work on Shabbat when Lag > B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate steps. Amen!! Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 20:43:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 05:43:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: Someone pointed out to me off line that the reading is on Friday, Al HaNissim on Shabbat, and Seuda/Matanot is on Sunday. Ben On 5/1/2017 11:42 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the reading > is pushed off until Sunday. > > Ben > > \ > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 21:26:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 14:26:20 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: <26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com> Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can never fall on a Thursday. Under the current arrangements, it cannot fall on a Monday, so those who fast on BeHaB and also wish to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzma?ut no longer need to be concerned. In Hilchot Yom Ha-Atzma?ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim (ed Nahum Rakover, 1973), there is an article by Rabbi Meir Kaplan which discusses what to do when the two did coincide. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 21:29:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 07:29:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Avram Sacks via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel > (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and > ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it > is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet > observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in > Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added > that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about > those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA > on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. ?Since the issue here is tachanun, hallel and suspending sefira restrictions, I fail to follow his logic. We are being asked to not say tachanun on the same day as the not-yet-observant?, on 6th Iyar. But why the 6th any more than the 5th. We should say hallel on the 6th, the same day as the not-yet-observant. Hardly. Sefira restrictions are suspended on the 6th like the not-yet-observant? If the entire sentiment is when we should have ceremonies to mark the significance of the State, you could that any day, or every day, as often as you like. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 22:11:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:11:39 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Nidche In-Reply-To: 26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com References: 26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: <8ff4cb3fb9929c8cf4af49714131daf8@mail.gmail.com> I wrote in haste. Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can fall on a Friday (as it does next year), in which case it is brought forward a day. David Havin *From:* David Havin [mailto:djhavin at djhavin.com] *Sent:* Thursday, 4 May 2017 2:26 PM *To:* Avodah *Subject:* Nidche Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can never fall on a Thursday. Under the current arrangements, it cannot fall on a Monday, so those who fast on BeHaB and also wish to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzma?ut no longer need to be concerned. In Hilchot Yom Ha-Atzma?ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim (ed Nahum Rakover, 1973), there is an article by Rabbi Meir Kaplan which discusses what to do when the two did coincide. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 07:53:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 10:53:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [From an Areivim discussion of how to be safe from house fires on Friday night.... -micha] On 03/05/17 18:26, Akiva Miller via Areivim wrote: > When eating the evening seudah elsewhere than where you're sleeping, > consider lighting at the seudah location, so that they won't be > unattended. My mitzvah is to light my own home, not someone else's. I know women have the custom of saying a bracha when lighting in someone else's home, but I'm not sure on what basis they do so. It seems to me they're not fulfilling their own mitzvah but rather helping their hostess with her mitzvah, just like helping someone else with his bedikas chametz. In that case (as opposed to doing the whole thing as his agent) one is supposed to hear his bracha, not make ones own, so why is this different? Thus it seems to me that this falls into the category of minhagei nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked, but the women have their own traditions and are not asking. But I don't see a basis for men, who don't have those traditions, to follow them. Yes, we are required to follow "toras imecha", but it seems to me that this means those things that women have traditionally taught their sons, not those that they have traditionally only taught their daughters. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 08:52:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:52:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <54B1C0DF-2CD4-49B5-92A0-AC29B878E3F2@sibson.com> The psak I receive many years ago is that you light where you sleep. One concern was to make sure the candles would run long enough so they were still burning when you came home so you could get benefit from them Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 13:50:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 20:50:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Tatoo Taboo and Permanent Make-Up Too Message-ID: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/ken8l8y There is a widespread myth, especially among secular American Jews, that a Jew with a tattoo may not be buried in a Jewish cemetery[1]. This prevalent belief, whose origin possibly lies with Jewish Bubbies wanting to ensure that their grandchildren did not stray too far from the proper path, is truly nothing more than a common misconception with absolutely no basis in Jewish law. Jewish burial is not dependent on whether or not one violated Torah law, and tattooing is no different in this matter than any other Biblical prohibition. Please see the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 15:13:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 18:13:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Tatoo Taboo and Permanent Make-Up Too In-Reply-To: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> References: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <72ddedb9-4172-c476-3fe6-acbb37a1e577@sero.name> > Jewish burial is not dependent on whether or not one violated Torah law, There are cemeteries, or sections within them, where only observant Jews can be buried, in line with the halacha that one may not bury a rasha next to a tzadik. But a person who qualified for burial there would not be rejected for having a tattoo, since it would be assumed that he had long ago repented. (The sin is *getting* the tattoo, not *having* it; once it's been done there's no obligation to remove it.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 20:54:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 21:54:36 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> On May 3, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is > no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- > certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically > viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to > 5 Iyar. My gut is with you on this. But then we do need to at least address the precedent of Purim. We don?t say Hallel, but we say a bracha on the Megillah. And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid chillul Shabbos. Now there are some important differences. For one thing, Purim seemed to be a concern of ignorance, not secularity. But it does seem to establish the precedent that it can be done. Whether it should be done is a different question. Following the precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off until Sunday, but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. Yom HaZikaron could be pushed earlier. ? Daniel Israel Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center of Santa Fe, President daniel at kolberamah.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 21:00:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 22:00:22 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> On Apr 30, 2017, at 11:22 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:45:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy > : OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the > : rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very > : clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz.... > : > : So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? > > I think the "out" is the clause "sheyeish lanu ba'alus alava". So, > chameitz that you didn't have baalus on, but was delivered on Pesach > wouldn't be included. (And would be a davar shelo ba le'olam, even if > you did try to include it.) I have been bothered by this same question for many years, and mentioned to my Rav over Pesach. It was his impression that contracts in EY more commonly did not use loshen including unmarked/unknown chametz. I think that is common in the US. I suggested that it is motivated by a desire to protect against the case of accidentally consuming chometz sh?evar alav haPesach where the person completely lost track and by the time he ate it, he didn?t remember he sold it. But it does seem that burning it would depend on how the contract was written. And I would take it a step further and point out that if it was sold, there is a serious geneivah issue. > No, that doesn't cover things you owned since before Pesach and were > unware "delo chazisei" that you only found on Pesach. > > OTOH, wasn't that stuff already mevutal anyway? Can I burn something that was hefker without acquiring it? If I declare something hefker (I?m not sure the legal implication of batel), and then I burn it, wouldn?t that imply I?m koneh it? Which makes things much worse. ? Daniel Israel Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center of Santa Fe, President daniel at kolberamah.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:08:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:08:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: On 04/05/17 23:54, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > . And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid chillul > Shabbos. The megillah only goes back, never forward. > Following the precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off > until Sunday, but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. The precedent of Purim is to pull it back to Friday *or Thursday*. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:40:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:40:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: 5 Iyar can also be on Shabbos (as it will in 2021), and its commemoration is pushed back two days, to Thursday. Nonetheless, that Thursday can never be a part of BeHaB, since the fasts begin on the Monday after the first Shabbos following Rosh Chodesh Iyar, and the preceding Shabbos is either the 28th or 29th of Nissan. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 6 12:32:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 21:32:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <04a24079-f3e7-a7e9-d195-3dac00552ebe@zahav.net.il> Yom HaZikaron and Yom Azmaut are an inseparable pair. There have been call to break the connection (to make it easier for the bereaved families to celebrate YA) but so far no one is willing to do so. Ben On 5/5/2017 5:54 AM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > Yom HaZikaron could be pushed earlier. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 21:20:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 00:20:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> On 5/4/2017 11:54 PM, Daniel Israel wrote: > On May 3, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: >> That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is >> no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- >> certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically >> viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to >> 5 Iyar. > My gut is with you on this. But then we do need to at least address > the precedent of Purim. We don?t say Hallel, but we say a bracha on > the Megillah. And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid > chillul Shabbos.... > Whether it should be done is a different question. Following the > precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off until Sunday, > but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. Yom HaZikaron could > be pushed earlier. On Purim Meshulash, the Al HaNisim remains on Shabbos, and the Megillah with the bracha is relocated to the day everyone else is celebrating. Moreover, there is no clash between simcha on 16 Adar and some pre-existing minhag to diminish simcha. Those are some of the differences. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:01:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 18:01:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: Discussion of chametz ?received? during Pesach can be listened to here: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/877269/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-girls-scout-cookies/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -From The Rabbi's Desk - Girls Scout Cookies KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 6 22:53:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 07 May 2017 07:53:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives today, certainly not in any practical manner. More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber). Ben On 5/5/2017 6:20 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > On Purim Meshulash, the Al HaNisim remains on Shabbos, and the Megillah > with the bracha is relocated to the day everyone else is celebrating. > Moreover, there is no clash between simcha on 16 Adar and some > pre-existing minhag to diminish simcha. Those are some of the differences. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 07:26:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 10:26:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Haircuts when Lag Baomer is on Sunday Message-ID: Rama 493:2 writes: "When [Lag Baomer] falls on Sunday, the practice is [nohagin] to get haircuts on Friday l'kavod Shabbos." What makes this Friday different from all other Fridays of sefira? If Kavod Shabbos is ample justification to get a haircut on Omer 31 (which is in the aveilus days by all reckonings), then it ought to justify a haircut on Omer 24 (the previous Friday) also, shouldn't it? But I have never heard of anyone allowing a haircut on Omer 24 simply because it is Erev Shabbos, so there must be an additional factor at work. For many years, I presumed the logic to be as follows: If a person would need a haircut on Friday Omer 31, or on Friday Omer 24, and fail to get that haircut, then he has failed to do Kavod Shabbos, but he did it by inaction. He did it in a "shev v'al taaseh" manner, and it is quite common for halacha to suspend an Aseh with a Shev V'Al Taaseh. (Compare skipping this haircut to skipping Shofar on Shabbos.) HOWEVER - If a person would go out of his way ("kum v'aseh") and actually get a haircut on Sunday, that is intolerable. To have been disheveled on Shabbos (even if justifiably), and then suddenly be all fancied up the very next day, that is an insult to Shabbos, and we cannot allow Shabbos to be insulted in that manner. So when the Rama writes that we allow the haircuts "for kavod Shabbos", what he actually means is that we allow the haircuts "to avoid insulting Shabbos." And this is what makes this weekend of Sefiras Haomer different from all the others: On the other Sundays of Sefira, no one is getting a haircut anyway, so the whole question doesn't exist. But in this year, on this particular weekend, we do have this problem. The Rabbis *could* have chosen to protect the kavod of Shabbos by forbidding us to get haircuts when Lag Baomer is on Sunday, but instead they chose to protect the kavod of Shabbos by allowing us to get haircuts when Omer 31 is on Friday. Or so I thought for many years. But I have questions on this logic. According to what I have written, getting a haircut on Sunday is a bad idea - no matter what time of year it is. Yet I don't recall ever hearing anyone advise against it. In particular, when this situation of a Sunday Lag Baomer occurs, I have often hear people cite this Rama as granting permission to get their haircut on Friday. But in actuality, shouldn't it be less of a permission, and more of a *recommendation*? When a person asks the question, shouldn't the answer be, "Yes, you can get the haircut on Friday, and that's even better than waiting for Sunday." But I have not heard anyone suggest this. That's about as far as I was going to write, but then I went to the seforim to make sure I understood the Rama correctly. Indeed, his phrasing, "nohagin to get haircuts on Friday l'kavod Shabbos", could easily be understood to mean DAVKA on Friday rather than Sunday. But although it *could* be understood that way, I don't remember anyone actually doing do. And then I came across Kaf Hachayim 493:33, who writes that the Levush held differently than the Rama in this situation: > The Levush writes that if the 33rd is on a Sunday when the > non-Jews are not barbering because of their holiday, *that's* > when you can get a haircut on Friday. Meaning that in a place > where you *can* get a haircut on Sunday, then you should *not* > get the haircut on Friday. But from the words of the Rama, who > writes "l'kavod Shabbos", he means to allow it in any case. > And Elya Raba #9 writes the same thing about this Levush, that > the Rama allows it l'kavod Shabbos in either case. To rephrase: If one has a choice between getting his haircut on Friday or Sunday, then the Levush gives precedence to the minhagim of aveilus during Sefira, and requires us to wait until Sunday for the haircut, and *not* get the haircut on Friday Omer 31. The idea of suddenly showing up with a haircut on Sunday does not (seem to) bother the Levush, and this is totally consistent with the lack of anyone ever being told to avoid Sunday haircuts the rest of the year. But the Kaf Hachayim (with support from Elya Raba) rejects the approach of the Levush. He seems to accept the word of the Rama, plain and simple, that we can get haircuts on Friday Omer 31 because it is l'kavod Shabbos. And, according to Rama, this applies whether the barbershops are open on Sunday or not. Even if one has the option of waiting until Lag Baomer, he can "violate" the aveilus of Sefira on Omer 31, because the haircut is l'kavod Shabbos. This leaves me stuck with my original question: If Kavod Shabbos is ample justification to get a haircut on Omer 31, then it ought to justify a haircut on Omer 24 also, shouldn't it? Obviously no, but why? with many thanks in advance for your thoughts, Akiva Miller PS: The Levush is not totally machmir; he does allow leniency, but only in the case of where Lag Baomer is on Sunday, AND the barbers are closed on that day. Only in such a case does he allow a haircut on Omer 31. I have to wonder why he would allow that exception, rather than disallowing it entirely. Here's my guess: The Levush was aware of poskim who allowed haircuts on Friday Omer 31, but he felt this to be an improper violation of the aveilus, and paskened that people should wait for Sunday Lag Baomer. But if the barbers would be closed, that means people would have to wait another two weeks for their haircuts, in which case he allowed the leniency. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 03:46:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 13:46:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: No, I'm pretty sure it was the 50th day. The first day after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the first day of the Omer. The 49th day after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the 49th day of the Omer. Shavuot is thus the 50th day after our leaving Egypt. On 4/28/2017 6:27 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >> I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is >> the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the >> case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which >> we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the >> Exodus. > > Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th > day but on the 51st. So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th > of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the > pseudo-Julian anniversary. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 06:38:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 09:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: On 07/05/17 06:46, Lisa Liel wrote: > No, I'm pretty sure it was the 50th day. The first day after our > leaving Egypt corresponds to the first day of the Omer. The 49th day > after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the 49th day of the Omer. > Shavuot is thus the 50th day after our leaving Egypt. Everyone seems to assume we left on a Thursday. The first day after we left was a Friday, so the 49th day was a Thursday. Mattan Torah was definitely on a Shabbat, thus the 51st day. There's no way out of that, unless we adopt the Seder Olam's view that the gemara suddenly springs on us at the end of the sugya that we left on a Friday. Then it all works perfectly, and as I read the gemara that seems to be the conclusion, but I've never seen any later source even deal with this view; everyone who mentions the day of the week on which we left Egypt takes for granted (as the gemara did for most of the sugya) that it was a Thursday. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 03:51:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 06:51:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minhagei Nashim Message-ID: In a thread about Ner Shabbos, R' Zev Sero wrote: > Thus it seems to me that this falls into the category of minhagei > nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked, > but the women have their own traditions and are not asking. But I > don't see a basis for men, who don't have those traditions, to > follow them. Yes, we are required to follow "toras imecha", but > it seems to me that this means those things that women have > traditionally taught their sons, not those that they have > traditionally only taught their daughters. That's an interesting way to classify things. I suppose it makes sense in the context of Ner Shabbos, which a mother would certainly teach to her daughters, but probably not to her sons. In this system, I suppose she would also teach Kitchen Kashrus only to her daughters, but Brachos to all her kids equally. Please consider the following scenario. I suppose it could happen even today, but it might be easier to imagine if you place it during the many centuries when there was no schooling for girls... A wife is preparing some food for dinner. She notices something unusual. Maybe it has something to do with meat and dairy, or maybe it has something to do with the just-shechted chicken she's kashering. Anyway, she concludes - based on what her mother (and both grandmothers and all her aunts) taught her - it's not a problem. Her husband happens to walk in, sees the same thing, and points out that it is a very clear black-and-white halacha that this food is assur. One could say that this sort of thing happens very rarely, because the men tend to stay out of the kitchen. But if you ask me, that only proves that the couple is unaware of the problem. It probably happened quite often, but no one noticed because the husband wasn't around. How could this *not* be a frequent occurrence? The men are busy learning, and the information never reaches the women. I concede that if a woman is unsure, she will ask, and some halachos will filter over to her side. But if she is *not* unsure, she could be blissfully unaware that her imahos have had a tradition for many generations, and it differs from the tradition that her husband got from generations of avos and teachers. And if this sort of thing can happen in Hilchos Kashrus, how much more often might it occur in Hilchos Nida? You may notice that I am taking pains to tell this story without prejudice as to which side is the truer halacha. Just because the women weren't in yeshiva, that does not prove them to be in error. All it proves is that there's been no opportunity for shakla v'tarya. Neither side can be discredited until they've carefully debated the issues. So who is right? As I wrote, these questions have been bothering me for years. But someone said that "Emunah is not when you have the answers; it's being able to live with the questions. " I got that chizuk from R' Haym Soloveitchik in his now-classic "Rupture and Reconstruction", which is all about these opposing chains of tradition, the mimetic and the textual. (The full text is on-line at www.lookstein.org. Just google the title.) He writes in footnote 18 there: > The traditional kitchen provides the best example of the > neutralizing effect of tradition, especially since the mimetic > tradition continued there long after it was lost in most other > areas of Jewish life. Were the average housewife (bale-boste) > informed that her manner of running the kitchen was contrary to > the Shulhan Arukh, her reaction would have been a dismissive > "Nonsense!" She would have been confronted with the alternative, > either that she, her mother and grandmother had, for decades, > been feeding their families non-kosher food [treifes] or that the > Code was wrong or, put more delicately, someone's understanding > of that text was wrong. As the former was inconceivable, the > latter was clearly the case. This, of course, might pose problems > for scholars, however, that was their problem not hers. Neither > could she be prevailed on to alter her ways, nor would an > experienced rabbi even try. There is an old saying among scholars > "A yidishe bale-boste takes instruction from her mother only". Somehow, these chains do find a way to work together. But I must be clear: I am NOT talking about a machlokes haposkim, where the wife was taught one thing and the husband was taught something else. In that case, there is much common ground, and they (or their rav) can go to the sources to figure out what the couple should do. I'm talking about a much more fundamental problem, where generations have passed on different traditions, without anyone ever realizing that there was a mismatch. (I'd like to close by pointing out that I am neither asking anything new in this post, nor am I trying to answer anything. But RZS mentioned a "category of minhagei nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked", and I simply wanted to expound on that category.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 09:43:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 12:43:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: In Avodah Digest 35:53 on Apr 19, R' Micha Berger wrote: > The AhS OC 31:4 is okay with minyanim that are mixed between > wearers and non-wearers. That's not what I see in the last line there: "In a single beis medrash, don't have some doing this and some doing that, because of Lo Tisgodedu." In Avodah Digest 35:55 on Apr 26, he seems to have corrected that: > ... the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed > between tefillin wearers and not. [You seem to have missed http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol35/v35n055.shtml#07 I didn't correct myself; I was forced to reread the AhS by RHK's post. -micha] This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. IF I understand that AhS correctly, he says that if there is only one Beis Din in town, then everyone must follow it, so Lo Tisgodedu doesn't apply. And if there is more than one Beis Din in town, then everyone can follow their own beis din, so again, Lo Tisgodedu does not apply. So when DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be factionalized like that. That is the AhS's explanation of why each town should be united and follow one set of days for the aveilus of Sefira: The question is totally minhag, and not under the jurisdiction of the local posek. It is a minhag of the people, and the people should get together and be united in one practice. The AhS doesn't mention it in that siman, but this explanation does help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 consistent with 493:8? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 8 05:32:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 15:32:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The relevance of the middle perakim of Bava Basra today Message-ID: Perakim 4-7 of Bava Basra (which Daf Yomi has been learning) deal with the sale of various things, what is included and what is not. The common denominator seems to be that these are seemingly solely based on the accepted business practice during the time of Chazal and what people expect to get when they consumate a deal. There are few to no Torah based sources for any of these. Here is a general outline of the perakim. Perek 4 - Hamocher es habayis discusses what is sold when you sell real property (houses, bathhouses, courtyards, fields, etc.) and what is not, for example when you sell a house the Mishna states that you include teh door but not the key Perek 5 - Hamocher es hasefina discusses the sale of movable objects, again detailing what is included in the sale and what is not (boats, wagons, animals, etc.) Perek 6 - Hamocher peiros lachaveiro discusses the sale of agricultural products. It details how much spoilage/wastage there can be in grain and wine etc. It also discusses selling land to build things on it like a house, graves, how much land is given, what access etc. Perek 7 - Deals with sales of real property how exact do the dimensions need to be. Given the above, are these at all relevant today? A house buyer in 2017 clearly has very different expectations as to what he is buying in comparison to the times of Chazal as does someone buying wine, a field, a boat, etc. The same goes for all of these categories. Since the mishnayos seem to be based solely on accepted business practice and have are not based on pesukim can we simply ignore these today? Am I missing something here? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 8 10:47:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 13:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The relevance of the middle perakim of Bava Basra today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170508174705.GA2335@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:32:57PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Perakim 4-7 of Bava Basra (which Daf Yomi has been learning) deal with the : sale of various things, what is included and what is not. The common : denominator seems to be that these are seemingly solely based on the : accepted business practice during the time of Chazal and what people expect : to get when they consumate a deal... : Given the above, are these at all relevant today? ... First reaction: They would be relevant to a poseiq trying to learn how to determine which of today's expectations have halachic import. It would require doing the saqme kind of mapping of market norms to law that chazal did, so the poseiq could learn from example. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 9 05:44:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 08:44:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor Message-ID: <4667BA80-CCF4-42D3-833D-99611C34F822@cox.net> ?And you shall count unto you from the morrow after the day of rest from the day that you bring the omer of the wave-offering; seven complete weeks shall there be.? (Vayikra 23:15) The Rambam included the counting of the Omer as Mitzvah 161 in his Sefer Hamitzvot. Those Rishonim who disagree, do count it as a mitzvah d?rabbanan and therefore, when we conclude the counting each night we pray: ?May the merciful One bring back to us the Temple service to its place speedily in our days, Amen, selah.? So the question has been asked why we do not say a ?sheheheyanu? when we first count the Omer on the second night of Pesach. The Rashba answers that according to most Rishonim who disagree with the Rambam, the counting is connected intricately with ktzirat ha?omer, harvesting the omer, ha?va-at ha?omer, the bringing of the omer and hakravat ha?omer, the offering of the omer as a sacrifice (Vayikra 23:10&16). So since these mitzvot are obviously inapplicable today it pains us to remember what we are missing when we count the omer. Therefore, the rabbis say, we pronounce no sheheheyanu which is said only when we experience joy. When I started counting my blessings, my whole life turned around. Willie Nelson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 06:33:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 09:33:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kedoshim Message-ID: It was brought to my attention that I hadn?t sent out a commentary on Parashas Kedoshim. Here is a belated d?var. ?In the presence of an old person you shall rise and you shall honor the presence of a sage and you shall revere your God ? I am Hashem.? (Vayikra 19:32) This verse is so rich with interpretation. According to Rashi, following one view in Kidudushin 32b, the two halves of the pasuk explain each other, i.e., the mitzvah is to rise and honor a sage who is both elderly and learned. Others hold that these are two separate mitzvot: to rise for anyone over the age of 70 and to rise for a learned righteous man, even if he is below the age of 70. The halacha follows the latter view, the rationale being that anyone can reach the age of 70 but it takes blood, sweat and tears to achieve scholarship and righteousness. I recall as a youngster being in awe when everyone in the beis medrash would stop what they were doing and a hush fell over the crowd as everyone rose immediately as soon as the Rosh Yeshiva entered the hall. There comes to mind the famous saying in Makkoth 22b: ?How foolish are those people who stand up when the Torah is carried by, but do not stand up when a scholar walks by,? indicating that greater than a piece of parchment upon which the Torah is written, is a human being who has put his whole life into learning and struggling in order to acquire a knowledge of Torah, and who in his personal life is a living embodiment of what the Torah teaches and represents. Along similar lines is the custom in some hassidic circles to kiss the hand of a talmid chochom upon first seeing him in the same manner as kissing the Torah when it passes by. The one thing we must never forget is the basic issue involved. It is not the mere person that is the center of the commandment; it is the ?v?yorayso mey-Elohechoh, Ani HaShem that is here involved. In rising before and granting honor to the talmid chochom, we affirm our profound belief in the Torah of God. Who sows virtue reaps honor. Leonardo da Vinci -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 13:24:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 16:24:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety Message-ID: In Avodah V35n60, RJR responded to RZS, who had responded to RAMiller: >>> When eating the evening seudah elsewhere than where you're sleeping, consider lighting at the seudah location, so that they won't be unattended. <<< >> My mitzvah is to light my own home, not someone else's. << > The psak I receive many years ago is that you light where you sleep. One concern was to make sure the candles would run long enough so they were still burning when you came home so you could get benefit from them < As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*); and as I learned as a kid every Pesach that my family was at a hotel (because my parents didn't have Pesach cooking utensils, dishes, etc. in their apartment), everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 14:55:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 21:55:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As RJR implies, I thought the key component of neiros Shabbos was enjoying their light (in contradistinction to neiros Chanukah); and as I learned as a kid every Pesach that my family was at a hotel (because my parents didn't have Pesach cooking utensils, dishes, etc. in their apartment), everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... All the best from Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA _______________________________________________ Except if they were incandescent bulbs in the individual hotel rooms. In that case I was taught that the women make a bracha on the bulbs in their room Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 04:54:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:54:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Lo Taamod Message-ID: Rav Asher Weiss discusses in parshat Vayeitzeih on lo taamod al dam reiacha that one would have to give up all his assets to save a single life if he is the only one who can do it. However, "it's pashut" that if others can also do it, that he doesn't have to give up all his assets. Why is it so pashut if others refuse? (i.e. why isn't it a joint and several liability?) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 04:55:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:55:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Local Government Message-ID: Anyone have any sources on how local government, if any, functioned in times of Tanach? Was there any besides the court system? What was the role of the nesiim of the shvatim? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 12:02:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:02:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App Message-ID: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Someone mentioned tahorapp.com on-line, so I took a look at their web site. To quote: > Keeping Tradition & > Keeping Your Privacy > Rabbinically Approved! Anonymously send pictures of your Taharas > Hamishpacha questions to a Rav right from your own home. Receive answers > quickly and privately. Download Tahor App For Free! I then thought of "The Dress" , a picture of a black-and-blue dress that floated around the internet that many of us perceived as white-and-gold. So, given that people guess at the background lighting when they see a picture and then subconsciously correct for it (see explanation on wikipedia page), how could a rav rely on a Tahor App image? So, I filled out their contact form with something to that effect, and a short discussion followed. They replied: : Color Precision: : Thank you for your inquiry, : To clarify (as this seems not to be clear): : "Tahor" is meant to serve as a halachically approved "filter" for a : majority of Shailos (many of which are straightforward and simple to : determine). It is meant to allow those who may not have access to a rov, or : who may not feel comfortable going to a rov, to have an option, when : halachically viable, to send in their sample anonymously. : What this app is not: : This app IS NOT meant to be an umbrella replacement for the process of : showing questionable bedikah cloths to Rabbonim. Rabbonim were all able to : pasken correctly because of our advanced white balance technology and : Rabbinic measurement capabilities. The cloths which are borderline or : questionable, will be told to show the actual cloth to a Rabbi. : It is obviously preferable to take the cloth directly to the Rabbi when : possible, but many many women are not doing it! This will allow them to : keep Taharat Hamishpachah and get accurate answers. I felt I was getting a barely touched form letter, so I paraphrased my original question: } But given that the human eye will misinterpret colors when the lighting } differs between the camera and the person looking at the picture, how } can you know the results are accurate? After all, the differences in } perception of the colors of The Dress is far far greater han that between } a tamei brown and a tahor one. And their reply: : Shalom, : Yes, this is true. : This is why the Rabbis will only answer questions through the app which are : clearly one or the other. : An example of this would be if a stain on underwear is less than a gris. : The Rabbi can with complete accurately declare this Pure/Impure. : If the Rabbi feels that it is not so clear, he will tell the user to go to : a Rav. I am letting it drop there, because I am not going to argue anyone into wondering whether or not his pet project works. But I myself am still wondering.... Given how pronounced optical illusions can be when it comes to color and how subtle many determinations are, can a rav even know when the question is "clearly one way or the other" rather than only seeming obvious? I saw the dress in a catalog, so I know I am getting it wrong when I look at the infamous picture. And yet, it's suprising. If it weren't for people reporting a different color set, I would have considered white-and-gold "clearly" right. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 30th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation Fax: (270) 514-1507 result in holding back from others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 12:57:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: See the following timeline: http://crownheights.info/jewish-news/575460 http://crownheights.info/chabad-news/575513 http://crownheights.info/communal-matters/575546 http://crownheights.info/chabad-news/575559 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 07:33:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 10:33:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> There is a definite dearth of rabbis on the site. I am somewhat conflicted on this. OTOH, the nuances of coloring will be distorted by many displays - perhaps all displays. OTOH, perhaps women who otherwise would not ask she'eilos would use this service. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 08:37:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:37:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App Message-ID: <11c7f4.7c2a7fc4.464730a1@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org Someone mentioned tahorapp.com on-line, so I took a look at their web site. To quote: > Keeping Tradition & > Keeping Your Privacy > Rabbinically Approved! Anonymously send pictures of your Taharas > Hamishpacha questions to a Rav right from your own home. Receive answers > quickly and privately. Download Tahor App For Free! I then thought of "The Dress" , a picture of a black-and-blue dress that floated around the internet that many of us perceived as white-and-gold...... .....So, given that people guess at the background lighting when they see a picture and then subconsciously correct for it (see explanation on wikipedia page), how could a rav rely on a Tahor App image? -- Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>>> According to wiki the human eye can distinguish about ten million different colors. Other sources say "only" seven million. (Not relevant here but interesting: Some birds, some fish, some reptiles, even some insects, like bees, can see colors we can't see.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision A computer screen can display about 33,000 different colors -- only a small fraction of the number of shades in nature that the human eye can see. http://www.rit-mcsl.org/fairchild/WhyIsColor/Questions/4-6.html The takeaway -- to my mind -- is that the tahor app probably can't be relied on. The rav needs to see the actual color, not on a screen. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 08:36:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:36:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:33am EDT, R Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: : I am somewhat conflicted on this. OTOH, the nuances of coloring will : be distorted by many displays - perhaps all displays. OTOH, perhaps : women who otherwise would not ask she'eilos would use this service. Because of "The Dress" I am worried that "perhaps all displays" really understates the possibility of getting a color wrong. While the problem you raise is real. I would still recommend yoatzos as a better solution. Still, there are women who still wouldn't go to antoher woman, or who live in an area with no one to ask. RnTK wrote: : According to wiki the human eye can distinguish about ten million different : colors. Other sources say "only" seven million. ... : A computer screen can display about 33,000 different colors... : small fraction of the number of shades in nature that the human eye can see. ... : The takeaway -- to my mind -- is that the tahor app probably can't be : relied on. The rav needs to see the actual color, not on a screen. I think the problem I raised can lead to more profound misassessments. The precision of color displays will blur the edges. And the rabbis behind Tahor App say that it's only for more clear cases. What had me concerned is that that perception is based on more context colors and lighting specifics than the phone's camera may capture. Thus "the dress", which is explained, amongst other startling optical illusions involving color perception here . It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in different lighting than it was taken. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 09:33:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 12:33:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 517 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 11:53:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 14:53:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:33:14PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote: : The 33rd day of the Omer is a minor holiday commemorating a break in : the plague. The common translation of askaria is some kind of lung disease. However, the only explanation of the gemara that predates the late acharonim is R' Achai Gaon's -- that the word is sicarii. Meaning, they were killed by Roman dagger- or shortsword-men. Tying the deaths of the omer to the Bar Kokhva rebellion. (The sicarii of the events of Tish'ah beAv were Jewish dagger bearers. Same word, different people.) If I may add, which emphasizes the connection to shelo nahagu kavod zeh lazeh. The galus was started by sin'as chinam; it couldn't be ended by people who still hadn't mastered showing another kavod. (A scary thought about our own hopes...) : This day is observed as a day of rejoicing because on this day, the : students of Rabbi Akiva did not die. Actually, it's not a day of mourning because they didn't die. It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. Or perhaps it's the day Rashbi left the cave the 2nd time, or.... For Litvaks, Yekkes, and other communities, Lag baOmer as a holiday is a new thing. Also, as per other iterations, Lag baOmer at Meron appears to have originally been Shemu'el haNavi's yahrzeit (Mag beOmer? Yom Y-m) at Nabi Samwel, and only moved when Arabs going to Nabi Samwel (from Tzefat) dangerous. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 12:42:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 15:42:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/05/17 11:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while > convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in > different lighting than it was taken. But isn't that explicitly taken care of by the instruction to the user to take the photo only in direct sunlight, and by the instruction to the rav to look at it only on a specific monitor at a specific brightness? However reliable or unreliable the technology is, at least *that* concern has been addressed, hasn't it? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 13:01:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 16:01:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> References: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/05/17 14:53, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined > communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- > find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) > writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then > a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping > the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. No typo is necessary. What could "yom simchas Rashbi" mean if not his yortzeit, which he explicitly instructed his talmidim to celebrate as if it were his yom hillula? That's where the whole concept of celebrating yortzeits rather than mourning on them comes from, as well as the concept of referring to them as "wedding days". > Also, as per other iterations, Lag baOmer at Meron appears to have > originally been Shemu'el haNavi's yahrzeit (Mag beOmer? Yom Y-m) at Nabi > Samwel, and only moved when Arabs going to Nabi Samwel (from Tzefat) > dangerous. This paragraph got garbled enough that if I didn't already know what you meant I could not have figured it out. But it's my understanding that it wasn't danger from Arab marauders that put an end to the pilgrimages to Shmuel Hanavi (from all over EY) but rather a government decree barring Jews from the site. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 14:49:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:49:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: References: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512214922.GB4067@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 04:01:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined :> communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- :> find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) :> writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then :> a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping :> the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. : No typo is necessary. It happened. Necessity isn't at issue. We know what the older version was, and there used to be a ches there. "Shemeis" is simply not what RCV wrote. : What could "yom simchas Rashbi" mean if not : his yortzeit, which he explicitly instructed his talmidim to : celebrate as if it were his yom hillula? Well, isb't that what I said in the last sentence quoted? But it's only the most likely (in my opinion) possibility, and not -- as you are taking for granterd -- the only one. To continue from where you chopped off that text: > Or perhaps it's the day Rashbi left the cave the 2nd time, or.... Simcha, in the sence that seeing the man carry two hadasim for besamim -- zekhor veshamor -- yasiv da'ataihu. His simchah learning with his son-in-law, R' Pinchas b Ya'ir. "Ashrekha shera'isi bekakh..." Shabbos 33b-34a give you plenty of reason to believe he was joyous, and wanted to share that joy with the qehillah. Or maybe R Aqiva started teaching his 5 new students in earnest the very day the massacre or plague stopped. And therefore Lag baOmer is the day Rashbi started learning qabbalah. Or maybe... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 18:04:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 11:04:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The rabbi is shocked He realises After pesach is concluded That one of the contracts he's supposed to sell to the G Was not sold to the G If ownership According to Halacha Is determined by believing one is in control And when that control Is lost There's YiUsh Then this Chamets Had no owner During Pesach This Chamets For all intents and purposes During Pesach Has no owner. And Chamets can be Muttar Even if owned by a Y If it's abandoned For the duration of Pesach That's the Halacha Re the Mapoles The shed collapse On a crate of whiskey It's buried under at least 3 Tefachim It's Muttar after Pesach And it seems Even without Bittul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 14:33:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:33:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512213304.GA4067@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 03:42:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 12/05/17 11:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while : >convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in : >different lighting than it was taken. : : But isn't that explicitly taken care of by the instruction to the : user to take the photo only in direct sunlight, and by the : instruction to the rav to look at it only on a specific monitor at a : specific brightness? ... My wife and I saw The Dress for the first time together, and reported different results. in that picture it is obvious it was taken on a sunny day. And we both saw it in the same lighting. So, I don't think it sufficiently takes care of the problem. Maybe if the distributed a color sheet that must be included in the picture in proximity to the kesem, and the rabbinic side of the software corrects the colors displayed based on knowing what the sheet should look like. If the woman prints the color chart herself, you widen the uncertainty. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 14:23:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 23:23:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I have also been in touch with them (the programmer and one of the rabbis). I haven't come to a final conclusion, but my impression so far is: (1) The people on this project are y'rei Shamayim who take what they are doing seriously and have worked very hard for a long time on developing something that will be reliable (2) It is definitely not as good as seeing a mareh in real life (3) It is not good enough for borderline or difficult-to-pasken cases, and when difficult marot are submitted the rabbis will tell them that they need to be evaluated in person (4) They have had quite good results testing this app with easier cases (and most marot that women ask about are easier cases), which is why they have the confidence to release it (5) There are clear instructions on photographing the mareh in sunlight (6) This is only available for iphone - and deliberately so. They have the camera and white balance technology to give a good enough image, and because everyone is using the same type of phone and operating system, there is more control. Developing an android version will be significantly more challenging. If asked, I think I would cautiously tell women that IF they have no way to get the mareh evaluated in person (they do not live near any qualified Rav or yoetzet, or they are traveling), and they have an iphone and carefully follow the instructions, this seems to be reliable. I have worked online with Rav Auman for a long time, and while I haven't actually met him in person, I do trust him to know what he is doing. I'm still checking into it. If any of you have iphones (like most Israelis, I have an android) and have installed the app, I would be very interested in hearing feedback. Thank you! Shavua tov, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 19:10:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 22:10:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Music on the night of Lag B'Omer Message-ID: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> It seems quite common that people have bonfires with music on the evening of Lag B'Omer. I haven't found a compelling reason for this custom - even those who are meikil like the Rama to lift the Aveilus on Lag B'Omer don't do so until the day, I thought, as miktzas hayom k'kulo. Does anyone have an explanation for this? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 21:20:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 00:20:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Music on the night of Lag B'Omer In-Reply-To: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> References: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <112dafa9-5b8f-9e78-8b3e-2c0fcd51e25b@sero.name> On 13/05/17 22:10, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > It seems quite common that people have bonfires with music on the > evening of Lag B?Omer. I haven?t found a compelling reason for this > custom ? even those who are meikil like the Rama to lift the Aveilus on > Lag B?Omer don?t do so until the day, I thought, as miktzas hayom > k?kulo. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Yes. If one is merely noting the end of aveilus, then it starts in the morning, tachanun (or Tzidkas'cha) is said at the previous mincha, and bichlal it's not a celebration, any more than one celebrates when getting up from shiva. I've never heard of people singing and dancing and playing music on such an occasion, even if it's permitted. But if one is celebrating Rashbi's yom hillula then it's a full holiday, an occasion for song and dance and music, and of course it starts at night, with no tachanun at the previous mincha. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 12:11:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:11:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin Message-ID: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 12:27:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:27:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin In-Reply-To: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> References: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170515192700.GA20468@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:11:29PM -0400, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? MB 40:3 says that's the universal minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 14:49:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 17:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped Tefillin Message-ID: <5F399CEB-B043-4AB8-A067-A8E1495829DF@cox.net> Saul Newman wrote: Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? To the best of my knowledge, YES. However, I also recall that one could give extra tzedaka in lieu of fasting. rw From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 16 19:26:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 22:26:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World" Message-ID: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> This Torah portion sets forth the blessings that are seen in this world in response to our deeds. It then continues with the Tochacha, words of admonition, "If you will not listen to Me and will not perform all of these commandments?" Interestingly, there are seven series of seven punishments each. God warns us throughout the portion that He will punish us in "seven ways for your seven sins. We are now counting seven days a week for seven weeks; the Torah has just recently given the laws for Shemita ? seventh year the land lies fallow and seven periods of seven years, we celebrate the Jubilee year. What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the diatonic scale, seven continents, etc. We wind the T'fillin straps around our forearm seven times. We sit shiva for seven days. At the wedding we chant 7 blessings (sheva b'rachos) and the wedding is followed by seven days of celebration. Even the Torah begins with seven -- the First verse has seven words also containing a total of twenty-eight letters which is seven times four. Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion. When we say "Baruch Hashem" we are praising God for something that is hopefully whole and complete. The acronym for Baruch Hashem (Beis, Hay) also equals 7. Finally, the patriarchs and matriarchs total seven: Avraham, Yitzchok, Ya?akov, Sarah, Rivka, Rochel, Leah. (Please don?t write me to say your phone number has seven digits or the rainbow has 7 colors or that there are seven letters in the Roman numeral system or that nitrogen has the atomic number of 7 or that there were 7 dwarfs with Snow White). :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 05:31:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 12:31:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality, Message-ID: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> See below concerning a frequently discussed issue: Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today, especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:30:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:30:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World" In-Reply-To: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> References: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170518143027.GB13698@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:26:19PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven : represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the : diatonic scale, seven continents... Although the diatonic scale and the division of the colors in the spectrum to fit the numbers 7 are human inventions. They say more about what 7 means to humans -- even without revalation -- than anything inherent. ... : Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion... As does the word. Without niqud, the letters /sb`/ could be read as "seven" or "satiated". (Or swear... go figure that out.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:18:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:18:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170518171844.GD26698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh : Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on : Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives : today, certainly not in any practical manner. A tighter comparison... The minhag as recorded in the SA clearly ran into Lag baOmer -- and ending mourning with the usual miqtzas hayom kekulo. Then the hilula deRashbi turned Lag baOmer into a holiday, and this new holiday overrode the older minhagim of aveilus. What's good for one new holiday ought to be good for another (YhA, where this conversation began), no? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:24:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:24:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:24:41PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was : enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*)... As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel YT") but it's "neir Chanukah". Their kids wouldn't forget. : everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get : enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel : dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... Fire hazard is safeiq piquach nefesh, and ein danin es ha'efshar mishe'i efshar. However, wouldn't the alternative been lighting in the dinig hall, near one's table? The point is to eat by neir shel YT, not to sleep by them! And in this case (combining the above with what RJR wrote), shouldn't they have provided incandescent lamps for each table? (Not that there were small bulbs of other sorts when we were growing up.) Wouldn't it be easier to justify making a berakhah on turning the light on than on lighting in a third room or a table off to the side of the dining room dozens of yards from where you are eating? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:35:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:35:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality, In-Reply-To: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170518143502.GC13698@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:31:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why : there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters : of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the : masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as : all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak : halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would : contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today, : especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.] Not sure what this means. There are halakhos about triage. About how much tzedaqah to give and how to prioritize them. There are a lot of halakhos about morality. I fail to see how this isn't circular. The open moral questions RYBS is referring to are those too situational for every possible situation to be addressed with its own pesaq. Ar the Ramban puts it on "ve'asisa hayashar vehatov". If "morality" is being used in a sense to limit it to those quetions that did not get halachic resolution, isn't he just saying the interpersonal questions that didn't get a pesaq didn't get a pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:46:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:46:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170518144626.GD13698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei : Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events : of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber). It seems (but is not muchrach) from the AhS 394:1-3 . As I wrote (in part) in 2010 . The AhS distinguishes between a global minhag from the Geonic period not to marry and a later minhag bemedinos ha'eilu. He attaches the minhag of 1-33 (and including miqtzas yayom kekulo) to when the talmidei R' Aqiva died (s' 4-5) and the minhag of the last days to "minhag shelanu" (s' 5), localizing the last days to the descendent of those who fled the Crusaders east. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:14:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 11:04:32AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : If ownership : According to Halacha : Is determined by believing one is in control : And when that control : Is lost : There's YiUsh : Then this Chamets : Had no owner : During Pesach But if this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as -- it would be open and shut. I think ba'alus (as opposed to ownership) is defined by having the legal responsibility for something, and only as a consequence about having control or a right to use it. Which would explain why qinyan, a mechanism for eatablishing shelichus or shibud, is more thought of as a means of establishing baalus. Because baalus is also primarily on the hischayvus side. And so, it has as a consequence actual legal right of control, rather than depending on belief that one is in control. Which is why a ganav needs yi'ush plus shinui. Yi'ush, loss of belief of having control, is NOT enough to end ba'alus. But that's ba'alus. We don't have ba'alus over chameitz on Pesach. For example, an avaryan who dies on Pesach while violating bal yeira'eh bal yeimatzeih (BYBY) does not leave that chameitz to his sons. BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs from choshein mishpat, and is not baalus. ... : And Chamets can be Muttar : Even if owned by a Y : If it's abandoned : For the duration of Pesach ... : And it seems : Even without Bittul. ... The mishnah on Pesachim 31b says that if it's buried so deep a dog cannot dig it up, it is a form of bi'ur. R' Chisda in the opening gemara says it needs bitul. But in any case, the question is whether this is destruction. The gemara likens it to bi'ur. Not about a loss of ownership. Which would create a whole different question, as Tosafos (Pesachim 4b "mideOraisa") understand relinquishing ownership to be the very definition of bitul. (The majority opinion -- Rashi "bibitul be'alma", Ritva, Ran, and the Rambam 2:2 -- say it's a form of bi'ur.) Rashi and the Ran say the need for bitul after a mapolah fell on one's chameitz is derabbnan, a gezeira in case it gets unburied. But while buried, it's kebi'ur. The Samaq (#98) says the need for bitul is de'oraisa. And the MA holds that the Semaq would require buried chameitz not was not batul to be dug up and burnt on Pesach. The Mekhilta (on Shemos 12:19, see #2 ) says that chameitz owned by a nakhri which is in a Jew's reshus or a Jew's chameitz are excluded from BYBY by the pasuq's extra word "beveteikhem". "Af al pi shehu birshuso". The Mekhilta is making a split between reshus and BYBY. And it could be we are discussing three different concepts of "ownership", with reshus and baalu being different from each other as well. There is also a whole sugya about buried issurei han'ah on Temurah 33b-34a (starting at the mishnah) that I would need to understand better with rishonim and posqim to really comment in full. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:38:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:38:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> References: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 18/05/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel > YT") but it's "neir Chanukah" In L's case, "neir shel shabbos kodesh", but "neir chanukah". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 13:53:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 21:53:30 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? Message-ID: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> A thought just struck me, and I wondered if this chimed with anybody. The Rambam says (Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 halacha 13): ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????. Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. The Tur says the same except that he has Torah shebichtav and Torah sheba'al peh around the other way (Tur Yoreh Deah Hilchot Talmud Torah siman 246): ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??"? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???"? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? The Sages said all who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking with Torah shebichtav but with Torah shebaal peh he should not teach her ab initio, but if he taught her it is not as though he taught her Tiflut The Beis Yosef says it is a scribal error in the Tur, and should be the same way as the Rambam, and that is how he has the statement in the Shulchan Aruch, and the Taz agrees, pointing to Hakel. The Prisha notes that the Beis Yosef says that it is a scribal error but adds: ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??"? In any event there is to give a small reason for this version in the books of the Tur, since with all of them it is written and published so, because there is a greater loss when Torah shebichtav is brought out as words of nonsense than with Torah shebal peh. However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil Siman 199, the Maharil writes: ?????? ????? ???"? ??????' ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?"? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ? - ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?????' ???? ???? ?? ??? ????' ?? ???????, ??? ??' ??"?? ?"?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????, ??"? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????, ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??'? ???? ???? ??????, ??? ??? ????? ????? ... ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???, ???? ?"? ????? ?????, And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut as it says in perek notlev and we learn it from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, when wisdom enters so does cunning since when wisdom enters the heart of a person there also enters into it cunning and according to the explanation of Rashi because of this she will do things privately, and if so we are concerned that she will come to damage since their knowledge is light and even though it is considered a mitzvah eit l?asot lashem so that one should not drown out the reward by loss and all the more so where there is not a mitzvah ... And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by way of tradition from outside, And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous generations: ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like it says ?ask your father and he shall tell you? and in this it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their upright fathers. But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in the form of the Mishna? That the Torah sheba'al peh was passed from father to son by oral transmission (albeit that at one point schools were instated for those lacking fathers who could teach them)? And on the other hand doesn't the Rosh (ie father of the Tur) famously say that today one fulfils the mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah by writing other seforim in Hilkhot Sefer Torah, chap. 1 as is brought by the Tur and Shulhan Arukh in Yoreh De'ah 270:2? So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al peh - as the vast majority of the details are sourced in Torah sheba'al peh, and if they were only to be taught what is in Torah shebichtav, they would all turn into Karaites! And indeed that women were, as the Chofetz Chaim suggests, taught in the home with the tradition handed over by their fathers in the same way as Torah sheba'al peh has always been learnt all the way back to Moshe Rabbanu. While if you understand Torah shebichtav as including mishna and gemora and rishonim, all so long as they have been written down, then one could indeed understand that as being a possible practical distinction - ie not to teach women to read and write and understand what is in the written seforim? Now perhaps one might say that if the Rambam had poskened like Rav Elazar in Gitten 60b as understood by Rashi, that Torahshebichtav is the majority and Torah sheba'al peh is the minority, because he includes in Torah shebichtav anything that is learnt out of the Torah by way of midrash or gezera shava etc, then it might be possible to understand that by and large women could both learn to do the mitzvot incumbent on them and simultaneously avoid Torah sheba'al peh, but he doesn't, as in his introduction the Mishna he categorises Torah Sheba'al peh into five categories, and is clearly in this poskening like Rav Yochanan. So how, according to the Rambam, did women know what to do if they were never taught Torah sheba'al peh, even ba'al peh, remembering that it is the Rema's addition to the Shulchan Aruch in the name of the Smag (actually Smak) via the Agur that adds in the halacha that women need to learn all the mitzvot that are relevant to them? Is not the Tur's version actually the one that makes more logical sense - especially if you explain Hakel as per the gemora in Chagiga that the women came to listen (ie hear it orally, without looking at the text)? Not that this would seem to explain Rabi Eliezer himself, as Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna in Sotah 21a - objected to women learning that sometimes drinking the Sotah water would not result in immediate death, and in the Yerushalmi, Sotah perek 3 daf 19 column 1 halacha 4 he objected to telling a woman why there are three different types of deaths listed vis a vis the chet haegel when there was only one sin - both of which pieces of learning were, at least in his day, definitely Torah sheba'al peh. So given that the Rambam poskened like Rabbi Eliezer, he would have needed, if a distinction was to be made, have to phrase it the way he did. But maybe what the Tur was saying is that, Rabbi Eliezer or no, the Rambam's solution is not workable, and given the way the gemora explains Rabbi Eliezer's limud from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, and that already in his day that kind of learning was found in Torah shebichtav, the whole thing can be made workable by turning it the other way around? Has anybody seen this suggested anywhere? Any thoughts? Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 15:56:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 08:56:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> References: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 19 May 2017 3:15 am, "Micha Berger" wrote: >: If ownership >: According to Halacha >: Is determined by believing one is in control >: And when that control >: Is lost >: There's YiUsh >: Then this Chamets >: Had no owner >: During Pesach > If this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as I don't understand. Please explain. One who is unaware of the loss of his wallet, believes he is still in control. We Pasken that he remains the owner. Famous story, woman lost her money at a trade fair, was found and taken to the Rov. Although there was no question that it was the money she had lost, there was no way to Pasken that it had to be returned to her. YiUsh. Until Reb Y ? explained that she was never the owner and her state of mind was not relevant. It was her husband's money and he, being unaware it was lost, still firmly believed he was in control. YSheLoMiDaAs suggesting that since he'd be in a different state of mind, if he knew the facts, in other words YSheLoMiDaAs, is still a Sevara that recognises and circulates around the principle that ownership depends upon ones state of mind. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 09:16:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 12:16:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts Message-ID: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Two Faces of Love Twice a day the Jew gives expression to one of the most potent forces in social life ? LOVE. In the morning we plead for ahavah rabbah, abundance of love, for in the morning we want love to expand and grow throughout the day. In the evening, however, when darkness descends upon us, we pray again for love, but not in quantitative terms. Instead we plead for ahavat olam ? enduring and eternal love. In the dark night love does not grow; it deepens. Two Philosophies of LIfe Sarah advised her husband to cast out Ishmael, when she saw he was ?Miitzachaik? and she feared he would be an evil influence on his brother ?Yitzchok.? Interestingly, both ?Miitzachaik? and ?Yitzchok? have a common root, meaning to laugh or to play. What is the disparity? The difference is compelling: ?Mitzachaik? is in the present tense and ?Yitzchok? is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael?s philosophy of life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future. Conversely, she saw that Yitzchok?s philosophy of life was to live life spiritually, delaying immediate gratification and living his life in a way that would provide genuine happiness and enjoyment in the future. The future depends on what we do in the present. Mahatma Gandhi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 11:14:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 14:14:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes Message-ID: <20170519181429.GA31873@aishdas.org> >From this week's emailing from The Halachah Center / Beis haVaad leInyanei Mishpat . There are a number of halachic discussions about e-cig use -- whether kashrus concerns apply, health issues, but then they close with this interesting (to me) more aggadic point. Note found interesting was that R' Yosef Greenwald assumes that venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem isn't about preserving life, but preserving one's ability to pull the ol mitzvos. (That sounds weird, but an animal "pulls a yoke", no?) Which includes preserving life. And thus includes intoxication and other mind- or mood-altering chemicals that could hamper one's ability to function. I could have seen argiong for each as separate values, but... Holy Smokes! A Halachic Discussion Regarding E-Cigarettes Are e-cigarettes problematic from a halachic standpoint? By: Rav Yosef Greenwald ... The Health Concerns of E-cigarettes ... 1. Are E-Cigarettes Any Better than Cigarettes? ... 2. Derech Eretz and a Life of Meaning Let us conclude with one more point about the general imperative to protect our health and its relevance to this case. Although as mentioned there is an injunction to safeguard our health based on v'nishmartem, we also have an assurance of shomer pesaim Hashem, that Hashem will protect those who engage in normal activities, as Rav Moshe explained, which is based on the Gemara (Yevamos 12b and elsewhere).[10] Consequently, eating greasy french fries, doughnuts, and the like, may not be the healthiest thing to do. However, doing so would not violate a halachic prohibition, as eating these foods is considered in the realm of normal behavior (like smoking used to be), and we can apply shomer pesa'im Hashem. There have recently been some questions asked about the kashrus on medical marijuana, due to the possibility that the recreational use of marijuana may be normalized soon. However, before discussing the kashrus questions, one must ask whether it is acceptable to consume marijuana. It would seem to be in the same category as significant alcohol consumption. Leaving aside any possible physical damage caused from overdosing, there is no specific halacha that forbids one from getting drunk, aside from being careful not to miss the proper time for Tefilla, and not issuing halachic rulings while in an inebriated state.[11] Nevertheless, it should be obvious that this is wrong, based on what could be called the "fifth section of the Shulchan Aruch," using common sense in living one's life. Clearly, Hashem does not want a person to waste away their life in a state in which one cannot serve Hashem properly. Rather, one should live life as an intelligent, sober person. One who overdoses on alcohol, or engages in mind-altering or mood- altering by ingesting marijuana, is taking away the ability to function as a normal person. This falls under the category of derech eretz, proper conduct, which precedes the observance of halacha. In other words, even if one does not directly violate the Shulchan Aruch, one must live in a manner in which the Torah and halacha can be fulfilled. To return to e-cigarettes, this notion of living healthy is an important reason why, even if it is concluded that they are 100% kosher even without certification, a non-smoker should not start using such a product. In the merit of being able to curb one's physical temptations, hopefully we as a people can merit to reaching great spiritual heights, and achieve the closeness to Hashem that He, and we, so desire. ... [11] Both of these issues are discussed in the Gemara (Eiruvin 64a) and are cited in the Shulchan Aruch. ... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 12:08:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:08:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Does Orthodox Commitment Provide What is Needed for Good Character? Message-ID: <20170519190815.GA24683@aishdas.org> From http://jewishethicalwisdom.com/does-orthodox-commitment-provide-what-is-needed-for-good-character Critical reading for anyone interested in what AishDas stands for. Jewish Ethical Wisdom Blog Does Orthodox Commitment Provide What is Needed for Good Character? Posted on April 6, 2017 Posted By: Anthony Knopf Does Orthodox commitment provide what is needed for good character? Not yet, I answer in this article. ... Rashei peraqim: Introduction Feeling and Thinking Ethically - Not Always a Matter of Halakha Exclusive Focus on Halakha Distracts from and Attenuates Moral Sensitivity More is Required :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 12:19:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:19:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts In-Reply-To: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> References: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170519191925.GA30260@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:16:28PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The difference is compelling: "Mitzachaik" is in the present tense and : "Yitzchok" is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael's philosophy of : life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as : much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future. However, "Yishmael", the name, is also in future tense, and later in his life, "Yitzchaq metzacheiq es Rivqah ishto" (26:8) -- in the present tense. And while "Yishmael's" name is about listening, not tzechoq, is not listening MORE fundamental to a healthy relationship? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 02:14:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 19:14:00 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah at the Age of 12 Message-ID: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> My maternal grandfather, who lived in Lithuania until his late teens, told me on a number of occasions that he celebrated his bar mitzvah when he was 12 years old, as his father had died and he was considered to be an orphan. Some years ago I recalled this and decided to learn more about the custom, but each of the rabbis I asked had never heard of it. Recently, however, I was re-reading A Tzadik in Our Time: The Life of Reb Aryeh Levin and, at page 95, he recounts that he attended a bar mitzvah of an orphan in Jerusalem on his 12th birthday. Does anyone know anything of this custom? David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 13:39:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:39:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs > from choshein mishpat, and is not baalus. We can see a connection between BYBY and "responsibility" by the situation of a shomer. Even in a situation where a shomer is absolutely not the owner or baal in any sense of the term, he will still violate BYBY if he is responsible for the chometz that he is watching. (I don't know which side of the discussion this supports, but it seems very relevant to *some* side, so I figured I'd mention it.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 19:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'midbar Message-ID: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> Israel?s brithplace was b?midbar ? in the wilderness. It has been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced the monotheistic faith. Man is always in need of fulfillment and his promised land is far away. He is always on the road to the actualization of his dreams, seeking better things and yearning for a fuller, fulfilling life. The wilderness is the symbol of man searching for his destination. It is told that a Chassidic Rebbe, impatient at the sad, mad state of the world (sound familiar?) and overcome with longing for the happiness of mankind, prayed to God: ?If Thou cannot redeem Thy people Israel, then at least redeem mankind!? May we reach the promised land in our lifetime! rw ?Ay me! sad hours seem long.? William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 19:00:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:00:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "Krias Moshe Leynen"? Message-ID: <7c27ddbf-5df2-526c-c8bd-dbfd5a94b96e@sero.name> Has anyone heard of such a thing? I came across it in a Munkatcher publication. If it were buried in a block of text I'd take it for a typo for "Krias Sh'ma Leynen", referring to the children who come on the vach nacht to say Krias Sh'ma for the baby. But it's in a prominent position where I think surely someone would have noticed such a blatant typo and corrected it before it went to print, so my current working theory is that it's some minhag that neither I nor anyone I've asked so far have heard of. So I'm throwing it to the wider Avodah community; does anyone know what this is? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 23:08:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 02:08:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah at the Age of 12 In-Reply-To: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> References: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 20/05/17 05:14, David Havin via Avodah wrote: > My maternal grandfather, who lived in Lithuania until his late teens, > told me on a number of occasions that he celebrated his bar mitzvah when > he was 12 years old, as his father had died and he was considered to be > an orphan. > > Some years ago I recalled this and decided to learn more about the > custom, but each of the rabbis I asked had never heard of it. Recently, > however, I was re-reading A Tzadik in Our Time: The Life of Reb Aryeh > Levin and, at page 95, he recounts that he attended a bar mitzvah of an > orphan in Jerusalem on his 12^th birthday. > > Does anyone know anything of this custom? There is, of course, no such custom of becoming a bar mitzvah early. But it was a common custom that a child with no father would begin putting on tefillin a full year before his bar mitzvah, rather than a few weeks or months as is the usual custom. See Aruch Hashulchan 37:4, who says this is "murgal befi hahamon", but he knows of no reason for it, and disapproves of it. See: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=374&pgnum=295 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 14:40:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 17:40:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts In-Reply-To: References: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Message-ID: <2B3DC5BF-D4C8-4C0D-A9B0-01AE8A89E41E@cox.net> > "Yishmael", the name, is also in future tense ...which means "he WILL hear or listen" which fits in with his personality and character. Presently he doesn't listen and does what he pleases. When he gets old, he will then listen. > And while "Yishmael's" name is about listening, not tzechoq, is not > listening MORE fundamental to a healthy relationship? A healthy relationship is fundamental with many elements: one of which is certainly listening NOW, not in the future. Can you imagine telling your child to do something and he says I'll do it in the future. He isn't even listening because as you point out "He WILL listen -- a lot of good that does for the present. And psychologists will tell you that a healthy relationship must have laughter and humor which can only increase the health of a relationship. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 22 07:47:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 10:47:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag Baomer in pre WWII Mir Yeshiva in Europe In-Reply-To: <1494871334409.64146@stevens.edu> References: <1494871334409.64146@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170522144737.GB29499@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:02:36PM +0000, Prof Yitzchak Levine posted on Areivim: : Please see http://mrlitvak.blogspot.com/ I can understand a desire to reaffirm the authentic Litvisher derkeh. But meanwhile, we have more learning than at any time in Litta's history, and kids are still uninspiring and fleeing in horrendous numbers. How often do people mention the RBSO? How much do we discuss or base decisions on the kelalim gedolim baTorah (cf RBW's recent review of RJB's The Great Principle of the Torah -- ve'ahvta lerei'akha kamokha, de'alakh sani, eileh toledos ha'adam, shema Yisrael, tzadiq be'emunaso yichyeh, etc...)? So, Lag baOmer may not be more than cheap sentimentality. But even if I were to agree this was true, I would still argue that we are in desperate need of sentimentality -- and will settle for the cheap kind rather than letting the pursuit of perfection become excuses for less emotional expression. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 10:54:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:54:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? Message-ID: We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that are on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv is al pi din. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 12:38:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:38:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Added textual mar'eh meqomos alongside the links. -micha] On 23/05/17 13:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would > like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. > Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that > are on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv > is al pi din. These would seem to be dispositive: [Rambam, Hilkhos Shekheinim 10:11:] http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/c310.htm#11 [SA CM 155:26:] https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9F_%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9A_%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9F_%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98_%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%9B%D7%95 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 13:35:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 16:35:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170523203556.GC10104@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 08:54:41PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would : like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. : Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that are : on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv is al pi : din. Related question, really came up last week. Someone had a tree that neighbors were complaining about, that it looked like it was dying and might fall on the neighbor's roof. On a windy day recently it actually snapped -- but not falling on the roof, instead the tree brought down the power lines. A number of people on the block lost food before power was restored and other expenses were incurred. Is the owner of the tree liable al pi din? What if the neighbor hadn't warned him, so that we cannot know if the owner was aware of an issue or not? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 42nd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliability crucial for universal brotherhood? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 13:37:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:37:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'Note found interesting was that R' Yosef Greenwald assumes that venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem isn't about preserving life, but preserving one's ability to pull the ol mitzvos. (That sounds weird, but an animal "pulls a yoke", no?) Which includes preserving life. And thus includes intoxication and other mind- or mood-altering chemicals that could hamper one's ability to function.' The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it either as far as I recall. So that leaves us fairly free to guess what it means, I suppose. I'd assumed it means preserving health, inasmuch as nefesh usually refers to life force, and we wouldn't need it to refer to preserving life itself, since that's covered by a) prohibition of suicide and b) al taamod al dam reyecha. And preserving health would presumably be in order to keep mitzvos the better, no? And I think an animal bears a yoke and pulls a plough. Lashon Hakodesh is always 'nosei ol'. Which corresponds better to bear than pull. So we carry/bear the ol mitzvos I think. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 14:25:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 07:25:01 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away - Mashkon Pikadon Message-ID: In Siman 440 chametz foods owned by a G in the care of a Yid (a ?shomer? / guardian) Siman 441 chametz foods owned by a G left in the care of a Yid as a ?mashkon? (lit. collateral) for guarantee of a loan from the Yid Pesachim 5b Two pesukim Shmos 13:7 ?Chametz shall not be seen to you and leaven shall not be seen to you in all your borders.? You may not see your own (i.e. keep in your possession), but you may see that of others (i.e. non-Jews)? Shmos 12:19 ?For a seven-day period leaven shall not be found in your homes.? a Yid may not accept Chamets deposits from non-Jews.? there appears to be an inconsistency Gemara Pesachim 5b If a Yid may see Chamets of non-Jews why does the Beraisa prohibit the chametz deposit of a non-Jew? It depends upon whether the Y has (monetary) responsibility for the Chametz, When a Y accepts monetary responsibility for the chametz he is considered to be owner to the extent that he is Over BYBY Mishnah Berura discusses whether the Y can sell the ?pikadon?. concludes yes If the Y has no monetary responsibility (i.e. for loss, theft or negligence) it may be kept in his house during Pesach but to ensure it is not mistakenly eaten must close it in a room The ?shomer? who assumes monetary liability becomes a part-owner therefore, a Jew's chametz with a non-Jewish ?shomer? does not absolve the Y he is Over BYBY A visiting non-Jew who brings his own chametz into the home of a Jew need not ask the non-Jew to remove the chametz and may even invite him into his home and eat the chametz right at his table provided the Y does not eat together with the G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 13:42:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:42:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim Message-ID: > > > > I am not expressing an opinion here on the permissibility of maharats, or > of women's ordination. I merely wish to express my respect for those on > both sides of this important question, and my hope that the dispute will > remain on the level of a machloket l'shem shamayim and that ultimately all > of us will benefit from this challenging and passionate conversation. > > ---------------------- Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilana. I have found that discussions about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven ... and of not having a recognized posek to support their halachic position. The discussions rarely focus on the relevant halachic issues. It's nice to hear someone who is willing to respect the other side...and recognize that the discussion is a machlokes l'sheim shamayim. -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 17:37:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 20:37:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170525003710.GA22308@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:42pm EDT, R Michael Feldstein wrote: : Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilana. I have found that discussions : about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because : those who support : shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven ... and : of not having : a recognized posek to support their halachic position. The discussions : rarely focus on : the relevant halachic issues. A discussion on Avodah can focus exclusively on the relevant halachic issues. A decision of what to do in practice has to include deferring to the position that actually is backed by recognized posqim. And one side's unwillingness to ask the question on this level itself becomes a relevant halachic issue. However, the following is true anyway: : It's nice to hear someone who is willing to respect the other side...and : recognize that : the discussion is a machlokes l'sheim shamayim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 20:03:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 05:03:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly accused of being agenda driven. Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. Ben On 5/24/2017 10:42 PM, Michael Feldstein via Areivim wrote: > I have found that discussions > about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support > shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 04:57:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 11:57:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> On 5/24/2017 10:42 PM, Michael Feldstein via Areivim wrote: > I have found that discussions > about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support > shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven _______________________________________________ Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:28:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:28:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? Message-ID: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:30:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:30:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shoftim-Mesorah Chain Message-ID: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&st=&pgnum=484 Fascinating article on the mesorah chain-were the shoftim really part of it ?(doesn't deal with broader question of why we don't see Sanhedrin in Nach). KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:46:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 10:46:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shoftim-Mesorah Chain In-Reply-To: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170525144620.GA16912@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:30:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&st=&pgnum=484 : Fascinating article on the mesorah chain-were the shoftim really part of it ?(doesn't deal with broader question of why we don't see Sanhedrin in Nach). Is this the right link? The article appears to be about the revalation of Tanakh "Dargot haNevu'ah baTorah, Nevi'im uKhtuvim", starting with Devarim vs the other 4 chumashim, then Navi vs Kesuvim. By R Moshe Menachem haKohein Shapira. I think you mean an earlier article, MEsoret haTSBP beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah Neustadt. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252pgnum=474 Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:26:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:26:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minhagei Nashim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526012654.GA29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 06:51:56AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I am NOT talking about a machlokes haposkim, where the wife was taught one : thing and the husband was taught something else. In that case, there is : much common ground, and they (or their rav) can go to the sources to figure : out what the couple should do. I'm talking about a much more fundamental : problem, where generations have passed on different traditions, without : anyone ever realizing that there was a mismatch. Is this really a problem? I highly recommend learning AhS. One of the things you get to watch is how much this conflict drives the dialectic of halakhah. Unlike the clean-room approach to halachic theory one gets from lomdus. You get a sense of how much acceptance of a practice in the field drives how much willingness to accept or draft a dachuq theory to explain how it could be justified in theory. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:43:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:43:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'midbar In-Reply-To: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> References: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170526014307.GC29809@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:37:34PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has : been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced : the monotheistic faith... But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged during the Exodus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:39:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526013946.GB29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, : and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying : observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes : when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ... : [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is : outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be : factionalized like that. .... : help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, : despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it : is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to : the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply : to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. : I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 : consistent with 493:8? Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag, as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin on ch"m either. It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the local court(s) or inherited. Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag side of the AhS's chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 20:53:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 23:53:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes Message-ID: R' Ben Bradley wrote: > The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is > that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui > which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in > fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha > nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it > either as far as I recall. This surprised me so much that I looked it up. Here's what I found: These words are from Devarim 4:15. The only comment of the Torah Temimah is: "This is brought and explained above, in the pasuk Ushmor Nafsh'cha (#9)." So I look at Devarim 4:9, and the Torah Temimah quotes a lengthy story from Brachos 32b, which references both pesukim (4:9 and 4:15). The comments of the Torah Temimah that I found particularly relevant to RBB's comment are found in the second and third paragraphs in Torah Temimah #16, and I will quote them here: > The Maharsha writes here, "This pasuk is about forgetting > the Torah, and these pesukim have nothing at all to do with > a person protecting his own nefesh from danger." According > to him, the tzadik of that story said what he said to the > government official merely to get out of the situation, > because the pasuk is really not about Shmiras Haguf. Further, > the fact that it is a common saying, for people to quote the > pasuk V'nishmartem Me'od L'nafshoseichem for any physical > danger - according to the Maharsha that's a mistake. > > But isn't it the explicit opinion of the Rambam, who wrote > in Rotzeach 11:4, "It is a Mitzvas Aseh to remove any > michshol which could be a Sakanas Nefashos, and to be very > very careful about it, as it is said, 'Hishamer L'cha, > Ushmor Nafsh'cha Me'od.'" So it is explicit that the language > of these pesukim *is* about protecting one's body. At first glance, this seems to go against what RBB wrote. BUT: Even according to the Rambam as cited by the Torah Temimah, it seems to me that the most one can say is that Ushmor Nafsh'cha (Devarim 4:9) talks about physical danger; we don't necessarily know that about V'nishmartem (Devarim 4:15), and it is not clear to me why the Torah Temimah closes that paragraph referring to "THESE pesukim" (hapesukim ha-ayleh). Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 03:18:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 13:18:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Bmidbar Message-ID: Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has : been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced : the monotheistic faith... But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged during the Exodus >> However, the avot were shepherds and it has been suggested that being alone with the flock and nature helped them perceive monotheism. BTW I am now reading The exodus you almost passed over by Rabbi Fohrman who demonstrates that the debate between Moshe and Pharoh and the 10 plagues all revolve about monotheism versus polytheism -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:39:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526013946.GB29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, : and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying : observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes : when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ... : [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is : outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be : factionalized like that. .... : help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, : despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it : is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to : the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply : to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. : I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 : consistent with 493:8? Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag, as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin on ch"m either. It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the local court(s) or inherited. Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag side of the AhS's chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 19:22:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 22:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government Message-ID: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> There is a popular theory that the positive description of the gov't found repeatedly found in the AhS is self-censorship and an attempt to make sure his works make it through the government censorship and approval process. But there are times he goes far beyond this, complimenting them in ways no censor would have expected, never mind demanded. For example EhE 42:51, the discussion of marrying in front of witnesses \who are pesulei eidus deOraisa -- eg converts away from Judaism. Rashi has a case of an anoos who got married with other anoosim, and they all returned. Rashi ruled that she needs a gett, because maybe they had hirhurei teshuvah and at that moment were valid eidim. Then he adds Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed. They would never force someone to convert. Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah, we don't have to be chosheish for it. So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus? In terms of timing, the first booklets of EhE started coming out in 1905. (After YD, which came out 1897-1905.) He stopped sometime during or before 1908, his petirah; but he could have written this well before 1905 -- I only know the publishing date. 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other things. Which then led to a new Russioan Constitution, a multi-party system, the Imperial Duma... and 11 years later, the Soviets. So, it's hard to believe he meant it, but it's hard to believe he would risk empty flattery with those stakes! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 04:50:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 07:50:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> On 25/05/17 22:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Then he adds > Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu > shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed. > They would never force someone to convert. He goes on far longer than that. So long that no reader could possibly miss his meaning. > Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he > continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's > converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah, > we don't have to be chosheish for it. > > So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he > suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO > obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up > to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus? This was a period when some publishers of siddurim felt it necessary to print "avinu malkeinu ein lanu melech bashamayim ela ata". He may very well have feared that including a practical psak about anoosim would arouse the censor's ire, especially since the censors were themselves mostly meshumodim. > 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which > was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other > things. Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would have been obvious to him too. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 07:57:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other :> things. : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would : have been obvious to him too. I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation audience. Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his contemporary readers. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 08:33:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 11:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2dc5d4d3-0686-0f3a-9692-24d0aa39595b@sero.name> On 26/05/17 10:57, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which > :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other > :> things. > > : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see > : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which > : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would > : have been obvious to him too. > > I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in > his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation > audience. candlesticks? I think you meant gelecther. But there's no false psak, just a false description of the metzius, which is so over the top that nobody could miss it. > Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining > qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting > them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his > contemporary readers. How could he possibly know what future conditions might be? Any reference in any sefer to "our times" has to be understood as about the author's times, not the reader's. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 07:53:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:53:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly : accused of being agenda driven. : : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response. Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality. Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a non-halachic agenda by making it look holy. (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:57:32AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post : modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all : agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid) But there are limits to eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. When in a halachic debate, one should be limiting oneself to the various answers that are objectively right. Thus presuming there is an objectively right, while still not being absolutist about it. And if we assimilated too much postmodernism to be able to see where eilu va'eilu ends (tapers off), we should be leaning on posqim who can. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 09:54:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 12:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Tvunah] St. Petersberg White Night Zmanim Message-ID: <20170526165420.GA22041@aishdas.org> >From the web site of R' Asher Weiss's pesaqim . I was told that they had a similar problem in the summer in Telzh. Motza"sh was havdalah, melaveh malkah, night seder, shacharis kevasikin, sleep. Tvunah in English Beit Midrash for Birurei Halachah Binyan Zion Under the Leadership of Maran HaRav Asher Weiss Shlita White Night Zmanim Questions: 1. During White Nights here in St. Petersburg we end Shabbat at midnight (2:00). This is also the time of alot ashahar. Accordingly, there is no opportunity to say a blessing on the candle and eat Seudat melawe malka. Question: Is it possible to rely on the opinion of rabbi Ovadiya Yoseph that alot ashahar is 72 dakot zmaniet before dawn, and accordingly there is a certain night after Chatzot for Bracha on the candle and melawe malka? 2. Can we finish fasts of 17 of Tamuz and the 9th of Av after tzet kahovim according Gaon (0:03 and 23:03)? Answers: 1. Since it is already the beginning of the light of the new day and hence Alot Hashachar, the bracha on the candle for havdala should not be said. However since it is still a few hours before Netz Hachama [sunrise] one could be lenient to eat Melave Malka. In fact, with regards to Melave Malka one could be lenient and eat before Chatzos, as long as 72 minutes have passed since shkiya [even though with regards to Melacha one should be machmir until Chatzos]. 2. With regards to ending Rabbinic Fasts, one could rely on the zman of Tzais Hakochavim according to Rabeinu Tam [according to the Pri Megadim that it is a set time in all places], waiting 72 minutes after shkiya. [Hebrew meqoros ubi'urim elided.] :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 45th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Malchus: What is the beauty of Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity (on all levels of relationship)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 27 12:11:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 22:11:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> On 5/26/2017 5:53 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly > : accused of being agenda driven. > : > : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. > > I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat > believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their > halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response. > > Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda > to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have > a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality. People keep using that word, "feminist". I don't think that's what feminism means. This is egalitarianism, which may overlap with feminism in some areas, but is a different ideology. And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to reality. That would imply that halakha comes first and responds to reality. I think that in the vast majority of cases, and if you want, I'll give you ample examples from the writings of JOFA/YCT people, it is a sense that egalitarianism is a moral imperative. That the egalitarian worldview is quite simply the *only* moral worldview, and that to the extent that halakha comforms to that worldview, it is a moral system, and to the extent that it does not, it is not. > Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means > of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a > non-halachic agenda by making it look holy. It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality that predates this entire debate. When the egalitarians want to try and read their ideology back into Jewish history, they often do so with things like Rashi's daughters laying tefillin, a fiction which is accepted as fact by Conservative and Reform Jews, but has absolutely no historical basis. There is a legitimate argument to be made that those on the side of tradition are afraid of change. But not that they are *only* afraid of change. Casual change of halakhic norms has caused enormous damage in recent history, and wariness or even fear of such things is both rational and reasonable. Again, there may even be something admirable about trying to equalize the two sides the way you're doing here, but it doesn't match the reality. One has only to listen to the types of arguments that are used by the two sides to see that they are operating on the basis of vastly different paradigms, where one *starts* with the Torah and one *starts* with egalitarianism. > (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about > fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" > a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos > that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, > etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or > resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and > general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha. The words of the Ramchal and Rabbenu Bachya are not as rigorously chosen as those in the halakhic areas of the Torah, and are far more easily "adapted" to foreign ideologies. I don't say that they are unimportant, but let's not let the tail wag the dog here. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 27 20:44:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 23:44:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: To quickly review an old question: If Rus and Orpah converted at the *beginning* of the story, then how could Naami send Orpah back to her people? But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews? Some answer this question suggesting that there was a sort of "conditional" conversion at the beginning, and while Rus later affirmed her conversion to be sincere, it was revealed that Orpah's was never valid to begin with. I have never understood this answer, because of the ten years that elapsed from the supposed conversion until it was retroactively nullified. (By analogy, suppose (chalila) that Jared and Ivanka would split up, and Ivanka would claim that she was only putting on a show all along. Who would believe her? Those who currently accept her geirus as valid, would anyone accept such a bitul of it?) Today I came across a different approach to the question. Like any other area of halacha, hilchos geirus has its share of halachic disputes. For example, which parts of the process require a beis din; perhaps a beis din is needed only l'chatchila, or is it me'akev? Or: If the conversion candidate admits that he/she has mixed motivations (such as being interested in a Jewish spouse, but also sincerely l'shem Shamayim), is this acceptable or is it posul even b'dieved? Pick either of those questions, or make up another one of your own. Let's say that both Orpah and Rus converted at the beginning of the story. Let's also say that everyone was up-front and sincere about whatever they claimed their motivations to be, such that no one was surprised ten years later. In other words, there was no disagreement about the facts of the situation. But there WAS a machlokes among the poskim of the time, about the halacha to apply to that situation. Machlon, Kilyon, Rus and Boaz all held like the poskim who said that the conversion was a valid one, at least b'dieved. But Naami held like the poskim who ruled it to be invalid, even b'dieved. Thus, Machlon and Kilyon were able to marry these women in good conscience. For ten years Naami held Orpah and Rus to be non-Jewish, but there wasn't much she could do about it, because their husbands held that they *were* Jewish. When the husbands died, Naami finally had the opportunity to express the view of her poskim. Orpah accepted Naami's advice (for whatever reason), but Rus was committed to continuing her new religion (for whatever reason). At this point, perhaps Rus had a second geirus to keep her mother-in-law happy, or maybe not. Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to speak of. A possible hole in my suggestion appears in pasuk 2:20, where Naami explicitly admits that Boaz is one of "OUR" relatives, and one of "OUR" redeemers. This would not make sense if Naami rejected the validity of the original conversion. However, this occurs AFTER pasuk 2:11, in which Boaz tells Rus (I am paraphrasing): "I know your whole story. Don't worry. I hold your geirus to be valid, and I hold you you be a relative." In the final analysis, Naami goes along. Maybe she decides to accept Boaz's shitah l'halacha, or maybe she merely goes along as a practical matter, given the fait accompli that both Boaz and Rus hold that way. Have I left any loose ends here? Previous approaches have focused on uncertainties of intention. This approach says that everything that happened in Moav was clear, and the only gray part was a machlokes haposkim, but we know which shitah was followed by each character of the story. I invite all comments. advTHANKSance Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 09:16:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 12:16:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0789e301-2374-0dd3-0f9e-8befc1c1052c@sero.name> On 27/05/17 23:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was > valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to > speak of. There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. What is the point of this mitzvah? It's to pay off his obligations and redeem his good name; Ruth -- whether Jewish or not -- was also his obligation, and had to be redeemed. Thus Boaz need not have believed that the initial conversion -- if there was one -- had been valid. But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:51:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:51:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Rut converted when Naomi tried to send her back, while Oprah chose not to convert. Ben On 5/28/2017 5:44 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without > Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 10:50:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 17:50:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> >From last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should always follow the local custom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:16:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:16:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mezonos After Kiddush Message-ID: <1495995457275.89387@stevens.edu> >From Friday's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. Must Kiddush be followed by a meal with bread, or is it sufficient to make Kiddush and then eat mezonos? A. There is a halacha that Kiddush may only be recited at the place of one's meal. This requirement is known as Kiddush b'makom se'udah (Pesachim 101a). If one does not eat a se'udah after Kiddush or recites Kiddush in a location other than where he eats the meal, he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of Kiddush and must make Kiddush again when and where he eats. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch (OC 273:5) quote the Ge'onim who hold that one can fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush without actually eating a full meal at the time and place that he makes Kiddush. Rather, a person can consume a mere ke'zayis of bread or even drink an additional revi'is of wine as his Kiddush-time "meal" to fulfill the requirement of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. The Magen Avraham (273:11) and Aruch Ha-Shulchan (273:8) explain that, according to the Ge'onim, one can eat Mezonos food (e.g. cookies, pastry, or cake), after Kiddush to satisfy the rule of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. This view has become widely accepted, and many poskim permit partaking of Mezonos foods after Kiddush but ideally advise against satisfying the mitzvah by merely drinking an additional revi'is of wine (see MB 273:25). Some halachic authorities, including the Chasam Sofer, as quoted by Rav Moshe Shternbuch, shlita (Teshuvos V'Hanhogos 5:80), have ruled that if one makes Kiddush and then eats Mezonos foods, he must make Kiddush again later at his actual se'udah. This was also the opinion of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l. In the next Halacha Yomis we will discuss whether cheesecake is a proper pastry for one to fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. For more on this topic please read Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer's excellent article "Eating Dairy on Shavuos" featured in the 5777 - 2017 Shavuos Consumer Daf HaKashrus. After eating pungent, strong-tasting cheese one should wait before eating meat, the same amount of time that one waits between meat and milk, regardless of the cheese's age. The following chart shows which cheeses require waiting: Aged Cheese List - Kosher -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:59:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:59:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros Message-ID: <1495998054786.63765@stevens.edu> I received the following response to my earlier email about this topic Sadly, you will always find 1 or 2 people in every shul who "sit" while the entire tzibbur stands. This strikes me as downright arrogant, and IMHO is done more to make a "statement" than to follow a minhag that might be prevalent in some communities. C'mon; if 100 or 200 people are standing, should someone stick out and sit because that's the way he was taught.....? To this I replied Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. And in light of this, may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed. I bet this never occurred to you. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:15:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:15:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> References: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> Message-ID: Some people look at this as purely a matter of minhag, and so criticize those who do not follow the local minhag, calling them arrogant. Well, the Rambam thought this was an issue of an incorrect hashqafa, and worth ignoring any minhag started in ignorance. Part of the problem with modern Jews is that everything to them is an issue of minhag. They do not understand that sometimes there are really important hashqafa issues from teh Torah involved. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels at ou.org ________________________________ From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 1:50 PM To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? >From last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should always follow the local custom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:34:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:34:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to : reality... It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem. ... : It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as : being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality : that predates this entire debate... True, as I wrote : >(My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about : >fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" : >a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos : >that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, : >etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or : >resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and : >general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) >From this perspective, those who are in favor of change are advocating a definition of Torah that includes only black-letter law. ... : It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of : Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha... Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that halakhah must conform to and the law itself. Not "primacy over halakhah", but a voice in resolving between two positions when black-letter law could be drafted to support either. It may only get a quieter voice, it still must have its say. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:16:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 16:16:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the rituals above the menshlichkeit. There's a story I've heard many times. This version comes from Rav Frand at https://torah.org/torah-portion/ravfrand-5755-naso/ > At the eulogy of R. Yaakov Kaminetzsky, zt"l, one speaker > related the following: There was a nun in Monsey, New York > who complained about the way the Jewish population related > to her: Everyone used to walk right past her... The "correct" > people ignored her, and the "super correct" people spat. This > nun then related that there was, however, one old Jew with a > white beard that used to say "Good Morning" every single day. > (That Jew was R. Yaakov.) That?s Kiddush Hashem and "looking > the other way" is Chillul Hashem. Such stories are NOT hard to find. The "frum" newspapers and magazines and parsha sheets are full of them. I don't know why so few people greeted that nun pleasantly. I hope that it changed when that story started to get around. If I write any more, I'll get even more depressed than currently. Suffice it so say that the only reason I'm posting this at all, is to clarify the point that I think RMB was trying to make, and to agree with it. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:52:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:52:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as kedoshim tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in the sense of being like aggadeta. Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos would be incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give the value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan pesukim and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos. Most often that's implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the gemara of value based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the expense of what looks otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular dracheha darchei noam is cited. I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic. Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not operate in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how the value system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We ignore meta-halachic pesukim at our peril. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:18:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:18:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Ben Waxman wrote: > I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their > very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, pages 48-52. R' Zev Sero wrote: > There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the > mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. > But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than > being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why > put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether > it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only > applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk > literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging > such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves. Good question, especially since my post explicitly allowed for "an unknown machlokes". The problem is that the machlokes would have to be one where Machlon, Kilyon, Ruth, and Boaz all held that Ruth's marriage was valid, with only Naami holding it to be not valid. My understanding is that Avoda Zara 36b allows for the *possibility* that it is muttar *d'Oraisa* to marry an Avoda Zara woman who is not from The Seven Nations. And Ruth, being from Moav, was *not* from those seven. But at the very most, that gemara would allow (on a d'Oraisa level) sexual relations, and even doing so "derech chasnus" - as a marriage. It does NOT go so far as to consider Ruth as part of the extended family such that Boaz would have any responsibility to her. I would want a source for that. Granted that there might be some "unknown machlokes" which would consider Ruth to be part of Boaz's family, even if she did not convert at the beginning of the story. But I think such a suggestion would be venturing into fantasyland. Here's why: Even if it is mutar d'Oraisa for a Jewish man to publicly marry an Avoda Zara woman (who isn't from the Seven Nations), the children from such a marriage would not be Jewish, and that's d'Oraisa. In other words, even if the marriage is legitimate, the children are not part of the man's family. And if the children are not part of his family, then kal vachomer, Boaz is certainly not part of his family. So unless you can show a valid source that Boaz held (or even *might* have held) by patrilineal descent, then I can't see RZS's suggestion as reasonable. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 15:07:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:07:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: "And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying, 'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them: May HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers 6:22-26] The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins between man and his fellow man. Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his or her face towards the offender. So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is equally important. Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 15:27:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: <4EECF03B-E505-4324-B37E-96A99F67F0A9@cox.net> "And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying, 'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them: May HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers 6:22-26] The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins between man and his fellow man. Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his or her face towards the offender. So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is equally important. Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 16:14:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 19:14:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170528231426.GD6467@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:16:38PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : : > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of : > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without : > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot : > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... : : I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and : more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly : does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But : for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the : rituals above the menshlichkeit. : This is why I wrote that the hashkafah is necessary in order to observe halakhos like qedoshim tihyu. But I realized the language problem, which is why when I replied to Lisa I used the idiom "black-letter halakhah", to refer to the kind of laws that can be codified in the SA. Which isn't only ritual. Eg the limits of ona'as mamon is black-letter halakhah. One of the saddest things about the writings of the CC (other than the MB) is that they represent the realization that shemiras halashon and ahavad chessed were going to continue to get short shrift unless someone made black-letter halakhah out of them. When in reality, HQBH would be "Happier" -- I am guessing, of course -- if we would do things things simply because ve'ahavta lerei'akha kamokha. At the Alter of Slabodka put it: I don't love mtself because there is a mitzvah to do so. So too, the mitzvah is to develop of love of others, and therefore all these things would come naturally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:31:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 14:31:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: It seems to me that the opponents of ordination of women are hiding behind conflation of terms. What is first needed is an understanding of what ordination is in this day and age. The plain meaning of the Shulchan Aruch YD 242:14 is that it is permission from a teacher to a student to instruct in issur v'heter. it is perhaps more instructive to go through the process step by step and see where those who object have a problem. 1. women learn the subject matter 2. the teacher thinks they are capable 3. if the teacher dies, according to SA YD 242:14, nothing further is needed 4. the teacher gives the student permission(to avoid transgressing on the prohibition of moreh l'fnei rabo) So, if there is a problem, which step is the problem and why? is it that a teacher cant give a women permission to be mora l'fnei raba? what is the source for that? Essentially what we use the term semicha today is a teacher giving the student immunity from transgressing a particular prohibition. If the issue is that of a woman giving hora'ah, then it is necessary to establish exactly what that is in this day and age. Is it just 'mareh mekomot'? is it more formal hora'ah? we should keep in mind that R. Schachter, in defining terms for converts, writes that hora'ah in issur v'heter is NOT serarah, and that according to some opinions, judging dinei mamanot is not serarah. Furthermore, he writes of a difference of opinion whether semicha is a din in dayanus, or a din in hora'ah. So, if semicha is a din in dayanus, and not hora'ah, then there is no reason to bring the restrictions from dayanus over to hora'ah. and, if semicha is a din in hora'ah, then the restrictions on dayyanus don't apply to semicha. I would add that the entire basis for the claim that women cant get semicha starts with the restriction on women being witnesses, then that being extended to judges, and then being extended again to semicha. It is not necessarily a given that these extensions should be made. We should note that there are a number of others who are prohibited from being witnesses- those who lend with interest, deaf, blind, etc. The internet reports that there are those who were deaf that recieved orthodox semicha. I dont have any information on semicha for the blind. However, it does not appear that the OU has taken a position on these, nor has anyone accused the deaf and the blind who are seeking semicha of being heretics nor have they been threatened with being kicked out of Orthodoxy. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 17:00:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:00:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529000002.GA17436@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:01:37AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Areivim wrote: : 'that a pesaq is by definition someone eligable to be a dayan,' : Which surely most community rabbis are not, since most have yoreh yoreh but not yadin yadin. 1- Eligable, not qualified. 2- Who said one has to have Yadin Yadin to serve as a dayan? Yes, to judge fiscal matters, we need someone who knows CM, but for someone to decide questions of YD? On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:21:20PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Areivim wrote: : I was thinking along very similar lines. In which case, the main : (only?) difference between the yoetzet and the community rabbi is that : the rabbi's job also includes "masculine" roles like leadership, while : teaching and paskening are neutral and shared. As I wrote in every other iteratrion of this question, there is a difference between teaching halakhah pesuqah and applying shiqul hada'as. Someone who follows a rav's pesaq is obeying lo sasur, and therefore did the right thing even if the rabbi's shiqul hada'as was faulty. Any hypothetical qorban chatos would be the rabbi's. If the person is not among those covered by mikol asher yorukha, then the qorban chatas is yours for listening to her, not the Maharat's. On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 02:31:52PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that the opponents of ordination of women are hiding : behind conflation of terms. What is first needed is an understanding of : what ordination is in this day and age. The plain meaning of the Shulchan : Aruch YD 242:14 is that it is permission from a teacher to a student to : instruct in issur v'heter... I cwould use the word "hora'ah" rather than the misleading "instruct". One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in the same town as one's rebbe. ... : 3. if the teacher dies, according to SA YD 242:14, nothing further : is needed : 4. the teacher gives the student permission(to avoid transgressing on : the prohibition of moreh l'fnei rabo) I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. IOW, we have no indication that when the Rama says that if the rebbe was niftar, nothing else is needed that he is talking about anything more than needed to satisfy kavod harav ONLY. IOW, one of these two criteria is necessary, but -- even assuming competency is a given -- are they sufficient? Semchiah could well be hetero hora'ah plus. Both R/Prof Saul Lieberman and RHS argued they are not. And so it appears from Taosafos. And since we have no indication that the Rama is disagreeing with Torafos... For that matter, since the form "yoreh yoreh" is peeled off of the formula for ordaining a member of sanhderin -- "Yoreh? Yoreh! Yadin? Yadin! Yatir bekhoros? Yatir bechoros!" -- there is sme connection to dayanus as per Tosafos implied in the traditional ordination text itself. ... : I would add that the entire basis for the claim that women cant get : semicha starts with the restriction on women being witnesses, then that : being extended to judges, and then being extended again to semicha. : It is not necessarily a given that these extensions should be made. We : should note that there are a number of others who are prohibited : from being witnesses- those who lend with interest, deaf, blind, etc. : The internet reports that there are those who were deaf that recieved : orthodox semicha... Deaf? To you mean cheireish, a caegory we rule refers to the uneducable and thus does not mean today's deaf mutes? Blind? Chalitzah has a special gezeiras hakasuv, "l'einei", specifically because a blind man is allowed to serve as a dayan. (And as RHS points out, geirim can be dayanim for other geirim, so we see their disqualification to serve in most courts is not athat they are outside of lo sosuru, but another issue.) But I do not think those who lend with interest are kosher rabbanim. Refardless of social ills which may cause that din to be largely ignored in practice. Our discussion here should not be about whether you or I agree with the OU's priorities, but whether the shitah they are supporting in the particular question at hand is well-founded in principle. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 16:53:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 19:53:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg cited a story with an apparent contradiction, and resolved the contradiction this way: > Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between > man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can > show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But > when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His > face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his > or her face towards the offender. > > So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the > Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately > towards other human beings is equally important. It seems to me that although religious or ritual behavior is important, Rebbe Yossi HaKohen is teaching us that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is EVEN MORE important. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 17:18:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:18:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 07:53:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that although religious or ritual behavior is : important, Rebbe Yossi HaKohen is teaching us that behaving : appropriately towards other human beings is EVEN MORE important. Look at the list of holidays in parashas Emor. 23:21-22 describe Shavuos. Look which mitzvos are associated with Shavuos. Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which mitzvos are listed specifically? Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice of Shavu'os reading. To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani. We really need a flavor of O that takes Hillel's "de'ealh sani", or R' Ariva's or Ben Azzai's kelalim gedolim, or for that matter the oft-quoted medrash "derekh eretz qodma ... leTorah" as one's actual first principle for life. And not just a platitude for the early grades, a truism repeated unthinkingly to get nods during the rabbi's sermon. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:11:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:11:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Someone who follows a rav's pesaq is obeying lo sasur, and > therefore did the right thing even if the rabbi's shiqul > hada'as was faulty. Any hypothetical qorban chatos would be > the rabbi's. If the person is not among those covered by > mikol asher yorukha, then the qorban chatas is yours for > listening to her, not the Maharat's. L'halacha, I totally agree. L'maaseh, it is critical to determine who is a "rav" and who isn't. That is, who is "covered by mikol asher yorukha" and who isn't. It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these teachers, because, after all, *Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! > I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. > IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that > anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. I agree that YD 242 is about kavod harav. And if the rav is niftar, then that permission is no longer necessary, but that's not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about who is covered by mikol asher yorukha. So why wouldn't the semicha place a musmach into that category? In other words: Suppose a certain person *is* in that category, and then gives semicha "yoreh yoreh" to another individual. Doesn't the semicha announce to the world that the second individual is now covered by mikol asher yorukha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:15:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 05:15:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> If "black letter law" is the criteria, then issues like womens Megila readings and women dancing with a Sefer Torah disappear. All the opposition because these practices are not "Torat Sabba" doesn't even begin if all we do is ask "Muttar? Yes? Fine". Ben On 5/28/2017 9:34 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of > : Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha... > > Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black > letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that > halakhah must conform to and the law itself. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:20:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 05:15:03AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : If "black letter law" is the criteria, then issues like womens : Megila readings and women dancing with a Sefer Torah disappear. All : the opposition because these practices are not "Torat Sabba" doesn't : even begin if all we do is ask "Muttar? Yes? Fine". I am totally at lost as to your intent. Megillah reading or dancing with a sefer Torah are reducible to black-letter law. In contrast to, for example, deciding how to triage my tzedaqah donations. Wehther that reduction can be done within vanilla halachic process or by appeal to metahalakhah, or by appeal to the general "feel" of halakhah -- like the Rambam's "li nir'eh" -- is a different question. But either way, the question exists. So, what do you mean? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:06:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:06:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat/R. Micha Message-ID: R. Micha, thanks for the response. so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah. And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't necessarily apply to anything else. But the OU authors claim that some of YD 242 is based on classic semicha, and therefore all the restrictions of classic semicha should apply. But that makes no sense of you are claiming that YD 242 ONLY applies to the teacher/student relationship. So your own argument works against your claim. There is not a single hint that anything else about classic semicha applies to what we currently call semicha. (Incidentally I wonder when the first claim of more extensive connections were made, and why, if there is such a close connection, we dont mandate that semicha be done only in Israel, and all the other attributes of classic semicha, it seems that the ONLY aspect of classic semicha that is being brought forward is the prohibition on women). You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much against that possibility. It states: ??????? ???????????? ??????????? ????????? ??????, ?????? ??????????? ???? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ????? ??????????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ???????????, ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????????. ????? ??????????? ?????, ????????? ?????????????? ??????, ????????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????????.(???''? ?????? ??''? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ?' ?????? ????????). ?????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ???????????, ???? ???????????? ???????, ?????? ??????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????, ??? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????. (???''? ?????? ??' ?' ?????''? ??' ?''? ???''?). ?????? ????????? ???????????(?????????? ???''? ?????''?). ?????????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????????, ????? ??? ????????? ?????, ???? ????????? ???? ?????????? ???????, ???? ?''?. ?????? ?''? ?????????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???????????? ????????, ????? ??? ???? ??????????? ??????????? ????????????? ????????????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????, ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????????? ????????. specifically, semicha IN THIS TIME, so that people know that....he has permission. So if his teacher died, there is no need for semicha. The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general" It is very forced to claim that there is more here. You basically have to read things into it that are not there. I am not sure if you are claiming that women cant have semicha? or that they cannot be moreh hora'ah. because it seems very clear here that those who can be moreh hora'ah can get semicha b'zman hazeh..And there is a long list of poskim who agree that women can be moreh hora'ah. Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable. And also, that even though the Talmud specifically states that someone in a particular category cant be a judge or witness, when the understanding of that person's abilities changes, there is potential for them to be witnesses and/or judges- essentially in some cases, where the understanding of the Talmud was at variance with what we know now, the restrictions on some categories is not fixed. If I am reading correctly, R. Herschel Schachter in b'din ger dan et chavero (available at YUTorah August 2002), seems to state that hora'ah in issur v'heter is NOT a issue of serarah. and, according to some opinions, being a dayan for dinei mamanot is similarly not an issue of serarah. Perhaps more to the point, In 'Kuntrus HaSemicha"(published in eretz hatzvi and it seems to be the basis for a talk given at an RCA convention- the talk is available at YUTorah(1985) Smicha in the talmud and today), if I understand correctly, R. Soloveitchik made a distinction as to whether Smicha was a din in dayanus or in Hora'ah. It would seem that such a distinction would indicate that restrictions on dayyanus via semicha do not automatically apply to hora'ah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 00:14:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:14:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 5/28/2017 10:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >: And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to >: reality... > It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are > other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem. I'm not sure that the views of Avodah's LW are the point. To the extent that they argue in favor of those with "other, less defensible, ideologies", it's reasonable to argue against those "other, less defensible, ideologies". And I would be willing to supply examples of where members of Avodah's LW do appear to see it that way, but I suspect such examples would be bounced as "adding more fire than light to the discussion". On 5/28/2017 11:52 PM, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of > Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' > I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as > kedoshim tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in > the sense of being like aggadeta. I don't see that. They are halakhic in the sense that they are commandments. > Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos would be > incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give the > value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are > part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan > pesukim and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos. Most > often that's implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the > gemara of value based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the > expense of what looks otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular > dracheha darchei noam is cited. There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what can be done today. When members of the left claim that brachot should be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old. > I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic. > Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not > operate in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how > the value system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We > ignore meta-halachic pesukim at our peril. The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum". If you mean that the system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to respectfully disagree. The ethics must themselves come from within our own cultural framework, based on our own traditions. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:32:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:32:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:11:37PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least : equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, : because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has : not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself : included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these : teachers, because, after all, *Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! I do not think the typical yo'etzet is qualified under mikol asher yrukha regardless of how capable she is. The term only applies to be elegable to recieve full semichah -- if the chain hadn't been lost, or could be restored. THat's the thesis of what I'm pushing here; that even the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services. And, since this seems ot be turning into a full reprise, even though we should all know the other's position by now, my third problem is with egalitarianism in-and-of itself. It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah. By justifying finding worth in this way, we are indeed teaching girls their traditional role is inferior and they can't reach equality. Rather than trying to find equal meaningfullness without egalitarianism. Second, the fact that we can't reach full eqalirianism implies something about the anature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely consistent with our religion. It should mean that we should really think through our even wanting to make halakhah more egalitarian, and how to balance that with the clear message of laws like davar shebiqdushah, talmud Torah, esrog, sukkah, shofar... Again: 1- Who can pasqen 2- Who was shul designed to serve 3- Trying to accomodate agalitarianism is both strategically and in terms of values, a bad idea. Notice the absense of the word "serarah". Trying to minimize or eliminate the role of serarah in our conversation won't do much to sway me, as it has little to do with my arguments to begin with. Now, back to R/Dr Stadlan's email: :> I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. :> IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that :> anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. : I agree that YD 242 is about kavod harav. And if the rav is niftar, : then that permission is no longer necessary, but that's not what the : discussion is about. The discussion is about who is covered by mikol : asher yorukha. So why wouldn't the semicha place a musmach into that : category? It could or couldn't -- I believe couldn't. (Following R/Prof Lieberman and RHS.) But SA 242 can't be cited on the topic either way, since the se'if is not on topic for our discussion. R/Dr N Stadlan brought it as the defintion of the role of semichah, so I wanted to dismiss taking this siman that way.` "Mikol asher yorukha" is written in the context of dayanim. The only reason why we say it applies to today's musmachim, despite the lesser kind of semichah and the lack of sanhedrin is that "yoreh yoreh" is framed as a splinter of dayanus (which is where the phrase "yoreh yoreh" comes from) and that they are appointed to act as the surrogate of the last (so far) sanhedrin. None of which pro forma can be applied to women. Only someone who could be a dayan, if the situation were such that they could become qualified and real semichah were available can serve as their fill-in. On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:06:06PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah. : And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't : necessarily apply to anything else. But the OU authors claim that some of : YD 242 is based on classic semicha... They note that the Rama in 4-5 is drawing from the Mahariq, and then explain that the Mahariq tells you he is basing his conclusion on the idea that what's true for classic semichah should be true for our current Yoreh-Yoreh (YY). They also cite the AhS 242:30, who assumes that only those eligable for classic semichah can be ordained YY. Those are the ony two mentions of siman 242 in the paper, neither of which refer to the se'ifim you did. And what you are attributing to the OU is actually the Mahariq and the Ah -- a source and an interpreter (who is for us a source in his own right) of the SA -- not their own take. : You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly : where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much : against that possibility. It states: ... : The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the : ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general" YD 242:14 isn't trying to define semichah. It's in a siman about kevod harav, not a siman about semichah. You are nit-picking in the wording about se'ifim that are only tangentially related, and ignoring the Rama's stated source. I disagree with how you read the se'if, since his "only" would be about kevod harav, not "semichah is only". But really that's tangential. Your read of the Rama contradicts one of the sources he names. ... : Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be : witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable... I do? Where do I say that? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 22:01:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 01:01:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the entire aliya in which the dibros appear. For those who feel the dibros merit standing, they are indeed standing. For those who feel that the dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria of the dibros begins. Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since their end is always the end of the aliya. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:04:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 23:04:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/05/17 15:18, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Ben Waxman wrote: >> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their >> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. > > Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that > Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent > introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, > pages 48-52. Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation that has such "gedolim". > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the >> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. > > It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it > something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus > and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus > then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. On the contrary. If it were a matter of yibum then it would depend on whether there was an original marriage. But then why would it be connected to redeeming the field? It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations would not be settled. Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz agreed with them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 00:10:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:10:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/28/2017 10:18 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Ben Waxman wrote: >> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their >> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. > Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that > Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." Yes, but the dor in question was one where "each man did what was right in his own eyes". So their being gedolei hador doesn't mean they were any better than, say, Yiftach. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:23:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:23:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation : that has such "gedolim". According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah Neustadt , this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam. Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim". But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el... If this is the Rambam's intent, it would fit a number of gemaros which refer to various shofetim as amei ha'aretz. See the article. OTOH, Tosafos's treatment of the question of how Devorah could serve as shofetes presumes the role includes being a dayan in the halachic sense (and then explains why Devorah is neither role model nor eis-la'asos exception), rather than only the serarah question of her being a civil leader. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:17:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:17:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29/05/17 01:01, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his > minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not > to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two > different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the > entire aliya in which the dibros appear. For those who feel the dibros > merit standing, they are indeed standing. For those who feel that the > dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up > specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria > of the dibros begins. Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since > their end is always the end of the aliya. Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. (Personally I stand for the whole leining so it's not an issue for me, but this is what I've seen.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:33:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:33:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <10c1c9ed-6b4e-cb90-8297-cdeb5a507e94@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <13c3a1e0-26da-f70b-7b13-b80c95bf5d1d@zahav.net.il> <58F44DE5-8AE0-4CF7-BC79-7048F752624D@sibson.com> <10c1c9ed-6b4e-cb90-8297-cdeb5a507e94@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: > Ok let's accept your presumption-Who that has the authority to determine which changes are with in the halachic system and which aren't. Can I say libi omer li if I have smicha and that's good enough? If not , how do you draw the line? ------------------------ I can't say that I can draw a clear line. Certainly someone who passes a 2 year smicha program (a change, BTW) shouldn't be doing this type of thing. It seems that change doesn't require unanimous agreement and very possibly it can be done even if the greatest rabbis disagree. My example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher. Ben ----------------------- Yup, as said, the wheel is still in spin with regard to this and the other current thread Maharat/smicha. Now "everyone knows" it was obvious that Chassidus would be accepted and Conservative not (see Kahnemaan Tversky on how we all do this) Anyone who thinks these or those are simply matters of black letter law discussions (hat tip R'Micha) IMHO is fooling themselves. Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 06:09:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 09:09:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in > the same town as one's rebbe. If the shiur-giver is very careful to merely read and explain the QSA, then I'd agree with you. But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require require semicha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 06:12:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 13:12:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] (no subject) Message-ID: "Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. And in light of this, may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed." Do you also sit for the musaf amidah on Rosh Hashana and Ne'ilah on Yom Kippur? And since there are those who cannot and do not stand for those because of physical infirmities, would you suggest that everyone sit for those teffilot so as not to embarrass the ones who truly must sit? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 09:41:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros Message-ID: <33c01f.93b651f.465da93b@aol.com> From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. YL >>>>>> I want to thank RYL for the reminder we all need -- myself very much included -- not to be too quick to assume we know other people's motives. Sitting during the reading of Aseres Hadibros may indeed be an indication not of arrogance but of arthritis. Let us be kind to one another, even in our thoughts. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 07:26:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 29/05/17 08:23, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation > : that has such "gedolim". > > According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP > beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah > Neustadt, > this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam. > > Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim > of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim". > > But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers > of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past > that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el... I actually had that article in mind, but was not taking Rashi's side. Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel Bedoro". So even if Machlon & Kilyon were considered "gedolei hador" that wouldn't seem to be sufficient reason to assume that they acted properly, even in the sense that they had an opinion which is one of the shiv'im panim and followed it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 09:46:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:46:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum," or you call it something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. Akiva Miller >>>>>> There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events in Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 13:01:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 20:01:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <92dae2a6-a1ea-f563-f350-cddd9a9fbade@starways.net> References: , <92dae2a6-a1ea-f563-f350-cddd9a9fbade@starways.net> Message-ID: 'There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what can be done today. When members of the left claim that brachot should be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old.' No argument there at all. The point was really to buttress the truism that halacha and Torah are not synonymous. Halacha works within the larger structure of Torah and is guided by principle and values. Your point that this idea is mangled and misused throughout heterodoxy is well taken though. I was not suggesting that someone can pick a favourite value, decide that it doesn't shtim with a particular halacha and proceed to mangle the halacha into submission. Not for a moment. 'The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum". If you mean that the system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to respectfully disagree. The ethics must themselves come from within our own cultural framework, based on our own traditions'. Again, agree 100%. Don't think I suggested otherwise. I'm a neo-Hirschian after all. What I was taking issue with was your contention that it is 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' That's true for the heterodox tendency to sidestep halacha (or worse) due to what they consider to be ethical issues. But it doesn't take into account the centrality of of values in the whole system of Torah, including underlying TSBP. Just for example, Pirkei Avos is not halachic but it's vital and has implications for halacha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 12:38:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:38:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> References: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> Message-ID: <2ba3e007-8860-37d6-2941-c41f1aac13bf@sero.name> On 29/05/17 12:46, RTK wrote: > There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events > in Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no > mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was. 1. How could anyone hold there was a mitzvah of yibum, when the Torah explicitly limits it to brothers? 2. If he held as a matter of halacha that Boaz was wrong, then he should have insisted on redeeming the field without marrying Ruth. The fact that on being informed of this requirement he backed out of the whole deal shows that he acknowledged Boaz's point. Therefore that point was not about yibum but about mitzvas geulah. Boaz pointed out that Machlon had an obligation to Ruth, and so long as it remained outstanding the mitzvah to discharge his obligations would remain unfulfilled. Ploni agreed, and since he could not do that he waived his rights. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 12:51:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:51:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel : Bedoro". The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah". Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so? Yes, it's dachuq. But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include the generation's gedolim. I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology, but that doesn't mean I share it. However, given Chabad's linking HQBH medaber mirokh gerono shel Moshe to Moshe bedoro keShmuel bedoro to yield the notion that every generation has a Yechidah Kelalis, a single tzadiq who is uniquely that generation's person in that role, I would think the notion that Yiftach as that person but not one of the baton-passers of mesorah to be even harder to fathom than within my own hashkafah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 13:25:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:25:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <46edbb0e-6394-3e98-a574-f1c53410f0bf@sero.name> On 29/05/17 15:51, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the > : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the > : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel > : Bedoro". > > The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing > Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah". Yes, precisely. And yet he was the "gadol hador". > Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our > obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring > whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so? > > Yes, it's dachuq. > > But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but > not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm > not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include > the generation's gedolim. Your unstated but clear assumption is that "gedolei hador" means "gedolei *hatorah* shebador". I am challenging that assumption. I am saying that when Machlon & Kilyon are described as "gedolei hador" it does not mean that they were talmidei chachamim, any more than it means that when Yiftach is described as "kishmuel bedoro". It just means they were the generation's leaders, and thus if they did wrong everyone else would follow their lead. Meanwhile Pinchas was still the gadol hatorah. Remember, "Yiftach bedoro" is an explicit gemara, so the Rambam can't dispute it. So how can this machlokes between Rashi & the Rambam, that the article posits, exist? This is how. The Rambam accepts Yiftach bedoro, that Yiftach was indeed the "gadol hador", but that is irrelevant to his topic; he is listing who passed the Torah down from that generation to the next, and that was not Yiftach but Pinechas. > I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I > think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology, Wow. Just wow. No, it has nothing to do with Chabad *or* theology. It's an explicit pasuk and gemara. Yiftach was the one and only gadol hador, because the pasuk says so, and he had the same authority as Shmuel because the gemara says so. But one wouldn't ask him a shayla about "an egg in kutach". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:03:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing. Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R. Micha's interpretation: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/ Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to understand the Rama, but one of them is: " The first and simplest view, drawing the logical conclusion from the above depiction of semikhah and adopted by Rama in both the Darkhei Moshe and Shulh?an Arukh, concludes that anyone is eligible to receive semikhah when their teacher certifies they have acquired requisite knowledge and licenses them to issue halakhic rulings. The scope of this license may be limited to certain areas of law (depending on the studentVs actual knowledge and qualifications) and may be granted to one who is ineligible to receive Mosaic ordination that was present in Talmudic times. As such, basic contemporary semikhah is based on oneVs knowledge and competence to answer questions of law". the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have sources to rely upon. I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong with semicha for women. The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 05:08:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 08:08:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am going to revise and restate my original post, which got sidetracked onto issues of marriage to a non-Jewess, and of the role of a "redeemer", which I confess to knowing very little about. But it is very clear to anyone who has looked at it (again, pages 48-52 of ArtScroll's Ruth is an excellent summary) many of Chazal were uncomfortable with the possibility that Machlon and Kilyon would marry women who had not been converted at all. At the same same, they are also very uncomfortable with Naami telling women who *had* converted that they should leave. Some have tried to resolve this by suggesting some sort of "tentative" conversion, but I cannot imagine that we'd allow such a conversion to be cancelled after ten long years. Instead, my solution is that there was a genuine halachic machlokes involved, such that Machlon and Kilyon held the conversion to be valid (at least on some minimal b'dieved level), while Ruth held it to be totally invalid. This simple approach answers all the problems listed above. (It also allows you to think whatever you like about the level of Machlon's and kilyon's gadlus.) I will leave it as an open question whether Ruth reconverted to satisfy Naami's shita, or whether Naami resigned herself to accepting the first geirus. I also retract all my comments about Boaz, as they will turn on topics that I am woefully ignorant about. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:32:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 17:32:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging > Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an > obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he > owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations > would not be settled. > Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages > were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz > agreed with them. I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a related question which is probably simpler: What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then there was no kiddushin. I'll repeat that: Even if it is mutar to marry a woman AZ-nik (not from the Seven Nations) that marriage is one of convenience, maybe even love, but not of kiddushin, and I'm not aware of any halachic obligations that the husband has toward such a wife. I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have towards the husband himself, and we see in pasuk 4:4, that Ploni Almoni was willing to buy the field from Naami in order to meet those obligations to Elimelech. But in 4:5, Boaz pointed out that buying it from Naami would be insufficient. He'd have to buy it from both Naami and Ruth, at which point Ploni declined and Boaz himself accepted the responsibility. My question is: *What* responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid? (I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so, then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech left. Why did they wait ten years?) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:51:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 23:51:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > RMB: the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. > All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and possibly the latter. > > RMB: Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of > shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use > to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi > in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services. > On the one hand, I completely agree with you. One of the things I love about Orthodox Judaism is the all-women spaces - women's shiurim and batei midrash and tehillim groups and ladies' auxiliaries and all-girls schools. I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have comfortable space for women as well. I understand that the "men's club" gets to run the tefillot and be the gabbaim and the ba'alei tefillah and ba'alei korei and rabbi - and that losing that space would not be good for men. But I hope that having an ezrat nashim open for all tefillot (during the week, Shabbat mincha) would not ruin the mens' club atmosphere. Does having a woman give the drasha go too far in this regard? I think it depends on the community. > > > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah.... > Second, > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about > the > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely > consistent with our religion.... > Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. I think you have presented some compelling reasons for declining to endorse or promote the institution of maharats. I see no reason for maharats to be universally accepted. However, I believe that the maharats personally, and the communities they serve, remain clearly within the Orthodox community. We can disagree strongly with another Orthodox sector's practices (Hallel on Yom Ha'Atzma'ut comes to mind) without declaring them out-of-bounds. Finally, a perspective from Israel. Women rabbis/maharats are a particularly contentious issue in the US, because (a) it is similar to changes made by the Conservative and Reform movements, (b) a very common career path for American male rabbis is the shul rabbinate, which is particularly problematic for women, and (c) it seems to have perhaps been instituted in a manner designed to provoke controversy. In Israel, Conservative and Reform are a small minority with little influence. Most male rabbis work in education, writing/translating/publishing, or computer programming - all perfectly acceptable careers for learned women. Full-time shul rabbis are almost unheard of. And I can think of three or four respected, mainstream, dati leumi institutions that are essentially giving women the equivalent of smicha, without a lot of fanfare. Some people think this is great, some people think this is awful, and many people have not really noticed - but there isn't a big brouhaha and questioning of Orthodox credentials. Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it seems to be shaping up as the latter. Chag sameach, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 03:10:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 06:10:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170530101006.GA10791@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have : sources to rely upon... Again, the Rama cites the Mahariq... So, so rule leniently is to read the Rama and ignore his source. : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the : specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. Well, in the case of Maharat in particular, the big bold print in the middle of the certificate reads "heter hora'ah larabbim". http://www.jta.org/2013/06/17/default/what-does-an-orthodox-ordination-certificate-look-like Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 49th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 7 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 goal of perfect unity? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 04:51:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 06:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R Micha. You did not answer my question. When you and/orthe OU panel use the word semicha when you forbid it to women, what exactly does it mean? Heter hora'ah? Something more? Something different? Clarity please. Thank you Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 07:27:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shavuos (Lifeline) Message-ID: <448A28D9-D7AC-47C4-807C-08E3C10A0318@cox.net> The Rabbis tell us the Book of Ruth teaches neither of things that are permitted or forbidden. Why then is it part of Holy Scriptures? Because its subject matter is gemilus chassodim. Along the same line, three times a day we recite ?God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob.? However, we conclude the blessing ?mogen Avraham? ? only with Abraham. Why? In explanation, a Chassidic Rabbi explains that each of the patriarchs symbolizes one of the three essentials as articulated in Pirkei Avos 1:2). Jacob represents Torah; Isaac, Avodah; and Abraham, gemilus chassodim. Though all three principles are vital, kindness is sufficient to stabilize the world (how we need it now more than ever!). An interest in the performance of good deeds was the quality that marked Abraham ? a quality which can be a shield and support to us even when other qualities in our nature are weak ? hence, MOGEN AVRAHAM. Ruth was no ordinary convert. Her name gives us a clue to her essence. In Hebrew, Ruth's name is comprised of the letters reish, vav, tav, which add up to a numerical value of 606. As all human beings have an obligation to observe the seven Noachide commandments ? so called because they were given after the flood ? as did Ruth upon her birth as a Moabite. Add those seven commandments to the value of her name and you get 613, the number of commandments in the Torah. The essence of Ruth, her driving life force was the discovery and acceptance of the 606 commandments she was missing. Another lovely aspect is the meaning of the name "Ruth." In Hebrew the name is probably a contraction of re'ut, ' friendship,' which admirably summarizes her nature. The meaning in English is also very apropos: ? Compassion or pity for another ? Sorrow or misery about one's own misdeeds or flaws. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 15:46:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 01:46:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Naso In-Reply-To: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> References: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos > 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which > mitzvos are listed specifically? > > Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice > of Shavu'os reading. > > To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms > of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of > observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani. > Barukh shekkivanti. I made exactly this comparison in a Tikkun Leil Shavuot this time last year, and a parallel observation in a shi`ur last Shabbat: when the Zohar needs an example of how Basar veDam can make a hit`aruta dil'tata which will cause a hit`aruta dele`ela and kickstart the process of atzilut shefa from the upper to lower worlds, it typically says something like "hoshiv ani al shulhanecha". Because for Hazal, the Torah is above all Torat Hesed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 06:06:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:06:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. ---------------------------------------------------- Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the debate on black letter law? KT Joel Rich (full disclosure-kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-not everything that is permitted to you should be done) THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 07:22:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:22:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Probably the best and most succinct historical analogy I've seen for this question. Ben On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > > Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women > rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the > vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it > seems to be shaping up as the latter. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 13:59:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:59:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation. Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. How can this be? Dare we imagine that he did such things unauthorizedly? Certainly he must have had/received some sort of Heter Hora'ah. If so, then when and how did he get it - and without getting semicha at the same time? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 10:22:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] matched soldier and praying for them In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014801d2d969$41c5c800$c5515800$@com> A while ago on Avodah, a well known (chareidi) Baal machshava was quoted as disagreeing strongly with the concept of matching frum people with a nonfrum soldier in order to pray for them. "we have no brotherhood with secular Israelis" Recently, I posted to Avodah a link to a collection of 1400 short tshuvot from HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlitah (of Toronto) On the above topic, he writes there.. #600 Pray As They Go Q. There are two organizations here in Eretz Yisroel, one called; Elef LaMateh, and the other; The Shmirah Project. Basically, their intent is to match Israeli soldiers with Avreichim and bochurim learning. Each Avreich and Bochur who volunteers, receives the name of a specific soldier (his name and his mother's name) that he takes responsibility to daven for and learn specially for so that in the merit of the tefillos and learning, that soldier will merit to return home alive and well. (Is this a good idea) A. HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is a great mitzvah to pray, learn Torah and accomplish mitzvos for the benefit of all our brethren B'nay Yisroel in times of peril and need, especially for those who put their life in harm's way to save and protect others. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 00:39:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:39:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should be identical for each community and each generation? - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 20:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: . I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start farming? I suppose it was pretty desolate after a ten-year famine, but did she even try? She must have at least gone there to see the place, if for no other reason than to be sure that no squatters took over while she was gone. Without making sure of such things, how could she even hope that anyone (even a goel) would buy it? Maybe she expected to get a better profit from Boaz than she'd get from farming it herself, but maybe there are other answers? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 20:05:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:05:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the distinction? When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on this. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 02:14:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (ADE via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:14:59 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are still being machshiv some pesukim over others. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk > *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:32:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:32:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <510d4fd4-6c91-fb85-0c23-f6cdfa7ffcbf@sero.name> On 02/06/17 05:14, ADE wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one >> pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this >> reason. > Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are > still being machshiv some pesukim over others. There is no requirement to treat all pesukim exactly the same. One is entitled to stand or sit during KhT as one wishes, and has no obligation to choose one policy and stick to it. The problem is only with standing up for special pesukim, such as Shma or the 10D. Since there's nothing special about the pasuk before the 10D, there's no problem with deciding to stand for it. And when the special pesukim come along one is already standing, so one has no obligation to sit down. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 18:46:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:46:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> In our personal religious commitments there are those among us scrupulous in performance of the ceremonial mitzvot but at the same time displaying reckless disregard of our elementary duties towards our fellowman. Halacha embraces human life in its totality. One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social trait from our behavior! A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 08:31:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:31:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought In-Reply-To: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> References: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170602153131.GA15356@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made : a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study : of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social : trait from our behavior! Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, among the aphorisms of his listed in R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 21:28:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:28:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4dd6e4f1-2d00-a274-ace0-e5d2a803039a@sero.name> On 01/06/17 23:05, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I only see four instances of "Ruth Hamoaviah", three in ch 2, and only one in ch 4, in Boaz's description of the situation to Tov. Since his purpose was to scare him off, it made sense to mention her origin, so Tov would be reluctant to risk his future. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:20:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:20:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/2/2017 6:05 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I can't cite a source for it, but I remember once reading that Ruth HaMoaviah was intended to praise her, since she gave up her position in Moav to join us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:31:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:31:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Actually if the land had lied fallow for 10 years, it should be in good shape. Granted it needs weeding but the soil should be good. It only requires a relatively small amount of rain for grass to grow and re-invigorate the soil. Maybe she was too old to work the land and figured that a sale would provide her with enough money to live out the rest of her days in dignity? Ben On 6/2/2017 5:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 00:04:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 09:04:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? They came back on Pesach, at the beginning of the barley harvest. Nothing was growing on their land, presumably. Planting is after Sukkot, at the beginning of the rainy season. If they planted, it would be a full year until they could harvest the first barley. As we see from Megillat Rut, the barley then had to dry and wasn't threshed or winnowed until after the wheat harvest (early summer?). When they come back, they have nothing. They need to eat. And two women alone will not be able to do all the work of planting and cultivating in the fall. They would need money to hire workers and probably buy or rent an animal to help with plowing. And to buy seed. They didn't have the capital to go back into farming, or the means to support themselves until the first crop. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 21:17:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:17:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <272b8698-d5c1-55a1-560b-2bc6d0c39b74@sero.name> On 01/06/17 23:01, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? It seems to me that finding a buyer for the property was not at all important to her, and in fact she had shown no interest in doing so until she saw how she could use it to get Boaz to marry Ruth. It was Boaz who spun the story out for Tov in order to scare him off; first he drew him in with the prospect of an easy transaction for Naomi's portion of the field, but then he threw in the Ruth monkey wrench. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:18:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:18:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/2/2017 6:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the > halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I > think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: > > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? In the set of priorities that we had back then, the principle of yerusha was more important than simple economics. As I understand it. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:21:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:21:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22efff8f-5ee7-d47e-8701-b1541a7a8e41@zahav.net.il> And of course the irony is even greater in that many yeshiva rabbis will tell their guys to go to a community rav because they, the yeshiva rabbis, don't deal with shailas. Ben On 5/29/2017 4:11 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least > equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, > because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has > not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself > included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these > teachers, because, after all,*Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:16:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:16:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> On 6/1/2017 10:39 AM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly > egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the > experiences of women and couples and families and communities to > affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian > direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. > > RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument > is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically > permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically > forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without > asking whether HKB?H prefers it? > > Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should > be identical for each community and each generation? > I'm not sure that's the question. The problem is, as I see it, that when one adopts an external -ism as an ideal, and try and "move in a somewhat more -ism-friendly direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted", they're essentially saying that their motivating principle is that -ism. That halakha isn't the motivating principle, but merely bookends. Limits to how far they can push the -ism that's important. It's the difference between a static principle and a dynamic one. What you're describing has egalitarianism as the dynamic force, and halakha as a static one. A fossil. And there's no way to maintain that worldview for long without starting to chafe against the static limits. At which point, people put their shoulders into it and *push* those limits a little bit further. And then a little further than that. And they feel frustrated by those limits. That's probably the biggest problem. It turns halakha into shackles and frustration. And you only have to read articles written by certain YCT teachers and grads to see the hostility that comes out of that. Yes, there are people who can manage to walk the tightrope and not fall into that kind of frustration, but they are few in number, and not representative of the "movement", as such. And many of them, in my observed experience, eventually fall off. Permit me to illustrate this mindset with something that just happened *as* I was writing this. My 17 year old daughter was reading a comic book from the early 1990s. In the comic, the hero (Superboy) is 16, but all of the women he dates are in their 20s. Today, we call that statuatory rape, and have little to no tolerance for it. But if you recall the early 90s, that idea was rather new, and while the writers of the comic gave lip service to the idea, even having characters laughingly calling Superboy "jailbait", it wasn't nearly as taboo as it is today, at least when the younger person was male. But my daughter is livid about it. Appalled. And she isn't able to imagine a world in which that was the way people thought. Similarly, people immersed in the egalitarian ethos so prevelent in the Western world today cannot *imagine* a world where that isn't the universally accepted ideal, except for barbaric and backwards societies. It's a given that egalitarianism is the more advanced worldview. The more civilized worldview. That to the extent that a worldview is less egalitarian, it is less civilized. More backwards. So now consider what it means to say, "I want to be as egalitarian as possible, within the bounds of halakha". It means "I want to be as civilized as possible, within the bounds of the less civilized and more backwards system of halakha." How can that help but breed disrespect, discomfort, and eventually contempt for halakha? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:50:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:50:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> Message-ID: > > LL: The problem is, as I see it, that when one adopts an external -ism as > an ideal, and try and "move in a somewhat more -ism-friendly direction > WITHIN what is halachically permitted", they're essentially saying that > their motivating principle is that -ism. That halakha isn't the motivating > principle, but merely bookends. Limits to how far they can push the -ism > that's important...... > > Similarly, people immersed in the egalitarian ethos so prevelent in the > Western world today cannot *imagine* a world where that isn't the > universally accepted ideal, except for barbaric and backwards societies. > It's a given that egalitarianism is the more advanced worldview. The more > civilized worldview. That to the extent that a worldview is less > egalitarian, it is less civilized. More backwards. > > So now consider what it means to say, "I want to be as egalitarian as > possible, within the bounds of halakha". It means "I want to be as > civilized as possible, within the bounds of the less civilized and more > backwards system of halakha." How can that help but breed disrespect, > discomfort, and eventually contempt for halakha? Yes, if one defines one's ideology and worldview primarily as feminist, one is going to struggle with halacha. Some people struggle and still maintain Orthodox practice. Some become "halachic egalitarian." But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah live in an increasingly egalitarian society. Even women who would never dream of making a women's zimmun (range of psak on this goes from obligatory to optional to assur) have their own credit cards and vote in elections and choose whom they want to marry. Halachic psak does not exist in a vacuum; it applies to a particular metziut in a particular time and place. I can certainly see room to argue that the institution of maharat is an example of an attempt to "push" halacha to evolve artificially to conform to feminism. But to some extent, increased involvement of women teaching and learning all areas of Torah, at all levels, is a natural halachic development in response to changing reality. Each posek will draw his own line as to what is a positive development (maharats? yoatzot? Rebbetzin Heller?), and what needs to be reined in. Halacha is dynamic. (This is true even if the Conservative movement also says it!) Obviously, there are boundaries, but there is also plenty of room for different opinions, and for development over generations. I am not advocating always choosing the most feminist interpretation possible within the bounds of what is mutar. I am pointing out that increasingly egalitarian psak within halacha reflects the reality in which we live. Shabbat Shalom, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 10:00:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Martin Brody via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:00:09 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat etc. Message-ID: "R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation" Did the Chazon Ish have semicha?.I think not -- Martin Brody -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 11:35:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:35:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <960df966-7387-baf7-202b-5a6624127fed@sero.name> On 30/05/17 16:59, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura > did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the > ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite > involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send them to the rav. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 11:46:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:46:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37d489e2-09cc-d836-f973-74d1b831ec0a@sero.name> On 29/05/17 17:32, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging >> Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an >> obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he >> owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations >> would not be settled. >> Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages >> were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz >> agreed with them. > I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to > respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too > complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a > related question which is probably simpler: > > What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then > there was no kiddushin. I don't see how this matters. Machlon was shacked up with this woman for ten years, and left her high and dry. She was now in Beit Lechem living in poverty, and everyone who saw her would say "there's Machlon's widow, poor thing". Thus seeing her settled was an unsettled obligation that Machlon had left behind, so taking care of it was part of the goel's duty, just like paying off his credit cards and returning his library books, so that nobody should be left with a claim against his memory. > I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's > relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have > towards the husband himself [...] My question is: *What* > responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might > be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid? Yes, the goel's duty is to his relative, not to the relative's creditors. But that duty *is* to discharge the relative's obligations, which he is himself unable to discharge, whether because of poverty (as in the Torah's example) or death (as here). Neither Tov nor Boaz owed anything to Ruth, but Machlon did. > (I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the > family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we > want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be > paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so, > then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech > left. Why did they wait ten years?) Redeem it from whom? At that point it still belonged to Elimelech. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 12:55:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 15:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170602195535.GA7359@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 09:09:10AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this : other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that : question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require : require semicha? Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also not an open question that requires decision-making rather than just reporting the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:51:26PM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: : > the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore : > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. : All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to : offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not : sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and : possibly the latter. I am missing something. My assertion was that "the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur" for the same reason that she could never give hora'ah as a dayan either. I wasn't denying the reality that there are women who know enough for their knowledge not to be a barrier to their pasqening. ... : I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the : other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have : comfortable space for women as well... I think there should be comfortable space for women too, and that it makes sense for it to be in the same building. Our topic was women rabbis. My first point was my belief that the Mahariq holds like Tosafos, the Rama like the Mahariq, and therefore we cannot ordain a poseqes. In this, my 2nd point, I was arguing that since shul and minyan as Anshei Kenses haGadolah invented them are men's spaces, we shouldn't want women speaking from the pulpit or otherwise making it a co-ed experience, a second element of the rabbi's job. : > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for : > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be : > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah.... : > Second, : > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about : > the : > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely : > consistent with our religion.... : : Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that : is highly egalitarian... And this was my third point. That the notion doesn't fit the gestalt built of numerous halakhos. I don't think our living in a world where opportunity is increasingly egalitarian changes that. The disjoin poses a challenge, not a license. : And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the : experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect : religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction : WITHIN what is halachically permitted. I tried to explain why that can't happen. You're not moving into a setting of greater equality; you are aiming women toward hitting a glass cieling. The implied message of "as much egalitarianism as allowed" is that it's the role traditionally given to men that is meaningful, and women can't fully take on that role. To my mind the long-term outcome, once there is little room for further innovation left, will be worse that trying to find different but equally valuable roles. Aside from the "minor" problem that that message about male roles is simply sheqer. On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 01:06:28PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that : as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted : (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by : r'mb's black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether : HKB"H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all : or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the : debate on black letter law? I don't think that's fair. We all learn in the early grades that derekh eretz qodmah laTorah, but we'll talk about frum theives, but not frum shellfish eaters. Our culture's focus on those mitzvos and dinim that can be reduced to black-letter is a problem we need to work on, and not a given to be leveraged further. On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:50:32AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: : But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah : live in an increasingly egalitarian society... Egalitarianism as metzi'us, the fact that gender roles are progressively becoming more similar, is different than eqalitarinism as a value -- the notion that they should. At the very least, halakhah is telling us there are a number of greater values that override egalitarianism. I argued that some of them actually impact who enters the rabbinate. But really the burden of proof lies in the other direction: It is change that needs justification. One has to prove that whatever those conflicting values are -- and I guess this would require identifying them -- they are not issues that impact the desirability of ordaining women. So, to get less abstract, here's an example. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting : R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing. : Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid : muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R. : Micha's interpretation: : http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/ But lemaaseh he wrote a letter against ordaning women that held up JTS changing policy until after R/PSL's passing. has a complete translation by Rabbi Wayne Allen. The issue isn't how RGS read the letter, but the letter itself. And I understood your father-in-law differently than your (and your wife's, judging from her choice of subject line) take. He writes: Professor Lieberman might have been opposed to any clerical role for women. Nevertheless, he only cited the classical sources that indicate that only men may be dayyanim or even serve on a bet din as laymen (hedyotim). Since Yeshivat Maharat is careful to remain within the bounds of Halakhah by not ordaining women to roles that are proscribed by Halakhah, Professor Liebermans responsum does not apply to the yeshivah or to any of its graduates. So he agrees with RGS that R/PSL was opposed to orgaining women as rabbi. After all, most of the letter is about what we mean today by "Yoreh Yoreh", and how it's NOT dayanus. It was about admitting women to JTS's semichah program, to "being called by the title 'rav'", not "dayan". It would seem that minus the political pressures within JTS, R/PSL's letter would at most permit "Rabbah uManhigah". Your FIL writes that R/PSL only cites sources about dayanus, not that his point was only about dayanus. And as we saw, there is a connection made between who can become a dayan and who can give hora'ah. His only mention of the political dynamics at JTS at the time is to explain his own position -- why he was against ordaining women when he was among those starting UTJ, but is in favor of Yeshivat Maharat. His letter to your wife does not speak of this issue in terms of his rebbe's position. For that matter, his description of R/PSL's lack of proving his point WRT non-dayan rabbanim reads as explaining why his own position was justified despite R/PSL's letter, rather than justified by that letter. He doesn't say RGS is wrong, he says it's "beside the point". : Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and : Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to : understand the Rama, but one of them is: But the burden or proof is on the innovator. You can't simply say your read is possible -- and given the aforementioned citation of the Mahariq, I don't see how this se'if can be, you would have a self-contradictory siman. But in any case, you have to prove your read is the Rama's intent; saying "it's possible" is not enough to justify a mimetic rupture. ... : the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have : sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have : sources to rely upon. I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and : Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong : with semicha for women. "Rather than nitpicking"? How do we learn a sugyah without nitpicking? In any case, you jumped from "could be read as someone to rely upon" to "someone to rely upon". : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the : specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. Sorry I made you wait long enough that you felt a need to re-ask this question. Semichah today may well be a heter hora'ah, but that doesn't mean that it's the only barrier to hora'ah. And if one's rebbe passed away, there is no need for heter hora'ah -- and yet still other barriers could exist. Tosafos, and the Mahariq cited by the Rama link the authority for hora'ah with being eligable to gain the qualifications and become a dayan. That's a barrier to hora'ah even if someone's rebbe wrote them a "qlaf" or passed away. We would have to find another shitah about hora'ah, show it's not dekhuyah -- and given we're talking about an opionion that disputes 3 pillars of Ashkenazi pesaq (if I include the Rama's se'if 4), for someone of Ashekazi background, that's a tough row to hoe. And then there are my other two problems.... Both of which would also reflect on Rabbah uManhigah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 3 20:23:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 23:23:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . Is semicha required for hora'ah? To illustrate the possibility that it is *not* required, I wrote: > Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura > did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the > ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite > involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. R' Zev Sero responded: > Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, > and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send > them to the rav. And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression of his personal opinion. Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"? I had written that a non-semicha person could give a shiur in Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, provided that he is careful to merely read and explain the text, but ... ... > But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this > other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that > question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require > require semicha? R' Micha Berger responded: > Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also > not an open question that requires decision-making rather than > just reporting the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community. "Black-letter halacha" is often not as black as we might think. Who gets to decide which shita is the dominant one? If the community has a recognized rav who issued a ruling on this exact question, then I can quote that. But in the great majority of cases, there are two or more shitos, and I have no idea which is "dominant". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 3 22:51:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 07:51:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c3c1e25-04b7-878e-d93b-d6b5edc10a0f@zahav.net.il> My intent, or my desire, is to reduce the number of issues on which we decide to break Torah community into even more pieces. If these issues are meta halachic, or have a bad feeling, then let's take the argument between the RWMO and LWMO down a notch or two. Let's lower the tones. For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi community consider to be kefira. If so, than kal v'chomer many of the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in getting hung up on multiple non-issues. Ben On 5/29/2017 4:20 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I am totally at lost as to your intent. Megillah reading or dancing with > a sefer Torah are reducible to black-letter law. In contrast to, for > example, deciding how to triage my tzedaqah donations. > > Wehther that reduction can be done within vanilla halachic process or > by appeal to metahalakhah, or by appeal to the general "feel" of halakhah > -- like the Rambam's "li nir'eh" -- is a different question. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 04:36:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 07:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a0d51cd-f693-b8a0-f2bd-a23a15a3e44a@sero.name> On 03/06/17 23:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > >> Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, >> and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send >> them to the rav. > And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to > find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim > wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us > which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other > expression of his personal opinion. > > Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"? AIUI no, it is not. Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a specific shayla for a specific person. Writing books does not involve any shikul hada`as, it merely involves setting down the halacha as one understands it, including, if applicable, the range of options available to a moreh hora'ah when applying his shikul hada`as. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 09:40:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 12:40:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170604164052.GA8050@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 11:23:05PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to : find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim : wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us : which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other : expression of his personal opinion. Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone know what has been said in the years since the standardization of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh. I argued that the difference between the AhS and the MB was not that one was a mimeticist and the other a textualist, but that the AhS was out to justify accepted pesaq, and the other is a collection of texts, a tool for the poseiq -- not pesaq. The personal opinion is just that, advice, not hora'ah. Or, other assumed you need to dismiss the MB's self-description as reflecting the CC's anavah, and not to be taken at face value. But then one has to explain the numerous stories of the CC personally not following the MB's conclusion -- the size of his becher, his tzitzis were tucked in, he supported the building a a community eiruv, etc... (Something is broken on my blog right now. It may take a 3-4 refreshes before getting anything but the AishDas "page not found" page.) In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable. And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving R Ploni answering questions. (The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the model.) This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads -- or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her rebbe's license? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 08:48:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:48:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you understand the OU panel as defining it. Otherwise you are just using a nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning. The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here: http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah ). There was a period when leaders did not have semicha, The Tzitz Eliezer points out that Sephardim for a long time did not have semichah, yet communities had religious leaders. So one does not need semikhah to be a communal religious leader(in keeping with the Rama in 242:14). Furthermore, R. Lichtenstein points out(Leaves of Faith vol 2 293) "originally a samukh would pronounce a decision that was binding by don't of his authoritative fiat. ...Now, he essentially serves as a reference guide, providing reliable information about what the tradition and its sources, properly understood and interpreted, state; but it is they, rather than he, that bind authoritatively." (quoted in the name of the Rav, in the name of his father, Rav Moshe.) Furthermore, as R. Lichtenstein points out, the Rambam viewed that Smikhah applied to hora'at issur v'heter as well as din. However, as R. Schachter himself points out, (see Kuntrus Ha semicha in Eretz Hatzvi chap 32) the other Rishonim hold that Semichah is a Halacha in beit din, NOT Hora'ah. AND, there are lots of authorities who clearly state that women can give Hora'ah. So you really need to define exactly what you mean by Semicha and how you are using it So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that apply to beit din. That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist. The semikhah for that type included wearing a specific garment, only being given in Israel, and according to most(but not all), prohibited to women. According to most Rishonim, that category did not apply to Hora'ah, just beit din. And, R. Lichtenstein illustrates that there is a clear and gaping difference in authority. There have been many years and many communities where leaders did not have any formal semikhah. But obviously there was some sort of Hora'ah going on. So it is clear that Hora'ah doesn't require semikhah, unless you want to argue that they were doing it all illegitimately. granting a degree of ordination was re-established(perhaps in response to universities, perhaps other reasons, see "The Emergence of the Professional rabbi in Ashkenzic Jewry by Bernard Rosensweig in Tradition, especially references in note 6) and the word Semikhah was used(although not always and not always exclusively). But you are arguing that somehow someway the restrictions from ancient Semikhah still apply- well, actually you are only arguing that the restrictions on women still apply, you have conveniently neglected to argue for the restriction of semikhah to Eretz Yisrael, for the wearing of special clothing, and all the other restrictions that were in place on ancient Semikhah. I have not had a chance to see the Maharik inside. But just because he applies halachot of relationships between teacher and student doesn't seem to be a reason to generalize that everything that applied to ancient Semikhah applies to today's neo-semikhah. That logically makes no sense. Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus tradition trope. It is a false dichotomy. First of all, as R. Shalom Carmy wrote, the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism. More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of our Masoretic values has changed over time. We don't value slavery or polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more. And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah. Furthermore, our Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a women. L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 07:40:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:40:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is becoming increasingly clear to me that I need a very basic lesson in the concepts of "redemption" and a "redeemer's" responsibilities. In my experience, we find two different sorts of redemption in Judaism. (I was going to write "in Halacha", but it seems that Boaz's actions were more sociological and ethnic than halachically mandatory.) One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and "redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many others. The other sort of kedusha has nothing to do with kedusha, but rather ownership of land. If I'm not mistaken, we find this in Shmitta, Yovel, and ordinary land sales in a walled city (and maybe elsewhere too?). In these cases, land has been sold outright, but under certain circumstances, the original owner has a right to buy it back from the new owner. AFTER WRITING THE ABOVE, I remembered another sort of redemption, that of the Goel Hadam. That seems irrelevant, because even though Naomi is now destitute, and her husband and sons are dead, no murder was committed. I also found yet another kind of Goel, described in Vayikra 25:47-54: If a person became poor and sold himself, then close relatives are obligated to redeem him and purchase his freedom. Although Naomi and Ruth did not reach that level (slavery), I can easily imagine that a social sort of redemption would require Tov or Boaz to help them out. I would call this "tzedaka" (not geula) but I suppose this might be the origin of the rule that one's primary obligation in tzedaka is to relatives. Many thanks to all who wrote to me (both on- and off-list), who put so much effort into helping me learn this subject. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 03:01:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:01:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= Message-ID: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a commentary how do you read it? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 02:59:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 09:59:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] support? Message-ID: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah restrictions are generally not observed (e.g., hello includes a social hug between the sexes), although Reuvain is meticulous in his observance of them. He is in his office in a conference with two colleagues when Miriam, the wife of a third tier social friend, also well past childbearing age, comes to the office door and says with a tear in her eye, "Reuvain, I hate to do this to you." Reuvain quickly asks his colleagues to excuse them, and Miriam blurts out, "David (her husband) just passed away," and she begins to slump, crying. Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to comfort her and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not make any request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but she did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion of the community which did not presume a social negiah restriction. Was Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, what should he have done? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:23:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 15:23:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:01:10AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a : commentary how do you read it? I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq venimtza qal" were written out. That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:43:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 22:43:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?va=E2=80=99v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <30b106b1-2a2d-f8dd-e692-4af1979063c9@starways.net> v'doke On 6/4/2017 1:01 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a > commentary how do you read it? > Kt > Joel rich > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:33:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 15:33:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] support? In-Reply-To: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170604193342.GA24739@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 09:59:23AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a : Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah : restrictions are generally not observed... A real maaseh shahayah, which would liely garner the same thoughts. One day, around 10am, the woman sitting in the cubicle next to mine gets a call on her cell, and after a few moments had her screaming and crying. It was the Salvation Army, where her son volunteered and lived. He didn't wake up that morning. Another co worker of ours, a yehivish guy who grew up in Israel but lives in Lakewood, got us a conference room, dialed some phone calls for her -- the coronor's office and the like. He was clearly cfrom communities in which persumed social negi'ah restrictions are fully observed. But when our co worker broke down in a fresh round of crying, he put his arm around her. I think to do anything else is to be a tzadiq shoteh. But I never asked a she'eilah; that was just my gut reaction at the time. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:01:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 23:01:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Noam, It's not a "trope". While there can be situations in which egalitarianism vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them. Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not. It seems a poor argument, as well. I don't believe there is anyone who, without the impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical concepts of justice demand that we ordain women." Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Distinctions are one of the hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and non-Jews or men and women. We have never viewed having different roles as indicating superiority and inferiority. That judgment is foreign to our tradition. Foreign to halakha. Foreign to the Torah. Please note that I'm not talking about whether, given the assumption that having different roles conveys inferiority, one could argue in favor of equalizing roles in the name of justice. I am talking about that assumption itself. It is an assumption that comes from egalitarianism, and cannot be found in Jewish tradition, which is not subject to Brown v Board of Education. Different does *not* necessarily mean unequal in Judaism. Polygamy was never a "value". To Mormons, perhaps. Not to us. It was simply something permitted. Slavery is out of the question purely on dina d'malchuta dina grounds. Were that not the case, we might still engage in it. We certainly haven't changed the halakha pertaining to either kind of avdut (K'naani or Ivri). You say that modern values have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in our Mesorah. Can I ask where the need for such a re-evaluation comes from? It was my understanding that we value all of our Mesorah, and do not sift through it, deciding what parts of it we value and what parts we do not. Also, please note that I have specifically referred to egalitarianism, and *not* to feminism. I don't believe that feminism requires egalitarianism, and the moves by the left to try and force Orthodox Judaism into an egalitarian framework have nothing to do with the basic idea that women are fully competent adult human beings, which is what feminism was originally about. On 6/4/2017 6:48 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus > tradition trope. It is a false dichotomy. First of all, as R. Shalom > Carmy wrote, the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to > Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism. > More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of > our Masoretic values has changed over time. We don't value slavery or > polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more. > And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for > us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah. Furthermore, our > Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna > in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a > women. L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:53:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:53:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . I wrote that the Mishneh Berurah, despite a lack of semicha, > frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the > ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression > of his personal opinion. R' Micha Berger responded: > Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed > this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone > know what has been said in the years since the standardization > of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh. Yes, he does self-describe as a summary and teaching/learning tool. But he does *not* specifically disclaim being a posek for halacha l'maaseh. The Igros Moshe and many other recent seforim do that, but I do not see it in the Mishneh Berurah. As an example, let's open to the very first page. He writes in MB 1:2 (near the end) about Netilas Yadayim upon waking in the morning: "Some say that for this, the entire house is considered like four amos. But (4) do not rely on this except in a shaas hadchak." Let's analyze that: He cites an unnamed lenient opinion, and clearly tells us not to rely on it. Note 4 leads us to his own Shaar Hatziun, where he gives his source, the Shaarei Teshuva. The Shaarei Teshuva, fortunately, is printed on this same page, and I direct your attention to the last four lines of #2, where the lenient opinion is named as being the Rashba. It is not clear to me whether the psak to *not* rely on that Rashba comes from the Shvus Yaakov, or whether it is from the Shaarei Teshuva himself. But either way, it is clear to me that the Mishne Berurah is taking sides, and IS PASKENING TO US that we should be machmir unless it is a shaas hadchak. > In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in > every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, > which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise > unreachable. Then we need to figure out what *is* required for hora'ah. Because it seems clear to me that the Chofetz Chaim felt that he met the criteria, and (perhaps more importantly) Klal Yisrael agreed. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:58:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 19:58:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2F566ED7-C27E-4141-9BAA-E81C69F30CE1@sibson.com> > > I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq > venimtza qal" were written out. > > That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. > > HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" > -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. ------------ I had always been taught the latter. The bar Ilan data base uses the former. I suppose one could rationalize one person's try and it will seem easy is another's it's a bit of a stretch. Then again Kuf lamed could be kal lhavin or kasheh li. :-) Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 15:56:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 17:56:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > It's not a "trope". While there can be situations in which egalitarianism > vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them. > Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to > the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not. It seems a poor > argument, as well. I don't believe there is anyone who, without the > impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical > concepts of justice demand that we ordain women." > Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Distinctions are one of the > hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and > non-Jews or men and women. We have never viewed having different roles as > indicating superiority and inferiority. That judgment is foreign to our > tradition. Foreign to halakha. Foreign to the Torah. Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" It isn't an issue of being like men, it is an issue of fairness and justice. Regarding 'modern values' and Mesorah. please read Rabbi Walter Wurzburger, regarded as one of R. Soloveitchik's most prominent students here: http://download.yutorah.org/TUJ/TU1_Wurtzburger.pdf Since chazal owned slaves and the Gemara didn't outlaw them, obviously owning slaves was not seen as odious as it is now. I doubt that current rabbis have the same positive view of slavery as you do. in fact, one published author does not. see R. Gamliel Shmalo here: http://download.yutorah.org/2013/1053/798326.pdf Similar to polygamy, I doubt that any current rabbinical authority thinks that polygamy should be instituted(except in the very rare situations of heter me'ah rabbonim when in practicality there is only one wife) Many authorities, including Rav Lichtenstein, R. Nachum Rabinovitch(and see R. Wurzburger's article for citations to classic authorities of the past) and others state clearly that encountering 'modern values' helps us figure out which how to better balance the values already in our Masorah. And, as I pointed out, our Masorah has already moved towards egalitarianism, as demonstrated that most MO poskim don't hold by the Mishna in Horiyyot. And who was denying that there are different roles? no one denies that there are different roles for the genders. But Halacha should be the determinant of what those differences are. Not someone saying, "well, there have to be differences, and I am going to tell you what those differences should be." If there are no good Halakhic arguments against women's ordination(and there aren't), then claiming that there should be different roles for different genders is not a coherent argument. Basically you could use the same argument for everything and anything, since there is no Halachic basis for it. You could say that women shouldn't ride bikes because gender roles have to be different. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:47:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <6736acd1-ba2d-c1bc-1762-d8e55bb8e473@sero.name> On 04/06/17 06:01, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a > commentary how do you read it? Vest du velen kvetchen, kadoches vest du vissen On 04/06/17 15:23, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. > HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" > -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. Or "vedayeq vetimtza qashe" -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 20:38:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 23:38:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605033858.JVPC32620.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a >specific shayla for a specific person. I guess the question is: is that related to semicha? Note the following (by Joel B. Wolowelsky, from that Tradition issue last year that focused on women's leadership issues) The standards of the semikha might vary from yeshiva to yeshiva even though the text of the klaf certificate is generally the same. I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters of grave import. Very few rabbis are viewed as posekim, and their authority surely does not rest on any formal semikha they were awarded at an early stage in their professional career. Most rabbis even most pulpit rabbis are relied upon to relate what the accepted halakha is, not what it should be. They are not assumed to be posekim. Rabbi Menachem Penner, Dean of RIETS, recently made this clear when he stated that: not all individuals given the title of rabbi are entitled to serve as decisors of Jewish law... Following the halakhic opinion of a scholar or rabbi who is not recognized as a posek would represent a fundamental breach in the mesorah of the establishment of normative halakha... Musmakhim of RIETS, along with all learned individuals, are entitled to their personal opinions on halakhc matters and the halakhic system as it functions today and may publicize their views as opinions that are not halakhically binding. If this is true of musmakhim of RIETS, who have completed many serious and demanding years of study, all the more so for the myriads of rabbis who earned their semikha by simply sitting for a less-demanding final exam after self-study or learning in a beit midrash up until their wedding, at which time they received semikha. We should quickly note that this is not intended to imply a diminution of the value of semikha. Rather it reflects an unprecedented expansion of Torah study in our community. Which raises the obvious question: if so many men have semicha that shouldn't engage in hora'ah, what's the problem of having a woman in a similar position? [Email #2.] Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that in Israel, this doesn't seem to be so much of an issue. May I recommend an utterly fascinating article on this: A VIEW FROM THE OTHER SIDE By Rachel Levmore, Ph.D. - Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 05:42:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 12:42:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" ----------------------------------------------------- As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question (chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", on what basis are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" I'd say the debaters on this issue would be well served to read J Haidt's The Righteous Mind https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj_nMSM3abUAhUG7CYKHRfcAJgQFghZMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Frighteousmind.com%2F&usg=AFQjCNH2OB9Ny75lbVswde2ndpkNKXvilQ&sig2=hBXRmEu1I6x-J0radUdXqA to better understand why they aren't convincing each other KT Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 12:00:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lo Taamod In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605190033.GD3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:54:06AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Asher Weiss discusses in parshat Vayeitzeih on lo taamod al : dam reiacha that one would have to give up all his assets to save a : single life if he is the only one who can do it. However, "it's pashut" : that if others can also do it, that he doesn't have to give up all his : assets. Why is it so pashut if others refuse? (i.e. why isn't it a joint : and several liability?) I am not sure halakhah has the concept. The nearest I can think of is a zeh vezeh goreim, such as if a shor tam pushes another ox into a third party's bor bereshus harabbim. SA CM 410:32 rules that the baal habor must pay 3/4. Hezeq by a shor tam need only be reimbered 50%. So, the owner of the shor tam only has to pay 50% of his half of the guilt -- 25%. The baal habor therefore would cause the loss of the other 75%, so he has to reimberse it. But there is a machloqes about what happens when one of the two doesn't have the money -- does the other have to pick up the difference, or not? If not, then wouldn't that mean halakhah doesn't have a notion of joint and several liability?" But even if he does have to pay what the other can't... One may still be choleiq between someone who did something that incurs a fine and a chiyuv to spend money. It's not really a "liability". And this is beyond the usual limits of a chiyuv.... If there are others who can save the guy, RAW says I'm not chayav to spend all my money, but what about spending up to a chomesh, like for any other chiyuv? Maybe even if there is joint and several liability, it stops at 1/5 rather than 100%. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 12:33:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:33:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? In-Reply-To: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim : b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman : shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? The SA says "yekhavein lehispalel besha'ah shehatzibur mispallelim". Your question is why the Rama -- or is the Semag, I couldn't find the citation -- doesn't mention minchah. I think the MB s"q 31-32 *implies* that the emphasis is on Shacharis and Maariv since the solar landmarks vary the most, and therefore the minyan is more likely to have their own idiosyncratic time -- late Shacharis or early Maariv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The waste of time is the most extravagant micha at aishdas.org of all expense. http://www.aishdas.org -Theophrastus Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 11:49:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:49:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170605184905.GC3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 10:00:22PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : Can I burn something that was hefker without acquiring it? If I declare : something hefker (I'm not sure the legal implication of batel), and then I : burn it, wouldn't that imply I'm koneh it? Which makes things much worse. We might argue whether bitul chameitz means something other than hefqer. But even if it does, how can a formula that ends "vehefqer ke'afrah de'ar'a" not render it *also* hefqer? I am not sure what kind of qinyan burning would be. (Shinui? but shinui to something worthless is back to not having anything shaveh perutah to own.) Taking from hefqer means there is no maqneh, does that mean there is no qoneh? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 11:37:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:37:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a : conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of : YaVY... Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because there is no actual issur la'avor. : Since when is conversation : hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes : the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation : carries the din YvAY. I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from hirhurim. And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA: : That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, : causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of : hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and : certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? : : The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya : due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the downward character spiral. Tie'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:13:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? In-Reply-To: <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> References: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5424769a-057e-b1d6-87b8-130dad06850d@sero.name> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > : S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim > : b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman > : shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? It seems to me that "shacharit v'arvit" here may not mean the tefillot but the times: they should daven each morning and evening when they know the minyan in the city is davening. The city minyan presumably does mincha and maariv together in one evening session, so that's what individuals should do. This is so especially if this is from the Smag, and we know from Rashi and Tosfos Brachos 2a that the minhag in France at that time was to daven maariv immediately after mincha, while it was still daylight. We also know from elsewhere that minhag Ashkenaz at a later time was similarly to go straight from the Kaddish Tiskabel after Mincha to Vehu Rachum and Borchu, with no Aleinu or Shir Hamaalos/kaddish (or Ledavid in Elul) in between. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:55:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:55:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:40:56AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and : "redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually : to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many : others.... I think that bringing up pidyon and temurah just cloud the issue. IMinsufficientlyHO, it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that strikes me as a progression): - the go'el hadam - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) - and of people (ibid v 48) - the end of galus To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on its nachalah. But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first -- "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why there are different words in lh"q. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 14:06:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:06:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605210617.GB23709@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 03:18:13PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that : Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent : introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, : pages 48-52. Which ties to the other thread about how we're to view Yiftach or Shimshon -- baalei mesorah or amei ha'aretz? It's possible that at the nadir points in the days of shofetim, being the gadol hador didn't rule out also having fundamental flaws. : R' Zev Sero wrote: :> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the :> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. : It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it : something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus : and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus : then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. If it was some general Semitic notion of ge'ulah, then perhaps being common-law spouses in a 7 Mitzvos b' Noach sense would be enough to trigger ge'ulah, even if yibum would require real qiddushin. After all, the basis for ge'ulah was likely that the woman came to depend on the family for her support, and it would be wrong to let her down. Which is true of a Moaviah intermarrying into a Jewish family, even if the marriage only seemed real to her. I am also reminded of the Rambam IB 13, discussed hear repeatedly ad nauseum. Shimshon's and Shelomo's wives were p[resumed Jewish until their actions showed that they not only had ulterior motive, they lacked a true motive (qabbalas ol mitzvos) altogether. Geirei `arayos all are in that boat -- if we think they were mequbalos al mitzvos along with wanting to convert to marry, we presume they're kosher Jews but suspect and watch whether behavior matches presumption. Rus would be in a similar situation, no? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 14:55:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:55:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> References: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4674ee8c-5f5e-c740-051a-00191c18b4fb@sero.name> On 05/06/17 16:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > IMinsufficientlyHO, it pays to just stick to trying to find a common > theme to all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that > strikes me as a progression): > > [...] > > - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's not an > actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) Where is the word found in this context? My position is that the use in Megilath Ruth is an instance of the next meaning. > - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) - and of people (ibid v 48) This one. AIUI the underlying theme of this mitzvah is discharging ones own obligations, or those of a relative who is unable to do so himself. When one has sold the family patrimony, one must buy it back so that people will no longer look at one as someone who had to do that. If one can't, then whoever in the family can afford to do so must buy it back, to clear ones name. Included in this is a sub-obligation that if one is aware that a relative has to sell family land, and one can afford to buy it, one must offer to do so, so he is never subjected in the first place to the ignominy of selling it out of the family. (That, as near as I can tell, is what was happening in Ruth. Naomi and Ruth, having claimed Elimelech's property for their ketubot, were now purportedly looking for a buyer, and turned to the family to give them first refusal.) By extension this also includes discharging other obligations, not to do with the family land, such as ones obligation to a woman whom a relative has left destitute, so that her state will not be a disgrace to the family. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:56:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 20:56:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to comfort her > and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not make any > request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but she > did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion > of the community which did not presume a social negiah restriction. Was > Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, > what should he have done? I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to include any contact in any social situation in addition to more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly consistently not included are professional scenarios where your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors, nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says there that even in his generation he was unique in being able to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for this situation. But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei aveira then there is no issur of negia. I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred option. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 03:08:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 10:08:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? I heard from Rav Matis Weinberg that the final reference to Ruth Hamoavia emphasises that, despite the way we usually think of geirus, and despite everything she's gone through, she remains a Moavia. Meaning that she retains her Moavi roots and personal context, and brings the positive from that into Klal Yisrael. I understand him as polemicising against the tendency to destroy ones previous identity, consciously or otherwise, in order to join the Jewish world either as a ger or a baal teshuva. Ben ________________________________ From: Avodah on behalf of via Avodah Sent: 02 June 2017 03:34 To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 72 Send Avodah mailing list submissions to avodah at lists.aishdas.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org You can reach the person managing the list at avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." A list of common acronyms is available at http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms Avodah Acronyms ? The AishDas Society www.aishdas.org Here?s a hopefully useful but incomplete list of acronyms that are standard to Avodah, but aren?t in common usage. I marked each either ?A? for those specific ... (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) Today's Topics: 1. Re: Maharat (Rich, Joel via Avodah) 2. Re: Maharat (Ben Waxman via Avodah) 3. Re: Maharat (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 4. matched soldier and praying for them (M Cohen via Avodah) 5. Re: Maharat (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) 6. Elimelech's land (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 7. Ruth Hamoaviah (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 8. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (ADE via Avodah) 9. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (Zev Sero via Avodah) 10. A Holiday Afterthought (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) 11. Re: A Holiday Afterthought (Micha Berger via Avodah) 12. Re: Ruth Hamoaviah (Zev Sero via Avodah) 13. Re: Ruth Hamoaviah (Lisa Liel via Avodah) 14. Re: Elimelech's land (Ben Waxman via Avodah) 15. Re: Elimelech's land (Zev Sero via Avodah) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:06:28 +0000 From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" To: 'Ilana Elzufon' , "'The Avodah Torah Discussion Group'" , Micha Berger , "Akiva Miller" , Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05 at VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. ---------------------------------------------------- Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the debate on black letter law? KT Joel Rich (full disclosure-kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-not everything that is permitted to you should be done) THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:22:13 +0200 From: Ben Waxman via Avodah To: Ilana Elzufon , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Micha Berger , Akiva Miller , Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Probably the best and most succinct historical analogy I've seen for this question. Ben On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > > Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women > rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the > vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it > seems to be shaping up as the latter. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:59:33 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation. Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. How can this be? Dare we imagine that he did such things unauthorizedly? Certainly he must have had/received some sort of Heter Hora'ah. If so, then when and how did he get it - and without getting semicha at the same time? Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:01 -0400 From: M Cohen via Avodah To: , Subject: [Avodah] matched soldier and praying for them Message-ID: <014801d2d969$41c5c800$c5515800$@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A while ago on Avodah, a well known (chareidi) Baal machshava was quoted as disagreeing strongly with the concept of matching frum people with a nonfrum soldier in order to pray for them. "we have no brotherhood with secular Israelis" Recently, I posted to Avodah a link to a collection of 1400 short tshuvot from HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlitah (of Toronto) On the above topic, he writes there.. #600 Pray As They Go Q. There are two organizations here in Eretz Yisroel, one called; Elef LaMateh, and the other; The Shmirah Project. Basically, their intent is to match Israeli soldiers with Avreichim and bochurim learning. Each Avreich and Bochur who volunteers, receives the name of a specific soldier (his name and his mother's name) that he takes responsibility to daven for and learn specially for so that in the merit of the tefillos and learning, that soldier will merit to return home alive and well. (Is this a good idea) A. HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is a great mitzvah to pray, learn Torah and accomplish mitzvos for the benefit of all our brethren B'nay Yisroel in times of peril and need, especially for those who put their life in harm's way to save and protect others. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:39:53 +0200 From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah To: "Rich, Joel" Cc: Avodah , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Micha Berger , Akiva Miller Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should be identical for each community and each generation? - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:01:50 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" . I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start farming? I suppose it was pretty desolate after a ten-year famine, but did she even try? She must have at least gone there to see the place, if for no other reason than to be sure that no squatters took over while she was gone. Without making sure of such things, how could she even hope that anyone (even a goel) would buy it? Maybe she expected to get a better profit from Boaz than she'd get from farming it herself, but maybe there are other answers? Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:05:01 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the distinction? When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on this. Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:14:59 +0100 From: ADE via Avodah To: Zev Sero , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are still being machshiv some pesukim over others. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk > *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:32:23 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: ADE <9006168 at gmail.com>, The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: <510d4fd4-6c91-fb85-0c23-f6cdfa7ffcbf at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 02/06/17 05:14, ADE wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one >> pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this >> reason. > Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are > still being machshiv some pesukim over others. There is no requirement to treat all pesukim exactly the same. One is entitled to stand or sit during KhT as one wishes, and has no obligation to choose one policy and stick to it. The problem is only with standing up for special pesukim, such as Shma or the 10D. Since there's nothing special about the pasuk before the 10D, there's no problem with deciding to stand for it. And when the special pesukim come along one is already standing, so one has no obligation to sit down. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:46:10 -0400 From: Cantor Wolberg via Avodah To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50 at cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In our personal religious commitments there are those among us scrupulous in performance of the ceremonial mitzvot but at the same time displaying reckless disregard of our elementary duties towards our fellowman. Halacha embraces human life in its totality. One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social trait from our behavior! A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:31:31 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Cantor Wolberg , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <20170602153131.GA15356 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made : a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study : of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social : trait from our behavior! Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, among the aphorisms of his listed in R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I. :-)BBii! -Micha ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:28:00 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Akiva Miller via Avodah , "akivagmiller at gmail.com >> Akiva Miller" Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: <4dd6e4f1-2d00-a274-ace0-e5d2a803039a at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 01/06/17 23:05, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I only see four instances of "Ruth Hamoaviah", three in ch 2, and only one in ch 4, in Boaz's description of the situation to Tov. Since his purpose was to scare him off, it made sense to mention her origin, so Tov would be reluctant to risk his future. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:20:16 +0300 From: Lisa Liel via Avodah To: Akiva Miller , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 6/2/2017 6:05 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I can't cite a source for it, but I remember once reading that Ruth HaMoaviah was intended to praise her, since she gave up her position in Moav to join us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus [https://static2.avast.com/11/web/min/i/mkt/share/avast-logo.png] Avast | Download Free Antivirus for PC, Mac & Android www.avast.com Protect your devices with the best free antivirus on the market. Download Avast antivirus and anti-spyware protection for your PC, Mac and Android. ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:31:41 +0200 From: Ben Waxman via Avodah To: Akiva Miller , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Actually if the land had lied fallow for 10 years, it should be in good shape. Granted it needs weeding but the soil should be good. It only requires a relatively small amount of rain for grass to grow and re-invigorate the soil. Maybe she was too old to work the land and figured that a sale would provide her with enough money to live out the rest of her days in dignity? Ben On 6/2/2017 5:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:17:52 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Akiva Miller via Avodah , Akiva Miller Subject: Re: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: <272b8698-d5c1-55a1-560b-2bc6d0c39b74 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 01/06/17 23:01, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? It seems to me that finding a buyer for the property was not at all important to her, and in fact she had shown no interest in doing so until she saw how she could use it to get Boaz to marry Ruth. It was Boaz who spun the story out for Tov in order to scare him off; first he drew him in with the prospect of an easy transaction for Naomi's portion of the field, but then he threw in the Ruth monkey wrench. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/avodah http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org ------------------------------ End of Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 72 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 04:24:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:24:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <545028A09009CEB1.0C33F862-E0BD-4F09-B72B-2B14A928A471@mail.outlook.com> I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter, the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat, is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin and relay the answer. We have fine female educators like Shani Taragin etc and we have Yoatzot Halacha as above. I consider this ordination movement as a Western valued and inspired institution. Indeed, these days I know Shules look for husband *and* wife teams. The Rebbetzin occupies an increasingly important place. This is most certainly also true of successful Chabad Houses, and here I speak of people like Rivki Holtzberg hy'd whom I knew well personally and I watched as the women gathered around her and the men around her husband. This is the mimetic tradition not withstanding exceptions. That, I believe is the thrust of the OU proclamation and it is dead on the money. Judaism certainly adapts but it is not the plasticine for Western values and aspirations. Even at a funeral, where one expects little hope for Yetzer Hora, the Halacha mandates the Shura to be separate for males and females. This category of notion underpins our Mesora and always did; right back to the days when our tents were arranged with Tzniyus in mind. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 07:26:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:26:41 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap Message-ID: can anyone explain and show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from non-Kosher fat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 07:23:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:23:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh Message-ID: regarding Chamets buried under a collapsed building where we remain the owner - we intend to salvage it after Pesach but are not transgressing BY and BY without needing to make Bittul I explained that Halachic ownership is determined by ones perception of control and explained this is the reason that YiUsh means one is no longer an owner for example you forget your wallet holding your ID and some money in a restaurant even though you go back in the HOPE of finding it or are HOPING an honest person will return it this is nevertheless YiUsh you no longer believe you are in control although RaMBaM encourages that the finder return it Halachically the finder is entitled to tell you Once upon a time this was yours - but you were MeYaEsh so it is no longer yours and I picked it up AFTER you were already MeYaEsh This is the foundation for the Pesak of R Y E Spektor that money lost by a woman at a trade fair MUST be returned because there was NO YiUsh the money had been found and taken to the local Rav it matched perfectly the description given by the woman who lost it but the finder insisted he wants to keep the money unless he is obliged to return it even though the woman had Simanim Muvhakim there was no doubt the money found was the money she lost she was certainly MeYaEsh she is not the owner Reb Y E Spektor Paskened that there was no YiUsh her husband is the owner and he, sitting many miles away was unaware of the loss of the money so there was no YiUsh R Micha argues that this is not correct he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost so there is no YiUsh however if they would know it is lost they would be MeYaEsh I would suggest that there is no problem the Machlokes is simply a dispute about ACTUAL belief one is in control versus POTENTIAL belief one is in control for example walking behind a fellow Yid you notice a diamond fall off his ring he would be unaware of his loss if we say YiUsh requires DaAs then there is no YiUsh yet you would have to wait until you see the fellow stop and look around for something then you can take your foot off the diamond and take it home [BTW is such a person a Rasha? or worse, not a Mentsch?] If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs then you can take the diamond straight away because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 10:48:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:48:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> , <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a : conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of : YaVY... Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because there is no actual issur la'avor. I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where there's an issur involved? That's why I'm suggesting that since it's on pain of yeihareig then we know there must an issur la'avor so the point of the sugya is to work out what that is. The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below. : Since when is conversation : hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes : the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation : carries the din YvAY. I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from hirhurim. >From hirhurim? Chazal were gozer yeihareig on hirhurei aveira? If that were true we'd find the same din in a lot of other places. Which is why is seems to me we must be dealing with something else here. And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA: : That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, : causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of : hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and : certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? : : The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya : due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the downward character spiral. Me'heicha teisi that we're dealing with Hilkhos De'os here? Where do you find a din of yeihareig in Hilchos De'os? Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does. Your partially stated assumption is that this din in both man d'amrim is d'rabanan. Rambam strongly implies otherwise. Kol tuv Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 09:19:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha wrote: "In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable. And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving R Ploni answering questions. (The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the model.) This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads -- or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her rebbe's license?" me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using. They are hiding behind ambiguity. if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do hora'ah. AND, you cant use the model of semicha to prohibit women from hora'ah, becuase in the Venn diagram of the topic, there is hora'ah outside the lines of semicha. So R. Micha et al need to provide some other basis for their issur of hora'ah, AND, address all those who write that a woman can provide hora'ah. AND, address the quote from R. Penner that the semicha for REITS graduates is not one to pasken(or perhaps even to give hora'ah). AND, address why(rather than simply say) the Rabbanut semichah test system, perhaps the most popular semicha in Orthodoxy, does not undermine his entire thesis. One can give a woman 'heter hora'ah l'rabbim' because there has not been a cogent argument presented not to do so, and there are many poskim who write that a woman can give hora'ah. The argument regarding 'what would HKBH' want is interesting. Does he want us to restrict women from doing things just so that we can say there are differences between men and women? Or, did He establish Halakha to help us sort out those that He wants, rather than ancient ones that and are gradually being re-evaluated, similar to how we have gradually moved away from embracing slavery, polygamy(in the vast majority of instances), restrictions on the deaf/dumb, the devaluation of women(see Mishna in Horiyyot 'men's lives are saved prior to women....), the idea that a women's wisdom is only with the spindle, one who teaches his daughter Torah has taught her tiflut, etc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 11:28:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:28:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/6/2017 7:19 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all > those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to > clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using. They are > hiding behind ambiguity. if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then > saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do > hora'ah. Are you suggesting that the burden of proof is on those *opposed* to a radical change in Jewish practice? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 11:18:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:18:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> (And also some "Re: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim".) On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:48am CDT, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you : understand the OU panel as defining it. Otherwise you are just using a : nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning. To me, "semichah" is a secondary concept. My focus was to assert whose halachic decision-making can qualify as hora'ah. That question involves semichah in the discussion. We were discussing the Rama YD 242:14. The Mechaber writes in strong terms that a higi'ah lehora'ah is obligated to actually provide hora'ah. The Rama there adds that this is only if there is no barrier of kevod harav -- his rebbe passed away, gave him semichah, is a rebbe-chaver, or the like. He doesn't make semichah a definition of magi'ah lehora'ah, but only a removal of a barrier, a necessary condition in the usual circumstances. Not a defining feature. If we look at the Rama in se'ifim 5-6, he tells you he is basing himself on the Mahariq (113.3, 117 [and the OU panel adds, cf 169). The Mahariq's position is based on assuming that what was true for classical semichah is still true for modern day semichah. The Rambam (Sanhedrin 4:8) agrees with that comparison -- he derives the need today for netilas reshus from Mosaic semichah. IOW, who needs reshus for hora'ah? Someone who is magi'ah lehora'ah and has kevoad harav issues in giving hora'ah without one. A magi'ah lehora'ah can only be someone eligable to sit on a BD of [Mosaic] musmachim (or according to the Rambam, other mumchim). Not because "rabbi" is defined by "has semichah", but because "yoreh yoreh" or Yesivat Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim" declares someone to be a hegi'ah lehorah. I find the OU's argument compelling, fits the words of R/Prof SL's letter and is probably his intent, and how I understood the sugyah in general before the notion of an O woman as rabbi became a topic people would seriously discuss. I am interested to know if you asked R/D Novak which one of us understood his intent. Did he mean to explain R/Prof SL's position or explain why he differs with it in ways that makes Yeshivat Maharat an option? Agreed that few rabbis pasqen, and that we could have female clergy that avoid this first issue that I have even if a Maharat's semichah read "Rabbah uManhigah" instead of "heter hora'ah lerabbim". : The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship : between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah : to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here: : http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah ... : So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that : apply to beit din. That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist... And yet the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama all think that one continues enough of the other that we can draw conclusions across that bridge. It's not me doing the category taking, it's the Rambam and the SA. What greater authorities do you need? While on the topic of magi'ah lehorah... On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 11:24am GMT, Isaac Balbin wrote: : I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his : students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the : aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was : a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter, : the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat, : is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is : 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin : and relay the answer. There is a difference. Hopefully, someone who get "Yoreh Yoreh" is first magi'ah lehora'ah. But that's a sliding scale. They could get reshus to pasqn because there are less weighty or less involved questions they can and should be answering, while still being aware when they are in over their heads and should call RMF. Whereas the impression I got from RYHH's posts here on Avodah is that a Yo'etzet isn't supposed to ever be giving pesaq; only answering questions that the community has definite answers for -- reporting halakhah pesuqah. But then there's the second and third issues.... 2- How do we know shul is no supposed to be a men's club? Men's clubs work, or at least the Rotary and the Masons have for centuries. Movements that went egalitarian now have issues getting male participation in shul; this is a big topic in Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs (C umbrella organization) discussion. And more fundamentally, how do we know that this social dynamic was not Anshei Keneses haGdolah's intent? I would assume indeed it was. This would rule out having a woman for much of the congretational role of rabbi. 3- Halakhah is inherently non-egalitarian: a- Importing an external value over those implied internally. And more functionally, we are telling women that indeed, the traditionally male role is the better path to holiness -- let us help you run at that glass ceiling. b- This is bound to lead to greater frustration as soon as LWMO has gone as far as it could up to that halachic limit. and c- It is making a claim that is false. One is sacrificing Judaism's model of equal worth despite hevdel for the sake of egalitarianism and erasing havdalah. The last being more of a perceptual issue. And this may explain why you can get a bit further not using the word "rabbi". It's not merely a word game, there is an issue at stake; are we trying to be egalitarian, or to accept a system in which kohanim not only defy egalitarianism, but apparently start out holier than I am. Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW. On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 7:51am IST, Ben Waxman wrote: : For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community : that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like : Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi : community consider to be kefira. Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'" (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not! : If so, than kal v'chomer many of : the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are : some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in : getting hung up on multiple non-issues. There are two possible sources of division here. 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators, and therefore in practice will be a separate community. Comfort zone isn't only a psychological issue. it nostalgia, mimetic tradition, Toras imekha or minhag Yisrael sabba, communal continuity is a big issue. 2- The ideological problem isn't in the bottom-level issues but in how they highlighted the loss of common language. The opposition to these changes are talking about Mesorah, values, etc... and the proponents just see the issue as "if it's halachically allowed, why are you giving us a hard time?" This lack of common language, more specifically, the lack of a notion of metahalakhah* is disconcerting. So to my mind the schism-level battle isn't over ordaining women, Partnership Minyanim, or whether Document Hypothesis is a viable option without O as much as these decisions are apparently being made by a different set of rules. And that could quite validly be a schismatic level issue. (* In this sense of the "word" "metahalakhah". We on Avodah have also used "metahalakha" to refer to the halachos of making halakhos, even when the rules are more black-letter. Such as discussions of when we say halakhah kebasrai, or whether there is acharei rabbim lehatos in this post-Sanhedrin era.) Back to R/Dr Noam Stadlan... I believe in a role for women in the clergy that isn't that of poseiq, part of minyan, nor claiming to be egalitarian. The OU thinks that categorizing the resulting role set as "clergy" is itself too egalitarian. Again, I see that as a perceptual issue. But they too end calling for finding more venues for women to contribute communally and to be visible role models. (An Areivim-esque tangent: It would be interesting to see if the OU acts on these closing remarks as rapidly as they did about the 4 member shuls that already have Maharatos.) But then, the only difference between the position now taken by Aish or Chabad kiruv today and the actual permission granted in the driving responsum is perception as well. In terms of dry facts, both were premitting causing the non-observant to drive on Shabbos rather than let them remain disconnected. They only differed in how they let the person perceive his own driving. And yet one was a major part of a broad collapse of observance, and the other is apparently increasing observance. Presentation and perception matter. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:03:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:03:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606150330.GB26549@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:23:51AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : R Micha argues that this is not correct : he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control : then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs : i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost : so there is no YiUsh : however if they would know it is lost : they would be MeYaEsh Rather, I was saying ownership hinges on responsibility, which I suggested was both a consequence of and license for having actual control. : I would suggest that there is no problem : the Machlokes is simply a dispute about : ACTUAL belief one is in control versus : POTENTIAL belief one is in control It would help if you can find a case where somone has potential of believing they control an item for reasons other than having actual control, and has the din of ba'al, OR someone has potential to believe they lost control of an item for reasons other than actually losing control, and does not have ba'alus. Yi'ush is giving up on finding it again, not knowledge of loss of control, real or potential. Let me use your example to explain how I see it: : for example : walking behind a fellow Yid : you notice a diamond fall off his ring : he would be unaware of his loss ... : If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs : then you can take the diamond straight away : because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss But this is a case where he loses actual control. The yi'ush shelo mida'as is more of an expectation not to regain it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:06:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606150633.GC26549@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:26:41AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : can anyone explain and : show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim : to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from : non-Kosher fat "Preferable"? Because we make a point of using dish soap that is ra'ui la'akhilah. So, using a treif one means taking a position on akhshevei. I believe the OU knows they are just pandering to the market when they give such a heksher, though, and don't lehalakhah require it. (But you did say "preferable", and avoiding even a shitah dechuyah could be deemed preferable.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:55:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 09:53:30PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil : Siman 199, the Maharil writes: ... :> And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive :> commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we :> should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut ... :> And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible :> to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules :> and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in :> our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and :> hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by :> way of tradition from outside, I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather than knowledge of abstract ideas. However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. There I ass more promise. he quotes the Rambam (which you already discussed) and the Sema"q's haqdamah (from near the end). There the Maharil talks about oseiq beTorah as in kol ha'oseiq beparashas olah kei'lu hiqrivu qorban, and that this should apply even to mitzvos in which they are NOT obligated (like qorbanos). Is this exclusively TSBK? It might; the Maharil talks about men saying birkhos haTorah before reading pesuqim they do not understand. Ayin sham. : And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in : Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous : generations: :> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their :> upright fathers. Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. Which the Maharil you cited appears to be doing as well. I place more hope on the second Maharil. Which is why I disagree with: : But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the : ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach : women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was : taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in : the form of the Mishna?... Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an example to imitate. (Tosafos believe Rabbe compiled the mishnah; writing down didn't happen for centuries. So what the mishnah was to the amora'im was an official text to memorize and repeat. As in "tani tana qamei deR' ..." Not that it really touches on our discussion.) : So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what : the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women : to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al " peh... True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask why, etc... but it's not an "education" setting. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 16:57:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men gather. Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis. So that women can gather around women rabbis. certainly it is not an argument against women rabbis. And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals does not apply either. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 18:50:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:50:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: - R' Shalom Simon wrote: > I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value > as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters > of grave import. No one?!? I imagine this might be true about people who are relatively learned, and relatively savvy in the ways of certain yeshivishe circles. But I can testify that it is certainly not true of a typical less-learned nominally-Orthodox person. Towards the end of my first year in yeshiva in Yerushalayim, as I made my plans to returns back to the USA, my friends were nudging me to stay for a second year. I felt that the proper thing for me to do was to return, as per my plans. But their annoying reached a certain level, and I felt the most effective response would be to ask my gemara rebbe (who I was very close with), and then I'd be able to tell them to keep quiet. Surprise! He answered me honestly, that leaving the yeshiva would be a mistake, I needed a second year of chizuk, etc etc etc. I was devastated, having to choose between his p'sak and what *I* felt to be right. In the end, I wasn't strong enough to follow Hashem's halacha. I left the yeshiva, returned to YU for the one remaining year to get my degree, and then returned to my yeshiva in Yerushalayim. All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha. Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 19:25:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 22:25:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support? Message-ID: - R' Ben Bradley wrote: > I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur > derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what > consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to > include any contact in any social situation in addition to > more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly > consistently not included are professional scenarios where > your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors, > nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who > can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like > the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says > there that even in his generation he was unique in being able > to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for > this situation. > > But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively > certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei > aveira then there is no issur of negia. I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses, physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her, she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia. But in the case at hand, the physical contact is not incidental. It is the goal. Nay, I would argue even more strongly: The mere physical contact isn't the goal -- The EMOTIONAL RESPONSE to the contact is the goal! The whole point of hugging this person is for emotional support. I certainly agree that this sort of hugging is on a lower level that the sort of hugging that leads to sexual relations. But at the same time, it *IS* more intimate than the examples you cited. A person will choose a doctor, nurse or therapist, based on their medical ability -- but the sort of hugs we are discussing here are valued more when from a friend than from a stranger. > I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And > preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in > sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved > in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred > option. "The need to comfort the bereaved..." Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor" regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this "needed" comfort from someone else. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 20:28:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 03:28:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R Meir Rabi asked for mekoros. I suggest Yechaveh Daas 4:43 Although Chacham Ovadya is Meikel he does bring Rishonim who would hold its an Issur Derabonnon as in Pesach for 'off' Chametz. This is probably the place to look but I don't have the Sefer in front of me at the minute. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 03:38:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 06:38:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607103838.GC10990@aishdas.org> There are also sources in RAZZ's column in Jewish Action https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_kosher_soap (He sent me the link privately. Perhaps R/Dr Zivitofsky wanted to spare me being corrected in public.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 06:35:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:35:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> >Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed >incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis >are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community >in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to >do so?" >----------------------------------------------------- >As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question >(chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", >on what basis >are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a >Halachic reason to do so?" But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no? We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni or Tzlophad's daughters. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 06:49:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 08:49:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maharat Message-ID: R. Micha- if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL). It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is one of them. You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get semicha. You obviously hold that a woman cant be a judge, and the barrier to the woman is actually not semicha, but her not being qualified to be in the category of hl. Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness. There are others in that category. Since there is no reason to differentiate between those in the category, you are saying that all those others in the category also are forbidden, not from semicha, but from being in the category of HL. We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be dayyanim in some cases. So, the disqualification of women from HL actually wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot. So your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not claiming to be eligible for semicha. I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive lomdus. Is there a source that specifically states that women are forbidden from being HL? The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age. It seems that you may be distinguishing between hora'ah, and HL, there being hora'ah that is not in the category of being given by someone that is HL(if not, you have to deal with the myriads of sources that state specifically that women can give hora'ah). So you and the OU authors may be referring to HL in the mosaic understanding, and moderns, including YM, are using it in a different fashion, to refer to non-formal HL. Because if there is hora'ah that is not part of the formal HL, there is no restriction on women. And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? what is the basis for that? It seems that even assuming that you are correct(for which I have not found any support in any references), there is no basis for excluding women from having non formal hora'ah, someone acknowledging that they are capable of that non-formal hora'ah, and them functioning as a rabbi and doing what rabbi's do in shuls and elsewhere. Your restriction only keeps them from occupying a formal title which is not neccessary or needed for the job description. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 07:05:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 14:05:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> References: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> Message-ID: <94258eaf26e94a0ea0c49de3630ef2ce@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no? We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni or Tzlophad's daughters. ========================= So just to complete the loop-the question is who gets to answer this request for whom Kt Joel rich _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rn0JnHwKAKxEU5lYbmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGWm5q4mhsFBBsamlgbGDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAF5osAg&Z THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 09:38:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607163850.GA12495@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:49:45AM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL). It's not me positing it. Look again at YD 242:13-14, warning against the talmid shelo higia' lehora'ah against giving any, and the chakham who did higi'ah lehora'ah and was not moreh, applying condemnatory pesuqim to each. The SA is based on R' Abba amar R' Hunah amar Rav on AZ 19b. : It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can : give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is : one of them. So yes, it is clear. The SA says so outright. : You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get : semicha... Again, not me, Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq all assume comparability between the two. A Mahariq the Rama then cites (se'if 6) as the basis for his concluding how a musmach should behave toward the rav who gave him semichah, when not his rebbe. So it would seem the Rama buys into the notion that our "semichah" of declaring someone a hegi'ah lehora'ah (and in the case of a rebbe, implicitely that he has permission to be moreh) follows the rules of Mosaic semicha for beis din. So, thinking you are arguing against me, rather than centuries of dissentless precedent, you propose a line of reasoning at odds with the Rambam and Tosafos: : Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for : those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness... The Sema and Be'eir heiTev (on CM 7:4) does say yalfinan lah mei'eidus. See Nidah 49b But see the Y-mi, Shevuos 4:1 (vilna 19a) brings several derashos. One of them (R' Yosi bei R' Bun, R' Huna besheim R' Yosi) does learn is from a gezeira shava from eidus. ... : We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be : dayyanim in some cases. So, the disqualification of women from HL actually : wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot. So : your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not : claiming to be eligible for semicha. One thing at a time. Eligability for true Mosaic semichah and how it reflect on who can give hora'ah is what's relevant now. Not who can serve in other judicial roles that did/will not require semichah. : I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive : lomdus. Is there a source that specifically states that women are : forbidden from being HL? There are numerous sources that say women can't get real Mosaic semichah, and numerous sources that say that the laws of today's "semichah" are derived from those. The fact that I don't know anyone before the current dispute actually connect the two to deny something no (O and pre-O) observant community considered a plausible question even as recently as the late 1990s (including a statement by R' Avi Weiss) really doesn't make the argument less compelling. If you have A =/= B and B = C, do you really demand a source telling you that A =/= C? : The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara : and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age... No, that HL in the SA is the same. ... : And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the : requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? ... Never claimed that. I separated my problem with declaring a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" for women from my problem with a woman serving during services and from my 2 or 3 problems with giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings in halakhah. You have only responded to the first. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 10:33:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:33:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607173338.GB9596@aishdas.org> As I see it, the question WRT hora'ah is whether we follow the Rama's lead and hold like the Mahariq, or the Birkei Yoseif CM 7:12 a viable shitah -- and then, does "viable" mean "advisable"? (We aren't heter shopping, after all.) The Birkei Yoseif says Af de'ishah besulah ladun, mikol maqom ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah basing himself on one of the opinions in Tosafos (Yevamos 45b "mi", Gittin 88b, ve'od) about what it means that "Devorah melamedes lahem dinim". (Devodah vs. ishah asurah ladun is the topic of 11.) It seem to me that "melameid lahem dinim" is a different use of the word "hora'ah" than the SA is using in YD. And thus it seems to me that Birkei Yoseif would explicitly permit a yo'etzet, who is teaching established halakhah and defering questions that require shiqul hada'as to a rav. But he is not describing hora'ah as assumed in a Maharat's heter hora'ah lerabbim and the YD 242 sense of magi'ah lehora'ah and who needs such a heter when he does. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 10:12:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:12:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607171230.GA2858@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:25:57PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses, : physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a : "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one : will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so : too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked : her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her, : she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia. "Melakhah she'inah tzerichah legudah" is specific to the 39 melakhos, so "sort of" indeed. Besides, might be more of a pesiq reishei. In any case, when a professional violates negi'ah, the heter is ba'avidteih tarid (BM 91b). And it's specifically to professionals and the air of professionalism. (As well as the lowered odds of a problem for someone who has a license at risk.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 12:22:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 21:22:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/7/2017 3:50 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I > will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I > *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for > disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi > Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha. > > Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar > things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent. I would agree that this is an extreme example. I don't know you so I can't say anything about you in particular (not that I would anyway, not on a forum) but I would expect a yeshiva guy who had been learning with a teacher/rav for a year to take the teacher/rav's words much more seriously than the average ba'al habayit. The first thing a ba'al habayit would do is say "Well, I went to him for advice, not psak, so I don't have to listen to him". >I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value >as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters > of grave import. I don't know what constitutes grave import - an abortion? learning Biblical Criticism? Marrying someone of questionable yichus? Whether or not a particular business maneuver constitutes fraud in the eyes of halacha (or if it isn't but is illegal)? Accepting charity from criminals? Would the average MO Jew speak a rav and get his psak on these issues? Or do people limit themselves to strict Orach Chayim issues like eating on Yom Kippur? Are there issues that people will do whatever the rabbi says and ignore what he has to say about other things (obviously people ignore what rabbis have to say about a lot of issues, but I mean a straight psak)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 11:57:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maharat Message-ID: R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress. You are engaging in a theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls. (they were not arguing against specific wording on a claf, they were arguing against holding a specific position). Given what you wrote, we both agree that the OU argument against does not hold water. Even if they are technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are capable of doing so(even if according to you they actually do not need permission from their rav). Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R. Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and others. Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav) have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and the authority is in the sources, not the person. You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments. You have admitted that the issue of women semicha has not been considered until recently. So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong. (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an arguement, that it be consistent. So if you are claiming that the reason women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot. you cant have it both ways). Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.' Please read the article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier. He makes it very clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that external 'modern values' are an important part of that. Modern values are neither positive nor negative. Those that find resonance in the Mesorah are elevated. R. Nachum Rabinovitch and R. Lichtenstein point out that our goal is to make moral progress. You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'. It isn't about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion. As R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice. I happen to be married to a Maharat student and personally know many of them and their teachers. It is the ultimate in hubris and mansplaining for you and the others to claim to know what their motivation is. It was reprehensible of the OU panel to claim to know what the motivation is when they failed to talk to anyone actually involved in the enterprise. Even if we incorrectly grant that it is due to 'egalitarian yearnings,' is that wrong? I suggest that our Mesorah has incorporated egalitarian yearnings. The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way, and those that would probably would give all sorts of apologetics and rationalizations for it. (I am aware of the different shitot, and know that RSZA for example gave so many other rationales to decide that even though l'halacha he held this, there were so many other bases for deciding ahead of gender that practically it never would have been applicable.) Even the OU panel said that we value women the same as men. Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women. The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large or as small as possible? Because as we have decided above, if we go by strict halacha, there is no problem with women serving as shul rabbis. is it a value to have differences, and because you want to have differences, you are going to prohibit women from doing things? Just to have differences? There are differences between Jews and Converts. Is it a Halachic value to maximize the differences, or minimize the differences between Jew and Gerim? R. Moshe wrote that a convert can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah is not a problem. Would he have agreed that a women can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah is also not a problem for her? (rosh yeshiva does not require semicha). Mishpat echad yehiyeh lachem, ka-ger ka-ezrach. The OU paper brought up tzniut. I do not think that the MO community thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a violation of tzniut. So there is no violation of tzniut when women or men perform the functions of clergy on their side of the mechitzah(one could designate a man to take of things on the men's side of the mechitzah if you were worried about interactions across the mechitzah). if you are claiming that this is a tzniut problem, then it applies to every interaction of women and men, inside the shul and outside. The OU paper claimed that a synagogue required greater tzniut, and therefore women cant perform rabbinical duties. That is a non-sequitor. First of all, it hasnt been demonstrated that appropriately dressed and acting people are a problem with tzniut. and, why is this particular action the one picked to fulfill the mandate of more tzniut? perhaps the men fulfilling EH 21 would be a better starting place. I understand you and others not being comfortable with ordination for women. no one is asking for you to be comfortable with it. If you dont think it is a good idea(halacha v'ain mori'in kein), that is fine to say. But it isn't fine to say that Halacha bans it when it doesn't, and it isn't ok to try to kick people who are shomrei Torah u'mitzvot out of the tent because of your comfort or lack of comfort. I would hope that you are at least as uncomfortable with some of the people on the far right wing. No one is asking for you to go to their shul, ask them a shailah, or learn their Torah if you dont want to. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:10:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:10:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:57:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress. You are engaging in a : theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU : rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls... Well, my first point is a discussion of hora'ah, and consequently for whom is semichah meaninful. But my argument on this point is a subset of the OU's argument on that point. See their paper, pp 8-9 : Given what you wrote, we both agree : that the OU argument against does not hold water. Even if they are : technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give : hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are : capable of doing so (even if according to you they actually do not need : permission from their rav). HOW do you get from what I wrote an implication that we have agreement on that? I think it's firmly established by aforementioned rishonim (plus others in the OU's footnotes) that if someone is ineligable for Mosaic semichah they are ineligable to give hora'ah and therefore have no use for today's yoreh-yoreh. Or the Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim"? : Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch : who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R. : Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a : later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't : invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and : others. Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav) : have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and : the authority is in the sources, not the person. Asked and answered, although in a post after the one to which you replied. Some use the word hora'ah to mean "melameid lahem dinim". Which is not hora'ah as the Rama is discussing it. I pointed you to the Birkei Yoseif. The Chinuch is similar; his : You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments... Another? What's the first? : So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only : poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong. The OU paper doesn't make that argument. Not that I see everything the way the OU panel does. (But halakhah lemaaseh, I would be more likely to follow their opinion than my own.) Nor did I find RJF's analysis of this claim in neither (his general position on ordaining women) nor the only place where I saw him discuss the OU panel on Lehrhaus. As an activist on the subject, I'm sure you've spent more time reading up on it than I. Could you kindly provide more specific references? But let me deal with what you wrote: IOW, you are saying that because our ancestors thought the idea was absurd, we ought to go ahead? What such an argument would say is that we historically had numerous women capable of being rabbis and even so no one even considered making any of them one. The OU's section on mesorah should explain why such attitudes have precedential authority. But again, none of this reflects on what I myself was arguing : (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an : arguement, that it be consistent. So if you are claiming that the reason : women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from : being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including : that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot. you cant : have it both ways). I argued the opposite causality. Lo sosuru mikol asher YORUKHA refers to dayanim. So, someone who is excluded from becoming a dayan can't be the subject of the pasuq, and their decisions don't fall under the halakhos generated by this pasuq. Their decisions are not hora'ah, in the pasuq's sense. (YOu had me saying: Can't give hora'ah implies can't be dayan. I am really saying: Can't be dayan implies can't give hora'ah.) : Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.' Please read the : article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier. He makes it very : clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that : external 'modern values' are an important part of that. Modern values are : neither positive nor negative... Not because they're modern, no. But obviously some are positive, some negative. We can judge them. Mesorah and its values are logically prior to modern values. Numerous halakhos are unegalitarian. Even if egalitarianism is a good idea for benei noach, as a perspective it is inconsistent with that the Torah expects of Jews. : You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'. It isn't : about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers : to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion. As : R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice... The motive I attributed, really echoed back from what I heard in prior iterations, is not that anyone is about making halakhah more egalitarian, but a desire to make halakhah fit a more egalitarian reality. So I don't know what you're rebutting. I argued that some realities reflect values that must be resisted rather than accomodated. We can talk about the end of inequality in the workplace as a good thing, but can we talk about reducing the differences in avodas Hashem, differences that can't be eliminated because halakhah demands they're there, as a good thing? Good point here to address RSSimon's post. On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 09:35:14AM -0400, Sholom Simon wrote: : But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight : halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's : education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent : this", no? To avoid making this a false dichotomy, you have to define halakhah broadly, to include the obligation to live according to the values and general guidelines of aggadita -- mitzvos like qedoshim tihyu, vehalakhta bidrakhav, ve'asisa hayashar vehatov (a/k/a Chovos haLvavos or Hil' Yesodei haTorah and Hil' Dei'os). I think this is what the OU is trying to get to with the concept of "Mesorah". But if I may be frank, they are handicapped in their ability to discuss the aggadic by too many of them seeing the world with Brisker eyes. Back to R/Dr Stadlan... In addition to the question needing to be asked about the Torah's evaluation of a modern value before we simply adopt it (rather than tolerate, limit the scope, or entirely reject).... Second, I do not think justice is served by telling women to find their religious meaning in a headlong rush toward a glass ceiling. I think it's more just to teach them how to find meaning in ways that aren't dead-ended for them. More equal, if less egalitarian. ... : Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women. : The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large : or as small as possible?... That decision should be made by starting with "why does halakhah have those differences"? And what do our aggadic sources say? As I said above, we judge whether to adopt, tolerate or resist new values based on TSBP. : The OU paper brought up tzniut. I do not think that the MO community : thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a : violation of tzniut... Tzenius isn't about clothes. I don't agree with their argument, but don't fight strawmen. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 13:55:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:55:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a > woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken > that way I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:21:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 23:21:05 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB writes: >I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" >in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather than knowledge of abstract ideas. No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these were not "textual" sources - how would you translate ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? better though, to keep the flow and that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? >However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult to understand them as having been written by the same person. Indeed the Birchei Yosef, who seems to have only seen the first one inside, and seen the second one referred to in other sources, particularly the Beis Yosef,( who himself seems to have had the second on but possibly not the first) challenges the quotations from the second teshuva on the basis of the first, and seems to suggest (in the politest possible way) that the Beis Yosef got it wrong, because they just do not match. I do not know any real way to reconcile these two, and can only note that the two compilations of teshuvos were compiled by different students of the Maharil . : And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in : Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous : generations: :> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their :> upright fathers. >Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk, it is about actively teaching (albeit oral). Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting up of schools), but it is a strange pasuk to use if he was talking purely about mimeticism. >Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at all the experiential aspect. When the gemora cites a ma'aseh rav, is this *not* TSBP because it would seem to be mimetic? >I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an example to imitate. The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two types of TSBP. And the other alternative would seem to be to write this kind of teaching out of TSBP. But is not a lot of TSBP, even though by no means all of it, this kind of teaching. Is not the gemora etc filled with this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. : So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what : the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women : to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al " peh... >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting. But the Rambam doesn't say either - "but with regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she ba'al peh taught in a formal educational setting, but that not taught in a formal education setting is fine". And note of course that one cannot just observe Mum taking challa, one also needs to be told about the correct shiur. It is highly unlikely that anybody would necessarily conclude, by watching week after week, exactly what the correct shiur for taking chala and the bracha is by mere observation. That has to be communicated as a form of rule. Ok a situational rule, - taught in context, but the tradition would be lost in a generation if it was left for every generation to guess the correct shiur by watching closely enough week after week. >-Micha Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:53:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:53:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we have now is historically completely wrong. From "b'inyan semichat chachamim' published in Or Hamizrach: 'At this time when semicha is batel, all the mishpatim from the Torah are battel..based on lifneihem- and not lifnei hedyotot. And nowadays we are all hedyotot. And the only way it works is that we act as shlichim of Mosaic beit din' So everyone is a hedyot. More to the point in section five there is a detailed examination of semicha included what was required in various areas. 'The Chatam Sofer writes...that this semicha of morenu and chaver has NO BASIS IN SHAS but is a ashkenazi minhag and does not contain anything real'. 'They issue of semicha that they estabkished(tiknu), according to the Rivash, because it is forbidden for a student, even one who is hegiah l'hora'ah, to give hora'a or to establish a yeshiva(note that this obviously is not hora'ah)while his teacher is alive....therefore they had the PRACTICE of semicha...that he is no longer a student but can teach others(the word is l'lamed, not hora'ah)' There is a lot more. But it is quite clear in the sources brought in this article that the historical record clearly shows No connection between Mosaic semicha and what was begun in the Middle Ages. Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:53:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 22:53:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> References: , <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> Message-ID: <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 7, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > >> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: >> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way > > I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this Not really. They basically say either that there are other tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why.specific citations available upon request Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:07:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:07:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> References: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> Message-ID: On 07/06/17 18:53, Rich, Joel wrote: >> I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that >> this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this > Not really. They basically say either that there are other > tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it > would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why. That's what I thought too. I was surprised to read RNS not only insisting otherwise but deducing an entire shita from this supposed fact. In practise I doubt it was ever meant to be implemented kipshuto, because even on its own terms it applies only when all else is equal, and it rarely is. But it seems to me that when all else *is* equal, i.e. when we have no other information so all else is zero, and we are free to set our own priorities without fearing negative consequences (that too constitutes additional information which makes all else not equal), then the halacha must still apply. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:51:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:51:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170607225122.GA14289@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 05:48:13PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : > Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because : > there is no actual issur la'avor. : : I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on : pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where : there's an issur involved? Red shoelaces? : The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that : yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below. No, it could be preservational and still deOraisa. Like my example of a ben soreier umoreh, who Chazal say dies al sheim ha'asid -- we're also preventing the continuing deteriation in a downward spiral. This "downward spiral" was what I was calling Hil' Dei'os. Hirhurim and hana'ah -- devarim sheleiv in general -- aren't even punishable altogether, how could they allow a court to decide yeihareig? Most dinei nefashos don't even qualify. : Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context : of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must : be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as : issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does. And qiddush hasheim could involve avoiding something that is not assur either. (Agian: red shoelaces.) That too is death to preserve an attitude. I am just saying that your desire to make this yeihareig ve'al ya'avor is putting an overly formal halachic box. Whether or not something is a qiddush hasheim or otherwise worth dying for is not necessarily reducible to a Brisker chalos-sheim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:17:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:17:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we : have now is historically completely wrong... And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah? The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up to imitate the other with no continuity between them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:58:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> Message-ID: The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way, and that saying that modern semicha was set up to imitate ancient semicha(to such an extent that the same prohibitions apply) is a distortion of history and Halachic history. Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources. The Rama makes more sense when read in the context of the quotes that I provided from the Chatam Sofer et al. The Rambam, could well be discussing ancient semicha in the sources you describe........ On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun > 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: > : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we > : have now is historically completely wrong... > > And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based > on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical > study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah? > > The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up > to imitate the other with no continuity between them. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 23:40:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 09:40:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> References: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> Message-ID: <5938F16E.9010705@biu.ac.il> the topic is addressed in this article: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0048-0068.pdf ?A MAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER from Tradition in 2014 Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > >> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a >> woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken >> that way > > > I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this > is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? > What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument > is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the > question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O? > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 06:14:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:14:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check Message-ID: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> [RJR poses these questions at the start of his Audio Roundup column on Torah Musings . I prodded him to share them here as well, as questions work better in an actual discussion venue. But I didn't think he would do so without plugging his column! So, here's my plug: Worth reading, and if you have one -- pointing subscribing to on your news agreegator / RSS reader. -micha] A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled the commandment to wear tfillin. In fact, many pasul tfillin were pasul from the start (e.g., missing a letter). The Rav later reported that a listener heard the shiur and had his tfillin checked and found such a psul, even though he had bought the tfillin from a reputable sofer and had them checked earlier by another reputable sofer. The Rav was pleased with this result. Two questions: 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status) appropriate? 2) As a societal issue, how should current rabbinic leadership view the tradeoff of now requiring (suggesting) frequent checks? We will have some who will have the listener's result. OTOH, we will also have those whose tfillin will more likely become pasul due to uncurling the klaf and the increased costs of checking. BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan checking be appropriate? Kt Joel rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 06:15:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:15:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Parenthesis Message-ID: <1c9fcdd2c38f43e7af59d24ffe246c8b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> [See my plug of RJR's column in the previous post. His question about a distraught new widow and negi'ah as well... And that's just the column's *padding*! Extra credit if you answer the question about parenthesis while "vayehi binsoa'" and its upside-down nuns is still in parashas hashavua. -micha] 1. In the Shulchan Aruch -- who is the author of the statements in parenthesis in the Rama like print that don't start with Hagah? 2. In Rashi (or Tosfot), who decided to put certain words in parenthesis and why? (e.g., differing manuscripts, logic, etc.) Kt Joel rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 04:31:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 07:31:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . I would like to start a new thread to discuss exactly what we mean by "redemption". I will begin by quoting most of R' Micha Berger's recent post from the thread "Elimelech's land": > ... it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to > all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that > strikes me as a progression): > > - the go'el hadam > - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's > not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) > - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) > - and of people (ibid v 48) > - the end of galus > > To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even > something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on > its nachalah. > > But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more > to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first -- > "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of > redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why > there are different words in lh"q. Several years ago I tried working on this as part of my preparations for Pesach. The first obstacle I encountered was (as RMB mentioned in the last line here) that there are so many interchangeable synonyms. The first two that came to my mind are "geulah" and "pidyon", such as in Yirmiyahu 31:10: > Ki fadah Hashem es Yaakov, > Ug'alo miyad chazak mimenu. I agree that a good starting point, as suggested by RMB, is "restoration". This carries over to English as well, and I could cite several pieces of literature whose theme is "the chance to redeem myself," where someone suffered a significant loss of status (justified or not) and is trying to correct that loss, and restore himself to his prior status. This is very much what Naomi was trying to accomplish. But I'm not so sure how relevant it was to Mitzrayim, where the problem was not merely social status, but physical danger. And that brings more synonyms into the mix: yeshuah and hatzalah. A useful tool for distinguishing synonyms is when they occur near each other in the same context. I brought an example of pidyon and geulah above from Yirmiyahu, and here is a case of hatzalah and geulah: Shemos 6:6-7: "V'hotzaysi... V'hitzalti... V'gaalti... V'lakachti..." On this, Rav SR Hirsch explains: "Whereas hitzil is deliverance from a threatening danger, gaal is deliverance from a destruction which has already occured." In Shemos 8:19, RSRH seems to say that "padah" refers to redemption when "anything has fallen into the power of someone else, to bring it out of that power." I suppose that relates to kedushah (Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, etc) because the redeemed object is no longer encumbered by the halachos that applied before. On the other hand, Vayikra 25:24-54 teaches about using money to redeem land, or a house, or an eved. In those pesukim, the word "redeem" appears as some form of geulah 17 times, but as pidyon not even once. How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? Looking forward to your thoughts Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 04:49:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:49:29 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500 From: Noam Stadlan via Avodah > R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men > gather. Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis. So that women > can gather around women rabbis. I'm sorry this does not compute halachically or logically. The men don't gather around the Rabbi either, and I have never seen a problem when the Rav who has been directing everything requests women on one side and men on the other. > certainly it is not an argument against > women rabbis. It was a comment that even in a place where the Yetzer Horah is least likely to have an influence, we are asked to be separate from each other. > And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like > the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly > dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual > immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals > does not apply either. Ger does not make that their focus. They have Gedorim for their own wives even if dressed Tzniusdikly etc One doesn't have to be modern orthodox to encounter women in the workplace either. It would be good if there were more women asking shaylos period. For Nida shaylos there have always been ways to treat a matter discretely. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 07:30:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of > any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even > punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of > the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? Yes, it's what the victim's blood needs and deserves, and the victim is unable to provide it for himself, so as the closest relative it's his duty to provide it for him. The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. Ya`akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because Kel Nekamos Hashem. We are commanded to love our fellow Yidden so much that we forgive them and *forgo* our natural and just desire for revenge, just as we would do of our own accord for someone we actually loved without being commanded. Even the neshama of a murder victim is expected to forgive his Jewish killer, and Navos was punished for not doing so. But we can't forgive on someone else's behalf, especially on our father's behalf, or assume he's such a tzadik that he must have forgiven his killer. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 09:13:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:13:39 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Psak of a Musmach Message-ID: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> The Maharat thread got me thinking about this, but it is a bit of a tangent, hence the new thread. It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don?t recall that it is mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 07:23:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 10:23:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170608164150.ETSG4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> At 09:43 AM 6/8/2017, via Avodah wrote: > >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather >than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she >noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask >why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting. Surely, *some* of it is. Rn Ch L gave the example of a shiur, but there's an awful lot that goes on in the kitchen, and I would guess (I don't know, as I've never been a mother or a daughter) that the mother would be almost negligent if she didn't actually explain some various rules. (I'm using a slotted spoon here, but in cases x, y, z, I can't use a slotted spoon; or: when I do this it's not considered borer because x, y, z; or: if I want to return the pot to the blech, I have to have in mind x,y,a; or: this is how you make tea, and this is how you make coffee, and this is why I can't melt the ice in a cup, and this is why you can defrost the orange juice, etc etc etc). I have a teacher who told me that any women who is doing a competent job in the kitchen has to have learned TSBP. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:28:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:28:47 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> Message-ID: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of >> any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even >> punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of >> the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? > > The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like. Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:45:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 14:45:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <3c673353-b5e9-d704-9cb0-52aff2f213c7@sero.name> On 08/06/17 14:28, Daniel Israel wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not >> Jewish. > An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. > Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos > chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an issur on doing so againstyour own people, because you are commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in itself does not come from any Jewish source. > That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like. > Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam > should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise > above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes. He's not go'el ha'emes, he's go'el hadam. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 13:43:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 20:43:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? ------------------------- The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an extension of the beit din. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:40:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 18:40:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Psak of a Musmach In-Reply-To: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> References: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <70d0ce58d48443a8a6b7fb558f001745@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From: Daniel Israel via Avodah Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 12:14 PM > It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, > then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying > on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or > her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not > obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don't recall that it is > mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha. Good starting point is first Mishna in horiyot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 14:01:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:01:33 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> References: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2D819FCB-5A0D-497C-8E21-EE99A6A9069A@kolberamah.org> A few points that have been swirling around my head reading through this thread. 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? Let?s concede, for sake of argument, that there are halachically permissible ways for a woman to do much of what communal rabbis actually do in practice. Not everything that is mutar is advisable. I don?t see why we should be embarrassed that community policy is being set by Torah principles which are not purely halachic. And while we are all entitled to our own opinions, community policy must be set by gedolei Torah of a certain stature. I don?t believe any of the Rabbaim who are supporting these ventures, with all due respect to their legitimate scholarship and accomplishments, are among the select few who a significant portion of the Torah world look to for answers to these kinds of questions. They were never among those who set gedarim for the community before they become involved in this issue, and so it should be no surprise that their taking the initiative on this issue is widely not accepted. 2. As far as hora?ah, we are discussing it like there is a clear line: halacha p?sukah and hora?ah. (And some comments make a third distinction, between what a local Rav can pasken, and what requires phone call.) But every case requires some amount of shikul hada?as. Sometimes it is so trivial we don?t notice it (?is this specific package of meat marked ?bacon,' treif??). But there are lots of questions we essentially MUST pasken for ourselves. Things like, ?is my headache painful enough to justify taking asprin on Shabbos??. OTOH, most of the questions we ask a Rav (?is this spoon okay??) aren?t really about shikul hadaas, they are more about his knowing all the relevant sugyos. I.e., they are topics that we could (should?) learn enough to answer for ourselves. Note also that any responsible Rav is continually evaluating which questions he feels capable of answering on his own. Just to be clear, I?m not saying there is no distinction to be made. Given that hora?ah lifnei Rabo is assur, clearly there is such a category. But what it is is not so clear cut. Also, I?m not pointing this out to support Rabbanus for women (although one could formulate such an argument), rather to suggest that hora?ah is not this place this needs to be argued out. 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher.? I think this is a good model. First, I would note that there are definitely still circles which strongly disagree with aspects of the chassidic approach. What has changed is that no one is seriously concerned that it will degenerate into widespread k?firah. (Keep in mind there was precedent. Chassidus arose soon after exactly that happened with regard to the Sabbateans.) That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, much as happened with the Conservative movement. Fifty years from now, if that happens, the question will be answered. If it doesn?t happen, then those who are still opposed may be willing to make their peace with it as part of Orthodoxy, even they don?t themselves hold that way. Given this long term view, perhaps the vehement opposition is an important part of the processes (as it may well have been with regard to chassidus). 4. Related to the prior point, RnIE (I think) suggested that this is less of a big deal in E?Y. And RSS posted a link to an article by Dr. Rachel Levmore that concludes with a list of reasons the situation may be different in E?Y and the US. For myself, WADR to those involved, who I am sure really feel they are acting l?sheim shemayim, I share RMB?s concern that they are aiming at a glass ceiling (extremely well put!). And, consequently, I suspect that there will eventually be a schism with at least some of that camp transforming into a neo-Conservative movement. After reading the above mentioned article by DrRL, perhaps another reason for the difference is that in E?Y these developments are fundamentally a response to a need. That is, there are specific issues having nothing to do with female clergy which are creating a need, and in some natural way it has come out that the best solution is the creation of these new roles for women. Whereas, in the US, the driver seems to be a conviction that there should be some form of female clergy, in and of itself. Which leads to a concern I?ve long had about many issues where people point to historical halachic change to justify contemporary changes. Perhaps certain changes are okay if they happen on their own, but we really shouldn?t be pushing for them to happen. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 14:25:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 17:25:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170608212546.GB25737@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 06:58:57PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam : Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way... But you neither explain 1- If it is a "distortion of history and Halachic : history" to claim that current yoreh-yoreh is an imitation of the elements of true Mosaic semichah that are still meaningful, how and why the Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq the Rama quotes lehalakhah all derive laws of yoreh-yoreh from Mosaic semichah for dayanus? Nor 2- How the CS's claim -- citation would be helpful -- that today's semichah is "merely" an Ashkenazi minhag means that this minhag was not set up to certify who is standing in the shadow of the true Mosaic musmach? Don't we need something explicit from the CS before we can just assume he would not deduce the rules of the minhag from the rules of true semichah. After all, you're setting him up against the precedent of doing just that (in Q #1). See the AhS YD 242:29-30. He explains that contemporary "semichah" is to announce to the nation that (1) he is higi'ah lehora'ah, and (2) his hora'ah is by permission of the ordaining rabbi. (He also requires a community to have a rav ha'ir, and others need the RhI's reshus to pasqen in his town as well.) This is much like what you said the CS says, as well as the Rivash. And the Rivash, which appears from your quote is the CS's source, talks about hora'ah -- just as the AhS does. In any case, I am looking for the Tzitz Eliezer's discussion of Sepharadim and their not accepting the notion of contemporary "semichah". Because IIRC, his discussion about semichah, not higi'ah lehora'ah. Recall, AISI the real question isn't the nature of a semichah, but how can be higi'ah lehora'ah. Semichah is only a good belwether, because it's not meaningful to say yoreh-yoreh to someone who can't give hora'ah with or without that permission. And it's semichah the CS dismisses as minhag; the extra gate can be minhag without changing who is allowed to enter. The discussion of semichah doesn't touch on who can give hora'ah, it is just out one precondition before actually doing so. : Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of : the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the : Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources... I don't know what you mean. Does the Rambam derive halakhah from dayanim musmachim with Mosaic semichah to today's morei hora'ah or not? Does Tosafos? Do they not take it for granted that the laws are consistent between the two, without which those derivations would not work? What exactly is your other understanding? (To reword Q #1.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 19:36:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:36:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will bow out. A few details: I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look up the underlying sources to be sure. The article is in Or HaMizrach 44 a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski(I hope the transliteration does him justice). There are other sources on the the Halachic/ historical aspects of semicha including one by R. Breuer in the journal Tziyon. and many others. I do not have time to find and read them all, but I think the point is clear in the article cited above. In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may explain my difficulty in finding it. I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot both of which are not applicable(or have not been applied) to modern semicha. So it is a stretch to state that this Rambam implies anything about current Hora'ah or semichah. I have not found any specific statements that a woman is not qualified to reach the state of 'hegiah l'hora'ah', and certainly not in the modern(non-Mosaic) context. I am not arguing that some of the sources cant be read to come to this conclusion, but it seems to be a novel halachic statement(similar to the OU rabbis making a new halachic category of "stuff that a shul rabbi does") and the only characteristic is that women are forbidden from it. I suggest that if someone on the left had made a similar claim, they would be accused of pretzeling the Halacha to support a pre-existing mahalach. I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable understanding of the Halacha. And perhaps even that those who oppose are the ones who are trying to find arguments when a fair reading of the sources indicate that there really is none specifically applicable to the issue at hand. Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical Ethics on the topic of triage. thanks Noam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 20:55:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 05:55:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Cherlow's Post Message-ID: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> https://www.facebook.com/RabbiCherlow/posts/1442987509096046 In response to a question regarding a psak that supposedly allows women to recite Sheva Brachot and an accusation that certain rabbis are distorting the halacha because of feminism, Rav Cherlow wrote a response. I am summarizing a few points. Full text is in the link above.. Introduction: Your words are a perfect example of how someone can break the Torah's most serious commandments and yet act as if he is a yirei shamayim. 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah. 2) Never mock rabbis (or anyone) because you disagree with their opinions. Mocking people publicly is one of the most serious aveirot. 3) Never use a nickname for others, in this case "Dati Light". 4) Always be careful about generalizing. 5) Never accuse someone of being guilty of what you assume to be their hidden motivations. You don't know and accusing someone violates "M'devar sheker tirchaq". More importantly, you're assuming that you're a tzaddiq and don't have an agenda. 6) Never use a group name to mock someone. The Torah world owes feminism a great debt for things its done (Talmud Torah for women, leading the fight against sexual harassment, etc) along with strong criticism for other things done in its name. 7) Always try and live according to Halacha as it is written. Don't have other gods, like opposition to chiddushim. 8) Bring halachic arguments to halachic discussions. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 02:15:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:15:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: On 6/8/2017 9:28 PM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah > > wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. > > An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. > Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos > chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. > Where is there any issur on taking revenge? Against fellow Jews, yes, of course. But generally? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 04:21:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:21:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Cherlow's Post In-Reply-To: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> References: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <9f3eaf48-0c03-fc88-cc90-e84a27b77ea9@sero.name> On 08/06/17 23:55, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in > Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to > do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you > guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah. And yet in this case the newspaper seems to have got it right, and R Cherlow's correspondent simply hadn't bothered to read it before fulminating. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:06:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:06:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption Message-ID: Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it. Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time before they went into exile was simply waiting time? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 07:32:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 17:32:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern > day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? Who says it was? > What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin > (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah > tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work > to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It > doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it. Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite. But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. I don't think their much more lengthy exile was a punishment. I think it was simply necessary. Had they rejoined us, by which I mean all of them, and not just those who Jeremiah brought back, and we had been exiled as a single nation, things would have been different. But viewing themselves as a separate nation from us, how would you envision things having worked in the ancient world? I don't think it would have been significantly different from what happened with us and the Samaritans. In fact, the Samaritans called themselves Israelites; not Samaritans. (That's the root of the mistake in the Christian "good Samaritan" story, btw.) > Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time > before they went into exile was simply waiting time? Not at all. Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 07:50:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:50:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 09/06/17 11:06, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern > day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? Assuming that it was, and that Yirmiyahu didn't bring them back. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:20:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:20:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <019f7de8-108b-d533-3e11-4556470c1c43@sero.name> On 08/06/17 22:36, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is > that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the > time of the Gemara. I think that is obvious, and it didn't occur to me that this could be what R Micha was referring to. I thought there must be some other Rambam, perhaps a teshuvah, where he discusses "modern" semicha to whatever extent such a thing even existed in his day and place. BTW I have seen it suggested that the original semicha was kept alive at the yeshivah in Damascus (they would cross into the borders of EY to confer it) until it was destroyed in the 2nd Crusade, which, if true, would mean there may still have been living musmachim in the Rambam's day. > Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. > That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar > statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical > Ethics on the topic of triage. But that article doesn't support the claim you made, that there exist poskim -- and in fact that it is the unanimous position of MO poskim -- that this halacha is no longer operative. The article cites sources relevant to the entire topic of triage, in all circumstances, including the mishneh and gemara in Horiyos, and I didn't see any suggestion that they are less authoritative or applicable today than they ever were. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:00:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1af6febd-3d16-f901-472d-92f0a5cd66e7@sero.name> Another idea: To expect a redeemer from the House of David one must first subject oneself to that House. Those who reject its sovereignty can't (by definition) expect one of its members to save them, so on being exiled they would naturally assume that this would be their new home and these their new neighbors, with whom they must assimilate. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 11:08:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 05:32:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: :> Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any :> modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? : Who says it was? First, I think we concluded among ourselves that the 10 lost tribes are really 9+1 lost tribes, with Shim'on, living in Malkhus Yisrael, being a separate case. With, perhaps, it's own spiritual malais. They lived amongst sheivet Yehudah; is it likely their culture was more like Yisrael than their own neighbors? With that tangent out of the way... It's a machloqes tannaim in Sanhedrin 10:3 (110b), no? "The 10 shevatim are not destined to return, 'Vayashlikheim el eretz achares kayom hazah' (Devarim 29) [derashah elided]... divrei R' Aqiva. "R' Eliezer omer: [his own derashah] ... even as the 10 shevatim went through the darkening, so too it will grow light for them. The gemara's discussion focuses on the previous part of the mishnah's machloqs -- their olam haba. But Rebbe says they do have olam haba and seems to be implying that the kaparah is total -- so they will return to EY. The Sifra (Bechuqosai 8:1) has R' Aqiva saying they won't return, but based on (Vayiqra 26:38), "vavadtem bagoyim..." And it has R' Meir as the one disagreeing with R' Aqiva. In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman, we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim. Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. R' Chaim Brisker uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. Which R' Aharon Lichtenstein uses as a snif not to support giving them Israeli citizenship in "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity." :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:19:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:19:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema Message-ID: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in the famous midrash about Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry halacha guide demands that they be sourced? Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 09:39:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:39:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170609163954.GA24832@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:36:08PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will : bow out. A shame, as we went in circles on one issue and didn't touch the others. Including my assertion that the Chinuch (142) speaks "ishah chokhmah hare'uyah lelhoros" and "assur lo leshanos letalmidav" -- whether someone who has the skills to give hora'ah shouldn't be teaching when drunk. No mention of hora'ah, but ra'ui lehora'ah and teaching. Because, he explains, their teaching will be accepted by those who look up to them, as if it were hora'ah. Similarly the Chida (Birkei Yoseif, CM se'if 7:12) rules out ordaning women, following the example of Devorah. People can voluntarily listen to Devorah (or, it would seem, to a yo'etzes), but she cannot be appointed a rabbi nor ordained as one because her opinion could not be imposed. Picture the town hiring a rabbi that any chazan can say, "Well, I don't follow him" and therefore can break from the shul's norm, or even "I don't follow him on this one." But more to the point, following the Chinukh (who is cited), he says "deDevorah haysah melamedes lahem dinim." R' Baqshi Doron mentions this problem in his letter, which RGS has scanned at http://www.torahmusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Rav-Bakshi-Doron-on-Women-Rabbis.pdf#page=2 REBD concludes that because of this, women should not be tested or given semichah, as that would be an appointment rather than voluntary acceptance of a particular teaching. And, while the Chida (and thus REBD) says "ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah", he is defining this as teaching law, not interpresting law -- nidon didan. Which is consistent with the Chinukh the Chida is building on. Nor did we get to my non black-letter-halakhah concerns. Including my concern that the whole project reflects a misrepresentation of Judaism's demands by thinking that anything that can fit the black letter of the law is in compliance with the Torah. That there is none of the more nebulous side of the law; an obligation to pursue a given value system and ethic. The fact that "Mesorah" is dismissed as political rather than a real Torah issue is to my mind a blunder; and your disinterest in discussing this aspect actually hightened those concerns. Nor the question of telling women that they are correct to seek value in a manner that has a glass cieling for them. Nor the question of whether a woman belongs in shul service, or whether it was designed to be a Men's Club. And if not designed, whether its function as a Men's Club is too useful to be sacrificed. As one example, but not the whole problem: Will male attendance lessen if we lose that character; will Tue, Wed and Fri (workdays with no leining) Shacharis attendance among O men go the way of Shabbat attendance among their C counterparts? But on, the topic we did discuss... : I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing : certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look : up the underlying sources to be sure. The article is in Or HaMizrach 44 : a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski... But having a reference in the CS itself would have been more ... : In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of : the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may : explain my difficulty in finding it. It's the Rama who says 113. (It's either that the copy in OhC is idiosyncratic, or, the OU copied a typo in the Rama and didn't check. I know that's what I did.) : I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he : is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the : Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz : Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot ... Limnos ledavarim yechidim is not always to be a dayan. One can get reshus lehoros be'issur veheter or lir'os kesamim but not ladun. It's the same process as geting reshus ladun or ladun dinei kenasos, or... Do you think "lir'os kesamim" was ever limited to dayanim? The fact that the Rambam treats reshus lit'os kesamim and reshus ladun as one topic that's the whole point! (And that addresses Zev's recent post, which I approved while this one was sitting around mid-edit.) Now that you found the Mahariq that the Rama se'if 6 says he bases himself on, I would have like to have heard if you disagree that he too is treating the rules for yoreh-yoreh and the rules for Mosaiq semichah as one topic. And Tosafos? : I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the : discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very : least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of : women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable : understanding of the Halacha... I haven't heard a complete defense, but I didn't see at all a positive case for. After all, the burden of proof is on the innovator. We didn't touch the whole conversation of proving that the innovation is positive enough *in Torah values* to justify settling for just what could be read as a not 'beyond the pale' understanding. On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 03:01:33PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? ... : 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My : example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were : huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are : today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher." ... : That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two : camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that : this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically : okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, : much as happened with the Conservative movement... My own concern is (as Avodah long-timers should expect) more meta. Why is the only quesiton that of black-letter halakhah? Why the ignoring of -- what do I call it, "gray-letter halakhah"? -- laws that don't codify cleanly, that require a feel for what seems in line with the Torah, that which RHS calls "Mesorah"? (Although "mesorah" has become an ill-defined concept, including both Torah-culture values and mimetic practice. For that matter, I find that R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's use of "mimeticism" also blurs both, as both are transmitted culturally.) To me, that's a critical meta-innovation that warrants asking if we're still all playing by (evolving our practice with) the same rules. I am not worried about a slippery slope to C. To my mind, that's worrying about when the problem, if there is one, becomes symptomatic. To me the question is whether procedurally, the process R/D NS is defending is already unlike the rest of O IN A DEFINITIONAL WAY. After all, once you define MO to include an openness to modern values, following the Torah becomes just using the halakhah as a test -- can this new idea fit black-letter law or do we have to do without? But also our test itself changes. Deciding which shitah to follow depends in part on our priorities, and in LWMO, those modern values also define the priorities. As R/Dr Stadlan put it: : ... I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very : least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of : women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable : understanding of the Halacha... Thinking something is okay to do as long as one can find understandings of shitos that can combine to show the idea is plausible and not "beyond the pale" is to my mind itself beyond the pale. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 12:07:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:07:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> On 09/06/17 11:19, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in the famous midrash about > Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem > Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a > source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry > halacha guide demands that they be sourced? > > Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice? I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. When we say the Rambam doesn't give his sources, we mean that he doesn't tell us where in the gemara he derives the halachos. He doesn't expect his audience to be familiar with the gemara, and he's not interested in convincing those who are, or in defending himself to them. But he always gives the pasuk where a mitzvah or halacha is stated, or tells us that it comes "mipi hashmuah", or was instituted by chazal or by the geonim. When he gives a psak which doesn't come directly from the gemara he says "ken horu hage'onim", "ken horu rabosai", or "ken nir'a li". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 12:51:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:51:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> On 09/06/17 14:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman, > we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim. Only if he's from the countries where they were taken. > Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his > day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact; the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. As for the men's descendants by nochriyos, according to the first lashon Shmuel derived from the pasuk that they're nochrim, and according to the second lashon it's a halacha pesukah ("lo zazu misham"). But according to either lashon the problem of the women was solved. Also, there's no "by his day". Either the problem was solved within one generation, or it was never solved at all. Not by his day. By at latest the 2nd BHMK. Either Yirmiyahu brought them back, so they're not there any more, or the first generation had no children so they died out then and there, or the Sanhedrin decreed them to be goyim. > R' Chaim Brisker Where is this R Chaim? > uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not > halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. On what basis? Unlike the ten tribes' descendants, these children exist. How can they not be Jewish? Even if you want to say the second lashon applies to both the men and women, and it means they lost their Jewish status, this was not a gezera, it was derived from a pasuk, that Hashem took away their Jewish status, so in the absence of any pasuk about other people how can it be extended? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:03:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:03:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >In Yevamos... : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. : : Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke; he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...") : the : women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there : never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. That's Ravina. Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu". Which is inconsistent with Ravina. Whom I forgot about entirely. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 11:31:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:31:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check In-Reply-To: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 01:14:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is : needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without : knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled : the commandment to wear tfillin... : Two questions: : 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha : by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status) : appropriate? We're discussed variants of this question before. Usually WRT whether a person in the same situation buit with their mezuzah will get less shemirah. My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was really cheilev. And if that is true of cheilev and timtum haleiv, why not the protection of mezuzah or the effects of wearing tefillin? But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely, are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome. And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... If someone is doing everything they're supposed to, and we're not talking about the teva necessary to allow for human planning, then why wouldn't Hashem just give a person as per their deeds. Why have a whole metaphysical causality if it doesn't aid bechirah, nor Din, nor Rachamim? .... : BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has : changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan : checking be appropriate? I take this as evidence of the "Litvisher" answer. If it were really a problem, why wouldn't halakhah reflect a greater need to check? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:33:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:33:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 12:15:04PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos : >chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. : Where is there any issur on taking revenge? Against fellow Jews, : yes, of course. But generally? "Revenge is bad" is not the same as "revenge is assur". The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim. In which case, he would hold that only lo siqom would hold for them, whereas only lo sitor would apply to a yisra'el chotei. But Shabbos is coming, so I can't check about "chaveirim". But in any case, the notion that hene'elavim ve'inam olevim shome'im cherpasam ve'einam mashivim, aleihem hakasuv omeir, "ve'ohavav ketzeir hashemesh bigvuraso" (Shabbos 88b) has nothing to do with who the counterparty is. Not a chiyuv or issur in and of itself. But the person who doesn't take offense nor act on taking offense is among "ohavav". Similarly, the Rambam (ibid) talks about lo siqom in terms of "ma'avir al midosav al kol divrei ha'olam", not just offenses by chaveirim. This appears to be included in his "dei'ah ra'ah hi ad me'od". :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:26:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check In-Reply-To: <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> References: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <781fc94e-241d-e738-5060-522eeeb4f325@sero.name> On 09/06/17 14:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When > something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell > the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about > the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was > really cheilev. But if it's nisbarer afterwards that it really was chelev the kelim need to be kashered. Ditto if it's nisbarer after someone toveled that the mikveh was pasul all the taharos he touched since then are retroactively tamei. In fact if a mikveh is found to have been pasul all the taharos touched by all the people who used it since it was last known to be kosher are retroactively tamei. > But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely, > are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk > to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the > case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome. That's not a mystical position, it's a plain rational Litvisher position on risk assessment. > And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... Now *there's* mysticism! To a Litvak that shouldn't be a consideration. The din is the din, and it's not up to us to justify it. But IIRC you never deal with the explicit gemara about mikvaos. A gemara that explicitly distinguishes the case of kohanim who were found to be pesulim from *every other case* in the Torah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:40:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:40:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <81e3d31e-aa58-5f1a-fefb-bdc0297298a2@sero.name> On 09/06/17 16:03, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : >In Yevamos... > : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his > : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. > : > : Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact > > "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke; > he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the > issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...") No, he wasn't. Lo zazu misham has no connection to finding a solution to any problem, and there's no indication that "they" were even thinking of this problem. It's simply a statement that it was agreed upon by all that the pasuk makes the ten tribes (or at least their men) nochrim. No connection to any practical problem. > : the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there > : never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. > > That's Ravina. No, it isn't. It's Shmuel himself, answering why the womens' descendants are not a problem -- they didn't have any. Ravina is the one who says the halacha we all know, that the child of a nochri and a Yisre'elis is a Yisrael. > Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu". > Which is inconsistent with Ravina. It's irrelevant to Ravina, because in this lashon he isn't citing the general halacha about the child of a Yisrael and a nochris being a nochri, but instead says those children (of the men with nochriyos) were ruled to be nochrim from the pasuk. The women's children still aren't a problem, because there weren't any. But even if you say that according to the second lashon Shmuel didn't say the women were sterile, and he meant the pasuk to apply to both the men and the women, still it's specifically about them, not meshumadim in general. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:51:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:51:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: > The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any > Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different objects. > I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only > those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim. I don't believe so. The only non-Jewish "chaverim" I can think of are the sect that ruled in Persia in the Amoraim's times -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 15:36:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 18:36:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not > Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, > but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min > ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world. Me'am Lo'ez (R' Aryeh Kaplan's The Torah Anthology, pg 293) explains: "You must realize that your brother is suffering very much because he has no place to go. If his soul comes to heaven, it will be all alone, since no one else is here. If it comes down to earth, it feels great anguish when it sees its body's blood spilled on rocks and stones." > Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source? > And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because > Kel Nekamos Hashem. I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples, but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than "yikom". In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean it's appropriate for us. RZS continues in another post: > But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an > issur on doing so against your own people, because you are > commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want > revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in > itself does not come from any Jewish source. Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 14:07:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:07:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> Message-ID: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other places. I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? This one stands out. On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and > sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the > previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons > for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third > parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha > four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 14:16:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:16:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' AM wrote: 'Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor" regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this "needed" comfort from someone else.' Halachos of contact between husband and wife are more strict than with strangers, vis all the harchakos during nidda which are unique to a spouse, due to the familiarity of pas b'salo. So I wouldn't be as surprised. Although just to return my theme for a moment, If I'm right then the act is one of outright mitzva, probably including kiddush hashem. If I'm wrong, then the act is one of aveira lishma. Now I realise that we don't hold with aveira lishma these days, but when the overall cheshbon is as stated, I think I'd be willing to chance it. Especially when you add the possibility, as R'MB mentioned, that if you don't do it you're a chasid shoteh. Because then the cheshbon becomes tzadik or chasid shoteh for not doing it vs big mitzva or aveira lishma for doing it. Given that in any given circumstance we wouldn't be able to be clear about which of these would apply, I think the worst of those four options is probably the chasid shoteh. If this was on Areivim I'd sign off with :) Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 19:04:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:04:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170611020429.GA20848@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: : >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any : >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. : : Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase : with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei : amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different : objects. See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. Gut Voch! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 20:45:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:45:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <720f24ed-7e17-74ae-afc7-3e7d2a0f3a7b@sero.name> On 10/06/17 17:07, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and >> sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the >> previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons >> for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third >> parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha >> four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. > Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the > Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other > places. > > I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he > often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat > haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? > This one stands out. He has to give the source, explain why we do this, and he uses as few words as he needs to. He says mesorah hi beyadeinu; what else could he say? How could he express that any more concisely? BTW he cites medrash all the time; that's where halachos come from, after all. But here he doesn't mention any medrash, just this mesorah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 22:39:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 07:39:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Who says it was? As was stated in other posts on this thread, it is a machloqet in the Gemara if they will or won't come back. That more or less proves my point - their return, if it happens will be something completely different than what happened with the rest of the tribes. Even if we take the claims of various people claiming to be descendants seriously, they still have to convert. Their return will be tipot-tipot, individuals, that have to be re-integrated and not whole groups. > > Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of > assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where > they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite. But > even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . . Not at all. > Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were people from the > northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first > posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two separate exilic > populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our exile to have ended successfully? The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, it doesn't speak well of our history. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 23:54:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 09:54:49 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03c78b43-410c-30ec-c2bf-33691b72f348@starways.net> On 6/10/2017 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > > R' Zev Sero wrote: > >> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because >> Kel Nekamos Hashem. > I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. > Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is > intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. You're mistaken about the Hebrew. Yikom is not "uphold". That would be yakim. Yikom has a dagesh in the quf because of the dropped nun. There is literally no question whatsoever that Hashem yikom damo means may God avenge his blood. > It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples, > but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an > experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh > apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem > mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 > hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both > numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than > "yikom". Yinkom is a mistake. Just like the future of nosei'a is yisa and the future of nofel is yipol, the future of nokem is yikom. > In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean > it's appropriate for us. Consider Bamidbar 31. In the second verse, Hashem tells Moshe: Nekom nikmat bnei Yisrael me-ha-Midyanim. Take the vengeance of Israel against the Midianites. In the next verse, Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael latet nikmat Hashem b'Midyan. To take the vengeance of Hashem against the Midianites. Moshe isn't arguing with Hashem here. When we take vengeance upon our enemies, it *is* Hashem's vengeance. I recommend that you watch the video of Rabbi David Bar Hayim debating Jonathan Rosenblum at the Israel Center back in 1991 (I think). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYefNy1D0DY They both bring sources for their arguments on the subject, and rather than repeat all of them here, have a look. > RZS continues in another post: > >> But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an >> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are >> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want >> revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in >> itself does not come from any Jewish source. > Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo > sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) It doesn't just say lo tikom v'lo titor. It says lo tikom v'lo titor *et bnei amecha*. Do not take vengeance or hold a grudge *against* your own people. Detaching the first part of that from its object is unjustifiable. It would be like taking lo tochal chametz, dropping the object, and saying that we're forbidden to eat. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 02:02:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:02:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. > Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is > intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. > "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will avenge". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 20:40:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:40:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68dacd1f-f6c7-8792-daad-b5b21531f3bc@sero.name> On 09/06/17 18:36, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not >> Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, >> but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min >> ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. > Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in > pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world. Interesting, I'd never heard that. But in that case why "eilai"? That implies wanting something from Me. >> Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. > I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source? Yismach Tzadik ki chaza nakam, pe`amav yirchatz bedam harasha. When Chushim knocked Esav's head off, his eyes fell onto Yaakov's feet and Yaakov sat up and smiled. >> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because >> Kel Nekamos Hashem. > I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. Yikkom does *not* mean uphold, it means avenge. There's no such word as "yinkom"; the nun disappears into the kuf and becomes a dagesh. Perhaps you are thinking of yakim. > experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh > apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem > mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 > hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both > numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than > "yikom". For a non-existent word that's pretty good. I'm relieved that it doesn't outnumber the correct word :-) > In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean > it's appropriate for us. It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not something to be ashamed of. >> But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an >> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are >> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want >> revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in >> itself does not come from any Jewish source. > Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo > sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) Es benei amecha. [Email #2. -micha] On 10/06/17 22:04, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: >: >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any >: >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase >: with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different >: objects. > See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. > This doesn't answer the question. Lo sikom has the same subject as lo sitor. It's not even the identical object, it's literally the *same* object. So how can we pry them apart? Beside which, if netira is forbidden against a Jewish non-chaver, then how is nekama against him even possible? Netira would seem to be a necessary prerequisite for nekama (which is why the pasuk lists them as lo zu af zu). [Email #3 -mi] On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" > (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will > avenge". Is yinkom even a valid form? AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that have it in Av Harachamim are in error. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 09:11:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:11:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <83aef0cf-edbb-3ac8-3727-cc086f348ffa@sero.name> References: <83aef0cf-edbb-3ac8-3727-cc086f348ffa@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > >> >> "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" >> (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will >> avenge". >> > > Is yinkom even a valid form? AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that > have it in Av Harachamim are in error. > > It's irregular, but I would hesitate to say it's a mistake: there are a few exceptions to the rule that the initial nun assimilates, e.g. yintor in Yirmiahu 3:5; yinkofu in Yeshayahu 29:1; or tintz'reni in Tehillim 140:2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 11:29:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <2f8fdb3a-11ac-11d2-eea8-d064a7265bda@sero.name> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> <20170611020429.GA20848@aishdas.org> <2f8fdb3a-11ac-11d2-eea8-d064a7265bda@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170611182926.GA20138@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:56:06PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase : >: with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei : >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different : >: objects. : : >See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. : > : : This doesn't answer the question... But you didn't ask the question. You asserted that what I said was "not true". Since the Maharshal and Avodas haMelekh said it, and I don't know of a dissenting interpreter of the Rambam, I would assume it is indeed true. This was a bit of a hasty judgement on your part. But you said a great question, and worth exploring. Doesn't change that the Rambam apparently does hold what I said he did: > The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any > Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 12:32:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 22:32:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> References: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 6/11/2017 8:39 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of >> assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point >> where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were >> Israelite. But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . >> . Not at all. Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were >> people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards >> that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two >> separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been >> disastrous in very many ways. > That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our > exile to have ended successfully? Why harsh? Causes have effects. > The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of > (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them > (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal > with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this > feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, > it doesn't speak well of our history. Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind. And we don't gloat over their downfall. Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, which they were. And what kind of attempts would you have wanted? Jeremiah brought some of them back. I'm sure others joined us in Bavel after we were exiled. But their exile was their own doing. Though it affected us as well. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 16:18:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:18:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170611231815.GA29585@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:32:22PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind. And we don't gloat over : their downfall. Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, : which they were. (Quibbling about the orogin of the word "Jews" and whether or not Malkhus Yisrael and their descendents qualify aside. We all know we mean "Benei Yisrael", right?) Actually, one of the topics raised was whether the descendents of Malkhus Yisrael exist, bdyond the refugees absorbed into Malkhus Yehudah. And if they do, R Chaim Brisker takes the gemara as concluding the descendents are not part of the community of Beris Sinai. Yes, but in either case, as we cited numerous source showing in the past, "binfol" is not only about the fall of fellow Jews... Which I then collected into a blog post : The most common reason we pass around [for spilling wine at the mention of the makkos at the seder], however, is that we're diminishing our joy out of compassion for the suffering of other human beings, even the Egyptians. This reason is relatively new, but it is found in such authoritative locations as the hagaddah of R' SZ Aurbach and appears as a "yeish lomar" (it could be said) in that of R Elyashiv (pg 106, "dam va'eish").... ... The Pesiqta deRav Kahane (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a) gives us a different reason [for chatzi hallel (CH) during the latter days of Pesach]. It tells the story of the angels singing/reciting poetry at the crossing of the Red Sea... ... This is midrash is quoted by the Midrash Harninu and the Yalqut Shim'oni (the Perishah points you to Parashas Emor, remez 566). The Midrash Harninu or the Shibolei haLeqet ... The Beis Yoseif (O"Ch 490:4, "Kol") cited the gemara, then quotes the Shibolei haLeqet as a second reason... Sources from RAZZivitofsky (same blog post): The Taz gives this diminution of joy as the reason for CH on the 7th day (OC 490:3), as does the Chavos Ya'ir (225). The Kaf haChaim (O"Ch 685:29) brings down the Yafeh haLeiv (3:3) use this midrash to establish the idea that we mourn the downfall of our enemy in order to explain why there is no berakhah on Parashas Zakhor (remembering the requirement to destroy Amaleiq). Amaleiq! R' Aharon Kotler (Mishnas R' Aharon vol III pg 3) ... Then I listed others' suddestions here: ... R' Jacob Farkas found the Meshekh Chokhmah ... R' Dov Kay points us to the Netziv's intro to HaEimeq Davar... (Since we're going from Maharat was to ethics wars, might as well play the game to its fullest...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 16:27:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:27:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170611232725.GB29585@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 06:36:45PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" : actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is : often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. : Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is : intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. : Hashem yiqqom damam does indeed refer to revenge. : In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean : it's appropriate for us. Keil neqamos H'. (A little obvious this discussion didn't span a Wed yet.) But the whole point, to my mind, for sayibng HYD is a longing to see Divine Justice in the world. HYD undoes the chilul hasheim of the wicked prospering. Hinasei shofit ha'atzetz... Ad masair recha'im ya'alozu... If we were to take neqamah (qua neqamah; pre-empting a repeat attack is a different thing) we rob most of the possibility of that happening. Even the Six Day War gave people the opportunity to say it was luck or human skill -- "Kol haKavod laTzahal" Implied in HYD is that revenge is G-d's, not ours, to take. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 19:49:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 22:49:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . When I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong. I was wrong, and I thank all the chevreh who pointed out my error. "Yikom" does mean to avenge. Thank you all. But the main question is our attitude towards revenge in general. R' Zev Sero wrote: > It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not > something to be ashamed of. He seems to feel that there's nothing wrong with wanting to take revenge in general, except that we're not allowed to do it if the object of the revenge is a fellow Jew. I suppose he might compare vengeance to eating meat: right and proper in general, but sometimes forbidden. (Pork in the case of meat, and Jews in the case of revenge.) Exactly *why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew? RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct source. But either way... I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be in the "Ribis" category. There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a non-Jew.) Setting Nekama aside for a moment, does anyone know of a source which goes through the various Bein Adam L'chaveiros, and categorizes them in that manner? (I can easily imagine that most people would avoid publishing such a list, to avoid supplying the anti-Semites with ammunition, but I figured I'd ask.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 20:07:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 20:07:35 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists Message-ID: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into hashem's business. And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the future even though they were right. One surmises he would not have been surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land... Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 22:57:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:57:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> References: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9b2f0d53-8794-4b0d-43b7-3bb0ee4d6e3c@zahav.net.il> On 6/6/2017 8:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW. > > Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'" > (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL > Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not! However one defines the Chareidi opposition to Zionism and Zionists, the former wrote book after book justifying it and explaining why Zionism is so awful and why it is so wrong to participate in the Zionist enterprise. It is still going on today. Back in the 20s, people used extremely strong language about Rav Kook, language which was much worse than anything used today, not to mention what the Satmar Rebbe wrote about RK. > There are two possible sources of division here. > > 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were > only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My > predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply > de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators, > and therefore in practice will be a separate community. Here I have a couple of questions. 1) Like my wife always tells me, if someone is triggered by something he has to ask himself why. I know people who would walk out of shul if a woman gave the dvar Torah on Friday night. Yet the same people are perfectly OK having a Rosh Hashana tefilla that incorporates a lot of Sefardi piyuttim. Completely different prayers, tunes, flavor. But in order to have an experience of "b'yachad" we do it. 2) What what exactly would change? Does one see more women in shuls that have a maharat? Do the maharats come to Tuesday afternoon Mincha? If they do they're behind the mechitza, yes? What changes are people talking about? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 03:09:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 06:09:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:49:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" : only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of : morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be : in the "Ribis" category. : : There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even : to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed : against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. : (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a : non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I : admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B : or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, : things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a : non-Jew.) IOW: (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited. (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition when you do them against your sibling. (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito neshekh vesarbit". As for neqamah, I argued from quotes like kol hama'avir al midosav and ne'elavim ve'eino olvin that it's in (B). I would add now that this is implied by the Rambam's inclusion of these two issurim (lo siqom velo sitor) in Hil' Dei'os p' 7 that he is considering the middah bad, not only the act wrong. Interesting to note, the Rambam puts them after LH. Also, I noted that the only commentaries on the Rambam that I could find that discuss his change in terminology between Dei'os 7:7 and 7:8 explain that he is prohibiting neqamah against all chaveirim but netirah "mei'echad meYisrael". Meaning you now need a B' and C' where the category is only observant Jews. (And I still have a nagging recollection that the Rambam's "chaveirim" in general includes geirei toshav and other observant Noachides.) And neqamah is in one of those. So, (B'). How you get such a distinction in two issurim that are written in the pasuq as verbs sharing the same object is a good one. But the Avodas haMelekh says that the Maharshal reaches the same conclusion in his commentary to the Semag, and I see the Semag uses the same difference in nouns. Lav #11 - "[Lo siqom.] Hanoqeim al chaveiro". #12 - "Kol hanoteir le'echad miYisrael". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 03:53:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:53:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> References: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> On 6/13/2017 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > IOW: > > (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited. > > (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition > when you do them against your sibling. > > (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family > nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito > neshekh vesarbit". I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews. Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 04:37:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal > judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C (Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 04:33:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:33:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> References: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170613113340.GA11269@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:53:18PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: ... : >(B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition : >when you do them against your sibling. ... : : I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an : outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly : doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against : non-Jews. Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal : judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. But there are things that are morally wrong and yet not prohibited. "Stretch goals" like the Rambam's take on ego and anger in Dei'os pereq 2, the Ramban's "hatov vehayashar". Here, the gemara talks about (1) a ma'avir al midosav, (2) taking insult and not responding, it even says (3) a tzadiq is one who never takes revenge -- which, if it were about neqamah when assur, would be heaping overly high praise on someone for just keeping the din. So, two or three times that I am aware of, the gemara talks positively of the middos that would avoid ever taking revenge. It seems neqamah in particular is a moral wrong even when the black-letter halakhah allows the act. The Torah does manage to relay to us goals beyond those it prohibit or demand in black-letter halakhah. (Something Chassidus and Mussar were each founded on...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 06:44:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:44:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] restaurants Message-ID: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From the OU: Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example, one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility. Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food. Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based? For example, in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in a treif restaurant, what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % threshold for concern? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 07:16:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 10:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6388500a-9329-9367-9de2-e75ed55d6022@sero.name> On 12/06/17 22:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Exactly*why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew? > RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that > "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct > source. But either way... It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. > There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even > to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed > against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh *re`ehu* basater". > (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a > non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I > admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B > or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, > things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a > non-Jew.) Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 19:11:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shelach Message-ID: " We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." (Numbers 13:32-33). One of the greatest teachers of Torah of our age, Nechama Leibowitz, zt'l, in one of her essays on this parsha, asks an important question: how did the spies know what the "giants" thought of them? If they really were giant beings, then one could understand the feeling that "we seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes," but how did they know if the "giants" even noticed them? Unfortunately, although Nechama Leibowitz posed this great question, she didn't give any hint as to an answer. The following is a Midrash in which God rebukes the spies: "I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11). On the other hand, Rashi says that the spies reported overhearing the giants talking to one another, saying that "there are ants in the vineyard that resemble human beings.? (Rashi is also quoting an ancient midrash from the Talmud). Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities and an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties. Harry S Truman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 09:10:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:10:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/13/2017 2:37 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R"n Lisa Liel wrote: >> Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal >> judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. > My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category > A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C > (Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)? I would have to say that, by definition, if it's permissible to speak LH against non-Jews, it isn't immoral. But of course there are numerous subcategories of LH, and it'd be interesting to see if all of them are mutar against non-Jews, and if so, why? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 10:49:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:49:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shelach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170613174946.GA24674@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 10:11:31PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The following is a Midrash in which God rebukes the spies: : "I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to : ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to : them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? : Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11). ... : Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear : not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies : but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon : His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, : and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). Good -- is the yeitzer hatov, *very* good -- is the yeitzer hara. But in any case, the spies are an imperfect example, because they had G-d's promise that this specific mission would succeed. We don't have such reason to be optimistic. Related: I wonder if the difference between Chassidic or the Alter of Novhardok's view of bitchon is related to history. The AoN said that sufficient bitachon generates success, to the extent that he felt that being a "baal bitachon is an objective reality provable by experience and he signed his name with a B"B without fear of it being bragging. The CI's view is that bitachon is not prognostic, but the attitude that everything is happening according to Hashem's plan. I may fail and suffer, ch"v, but knowing it is all for a purpose makes it easier to cope. The history that I think divides them -- the CI's Emunah uBitachon was written in the shadow of the Holocaust. (It was published in 1954, a year after the CI's passing.) Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:57:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:57:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists In-Reply-To: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> References: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> Or they were part of a self fulling prophecy. Instead of going in confident in themselves and in God's ways, they chose to second guess God. The Bnei Yisrael who had actually seen Yitziat Mitzrayim would have gone into Israel. Instead a weakened Bnei Yisrael went in and almost immediately got trapped in the lure of the local idol worship. Ben On 6/13/2017 5:07 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into hashem's business. And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the future even though they were right. One surmises he would not have been surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:53:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:53:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Does it make a difference that the woman in the hypothetical scenario is - unfortunately - no longer an eishet ish, and presumably at her stage of life also not a niddah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:22:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:22:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. Can one enter a non-kosher establishment to buy a can of soda or use the bathroom? Message-ID: <1497385351309.31544@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. Can one enter a non-kosher establishment to buy a can of soda or use the bathroom? A. Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example, one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility. Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 18:09:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:09:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists In-Reply-To: <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> References: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170614010904.GA6321@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:57:19PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Or they were part of a self fulling prophecy. Instead of going in : confident in themselves and in God's ways, they chose to second : guess God. The Bnei Yisrael who had actually seen Yitziat Mitzrayim : would have gone into Israel... Or not. After all, Hashem didn't pick that generation for a reason. Apparently they didn't just sin, but they sinned in a way that made working with them a bad idea. And even before that Vayehi beshalach Par'oh es ha'am velo nacham E-lokim derekh Eretz Pelishtim ki qarov hu, ki amar E-lokim, "Pen yinacheim ha'am bir'osam milchamah veshavu Mitzrayim" Remember, they were also stuck with a slave mentality. But I agree with your point, about the self-fulfilling prophecy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 18:33:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:33:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special > consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah > of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not > hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend > him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip > about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. I would think that killing and stealing are in this category too. But you would then point to the phrase "special consideration". In other words, there is a particular shiur of consideration. Some actions are below that shiur; they are so basic that they apply even to non-Jews. And other actions are above that shiur; it is "special" consideration that we extend to family, but not to outsiders. I would accept such a response, but it isn't very helpful. Exactly what is that shiur? Where do we put the line? I have always thought that *all* these things are basic menschlichkeit, and apply to everyone, Jewish or not. > Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? > The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh > *re`ehu* basater". That's just two pesukim. Sefer Chofetz Chayim brings a lot more than that - 31 if I remember correctly. Granted that one doesn't violate these particular mitzvos if the object of the Lashon Hara isn't Jewish. But the others aren't so simple. At the very least, you're gambling that the Lashon Hara will remain secret and not result in a Chilul Hashem. > Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. True. I have always thought of ribis in a class of its own, for the simple reason that the entire world considers it to be a generally acceptable business practice. This includes Chazal, who felt it important to find a way to structure certain business activities in ways that would skirt this issur. The point is that ribis is NOT inherently immoral. It *can* be abused and thereby *become* immoral. But if done properly, it is a neutral (or even benevolent) business tool. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 21:17:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:17:28 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Anyone have access to HaRav Sh Goren's Terumas HaGoren? Message-ID: Anyone have access to HaRav Sh Goren's Terumas HaGoren? I am looking for 3 pages to be copied [pictured?] and sent to me - meirabi at gmail.com Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 21:02:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:02:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ac357ec-2fb0-c5c8-e187-ccbd26cd60f9@sero.name> On 13/06/17 21:33, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special >> consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah >> of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not >> hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend >> him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip >> about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. > I would think that killing and stealing are in this category too. No, those are inherently wrong, no matter who is the victim. You don't need to love someone in order not to kill them, hit them, steal from them, damage their property, etc. They have the right not to have these things done to them, so you may not do so even if you actively hate them. They have the right to be treated with common decency. Or, in the lashon of libertarianism, non-aggression, i.e. not to have you initiate force or fraud against them. Whereas they have no right to any favors from you; you have no duty to lift a finger to help them or to give them anything. Doing favors for people is a gift which you naturally give only to those you love; the Torah therefore commands you to give it to those whom it wants you to love. > But > you would then point to the phrase "special consideration". In other > words, there is a particular shiur of consideration. Some actions are > below that shiur; they are so basic that they apply even to non-Jews. > And other actions are above that shiur; it is "special" consideration > that we extend to family, but not to outsiders. No, it's not a matter of degree but of kind. > I would accept such a response, but it isn't very helpful. Exactly > what is that shiur? Where do we put the line? I have always thought > that *all* these things are basic menschlichkeit, and apply to > everyone, Jewish or not. No, they are not. >> Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? >> The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh >> *re`ehu* basater". > That's just two pesukim. Sefer Chofetz Chayim brings a lot more than > that - 31 if I remember correctly. The hakama to CC is mussar, so he piles on pesukim, but it you look at them they all pretty much flow from a very few sources, all of which specify "re'echa" or "amecha", etc. > The point is that ribis is NOT > inherently immoral. It *can* be abused and thereby *become* immoral. > But if done properly, it is a neutral (or even benevolent) business > tool. So are all these other things. They're normal and natural behaviour between people who don't necessarily like each other, but one would never treat someone one genuinely loved like that, so the Torah tells us that we must not treat our fellow yisre'elim like that. [Email #2] Google produced this: http://www.havabooks.co.il/article_ID.asp?id=1046 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 00:50:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 10:50:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 241) explains the prohibition of lo sikom as follows (my rough translation): "A person should understand in his heart that everything that happens to him good or bad is caused by Hashem and between people there is nothing but the will of Hashem. Therefore when someone bothers or hurts you, you should know that your sins caused this and whatever happened is a gezera from Hashem. Therefore, you should not think about taking revenge because the other person is not the cause of your troubles, rather your sins are the cause. " Based on the Chinuch's explanation there should be no difference between taking revenge on a Jew or a Goy. In either case they are not the cause of your suffering they are just the instrument of Hashem and therefore there is no reason for revenge. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 06:44:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:44:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/06/17 03:50, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 241) explains the prohibition of lo sikom > as follows (my rough translation): > > "A person should understand in his heart that everything that happens to > him good or bad is caused by Hashem and between people there is nothing > but the will of Hashem. Therefore when someone bothers or hurts you, you > should know that your sins caused this and whatever happened is a gezera > from Hashem. Therefore, you should not think about taking revenge > because the other person is not the cause of your troubles, rather your > sins are the cause. " > > Based on the Chinuch's explanation there should be no difference between > taking revenge on a Jew or a Goy. In either case they are not the cause > of your suffering they are just the instrument of Hashem and therefore > there is no reason for revenge. That is the basis for Chazal's dictum that "Whoever gets angry [over *anything*] is as if he serves idols", but there is no actual mitzvah against anger. Obviously one who truly believes in and fully accepts what we on Avodah have dubbed "strong HP" has no need for either of these two mitzvos, because it will never occur to him to hold a grudge, let alone to take revenge; but one who *does* gets angry or upset at what a fellow Jew does to him, but doesn't hold a long-term grudge against him over it is not violating a mitzvah. One mitzvah is that even if you *do* feel upset you shouldn't hold it against the person who did it, and another mitzvah is that even if you do hold it against him you shouldn't punish him for it. Therefore despite the Chinuch's relating this mussar idea to these two mitzvos, it cannot be the actual reason. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 09:16:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:16:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Akiva Miller wrote: 'I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be in the "Ribis" category. There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a non-Jew, such as Ribis.' I think this categorisation may need refining. It assumes that the Torah doesn't want us to do unethical things to non Jews either by black letter law or by unlegislated preference. The problem with this is that the Torah assumes that non-Jews are ovdei Avoda Zara and some mitzvos are specifically intended to malign them as such. Take Lo Sechaneim - The gemara learns that we can't even praise a non Jew, never mind be kind in a more concrete way. Gerei Toshav don't have this prohibition but the pshat din of the Torah is that it applies to non-Jews stam. In other words the mitzvos of the Torah treat non-Jews as transgressors and so it's likely that at least some of thing the otherwise unethical things we are allowed to do to them are due to this status. So we need at least to distinguish between what is allowed to any non-Jew and what is prohibited to a Ger Toshav. For example Ribis is clearly allowed even to a Ger Toshav. It's not unethical per se, just prohibited to a family member viz a Jew. So we need possibly, categories of: A) forbidden to everyone B) Forbiden to Jews and Gerei Toshav but totally allowed to Ovdei Avoda Zara C) Technically allowed to non-Jews of whichever category but best avoided as a bad midda D) Forbidden to Jews but totally allowed to all non Jews Re nekama, I think, subject to correction, that it is only ever positive when by Hashem or on his behalf. The nekama on Midian is 'nikmas Hashem m'es HaMidianim'. We needed to be commanded in order to do it. Hashem is 'El nekamos Hashem' in Tehilim. If anyone has a source for it being a positive thing to take personal revenge then let's hear it. Not sure the agadeta of Yaakov waking and smiling fits that bill. Otherwise the Rambam's placing of nekama in De'os as a bad midda should tell us what we need to know about it. That would be consistent with nekama being forbidden against Gerei Toshav, although we haven't found a source for that (yet). Lisa Liel wrote: 'I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews. ' The Torah clearly allows things which it considers morally wrong - Shivya Nochris for example. And the gemara says that's assur to bring one's wife as a Soteh, yet it's a whole parsha in the Torah. And the Ramban's naval birshus haTorah. Seems to me the Torah sets a floor, not a ceiling, and prompts growth through the mitzvos. Isn't that the whole thrust of Hilchos De'os? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 12:45:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:45:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish optimism [was: Shelach] Message-ID: <23c6ce.6a161a0e.4672ec49@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah ... : Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear : not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies : but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon : His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, : and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). [--Cantor Wolberg] RMB wrote: >> ...But in any case, the spies are an imperfect example, because they had G-d's promise that this specific mission would succeed. We don't have such reason to be optimistic.... ....Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? << Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> I once heard a powerful and inspiring talk given by R' Joseph Friedenson a'h. He had survived a number of different concentration camps in hellish circumstances, and had lost all or most of his family. He said in his talk that the last time he ever saw his father, his father said, "I don't know if you and I will survive this war, but no matter what happens, remember this: Klal Yisrael will survive!" R' Friedenson said that he never saw his father again but he went through the war with an unshakeable optimism. That's what he called it, optimism. He underwent horrendous suffering, but nevertheless he had a firm conviction that the Nazis would ultimately fail. He always held onto his father's words, "Klal Yisrael will survive." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 13:25:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:25:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shoah Message-ID: <842320B8-8657-4A22-98E8-76CAA22765DC@cox.net> R? Micha wrote in regard to the Shelach posting: Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? Along the same lines there was a fascinating book written many years ago by a legitimate, authentic, respected orthodox rabbi who wrote that someone who was not a victim in the holocaust has no right to say there is no God. Here is what was really an astonishing and somewhat shocking statement he made: if someone was actually in the Concentration Camp, this person has the right to deny God. I can see many raised eyebrows, but I would greatly appreciate someone remembering this book. Since it was rather revolutionary to be coming from a musmach who is respected by other orthodox rabbis. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 15:39:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:39:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: <20170614223903.GA14026@aishdas.org> In some, more Zionist, circles, the Satmar Rebbe's position that Israel is a maaseh satan is often left not understood. Many of the RZ camp have summarily dismissed it as overly polytheist for their liking. However, it is possible -- even if I or you do not find it plausible -- that Zionism was a challenge to the Jewish People. To see if after the Holocaust we would be so desperate for political relief that we would stop working toward true ge'ulah. As per the title of the SR's response to the mood after the Six Day War -- Al haGe'ulah ve'Al haTemurah (About the Ge'uilah and about the Replacement; perhaps "Decoy"). And, there is a particular mal'akh charged with posing spiritual challenges for us to grow through overcoming -- the satan. Thus, such a temurah would be a maaseh satan. Pretty conventional metaphysics, even for those who find the other religious positions bothersome. I mentioned this because of R' Gidon Rothstein's latest column in TM on the Ramban. "Ramban to Re'eh, Week Two: Avoiding False Prophets, Hearing From Hashem" http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/06/avoiding-false-prophets-hearing-hashem Along the way, RGR writes: It Might Actually Be From Hashem In the last verse in this passage, Moshe warns that this false prophet is a nisayon, a test, from Hashem. Ramban points out that back inBereshit, he had already dealt with the question of why Hashem "tests" us (doesn't Hashem know the future, and therefore know the outcome of the test? There are many answers, this is Ramban's). It's only a test from our perspective, he said. Hashem indeed knows the outcome, and is engaging in it to bring our potential into actuality (that implies that everyone always passes these tests, which works well for figures like Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov. It seems to me less convincing about the nisayon here, since the Jewish people have in fact occasionally followed such false prophets). Still, that's the less surprising part of this Ramban, since it is the face value of the verse, that the wonder did in fact come through the Will of Hashem, Hashem showed him this dream or vision to test our love of Hashem. Ramban doesn't say more, but I think he means--and this is the part that is more surprising and a bit challenging- that all people involved must realize that this is not what Hashem wants. I think he means the prophet him/herself was supposed to refrain from giving this prophecy (the other option is that Hashem was commanding and condemning this person to be a false prophet, to forfeit his/her life in doing so, and that someone we would put to death as a false prophet is actually a hero of Hashem's service. I find that unthinkable, unless the prophet said "I had this vision, but you clearly shouldn't listen to because we're not allowed to ever worship any power other than Hashem." But it's logically possible). The prophet aside, anyone who hears that prophecy, even if it's supported by uncannily accurate predictions, must both refuse to obey and react to this person as a false prophet. That is what true ahavat Hashem would lead us to do, a reminder that acting on our love of Hashem sometimes means doing that which under other circumstances should be distasteful. Putting someone to death for sharing his/her vision is not usually conduct we applaud. Here, it would still be upsetting, but necessary for those whose love of Hashem fills their beings. If the Ramban could say that there could be a navi sheqer who gets his message from Hashem for the sould purpose of challenging us, is it such a far stretch to the SR's anti-Zionism? IMHO, it's easier to understand Satmar or Munkacz anti-Zionism than Agudah's classical position of non-Zionism. The former agrees with the RZ that the Medinah is a huge event of vast import, but disagree about what the import is. The Agudist (at least classically, there were exceptions in the early years of the state, and things seem to be wearing down now) believe that Jews can regain sovereignty over EY for the first time in 2 millenia without it being religiously significant. (I am not talking about those of Neturei Karta who protest with the Palestinians and their supporters, or who visit Iranian gov't officials. They pose a whole different and perhaps even more fundamental set of problems. The SR's anti-Zionism included praying for Tzahal, as these were Jews led to danger through a horrible (in his opinion) error; an error that exists in part for the purpose of putting Jews in danger.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: RGR -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 18 10:59:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:59:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Korach Message-ID: <2943596C-CE9C-488B-B333-D25328C619BD@cox.net> 1) 16:1 "Vayikach Korach...." "And Korach, the son of Yitzhar, the son of Kehoth, the son of Levi took, and Dathan and Aviram, the sons of Eliav,etc.? The question is what did Korach take? The verb has no object. Resh Lakish said: "He took a bad 'taking' for himself" (Sanhedrin). Rashi said: "Korach...separated [lit.,took] himself. Korach placed himself at odds with the rest of the assembly to protest against Aaron's assumption of the priesthood." Ibn Ezra said it meant: "Korach took men..." 2) In the Ethics of the Fathers 5, 17 it states: "Every controversy that is pursued in a heavenly cause, is destined to be perpetuated; and that which is not pursued in a heavenly cause is not destined to be perpetuated. Which can be considered a controversy pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And that not pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Korach and his congregation." An analysis of this by Malbim explains in quite a compelling fashion why the Mishnah was not worded as we would have expected it to be: "A controversy pursued in a heavenly cause...that is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. That not pursued in a heavenly cause is the controversy of Korach and Moses." Instead it reads: "Korach and his congregation." As Malbim explains-- they would be quarreling amongst themselves, as each one strove to attain his selfish ambitions. The controversy therefore was rightly termed "between Korach and his congregation." They would ultimately fight among themselves. And the denouement would be their self-destruction. 3) "Korach quarreled with peace, and he who quarrels with peace quarrels with the Holy Name." (Zohar, Korach 176a [ed.,Soncino], Vol. V, p.238). The bottom line here is "Don't Mess with Hashem." In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves. Buddhal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 18 17:07:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 17:07:22 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: the aguda made a very practical decision-- to not make a halachic decision, but rather to seek support economically and non-military . the only halachic issue was to determine that the State's money is muttar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 01:17:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shalom Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:17:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shoah Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg's reference to the Orthodox Rabbi who wrote about who has the right to disbelieve after the Holocaust is most likely Eliezer Berkovits in his Faith After the Holocaust. Shalom Rabbi Shalom Z. Berger, Ed.D. The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education Bar-Ilan University http://www.lookstein.org https://www.facebook.com/groups/lookjed/ Follow me on Twitter: @szberger NETWORK*LEARN*GROW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 09:40:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:40:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. I am required to attend a business meeting at a non-kosher restaurant. How do I avoid the issue of maris ayin? Message-ID: <1497890418438.2614@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. I am required to attend a business meeting at a non-kosher restaurant. How do I avoid the issue of maris ayin? A. The general rule regarding maris ayin is that one can avoid the prohibition of maris ayin if there is a heker (sign) that indicates that the action is permitted. For example, Rama (YD 87:3) writes that one may not cook meat with almond milk, since this gives the impression that one is violating the prohibition of cooking milk and meat together. This would constitute maris ayin. However, this situation is permitted if one places almonds near the pot, since the almonds will alert a bystander that the milk comes from almonds and not from an animal. Therefore, if one must enter a non-kosher restaurant, one should do so in a manner that makes it clear that one is entering for business and not for pleasure. For example, one should enter carrying a briefcase or a stack of papers. Rav Schachter, shlita said that in such an instance it would be preferable to wear a cap instead of a yarmulke. Rav Schachter also said that once seated, one may order a drink -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 12:56:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:56:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur Message-ID: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> This is a comment on R Yaakov Jaffe's article at http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2017/6/13/get-your-hashkafa-out-of-my-chumash Since the Lehrhaus doesn't take comments, I thought we could discuss it here. (CC-ing RYJ.) He writes: Lehrhaus Get Your Hashkafa Out of My Chumash! [R] Yaakov Jaffe ... It has become commonplace in Modern Orthodox circles to lament the lack of alignment between the beliefs of the movement and some of the editions, translations, and versions of ritual texts that members of the movement use. These critiques are often welcome, such as Deborah Klapper's[13] recent excellent essay about the Haggadah for Pesach, and tend to frame ArtScroll Publishers as the almost villain who has taken the ideologically open, natural, innocent, uncorrupted foundational texts of Judaism and colored them with an Ultra-Orthodox translation, skew, or commentary.... Okay, that's the general topic. Here's the point I wanted to discuss: For me, there is a more grave concern when Modern Orthodox Jews flock to a different ritual text because it aligns more purely with their own ideology, and that is that the ritual text ceases to be important for its own sake (as a Siddur, Humash, or Hagaddah), a vehicle for transmitting sacred texts and values through the generations, but instead becomes a mere bit player in a larger drama about movements and self-identification. ("I use this Siddur because in many ways it demonstrates that I am a proud Modern Orthodox Jew.") This carries the risk that readers will stop reading the text of the Humash or being taken by the poetry of the Siddur and instead become hyper-focused on ideological markers that appear in those ritual texts. And for reasons that we will demonstrate below, the subordination of prayer within the mind of the person at prayer, beneath the selection of outward identifiers of ideology undermines the very purpose and notion of prayer itself. In 1978, Rabbi Soloveitchik authored a[15] short essay entitled "Majesty and Humility" in Tradition, in which he poses a dichotomy critical for Jewish religious experience and prayer. He describes one pole as majestic humanity, striving for victory and sovereignty, as "Man sets himself up as king and tries to triumph over opposition and hostility." The other pole is humble humanity, full of "withdrawal and retreat," which appreciates the smallness of human beings in the scope of the cosmic order. In the essay, prayer is an example of man in the mood of humility, of withdrawal, who finds the Almighty not when humanity triumphs over the forces of nature, or in the scope of the galaxies, but when humanity recognizes its own limitations, and, as a result, causes that "God does descend from infinity to finitude, from boundlessness into the narrowness of the Sanctuary," or: All I could do was to pray. However, I could not pray in the hospital... the moment I returned home I would rush to my room, fall on my knees and pray fervently. God in those moments appeared not as the exalted majestic King, but rather as a humble, close friend. While at prayer, the individual is constantly focused on his or her own inadequacy compared to the Divine Creator and his or her own limitations. The individual cannot be engaged in the battles of denomination supremacy, as he or she is paralyzed by his or her own smallness while attempting to pray. Moreover, prayer is generally a uniquely unsuited vehicle for conveying specific, unique, or modern ideologies and beliefs. It focuses on requests and aspirations, not on statements of creed. The text of the Siddur also serves as a unifying tool for the Jewish people (given the enormous general similarity despite centuries of division and dispersal) and highlights what we have in common and not what we have apart. 13. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-haggadah-without-women-2/ 15. http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2017/No.%202/Majesty%20and%20Humility.pdf 16. http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/?author=5886cfaabebafbcb2d43550f My problem is that tefillah is all about ideology, and the siddur runs from statement of creed to statement of creed -- Yigdal to Ani Maamin. (Not saying AM is mandatory, but it's there...) For example, RYBS's is one approach to prayer. It's different than that of Nefesh haChaim, where the focus of baqashos are what the world needs for G-d's sake, not our own needs for our sake. Curing the sick because His Presence is enhanced when people are healthy. Etc... It's different than RSRH's approach to berakhos, where they are declarations of personal commitment. So that we ask for health so that we can contribute to His Say in the world -- "berakhah" lashon ribui, after all. Etc... (I think I dug up 7 different theological resolutions to how to undertand "barukh Atah H'" given that ribui and HQBH don't mix.) This is taking a specific hashkafah's side in order to argue that tefillah shouldn't be taking a specific hashkafah's side. As for Tanakh... It is true that in one community, maximalist positions that magnify G-d's Greatness -- whether it's a description of qeri'as Yam Suf or Rivqa's age at meeting Yitzchaq -- have a near-exclusive currency. Saying that the sea simply split vehamayim lahem chimah miyminam umismolam is seen as the product if ignorance; of course it split into 13 tunnels, each providing all of our needs, ready to be grabbed out of the walls. Whereas the other prefers more rationalist positions, and in any case there is a broader array of Chazal's statements taken as possibly true. Or, does an MO Jew relate to a chumash in which the only topic of footnotes on the berakhos of Yissachar & Zevulun is their possible precedent for kollel life? (Despite there never having been an entire community where kollel was the norm until the past century.) In a community where wearing hexaplex (the snail formerly known as murex) dyed strings is a significant minority, isn't there more interest in sefunei temunei chol than in a community where it's unheard of? Then there is just different communities having different tastes in what kind of Torah thought they find more appealing / satisfying / moving. People who gravitate to the words of the Rav like the ideas in Mesores haRav for that reason. Just as Chabadnikim are more likely to find things to their taste in the Guttenstein Chumash than in the Stone Edition. Shouldn't, then, all these options exist? And is that any less true when thinking of how to relate to some complex poseq in Tehillim or a line composed by Anshei Keneses haGdolah (or the typical Ashkenazi paytan) to be a palimpsest of meanings? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 03:25:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:25:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: <> R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah poisition basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful but is against the wishes of G-d. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 06:19:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yaakov Jaffe via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:19:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Hi, Regarding the first point that "This is taking a specific hashkafah's side in order to argue that tefillah shouldn't be taking a specific hashkafah's side." I confess that I am guilty as charged. But one approach to tefilah (let's call it the one that resonates with me) is that it is purely a communication between the speaker and his or her Creator, and that consequently, it is not the time and place to be focused on proclaiming our ideologies. Obviously others may argue, and there are numerous siddur options for them. But we shouldn't pretend that this is the only approach to prayer, or that every Jew must use ideology in chosing a siddur. Regarding the second point, which I understand to be saying "each occasion of Torah study involves someone chosing an approach they prefer to understand the text, so they should chose a Chumash that furthers the approach that they prefer" I also tend to agree as well, but here my post focuses on the reductio ad absurdum problem of splitting hairs and hyper-focus on details hashkafa. I did not conduct a comprehensive study of the stone Chumash, but wonder whether the troubling explanations are ubiquitous, occasional, or somewhere in between. The problem with a "Modern" chumash, is that there are many "modern" explanations that could be equally troubling, depending on how modern the chumash and conservative the reader. Did Bilaam's donkey talk or was it a dream (Ramban versus Rambam)? If Artscroll said he spoke, and for example a new chumash says that he did not - then which one most accurately reflects my hashkafa? And if you imagine 100 different texts that can be each read multiple ways, how do we find the chumash that on all 100 provides the perfect match? Hope this makes sense, happy to continue the conversation further, Yaakov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 08:07:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:07:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Shmitta fund Message-ID: <2A3CAC10-A501-4AF5-A666-AB7B0D35E90C@gmail.com> http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2017/06/proposed-law-shmitta-fund.html?m=1. Is that the general psak, that heter mechira is no better than nothing? Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 15:02:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:02:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] restaurants In-Reply-To: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170620220230.GB29839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:44:00PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From the OU: : Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher : restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would : be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness : the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad : (giving the appearance of impropriety)... A question about that "and"... I agree with their parenthetic definition, but I will rephrase to show why I think it's rare-to-impossible for something to simultaneously be both mar'is ayin and cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone who sees the action will assume it's mutar, or at least informally "not so bad". Cheshad is where someone who sees the action is sure it's assur, and therefore think less of the person doing it. How many actions involve two conflicting default umdenos? So, being confused, I looked up the Igeros Moshe. The teshuvah is primarily about a frum minyan in a room in a non-O synagogue. The last paragraph begins "Ubedavar im mutar le'ekhol berestarant..." ("Restaurant" transliterated in Yiddish or hil' gittin style.) The line is "yeis le'esor mishum mar'is ayin vecheshad". But if someone is mitzta'er tuva, so that these gezeiros do not apply, they could eat betzin'ah something that has no actual kashrus problem. Does "ve-" here have to mean both? Or could it mean that between the two, it is assur in all circumstances? Like "lulav hagazul vehayaveish pasul" doesn't refer only to a lulav that is both stolen and dried out. Chazal's "ve-" is more complex than "and". (I am tempted to discuss de Morgan's laws and ve-, but I will just leave in this hint rather than detour into a class in symbolic logic.) If it does have to mean both mar'ish ayin and cheshad, can someone : Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based? I am not clear how they could NOT be. : For example, in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in : a treif restaurant, what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % : threshold for concern? In NYC, if you see two people, only one of which in O uniform, entering a restaurant, it's common to just assume this is a business meeting and accomodations were made. Restaurants in Manhattan routinely take delivery for a kosher meal when catering a group; it's a matter of the minimum size of the group they'll make such accomodation for. (I have been one of three, and got Abigails delivered double-sealed.) In such a climate, I don't think people would assume you're there to eat treif even if it's just two people meeting and no kosher could possibly be brought in from the outside. It's just a known thing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 16:11:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 19:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170620231132.GC29839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:33:00PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. : : True. I have always thought of ribis in a class of its own, for the : simple reason that the entire world considers it to be a generally : acceptable business practice... According to the Rambam, it's a mitzvas asei. The SA (YD 159:1) holds like the Tur, it's mutar de'oraisa, and usually prohibited derabbanan "shema yilmod mima'asav". Bikhdei chayav, tzurba derabbanan and if the profit is only defined derabbanan as ribbis are three exceptions. (Charging ribis from a mumar shekafar be'iqar is also mutar, because we are not obligated lehachayaso; but paying ribis to him is not.) The Levush says "shema yilmod mima'asev" doesn't apply in the current economy. Chazal assumed a primarily Jewish economy where we have a few exceptional deals with non-Jews. So for us, ribis is always mutar lemaaseh. I wonder whether this heter of the Levush would apply to Jews in Israel today. In any case, halakhah pesukah (assuming the reader isn't Teimani) doesn't mention any mitzvah asei. In terms of the taam being because their own economy is based on interest... Would you argue that it's wrong to lend a Muslim or an Amish person money with interest? (Even in the Levush's opinion?) Particularly in a Moslem country. where they have their own parallels to heter isqa , and the person's whole culture (I presume) reviles interest. So is it whether or not ribis is considered immoral by the person being charged, or whether or not kelapei Shemaya galya ribis is moral? I argued the latter, but your wording left me wanting to articulate the chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 13:49:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:49:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting Message-ID: What would you like the first thing that HKB"H says to you at 120 when you report to the beit din shel maaleh(heavenly study hall)? Kt Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 13:50:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban Message-ID: What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:53:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:53:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 11:21:05PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : > I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi : > haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, : > like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" : > in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather : > than knowledge of abstract ideas. : No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these : were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi : haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and : that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? "They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..." :> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. : These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult : to understand them as having been written by the same person... Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position. ... :: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in :: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21... ::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us ::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the ::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers ::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their ::> practice on their upright fathers. :> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. : Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the : pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] : and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk... But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write: : Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the : context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting : up of schools)... Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's derashah. I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with "chadash assur min haTorah".) :> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. : Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas : etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody : define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at : all the experiential aspect... Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect? :> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when :> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an :> example to imitate. : The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is : as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with : Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her : ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." : The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard : to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, : excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of : Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily : in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education. After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior? In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49. : And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they : could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward : etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two : types of TSBP... Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah. : Is not the gemora etc filled with : this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it occuring... So I am toally lost here. Maybe the "this" has been stretched further than I can follow. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 19:00:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Message-ID: The gematria for Rosh Chodesh is 813. In the whole of tanach there is only one verse with the gematria of 813. It is B?reishis, Chapter 1, verse 3. ?Vayomer Elohim ohr, vay?hi ohr? ?And God said: Let there be light and there was light.? Music is moonlight in the gloomy night of life. Jean Paul, Author From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:42:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:42:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170621234200.GF18168@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 09:19:46AM -0400, Yaakov Jaffe via Avodah wrote: : But one approach to tefilah (let's call it the one that resonates with me) : is that it is purely a communication between the speaker and his or her : Creator, and that consequently, it is not the time and place to be focused : on proclaiming our ideologies. Obviously others may argue, and there are : numerous siddur options for them. But we shouldn't pretend that this is : the only approach to prayer, or that every Jew must use ideology in chosing : a siddur. But if a person wants to approach tefilah as a pure communication, then shouldn't they pick a siddur whose ideology is that tefillah is a pure communication? Having a siddur of a given ideology is not necessarily about proclaiming that ideology. (But if you want to rail about the fact that too often this call for an MO siddur /is/ about proclomation, there is room to do so.) It is about having a siddur that aids the kind of prayer you want to do. Which is why I never understood why people assign value to having "their siddur". I have a collection, as I go from more cerebral to more experiential moods, and want different siddurim depending on where my head is just then. For example, the as-yet-unpublished RCA siddur has something in it about shelo asani that would say something that a Mod-O Jew is more likely to be concerned about saying than someone who is less engaged with the more egalitarian west would feel a need to say. ... : I did not conduct a comprehensive study of the stone Chumash, but wonder : whether the troubling explanations are ubiquitous, occasional, or somewhere : in between... In my experience, occasional. But the rationalists are under-represented, given the chareidi tendency toward more maximalist approaches. That's not troubling, but it's promoting one worldview and not allowing the other to reach the market-share it deserves. : or was it a dream (Ramban versus Rambam)? If Artscroll said he spoke, and : for example a new chumash says that he did not - then which one most : accurately reflects my hashkafa? ... My ideal chumash would present both, or if space requires, inform me that both possibilities are discussed without full presentation. If two hashkafic ideas are viable, why should I let an editor choose between them for me? But that's a different story. The problem the MO nay-sayers have with the absence of a vaiable alternative to ArtScroll is less that there is a specific problem with a comment. As I wrote, those are rare. But that without variety, without a survey that includes ideas current and popular outside the Agudist community, those ideas will cease being thought of as normative. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:20:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:20:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170621222015.GB18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:50:41PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? #1 Qedoshim Tihyu -- naval birshus haTorah #2 The end of Bo (although you didn't ask for a runner-up) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:28:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:28:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170621232850.GE18168@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:07:45PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : >I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons : >and sources, and this chapter is a perfect example... In the Bavli "Mai ta'ama?" is a request for a reason. In the Y-mi, it is a request for a pasuq as source. Reasons and sources are different things, and I think the difference helps clears up the question. : Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites : the Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than : in other places. Zev was saying that the Rambam usually opens or close with a reason, a ta'am hamitzvah. (And, as he explains in the Moreh, he only expects these to cover the generalities.) Usually, these are unsourced. But, kedarko, when he can paraphrase a source he does. Which is what he is doing here. : I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he : often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or : "pashat haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a : Midrash? This one stands out. This paragraph addresses the Rambam's not spending much time on sources, not about reasons. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:16:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:16:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170621221634.GA18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:49:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What would you like the first thing that HKB"H says to you at 120 when : you report to the beit din shel maaleh(heavenly study hall)? (After introducing me to my daughter...) "I'm proud of you, son!" "I would help you get used to this, but techiyas hameisim will be underway..." "So THAT'S why I did that..." But according to Rava (Shabbos 31a) I should expect, "Nasata venatata be'emunah?" Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:24:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:24:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170621232402.GD18168@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 08:43:42PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : > How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of : > any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even : > punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of : > the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? : : The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an : extension of the beit din. Perhaps according to the Rambam (Rotzeiach 1:2), who says "mitzvah beyad go'el hadam..." and if the go'el doesn't want to or there is none, "BD memisin es harotzeiach besayif". Rashi al haTorah appears to hold that "ein lo dam" means the go'el is killing an already dead man, and therefore bears no guilt. Not a mitzvah, but a reshus. (But see below.) And if the go'el only has reshus, it's hard to say he is operating as beis din's appointee. Sanhedrin 45b says "mitzvah bego'el hadam", but if there is no go'el, BD appoints one. There is no sayif. BUT, Makos 2:7 has a machloqes: R Yosi haGelili says that if the killer is found outside the techum, it is a mitzvah on the go'el hadam and a reshus for everyone else to kill him. (According to the beraisa on 12a, if there is no go'el, there is reshus...) R' Aqiva disagrees, saying it's a reshus for the go'el and a non-punishable issur for anyone else. (According to the beraisa, they are chayav.) And here's the weird part -- despite what I quoted above from the Yad, the Rambam on the mishnah says halakhah is like R' Aqiva. Rashi on Makkos 12a says about Bamidbar 35:27 "ika leferushei lashon tzivui ve'ika leferushei lashon tzivui. In sum, I think RJR is understating it. It's not "only" the pesuqim that are unclear. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 01:29:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:29:00 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: : No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these : were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi : haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and : that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? And RMB replied: >"They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..." I like "the root principles and the general rules .." - thanks, that is better than my use of source - but I think "osmosis" is not quite right either. I don't think "osmosis" as we understand it would necessarily have been within the Maharil's conception, and that it is not a great translation for "al pi hakabala" - maybe "from tradition" - but osmosis isn't right. The girls in question probably learnt how to speak the local language by osmosis (even if eg Yiddish was spoken in the home), but you would not say that is "al pi hakabbala". There is a big difference. :> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. : These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult : to understand them as having been written by the same person... >Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position. I don't think you can say that. First of all, the second one, ie the one from Maharil HaChadashos, made it into the Shulchan Aruch, - it is quoted by the Rema - and you can't just dismiss that. And the first one was in the possession of the Birchei Yosef, who is very influential in a whole host of ways in terms of psak. I think rather you have to treat them as two different rishonic teshuvot, and give them weight on that basis. It may well be that they were influenced by, or even possibly penned by, the student of the Maharil who collected them (hence my note that they came from two different collections) , and we may never know which one was really the Maharil's opinion and which one was in fact that of his student or some other rishon from around that time and attributed to the Maharil, but they are both rishonic source material, and I don't think we can ignore either of them. ... :: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in :: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21... ::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us ::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the ::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers ::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their ::> practice on their upright fathers. :> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. : Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the : pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] : and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk... But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write: : Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the : context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting : up of schools)... >Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's derashah. Yes, but even in terms of pshat, it seems very difficult to come away from the idea of transmission of tradition from father to children when using this process. "Asking" is not about osmosis - it is about an attempt at formal learning, and answering in response to an ask is exactly the process of formal learning in pretty much all contexts (it is why we still have teachers even in Universities, and not just books). If you have system where you are supposed to "ask" and somebody else is supposed to then answer, you have formal education. This is a step up from where you are expected to learn by watching (but not asking) - but where at least sometimes the educational aspect is clear - eg, I want you to watch and see how I go to place X, so you can find it yourself next time, is a less formal process than asking, but it is still a form of education, which is a step up from osmosis, where nobody on either side necessarily realises that something is being learnt, it just seeps in (language is a classic case, or how about accent - kids pick up their accent from school by osmosis, it is not a conscious process, and maybe the parents would in fact prefer, and maybe even they would prefer, that they talk with the parent's accent, rather than that of their peers, but it doesn't happen that way, you send a kid to school, they start talking like the locals in their school). >I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with "chadash assur min haTorah".) Because the proof text resonates, it does even in the pshat. In the pshat it is clearly linked to "vshinantam l'vanecha" - ie is the flip side of it (which is why the extension into drash makes sense, just as v'shinantam l'vanecha is the basis of the command for Torah study, this is the basis of the need to listen to the master of Torah). And if you know the drash, even when you use it in the pshat form, you will get the resonance. "V'shinantam l'vanecha" is the pasuk from which the obligation for boys to learn is learnt (banecha v'lo banotecha) - with the emphasis then on the father's teaching - the formal school process came later, when the father's obligation was delegated to a school teacher. Ask you father (in the masculine) is similarly in the pshat about a boy's obligation to learn. Applying it to girls is an odd stretch in the first place. What you are saying is that the proof text when applied to girls suddenly doesn't mean what it means when applied to boys, in either pshat or drash, that to me seems odd. :> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. : Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas : etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody : define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at : all the experiential aspect... >Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect? Well the CC is explaining the Rambam. The Rambam says: ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????, ???? ??? ??????, ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????, ???"? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????, ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????, ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man, because she is not commanded and all who do a thing that they are not commanded to do, there reward is not like the reward of one who is commanded and does rather [their reward] is less than these, and even though she gains a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning, and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut. So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav (note that the Rambam himself in Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 Halacha 11 - says a man is required to divide his time into thirds, a third in Torah shebichtav, a third in Torah sheba?al peh, and a third in understanding and weighing - what he calls Gemora, so there he seems to have three categories, but the third requires a knowledge of the other two, and presumably cannot be taught). So, in terms of your question "does anybody force the CC to define the set of TSBP that was classically prohibited as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including the experiential aspect" - it seems to me that the Rambam does. Ie given that the CC is explaining the Rambam, and the Rambam has only two categories of Torah, then either the experiential aspect is Torah shebichtav or it is not Torah at all. But saying that the experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase. I therefore think it very difficult to say that experiential teaching, especially when linked with the formality of "asking", as the CC does, can be defined as not Torah at all. So that leaves Torah shebichtav. I did try and say that was the Tur's point, what you are should not teach are the laws as written down, but to say that the experiential is Torah shebichtav seems to me a very difficult assertion. :> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when :> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an :> example to imitate. : The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is : as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with : Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her : ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." : The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard : to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, : excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of : Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily : in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". >I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education. >After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior? Yes he does, the minute he is "asked", or if he says "watch what I do" (similar to when I take my children somewhere to show them how to get there on their own, eg a new school, including pointing out the landmarks, that is most definitely active teaching, despite the fact that it is experiential, and not done from giving them a map and teaching them to map read). >In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49. And "look, let me show you how ..." is formal teaching, whether it is a maths problem or it is how to bake chala. And if that particular aspect of teaching falls within the definition of Torah, then one is teaching Torah, albeit informally. And the danger with understanding "lelameid" to only mean formal teaching, not informal teaching, is that you then write out of a father's obligation to a son an awful lot, as it is not within the mitzvah. You can't have it both ways, either when a father teaches a son informally (eg shows him how to put on tephillin, as that seems very difficult to learn from a book) he is teaching him Torah or he is not. Which is it? : And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they : could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward : etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two : types of TSBP... >Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah. So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect, showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn?t take the bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid? Isn't that the consequence of what you are saying? That the only Torah that men are obligated to learn as Talmud torah are the formal abstract rules and regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially? : Is not the gemora etc filled with : this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. >The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it occuring... I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules. If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? -Micha Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 06:27:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:27:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> On 22/06/17 04:29, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: >> The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or >> memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it >> occuring... > I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the > formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the > formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules. > > If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of > the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? Indeed, it's an explicit gemara: "*Torah* hi, velilmod ani tzarich". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 09:32:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:32:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170622163247.GA19841@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:27:07AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: :>If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of :> the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? : Indeed, it's an explicit gemara: "*Torah* hi, velilmod ani tzarich". I am excluding informal education from "lelameid bito", not excluding the acquired info from "Torah". When the R' Eliezer (as quoted by the Rambam) talks about learning or teaching, is he thinking about mimetic osmosis and the like or is he referring only to formal education? It is indeed a key way to learn how to practice. In many cases -- eg milah, safrus, mar'os, tereifos, etc... -- it's the /only/ way to learn the necessary Torah. "Mimetic osmosis *or the like*" is my acknowledgement that Chana managed to convince me that my dichotomy is really a spectrum from the informality of unconscious imitation to raw text study. And therefore there will be gray are that is more or less likely to be included by R' Eliezer or the Rambam rather than a yes-or-no. My talk of mimeticism and osmosis overstates where I am going, and created needless problems with the CC's use of "she'al avikha". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 06:26:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:26:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Letter from Europe Message-ID: <84dd8782469149f99c23cf85a031e37b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I seem to remember a letter from a European (German) Jewish community to someone/thing in Eretz Yisrael with the general message that their hometown was where they intended to wait for Moshiach whether moving to Eretz Yisrael was possible or not. Does this sound familiar? If so, do you know the source? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 07:06:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:06:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple Message-ID: <20170623140615.GB17536@aishdas.org> SA EhE 62:11 says that if the benei hachupah have to divide up into chaburos, they all make sheva berakhos. Even if the locations are not open to each other nor is there a common server -- none of the normal things that combine a zimun. The AhS #37 adds that they each make their own 7 berakhos. Does this mean that if a man needs to leave a wedding early, he should really invest the effort to find 9 others and not just 3, not only because zimun requires trying, but also because the 10 of you would be passing up a chance to bentch the chasan & kallah! To add more weight to the idea, earlier in the siman the AhS discusses the function of panim chadashos at 7 berakhos. In #23-24 he says that the Rambam (Berakhos pereq 2) implies that the reason why we need panim chadashos for 7 berakhos is that the whole thing is to fulfill *their* chiyuv to bentch the chasan & kallah. As guests of the couple, they have a chiyuv to give them a berakhah, which is fulfilled at the minimum by their amein. Whereas if everyone there already fulfilled that obligation, the berakhos are levatalah. Then in #35 he gives besheim "rov raboseinu" the usually quoted reason (at least in my circles) that it's their addition to the simchah that legitimizes the berakhah. Which is why the neshamah yeseirah and Shabbos meal can serve in the same role. (However, he warns, this only works for a real se'udah shelishis. A yotzei-zain shaleshudis lacks that requisite simchah.) So, it could be that according to the Rambam, walking out of the se'udah without 7 berakhos is neglecting one's chiyuv to give the couple a berakhah! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 10:46:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:46:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> <20170621234200.GF18168@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170623174657.GA20760@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:00:14PM -0400, Yaakov Jaffe wrote: : Thank you for your perspective. I understand your argument - rather than : my three-options (hashkafa a, hashkafa b and hashkafa c), you suggest a : fourth with a & b side by side, for the reader to chose. I hadn't : considered it - but it does have a lot to offer! We need to distinguish between a specific commentary -- R' Hirsch's Pentateuch, Mesoret haRav works, Divrei Moshe -- and an anonymous collector of footnotes as in the Stone Chumush, the ArtStroll or RCA siddurim, etc... And I want to acknowledge the gray areas. R/Lord Sack's siddur can be either, depending upon whether someone bought it out of esteem for R' Sacks and wanting to know his position, or it's as just Koren's contender in that market. I am only talking about the latter category, the anonymous shul chumash or siddur. Chareidism is founded on the need to protect ourselves from the modern. And only after dealing with the thread, one considers the opportunities. And part of that defense mechanism is deffering decisions to those more knowledgable. In contrast, Mod-O embraces the West's admiration of autonomy. Thus leaving a gap between the communities about when one turns to gedolim for answers, and when not. A side-effect of how "daas Torah" is formulated is that it has little tolerance for plurality. "The gedolim hold" is an oft-repeated idiom, in my hometown of Passaic, even by people who -- if you made them stop and consider the question -- know "the gedolim" often disagree. Because if we need to choose between valid answers, we could run the risk of choosing wrongly, a dangerous variant of one, the other, or in combination. A comparative unknown yeshivish rav or collection of avreikhem providing such commentary, choosing a consistent style of comment over others is perceived from that mindset. As promoting one position as the sole truly normative approach. The same often happens with Rashi. We think of Rashi's position as the default, because it's girsa diyenuqa, and another rishon is seen as the machadesh. Did the brothers sell Yoseif or did they find the pit empty after the Moavim got there first and selling him? There is a machloqes tannaim about Rivqa's age when married, but Rashi quotes one, and that becomes the default in some circles. In other circles, peshat is more likely to trump medrashic stories. With the position of numerous rishonim and acharonim (are there cholqim?) that medrashic stories are repeated for their nimshalim, not the story itself. Which brings me to a second effect of daas Torah... The more one takes pride in deferring to authority the more likely one is to embrace the maximalist position, to accept that which is further from rationalist, from what the autonomous decision would have been. A second reason why Rivqa must have been 3 when married, not 15. Yes, many people know both, but isn't there a clear emotional attitude about one position being normative rather than the other? I therefore think that giving a survey of opinions is itself an inherently MO way of doing this kind of text. It allows someone to choose autonomously between rationalism, mysticism, maximalism, etc... without the relatively-unknown rabbi -- or anyone but my own rav, his rav, his rav's rav... ("my gadol" is a much more MO view than "the gedolim) -- setting himself to tell large numbers of the observant community what to view as the mainstream, and what is an acceptable but avant-gard alternative, even if they ever learn of the other options. If we want RYBS's position to be viewed as part of the mainstream, or R' Herschel Schachter's (which is far closer to yeshivish but still not something ArtScroll would quote too often) or R' Aharon Soloveitchik or RALichtenstein, R' Amital, R CY Goldvicht or any other rosh yeshivas hesder, R' Kook, etc... there has to be chumashim that put these ideas in the hands of the common people, the ones who aren't spending spare time hanging out in the sefarim store or following e-zines, blogs, email lists or even FB groups that discuss (usually: argue) such things. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 15:56:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:56:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d2ec73$fba1e110$f2e5a330$@gmail.com> R' Joel Rich: What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? ------------------------ The one about being a naval b'rshus haTorah. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 14:04:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 23:04:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: <2a88576c-335d-3d30-a014-301f177029c1@zahav.net.il> References: <2a88576c-335d-3d30-a014-301f177029c1@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <297327dc-ba39-c064-1bd4-0a61c750d11f@zahav.net.il> Mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisrael, including conquering it. Ben On 6/21/2017 10:50 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? > KT > Joel Rich > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 06:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 16:10:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple Message-ID: "Does this mean that if a man needs to leave a wedding early, he should really invest the effort to find 9 others and not just 3, not only because zimun requires trying, but also because the 10 of you would be passing up a chance to bentch the chasan & kallah!" Actually, even without regard for Sheva B'rochos, the din of zimmun requires that one not who has eaten with a minyan not bentsch with less than a minyan. There is mention on OC 193:1 that only where there would be difficulty in a minyan hearing, thus necessitating the bentsching calling attention to itself and thus offending the host, that it can be done in groups of three; it would seem to be a kal vachomer that gathering ten and saying Sheva B'rochos would be even more noticeable, and thus more hurtful. It would also seem that if one person has to leave, he should not request two others to join him in zimmun unless they, too, must leave early, since otherwise they should not violate their obligation of proper zimmun so that the one leaving have an incomplete fulfillment of his obligation. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:01:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 01:01:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: . R' Eli Turkel wrote: > R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He > understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah position > basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a > state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful > but is against the wishes of G-d. Could you please explain to me what the Agudah position is, and *how* it denies that G-d affects history? Personally, I do not know what the Agudah position is about the Medinah. I'm not convinced that they even *have* a position. Over the years, I have gotten the impression that they have deliberately avoided publicizing their views, because at this point in history it is so difficult to be sure of such things. You yourself concede that the state "APPEARS" to be successful. Who knows? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:21:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:21:57 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] perhaps not such a well-known RaMBaM, but ... Message-ID: in his intro to Sefer Shemos Matan Torah was just a device employed to re-attain the standards that had already been accomplished by the Avos when they came to Mount Sinai - made the Mishkan and HaShem returned His Shechinah amongst them, that is when they restored their status to be like their Avos .... and that is when they were deemed to be redeemed [from the servitude in Egypt] Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:42:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:42:05 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] redemption - The GoEl HaDam Message-ID: the family can come to terms with the killer. when circumstances are such that the killer is deemed too negligent, he can not seek refuge in the Ir Miklat and they MUST come to terms, of the aggressor lives his life in constant fear of being executed. Lo SikChu Kofer LeNefesh RoTzeach Hu - is a warning [to BDin] NOT to take redemption money, NOT to avert the death penalty, NOT to come to terms; but in other circumstances it seems we ought to seek strategies to come to terms. That may include but is not limited to offering money - it probably has more to do with Teshuvah, which is the need to persuade the victims that the regret is sincere, which is why BDin cannot provide a ruling, it can only be negotiated through direct communications, and finding friends of the victims and persuading them of the sincerity and getting THEM to intercede - this is the Shurah that is described in Halacha and RaMBaM. Why are they defined as the GoEl the redeemer? It is a redemption for the society - an evil [negligence of this magnitude, especially when Chazal indicate it is a reflection of other misdeeds, is an evil] of this magnitude leaves an impression on the collective mind of the community, the Eidah, those whose lives is a testimony to HKBH, and if it goes unpunished, the community is tainted. So the community requires redemption. This too feeds into the coming to terms with the aggressor - it is not only the friends of the victim who are impressing upon their traumatised consciousness the need to forgive to accept that the aggressor truly regrets [and that the victim is also as Chazal say, a contributor to his untimely own end] but the community is a sort of spectator to these negotiations and the aggressors feel a need to be accepted by the community and not be seen as being too harsh and vengeful or rapacious in their demands for compensation. This is a very redeeming experience for everyone Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 10:10:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:10:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] most famous ramban Message-ID: <000b01d2edd5$f855df80$e9019e80$@actcom.net.il> First Ramban in Yayera-polemic with the Moreh Nevukhim. After that, 'Kedoshim tihiyu', (which many people are horrified by or completely misunderstand and yes, the Ramban was an ascetic and makes a brilliant case for asceticism) but we could probably have a whole lot of fun on this list making a list of Rambans that everyone should know. In fact, we may actually have done this already. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 10:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:05:14 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting from God Message-ID: <000601d2edd5$3d08f5a0$b71ae0e0$@actcom.net.il> I'd be thrilled to hear: "It's okay-don't worry about it" but I'm not counting on it. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 07:06:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:06:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170626140643.GD29431@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 04:10:45PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : hurtful. It would also seem that if one person has to leave, he should not : request two others to join him in zimmun unless they, too, must leave : early, since otherwise they should not violate their obligation of proper : zimmun so that the one leaving have an incomplete fulfillment of his : obligation. OTOH, if they have an obligation to bless the chasan and kalah, perhaps the threshold for "must leave early" has to be raised. After all, there are cases of need where we do break a zimmun, but we would never (e.g.) walk out on a beris milah over the same motivation. "Need" is a relative term. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 09:15:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 12:15:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> On this thread, did any of us mention birkhas ge'ulah? "Ufdeih khin'umekha Yehudah veYisrael" expresses our expectation that Hashem will redeem both malkhios. Or is there another way to talk separately about Yehudah and Yisrael. So I would think the siddur pasqens, and this is in all traditional nusachos, that the 1- tribes are not permanently lost. I am assuming since this is a birkhas shevakh rather than baqashah, this is an expectation "you will surely redeem", and not a request. Requesting the impossible is a tefillas shav. So... As a baqashah, the berakhah would only prove they could be redeemed; as shevakh (which is, I believe, the correct category), the berakhah is expressing our faith they will be redeemed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 14:51:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:51:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Talmud Torah vs Mitzvah Maasis Message-ID: <20170626215120.GA8220@aishdas.org> Another data point... AhS EhE 65:4 says "mevatlin talmud Torah lehakhnasas kalah lechupah", even toraso umenaso. But limited to someone who sees them going to the chupah. If you just know of a wedding in town, you aren't obligated to stop learning to go. For sources, the end of the se'if cites 1- Semachos 11[:7], which RYME summarizes as "dema'aseh qodem leTT". The mishnah itselces cites both Aba Sha'ul and Rabbi Yehudah, that "hama'aseh qodem letalmud". (Rabbi Yehudah would enjoin his talmidim to participate as well.) 2- Qiddushin 40b which discusses whether talmud gadol or ma'aseh gadol. R' Tarfon: ma'aseh R' Aqiva: talmud "Ne'enu kulam ve'amru: talmud gadol" because talmud leads to ma'aseh. (And so on, discussion elided.) This gemara concludes that talmud is greater. 3- And for exaplanation of how to resolve Semachos vs Qiddushin, he points you to Tosafos BQ 17[a] "veha'amar". The gemara there says "gadol limud Torah shemeivi liydei ma'adeh", much like Qiddushim. Rashi says "alma ma'aseh adif". R' Tam asks on Rashi, from the gemara in Qiddushin. Tosafos then explains the gemara's distinction between learning and teaching in two opposite ways: 1- It's teaching which has priority, because it brings the masses to action. Whereas one's own learning or acting are one person either way. 2- It's learning, which tells one how to act, that has priority. But since teaching doesn't inform the teacher how to fulfilll a mitzvah, it does not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 08:22:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:22:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chukas Message-ID: <9B3AD7FA-3712-4F5A-B2FC-BAC8F688CD87@cox.net> Rashi picks up on the juxtaposition of the consecutive sentences where we first read of Miriam?s death and immediately following ? of the lack of water. This would indicate some connection which Rashi points out that the existence of the water was on the z?chus of Miriam. Nonetheless, the question of the Sifse Chakhamim is also quite valid. Weren?t Aaron and Moses worthy enough to warrant the existence of the water on their z?chus? As a chok has no rational explanation, so, too, there is no logical explanation as to why as long as Miriam was there, offering her inspired leadership, the waters of the be?er, the wells of Torah, flowed ceaselessly and with her death, the waters stopped; whereas, the greatness of Aaron and Moses paled in comparison. This shows the error of those who downplay the role of women in Judaism. Remember, it?s the mother who determines the child?s religion and it?s the mother who plays a major role in her children?s development. The dedication and devotion of the exemplary Jewish mother are a shining example to all who would seek idealism in a Jewish woman. "The Lord gave more wit to women than to men." Talmud - Niddah ??And the Lord God built the rib which teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, endowed the woman with more understanding than the man.? Niddah 45b ?A beautiful wife enlarges a man?s spirit.? [adapted from] Talmud, Berakhot 57b -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 15:15:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:15:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <78965e20-72ab-5232-fd11-bfbe6b3a4ee2@sero.name> On 26/06/17 12:15, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On this thread, did any of us mention birkhas ge'ulah? "Ufdeih > khin'umekha Yehudah veYisrael" expresses our expectation that Hashem > will redeem both malkhios. Or is there another way to talk separately > about Yehudah and Yisrael. > > So I would think the siddur pasqens, and this is in all traditional > nusachos, that the 1- tribes are not permanently lost. It is not in all traditional nuschaos. TTBOMK it's found only in Nusach Ashkenaz. Sefarad substitutes the pasuk "Goaleinu", Italians substitute "Biglal avot...", I don't know what other traditional nuschaot do. (Modern Nusach Ashkenaz and some versions of the Chassidic "Sfard" combine the old Ashkenaz and Sefarad endings; this was originally Nusach Tzorfat, back when that was distinct from Ashkenaz.) (The reason for the Sefaradi ending with the pasuk rather than the other two versions is that the bracha is about Geulat Mitzrayim, not the future Geulah, hence the chatima "Ga'al Yisrael" as distinct from "Go'el Yisrael" in the 7th of the 18, so ending with a prayer for the future Geulah is off topic. I don't know how the other two nuschaot would respond, but maybe that's why NA ended up adopting the Tzorfati combination.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 22:08:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:08:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Agudah [was: Support for Maaseh Satan] Message-ID: <15180d.31f3d54b.4685e552@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <> [--I don't know who is being quoted here] R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah poisition basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful but is against the wishes of G-d. -- Eli Turkel >>>>>> All through Tanach there are examples of reshaim who succeed (if only for a while). Obviously it is Hashem's wish that they succeed, even if it is not His wish that they sin. What is remarkable and miraculous about the last century of history in Eretz Yisrael is how Eretz Yisrael has been built up, the growth of agriculture, cities, the economy, the Jewish population, and most of all the amazing growth of Torah living and learning -- despite secular socialist Zionism. The Medinah gets some credit but what is most remarkable is that so much good has happened despite the Medinah or even very much against the will of the secular government. There is so much ohr vechoshech mishtamshim be'irbuvya. Nevertheless it is impossible /not/ to see the Yad Hashem in the overall course of events over the past century. How many prophecies are coming true before our very eyes! A thriving economy grew up under the very feet of the socialists! Is that not a miracle?! Has such a thing ever happened in any other country?! :- ) So what is the Agudah's position? In November 1947, when the UN voted for the establishment of the Jewish State, the Agudah made the following declaration: --begin quote-- The World Agudas Yisroel sees as an historic event the decision of the nations of the world to return to us, after 2000 years, a portion of the Holy Land, there to establish a Jewish state and to encompass within its borders the banished and scattered members of our people. This historic event must bring home to every Jew the realization that ***the Almighty has brought this about in an act of Divine Providence*** [my emphasis] which presents us with a great task and a grave test. We must face up to this test and establish our life as a people, upon the basis of Torah. While we are sorely grieved that the Land has been divided and sections of the holy Land have been torn asunder, especially Yerushalayim, the holy city, while we still yearn for the aid of Mashiach tzidkeinu, who will bring us total redemption, we nevertheless see the hand of Providence offering us the opportunity to prepare for the geula shelaima if we will walk into the future as G-d's people. --end quote-- [quoted in __To Dwell in the Palace: Perspectives on Eretz Yisrael__ edited by Tzvia Ehrlich-Klein, 1991] The above is still fairly representative of the hashkafa of broad swaths of Klal Yisrael who are charedi or charedi-leaning, yeshivish or chassidish, neither Satmar nor Dati Leumi. That is, the majority of all frum Jews in America and Eretz Yisrael. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 22:31:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:31:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? Message-ID: <151979.a3a1c08.4685eabc@aol.com> From: Chana Luntz via Avodah I Well the CC is explaining the Rambam. The Rambam says: --quote-- A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man, ...and even though she gains a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning, and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. --end quote-- That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut. So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav ... ....But saying that the experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase.... .....So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect, showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn't take the bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid? Isn't that the consequence of what you are saying? That the only Torah that men are obligated to learn as Talmud Torah are the formal abstract rules and regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially? Regards Chana >>>>> I think that different uses of the word "Torah" are being confused here. The very word "Torah" has many meanings, depending on context. It can refer to just the Chumash -- the Torah shebichsav -- about which the Rambam says "but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." Some chassidishe schools to this day do not teach girls Chumash. The word Torah can mean both Chumash and Gemara. "The Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut." There is universal agreement that "Torah" in this context means Gemara. NO ONE thinks that teaching halacha to girls is tantamount to teaching tiflus. The word "Torah" can refer to the vast corpus of everything that has ever been written by or about the Tanaim and Amoraim, Rishonim and Achronim. The word can refer to halacha, to hashkafa, to everything that makes up Jewish life and thought. "Torah" can also refer to that which is taught and learned by example, or by osmosis, or by a mother's tears when she bentshes lecht and davens for her children. "Al titosh Toras imecha." Every language has words like that, words whose precise meaning depends on context. Certainly in the Gemara itself there are many such words. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 29 06:18:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:18:11 +0000 Subject: What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem’s name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? Message-ID: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem's name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, HY"D the Av Bais Din of Shomloy in Hungary, once wrote a letter on this subject. It reads in part, "We have a tradition in our hands from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty, that the reading of the honored and awesome name of Hashem is AH -- DOY -- NOY (AH-DOE -- NOY or AH-DOW-NOY) using the vowelization of Chataf Patach for the Aleph, a Cholam for the Daled and a Kamatz for the Nun..." "Our master the Chasam Sofer and the author of the Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah, zt"l and a whole group of Geonim and Kedoshim have already warned us that unfortunately there are many mistakes concerning this. One needs to be very careful about this matter for a common mistake has spread among the masses and even among those with fear of Hashem. Through a lack of concentration, the Daled (of Hashem's pronounced name) is said with a Sheva as "AHD-ENOY." It is certain that whoever pronounces Hashem's name this way has not said Hashem's name at all and must repeat the bracha again, and so did the Chasam Sofer rule." Rav Shimon Schwab, zt"l in his classic work on Siddur, Iyun Tefilla (p. 25), adds that one should also be careful not to say AH -- DEE -- NOY. He writes: "One must pronounce the Daled with a Cholam (DOY, DOE or DOW) and the Nun with a Kamatz, and not use a Chirik under the Daled (DEE) as is the custom of some who are mistaken and think that they are pronouncing the Name properly... This is a disgrace of the honored and awesome Name. One who pronounces Hashem's name with a Chirik even a hundred times a day is not transgressing the prohibition of saying Hashem's name in vain." Rav Pinchas Scheinberg, zt"l was once asked if Ahd-enoy or Ahdeenoy are acceptable be'dieved, after the fact. His response was a resounding "No!" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 29 06:30:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zalman Alpert via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:30:39 -0400 Subject: What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem’s name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? In-Reply-To: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> References: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 29, 2017 10:18 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > From today's OU Halacha Yomis > > *Q. What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem?s name in Shmoneh Esrei > and other brachos?* There are different ways in Ashkenazi hebrew to pronounce many vowels like cholom zeira segol etc so this answer isof little meaning Galicianer Lithuanian German Ukrainian Hungarian and Central Polish jews each have their own pronunciation See Michtvei Torah by Gerer rebbe Imre Emes where opines different than what is written here Rabbi Heschel of Hamodia several yrs ago discussed this issue in a very cogent manner Although many American college educated frum Jews believe there is only 1way of halachic practice that is absurd,there are many authentic practices to the chagrin of a group of yedhivashe people seeking to impose uniform practicr namely their own Nehare nehare upishteh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 30 06:56:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:56:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Forgotten Fast Days Message-ID: <650c141a32674be8bd8ee65a52bc1d83@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see the article at https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5929 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 30 09:04:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:04:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Authority of Cherem deRabbeinu Gershom Message-ID: <20170630160442.GA20546@aishdas.org> AhS EhE 1:23,25 etc... refers to taqanos or gezeiros passed by Rabbein Gershon meOr haGolah and his contemporaries. Not the idiom I heard in the past, "cheirem deR' Gershom" -- not even the same last letter on the name. Since this was well after the last beis din hagadol / Sanhedrin (so far), we have discussed in the past where the authority to pass such laws came from. My own suggestion revolved around them being charamim for anyone who... rather than direct issurim. But the AhS would be more medayeiq to call them charamim if he thought that was a critical part of the mechanism. But here is something that had me wondering all over again. AhS EhE 119:17... The question is how a gett given without the wife's agreement would be valid if one holds "i avid lo mahani" (like Rava). And yet the Rama says "avar vegirshah ba"k" he is an avaryan (and thus in nidui) until she remarries. One it can't be fixed, because he cannot remarry his gerushah anymore, the nidui is removed. But the AhS writes, if this is true for a derabbanan (Kesuvor 81b) *kol shekein* dChdR"G hu kemo qarov le'isur Torah. Without explaining why. And I can't even figure out how it has the authority to be more than minhag altogether... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 13:45:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:45:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Aruch HaShulchan was not happy with the minhag that the baal haseder has his wine poured by someone else. He writes that it's a bit haughty to order his wife to pour for him and that in his city it was not the minhag. Aside from the interestingly contemporary sound of his concern, it seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for everyone to pour for everyone else, which would avoid the concern of the ArHaSh. 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? 2. If so is it a) based on the poskim, b) an old practice without formal endorsement, or c) a new-fangled sop to modernity? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 17:49:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzav: "As Long As The Soul Is Within Me, I Will Give Thanks Unto Thee, O Lord, My God And God Of My Fathers" Berakhot, 60b Message-ID: <476D9522-69B8-43D1-9E77-D0491911541D@cox.net> Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the korban todah, Thanksgiving Offering. The Medrash (Lev. R., 9.7) tells us that in the future all the sacrifices will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering. Rashi (Leviticus 7:12) states (paraphrased): A man offers a thanksgiving offering (in the Temple) when he is saved from potential danger. There are four types: sea travelers, desert travelers, those released from prison and a seriously ill patient who has recovered. As the verse says in Psalms (107:21), "They should give thanks to God for His kindness, and for His wonders to mankind.? Interestingly and providentially, the mnemonic for this group of four is Chayyim, which stands for [Chavush (jail), Yisurim (illness), Yam (sea), Midbar (desert)], (Shulchan Aruch 219:1). In our times, we fulfill this concept with the recitation of the blessing, HaGomel ("He who grants favors..."). There is a beautiful insight in the Avudraham on laws and commentary on prayers. The author was student of Ba'al HaTurim (R. Yaakov ben Asher) and was a rabbi in Seville. When the hazzan says Modim, the congregation recites the "Modim d'Rabbanan" (The Rabbis' Modim). Why is that? The Avudraham says that for all blessings in the Sh?moneh Esrei we can have an agent. For 'Heal Us', for 'Bless Us with a Good Year' and so forth we can have the sheliach tzibbur say the blessing for us. However, there is one thing that no one else can say for us. We must say it for ourselves. That one thing is "Thank You". Hoda'ah has to come from the individual. No one can be our agent to say 'Thank You.' (This is similar to asking for forgiveness. You must obtain it from the individual wronged. Not even the Almighty can forgive you for wronging a fellow human being). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 20:28:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:28:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: <5101c.42bfc52f.460fb895@aol.com> References: <5101c.42bfc52f.460fb895@aol.com> Message-ID: > "The Halachic Adventures of the Potato" ? by R' Yitzchak Spitz > https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5184 > [...] > In fact, and this is not widely known, the Chayei Adam does actually > rule this way, Sigh. This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location, but do *not* cheat by copying a citation from some secondary source; I will not accept it, because I know very well that there are many secondary sources who claim this, but none of them give a *valid* reference to where he wrote it. What I *have* seen in the Nishmas Adam is an aside, in the course of writing something different, that by the way in Germany they treat potatoes as kitniyos. In fact I'll go further: I don't believe that there has ever been a posek of any stature who forbade potatoes as kitniyos, nor any community that ever accepted such a practice. I have seen many sources claiming that someone else, somewhere else forbade it, or that some other community far away treats it as kitinyos, but never any first hand acccount. When the Rosh writes that in Provence they said Tal Umatar from Marcheshvan 7th I believe it, because he was there and saw it with his own eyes. But I have never seen anyone report having seen with his own eyes a community that forbids potatoes, or a psak din to that effect. It's always someone else somewhere else. Until I see a first hand account I don't believe it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 20:30:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:30:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked about guests in a shul where the guest's practices differ from the shul's. I am bothered by the question, and even more so by the responses. What has happened Porush Min Hatzibur? What has happened to Derech Eretz and simple good manners? (Previous discussions here on Avodah have claimed that some poskim actually hold that a visitor who davens Nusach Sfard should use that text even if he is in the tzibur of a Nusach Ashkenaz shul. Ditto for responding to Kedusha, so I will not discuss those particular examples.) But: > Would your shul allow a guest to say 13 middot aloud > by Tachanun (if local practice is not to)? We're not talking about a few words here, but approximately a whole page worth, that the tzibur would be forced to say. It's not clear from the question whether this guest is the shliach tzibur or not, but I think it is safe to say that in my shul, a shliach tzibur who tries this would be quickly informed of his error, and if it came from someone in the seats he'd simply be ignored. > Would your shul allow a guest to read his own Aliya? >From your use of the word "guest", I am presuming that this was not arranged in advance. If the guest had approached the gabbai a few days in advance to make this request, I don't know what the answer would be. But it sounds like the guest was called up, and at that point he asked the koreh, "May I read it myself?", as in the story that R' Josh Meisner told. I am horrified by the lack of consideration that this guest has toward the time and effort that the baal koreh put into preparing the laining. In RJM's story this happened on Rosh Chodesh, and I do concede that RC is by far the most frequently read parsha of all. But the question as posed was more general, applicable to any laining whether weekday or Shabbos. I am particularly surprised by the reaction of RJM's rav, who <<< insisted ... that the next two olim also read their own aliyos so as not to directly draw a distinction between those who read their own aliyah and those who do not. >>> While I appreciate the sensitivity involved, I am really surprised that this shul has such a large pool of people who can be called upon to lain properly, even for Rosh Chodesh - literally at a moment's notice. How common is this? Are there shuls where any randomly chosen person is able to lain? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 03:40:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:40:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chazkah that changed Message-ID: <> I would venture that according to everyone chazakot in financial matters can change. The famous case is a borrower who denies everything (kofer ba-kol) according to the Torah he doesn't pay anything and is not required to swear since no borrower would be brazen to completely deny a lie. The gemara says that "today" people are brazen and so we require a "shevua". I would guess that other financial chazakot for example that someone doesnt repay a loan ahead of time would depend on the current situation. If today there would be some reason for people to pay back a loan early that I would guess that the halacha indeed would change. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 04:01:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:01:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Visiting a Shul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJRich asked: > Visiting a shul questions-actual practices and sources appreciated: > * Would your shul allow a guest to read his own Aliya? > * Would your shul allow a guest to say his own nussach of kaddish (not as shatz)? > * Would your shul (in galut) allow the shatz not to say baruch hashem l'olam in maariv? > * Would your shul allow a guest to say 13 middot aloud by Tachanun(if local practice is not to)? > * Would the answers be different if requested before prayer (vs. gabbai intervention at time of event)? Me: In all those cases, in our shul, local minhag trumps the wishes of the guest, though we won't jump at anyone for adding vekooraiv mesheechay or werewa'h weassalah. Sometimes the reading of one's own aliya may be tolerated. When I was an avel, I mostly davvened in shuls that did not adhere to my minhag (though I layer "converted" to one of those other minhaggim), and as shaliach tzibbur, always followed their respective minhaggim. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 06:15:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:15:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked about guests in a shul where the guest's practices differ from the shul's. I am bothered by the question, and even more so by the responses. What has happened Porush Min Hatzibur? What has happened to Derech Eretz and simple good manners? ----------------------------- I have seen them all occur. What triggered the question was a shiur on yutorah where a pulpit rabbi mentioned that a visiting guest sfardi scholar asked in advance and was granted the right to read his own aliya. I was surprised and then thought of other situations that I had a similar reaction to. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 19:16:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 22:16:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Poisoning in Halacha Message-ID: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> Tonight my chevrusa and I learned the sugya in Bava Kamma 47b of one who puts poison in front of his friend's animal. A brief synopsis and application of the sugya is at http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/infected: ?A person put some poisoned food in front of his neighbor?s animal,? Rabbi Dayan said. ?The animal ate the food and died. The owner sued the neighbor for killing his animal. What do you say about this case?? ?I would say he?s liable,? said Mr. Wolf. ?He poisoned the animal.? ?I?m not so sure,? objected Mr. Mann. ?The neighbor didn?t actually kill the animal. Although he put out the poison, the animal chose to eat the food.? ?Animals don?t exactly have choice,? reasoned Mr. Wolf. ?If they see food, they eat! Anyway, even if the neighbor didn?t directly kill the animal, he certainly brought about the animal?s death.? ?But is that enough to hold him liable?? argued Mr. Mann. He turned to Rabbi Dayan.?The Gemara (B.K. 47b; 56a) teaches that placing poison before an animal is considered grama,? answered Rabbi Dayan. ?The animal did not have to eat the poisoned food. Therefore, the neighbor is not legally liable in beis din, but he is responsible b?dinei Shamayim. This means that he has a strong moral liability to pay, albeit not enforceable in beis din (Shach 386:23; 32:2).? It struck us that it follows that if one poisons another human being by, say, placing cyanide in his tea, which the victim then drinks and dies, the poisoner is exempt from capitol punishment. It would seem that such a manner of murder falls into the category of the Rambam's ruling in Hilchos Rotze'ach u'Shemiras Nefesh 3:10: Different rules apply, however, in the following instances: A person binds a colleague and leaves him to starve to death; he binds him and leaves him in a place that will ultimately cause him to be subjected to cold or heat, and these influences indeed come and kill the victim; he covers him with a barrel; he uncovers the roof of the building where he was staying; or he causes a snake to bite him. Needless to say, a distinction is made if a colleague dispatches a dog or a snake at a colleague. In all the above instances, the person is not executed. He is, nevertheless, considered to be a murderer, and "the One who seeks vengeance for bloodshed" will seek vengeance for the blood he shed. (translation from http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1088919/jewish/Rotzeach-uShmirat-Nefesh-Chapter-Three.htm) Perhaps this was a davar pashut to everyone else, but for me, tonight, it was a mind-boggling revelation! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 06:05:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:05:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hilchos Chol HaMoed Message-ID: <1491224727245.62311@stevens.edu> >From the article at http://tinyurl.com/l8ll4lf The following is meant as a convenient review of Halachos pertaining to Chol-Hamoed. The Piskei Din for the most part are based purely on the Sugyos, Shulchan Aruch and Rama, and the Mishna Berurah, unless stated otherwise. They are based on my understanding of the aforementioned texts through the teachings of my Rebbeim. As individual circumstances are often important in determining the psak in specific cases, and as there may be different approaches to some of the issues, one should always check with one's Rov first. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 12:50:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:50:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> > RZS: > In fact I'll go further: I don't believe that there has ever been a > posek of any stature who forbade potatoes as kitniyos, nor any community > that ever accepted such a practice. I have seen many sources claiming > that someone else, somewhere else forbade it, or that some other > community far away treats it as kitinyos, but never any first hand > acccount. When the Rosh writes that in Provence they said Tal Umatar > from Marcheshvan 7th I believe it, because he was there and saw it with > his own eyes. But I have never seen anyone report having seen with his > own eyes a community that forbids potatoes, or a psak din to that > effect. It's always someone else somewhere else. Until I see a first > hand account I don't believe it. > This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade potatoes. David Riceman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 09:15:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 12:15:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: <7f1aa7e091a1468c8cc6c5df61f610ac@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <7f1aa7e091a1468c8cc6c5df61f610ac@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <29.EA.10233.B3572E85@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 11:57 AM 4/3/2017, Ben Bradley wrote: >The Aruch HaShulchan was not happy with the minhag that the baal >haseder has his wine poured by someone else. He writes that it's a >bit haughty to order his wife to pour for him and that in his city >it was not the minhag. > >Aside from the interestingly contemporary sound of his concern, it >seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for everyone to >pour for everyone else, which would avoid the concern of the ArHaSh. > > >1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? In my home the children poured my wine once they were big enough and now my older grandchildren do this. And they pour for my wife also. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 10:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:10:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bourbon no Longer an Automatic, Faces Kashrus Issues Message-ID: <1491239439011.48127@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/kh92xxv "Companies that once distilled just a few barrels of bourbon every year are now churning out dozens of other drinks-Sherries, brandies, flavored vodkas-which might not be kosher. They can contaminate the bourbon, Rabbi Litvin said, if the liquors are run through the same pipes or tanks." The Litvins, a family that lives in Louisville, "have taken it upon themselves to keep bourbon kosher." Despite the fact that Jews are proportionately poor Bourbon consumers (it is an $8.5 billion industry), there has been a dramatic increase in demand in recent years, particularly by younger kosher consumers. "Alcohol consumption has definitely increased manifold," said one kosher wine and spirits expert. Heaven Hill, one of the largest liquor companies in the world, is owned by a Jewish family, but only a few of the bourbons-Evan Williams, the company's largest brand, and the high-end single-barrel whiskeys-are still guaranteed to be kosher. The others are run through the same pipes and storage tanks as other products, including untold flavors of vodka, spiced rum and mint whiskey. ______________________________________________________________ I guess that I have been ahead of the trends, because I have been drinking bourbon for decades and never liked Scotch. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 12:21:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:21:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Good manners will open doors that the best education cannot. Clarence Thomas Message-ID: <708AB73F-9427-468E-AAEE-C0DD97D63B94@cox.net> One of my doors recently broke and I?m having a new one installed Wednesday. It brought to mind a MIdrash I once learned telling of the basic distinctiveness of the Jewish door and the secret of its architectural design, which served as a protection against annihilation. ?And strike the upper doorpost through the merit of Abraham, and the two side-posts, in the merit of Isaac and Jacob. It was for their merit that HE saw the blood and would not suffer the destroyer? (Midrash Rabbah XVII - 3 Exodus). It set me to thinking. Aren?t the doors to a home indicative of the nature and character of those who live beyond them? I began to think of doors with various emblems displayed upon them. Some say: ?We have given.? ?No Beggars or Peddlers Allowed.? ?Nobody lives here,? etc. But next Monday evening, the Jewish emblem on the entrance door will say: "Let all who are hungry, come and eat." On this Festival of Pesach, let not Judaism pass over our doors. When we open our doors to welcome Eliyahu Hanavi, let us keep it open wide, to welcome all that is positive, invigorating and creative in Jewish life. Let our doors be indicative of proud Jewish occupants. Let us display our Mezuzot not as mere adornments but as emblems which proudly proclaim for all to see: ?We are proud to be the sons and daughters of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and we are determined to carry on in their tradition. Grief is a room without doors but Passover?s power not only changes that situation but it sends Eliyahu Hanavi right through. Truncated clich?, rw From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:11:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> References: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> Message-ID: On 03/04/17 15:50, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: >> > This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a > friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly > gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one > ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. > Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras > kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade > potatoes. That comes close, but not close enough. If the name of the town were given, so that one could track down other families from that town and verify it, then I'd accept it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:17:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:17:00 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach Message-ID: *<<*This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location >> *Nishmas* *Adam*, *Hilchos* *Pesach*, Question 20 (from the article on Potatos) mentions retzke that are called tatarka which are used to make flour are kitniyot My yiddish is very limited I saw one place that translated this as corn while another used buckwheat later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called erdeffel which I saw a translation as potatos. If this translation is accurate then the Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that allowed potatos on Pesach in case of a major famine. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:43:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:43:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170403204335.GC6792@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:17:00PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not : true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or : whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location >> : : Nishmas Adam, Hilchos Pesach, Question 20 (from the article on : Potatos) mentions : retzke that are called tatarka which are used to make flour are kitniyot It's Kelal 119, Q 20. : later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called erdeffel which : I saw a translation as potatos. If this translation is accurate then the : Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that allowed potatos on Pesach : in case of a major famine. And so, as Zev pointed out, it is untrue that the CA advocated this position. Which is what is commonly retold. (At least, in my experience.) The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:47:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:47:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 01:15:37PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What triggered the question was a shiur on yutorah where a pulpit : rabbi mentioned that a visiting guest sfardi scholar asked in advance : and was granted the right to read his own aliya. I was surprised and : then thought of other situations that I had a similar reaction to. Isn't there a problem that the second you let those who are able to lein for themselves, you destroyed the minhag of leveling the playing field with a baal qeri'ah? Along thse lines, my father -- who certainly doesn't have to -- reads the berachos from the card on the bimah. The whole procedure is built around avoiding embarassing those less educated Jewishly. And today, where so many who get aliyos may be newer baalei teshuvah who don't know the berakhos by heart, shouldn't everyone read the berakhos, just the way everyone has a shaliach do the reading? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 14:34:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:34:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> References: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 03/04/17 16:47, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Along thse lines, my father -- who certainly doesn't have to -- reads > the berachos from the card on the bimah. The whole procedure is built > around avoiding embarassing those less educated Jewishly. As I understand it, the purpose of reading the brachos from a card is to make it clear that one is not reading them from the Torah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 14:30:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:30:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> On 03/04/17 16:17, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not >> true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or >> Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the >> location > Nishmas/ /Adam/, /Hilchos/ /Pesach/, Question 20 (from the article > on Potatos) Yes, I'm obviously aware of this reference, which *does not say* what so many people cite it as saying, because they saw it cited to that effect somewhere else, and have not bothered looking it up. This is frankly getting up my nose, which is why I specified that I am not interested in citations that the poster has not looked up himself and verified that they actually say what they are represented as saying. > mentions retzke that are called tatarka which are used to > make flour are kitniyot My yiddish is very limited I saw one place > that translated this as corn while another used buckwheat Retchke, or Gretchke, means normal buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum). Tatarke means Tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum). > later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called > erdeffel which I saw a translation as potatos. Yes, bulbes are potatoes. as in the famous song "Zuntik bulbes, Montik bulbes". > If this translation is > accurate then the Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that > allowed potatos on Pesach in case of a major famine. He reports having heard that in 1771-72 there was a famine and the community of Frth convened a beis din which permitted potatoes and kitniyos, but not buckwheat. His purpose in citing this is simply to demonstrate that buckwheat is worse than kitniyos, since even in this extreme case they refused to permit it. Of course this immediately causes the reader to wonder why they'd need a heter for potatoes, so he throws in the explanation that in Germany they don't eat them on Pesach. Of course anyone who sees this can see immediately that (a) he reports this practise neutrally, without expressing any support for it, and (b) he doesn't claim first hand knowledge that it even exists, but merely repeat a rumour he'd heard about some other place. Somehow, in the hands of irresponsible people, this seems to have transformed into the received wisdom that he forbade potatoes, or wanted to forbid them, or thought they ought to be forbidden, etc, none of which has the slightest tinge of truth, and it's perpetuated by lazy and dishonest people who repeat it as fact, complete with a fake citation which they have not bothered to verify. This, in turn, by exaggerating the extent of gezeras kitniyos, is used to make it seem ridiculous, onerous, impractical, and ripe for reform. On 03/04/17 16:43, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. and did so merely as a rumour. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 20:11:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:11:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder Message-ID: R' Ben Bradley wrote: > it seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for > everyone to pour for everyone else, which would avoid the > concern of the ArHaSh. > > 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? The ArtScroll Haggadah says (in the instructions for Kiddush), "The participants fill each others' cups", without mentioning any minhagim to the contrary. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat, in Halachos of Pesach, on pg 468, cites Haggada Kol Dodi (Rav Dovid Feinstein) 7:2, writing: > The Ramoh (473;1) specifies that the leader of the Seder > should not fill his own cup, but should allow others to pour > for him, as this displays cheirus (freedom). > > Although the wording of the Ramoh seems to imply that this > requirement only applies to the host and leader of the Seder, > the general custom is to do this for all the participants. > Most people therefore pour the wine for each other at each > juncture of the Four Cups. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 03:40:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 06:40:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> References: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170404104004.GA3715@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 05:30:34PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. : and did so merely as a rumour. What he repeated was a story about someone making an exception to their minhag. The explanation as to why the minhag was needed isn't given as part of the story. And if the CA puts the story into writing and uses in halachic argument, he obviously thought it was more than mere rumor. Still, not his own position, not even something he advised in theory, even before ein hatzibur yakhol laamod bah considerations. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 05:52:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 12:52:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman Message-ID: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> There is a shiur about this at http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 19:29:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 22:29:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Isn't there a problem that the second you let those who > are able to lein for themselves, you destroyed the minhag > of leveling the playing field with a baal qeri'ah? Yes, that's what MB 141:8 says. Actually, that MB goes a bit farther, and points out that "harbeh" such people *don't* know the laining so well, and the result is that the tzibur isn't yotzay. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 06:42:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:42:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato Message-ID: "This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade potatoes." This has nothing to do with potatoes but I was talking to the wife of a Moroccan this morning and she said that he told her (third-hand again) that many Moroccan towns had their own minhagim. For example, in one town they didn't use sugar because it was stored in bags near grain. So it's certainly possibly true about potatoes as well. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 06:23:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:23:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: from an OU bulletin My grandparents, may they rest in peace, would be startled to discover that I can purchase OUP kosher for Passover items such as breakfast cereals, pizza, bread sticks, rolls, blintzes, waffles, pierogis and farfel. OTOH the OU has many chumrot on what is kitniyot I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily be mixed up with chametz. It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 08:58:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:58:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> On 04/04/17 09:23, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer > makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as > kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. > > To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and > bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our predecessors made. Thus the machlokes acharonim about newly discovered legumes and pseudo-grains: was the original gezera only on certain species, or was it on the entire class? Most acharonim seem to say it was on the entire class, but then argue about how to define that class, and thus how to decide what it includes. But very few if any say zil basar ta`ma to include new things that definitely don't fall in the original definition of the banned class. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 09:45:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 19:45:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> References: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> Message-ID: <6bd3ddad-9fb6-b9ae-d7e5-edded0b2f267@starways.net> On 4/4/2017 6:58 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 04/04/17 09:23, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> >> It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer >> makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as >> kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. >> >> To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and >> bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. > > It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no > authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our > predecessors made. I was under the impression that gezeirot weren't something that could be instituted after the Sanhedrin. Even Rabbenu Gershom only instituted his rules as chramim, rather than gezeirot. And the minhag (not gezeira by any stretch of the imagination) was made by local rabbis for local conditions and local situations. Conditions and situations change. I realize that the reason we differentiate between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan law is because there's a meforash commandment of bal tosif. But we can learn out from that on some level that we shouldn't be jumbling up gezeirot and takkanot and cheramim and minhagim and siyagim and treating them like they're all the same. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:43:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 20:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58ee56f4-ffb7-2f3d-6cf8-93f18c2d7746@zahav.net.il> See my post a week ago in which I cited Rav Yoel Ben Nun and Rav Yosef Rimon as both taking the position that we need to ban flour substitutes and relax on kitniyot. Ben On 4/4/2017 3:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals > and bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:13:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:23:37PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer : makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as : kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. : : To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and : bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. In this era of packaged foods and heksheirim, the whole minhag makes no sense. People aren't deciding on their own whether quinoa is qitniyos. Or whether some sack contains pure peas with no wheat from the bottom of the silo. Or would eat a porridge based on a guess about whether it was pea or oatmeal. (The fact that I get my *unflavored* gourmet whole-leaf teas without a KLP symbol -- something little different than buying any [other] vegetable -- makes my wife nervous.) The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:58:06AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no : authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our : predecessors made... Well, they lacked that authority too. This is minhag, not gezeira. And the notion that we should be bery mimetic and work with what our ancestors actually did rather than what their rationale would imply in our context works even better with minhagim than with gezeiros. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:01:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman In-Reply-To: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> References: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170404180132.GB8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : There is a shiur about this at : http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz So, I am listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on YUTorah at this link. He opens by saying that the afiqoman (epikomion) must be before chatzos, and very likely the 4th cup too. So, kol hamarbeh means adding to the END of the seder, not having a longer Maggid that will push past chatzos. (Eg tzeis is 8:12pm in NY, as MyZmanim computes it -- 36 min as degrees, and chatzos is 12:56. So, we're talking Qadeish to the end of Hallel in 4 hr 44 min. Unhitting pause...) The Avnei Neizer (R Avrohom Bornsztain, the first Sochatchover Rebbe, descendant of both the Ramah and the Shach) argues that if you are finishing by chatzos to fulfil R Gamliel's shitah, then you could eat other foods after chatzos. And if you are not eating the rest of the night, that's because you're worried that if the mitzvah is indeed alkl night (unlike RG), ein maftirin achar hapesach would also be all night. So, the AN suggests that a moment before chatzos, eat a piece of matzah al tenai that if the halakhah is like Rabban Gamliel, it will be your afiqoman. Then, don't eat the minute or two until chatzos -- for R' Gamliel's en maftirin. Then, go back to eating (as long as you finish before alos), concluding with another afiqoman, also al tenai -- thus fulfilling the other ein maftirin. (BTW, note that the seder in the hagadah that went until zeman qeri'as Shema didn't include Rabban Gamliel.) R Meir Arik in Kol Torah uses this to answer a problematic Rashbam (Pesachim 121). The Rashbam says you're allowed to bring qorbanos todah or nedavah on erev Pesach. But you're not allowed to bring a qorban where you are mema'et the zeman akhilah, and the zeman akhilah for these qorbanos is until the morning. So how could you bring them on a day where ein maftirin achar hapesach will limit the time in which they could be eaten? But according to the Avnei Neizer, you can fulfill ein maftirin for both shitos and only limit eating for a moment before chatzos, by eating that 2nd afiqoman at the last possible time. However, there is a lot of opposition to the AN's chiddush. RALebowitz says there are 6 questions, but he's running out of time. 1- The Baal haMaor and the Ran's explanation for why ein maftirin would work with the AN. But the Ramban says the problem was that having so many people needing to eat their kezayis qorban pesach bein hachomos before chatzos, there was a worry that people would eat early, when still famished. (Which is assur derabbanan, gezeirah maybe they'll break bones. The question of why ein maftirin wouldn't then be a gezeira al hagezeira was not raised in the shiur.) Which means that even if the zeman for the qorban is until chatzos, if people could still plan a late dinner, they could rely on that and still eat their pesach while very hungry. 2- RMF (IM OC vol 5, pg 123) brings several objections. One basic one: even the AN says he never saw anyone do this before. RMF found it tamuha to rely on a sevara be'alma to change so many generations of mimeticism. (An argument that touches on some hot topics today.) 3- RMF adds that one needs to prove that the zman akhilah and the zeman ta'am are the same. Maybe the chiyuv of having the taste in your mouth happens to run longer? 4- The Chasam Sofer writes against doing a mitzvah mitoras safeiq. Similar to Rabbeinu Yonah's (on Berakhos) explanation for why an asham talui is more expensive than a chatas. Because we need to correct the "I probably didn't do anything wrong" attitude. If you never know when you're fulfilling the mitzvah, kavah will be lacking. RALebowitz then gives eidus from R Wolf that R Willig finishes his 4th kos right before chatzos. And timing then becomes a central theme during the seder. R' Avraham Pam said on many occations that we have to be aware of those who spent all that time making the seder. (Typically the wives and mothers.) Sometimes we spend so much time on Magid, that we then rush through the beautiful se'udah they made to get to the last kos on time. RAP thought that this bein adam lachaveiro issue is sufficient to justify relying on the Avnei Neizer. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 12:21:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 21:21:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <496ab467-1c33-a721-97d2-48512539e648@zahav.net.il> Rav Rimon's Hagaddah specifies that the minhag is to pour the wine/grape juice of the ba'al habayit alone. He also notes that there are those who don't follow the custom. In the footnotes, he cites that when people put water in their wine, it wasn't derech cheirut for the home owner to do it himself. Today, that isn't the case and it is common for everyone to pour his own wine/grape juice. He also cites the AHS' opposition. Ben On 4/4/2017 5:11 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? > > The ArtScroll Haggadah says (in the instructions for Kiddush), "The > participants fill each others' cups", without mentioning any minhagim > to the contrary. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:21:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:21:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Fungibility of Mitzvos Message-ID: <20170404182125.GD8762@aishdas.org> As y'all know, I'm obsessed with this topic. The notion of metaphysical causality that interferes with "you get what you deserve / need" bothers me. So I appreciated RNSlifkin finding these sources. http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2017/04/can-you-do-mitzvos-to-benefit-others.html Tir'u baTov! -Micha Can You Do Mitzvos To Benefit Others? April 03, 2017 Can you do mitzvos in such a way that the merit for them will benefit other people? Can you designate them to receive the reward for your mitzvah in their mitzvah bank account, such that they receive more Divine favor? A friend of mine recently forwarded to me a request on behalf of someone who is tragically unwell. The community was requested to pray for his recovery, which is certainly a time-honored Jewish response. But there was also a request to do mitzvos on his behalf, as a merit for God to heal him. My friend wanted to know if there was any classical Jewish basis for this. In my essay "What Can One Do For Someone Who Has Passed Away?" I noted that classically, one's mitzvos are only a credit to those people who had a formative influence on you. One's mitzvos cannot help the souls of other people. Rashba cites a responsum from Rav Sherira Gaon on this: "A person cannot merit someone else with reward; his elevation and greatness and pleasure from the radiance of the Divine Presence is only in accordance with his deeds." (Rashba, Responsa, Vol. 7 #539) Maharam Alashkar cites Rav Hai Gaon who firmly rejects the notion that one can transfer the reward of a mitzvah to another person and explains why this is impossible: "These concepts are nonsense and one should not rely upon them. How can one entertain the notion that the reward of good deeds performed by one person should go to another person? Surely the verse states, 'The righteousness of a righteous person is on him,' (Ezek. 18:20) and likewise it states, 'And the wickedness of a wicked person is upon him.' Just as nobody can be punished on account of somebody else's sin, so too nobody can merit the reward of someone else. How could one think that the reward for mitzvos is something that a person can carry around with him, such that he can transfer it to another person?" (Maharam Alashkar, Responsa #101) The same view is found explicitly and implicitly in other sources, as I noted in my essay. There is simply no mechanism to transfer the reward for one's own mitzvos to other people. It seems that only very recent mystical-based sources claim otherwise. Now, I don't see any reason why there should be any difference if the person that one is trying to help is deceased or alive. Nor do I know of any source in classical rabbinic literature that one can do a mitzvah as a merit to help someone that is sick. Prayer, yes. And Tehillim are also a form of prayer (though it may depend upon which Tehillim are being recited). But I know of no classical source that one can honor one's parents or learn Torah or send away a mother bird as a merit for somebody else. (The most common example of people attempting to do this may be the custom of women to separate challah on behalf of a sick person. Here too, though, it appears that the classical basis of this is not that the mitzvah of separating challah is crediting the sick person, but rather that the person separating the challah thereby has a special time of power/inspiration, which makes their prayer more powerful.) If I'm wrong in any of the above, I'll be glad to see sources showing otherwise. But so far, I have found that while people are shocked when one challenges the notion that you can learn Torah on behalf of someone who is sick, nobody has yet actually come up with any classical sources demonstrating otherwise. Furthermore, if this indeed was a part of classical Judaism, we would certainly expect it to have prominent mention in the writings of Chazal and the Rishonim. We appear to have another situation of something widespread that is believed to be an integral and classical part of Judaism, and yet is actually a modern innovation that has no basis in classical Judaism whatsoever. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:33:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:33:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> References: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we > start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system > will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. > > Mehila, but aren't you being rather Chicken Little (or is your tongue somewhere in the direction of your cheek?) We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other minhagim that people are so set against any change? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 12:22:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 19:22:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot Message-ID: > The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we > start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system will > collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and many modern oils RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and cottonseed oil and this is being expanded by many I don't see this as destroying a Mimetic tradition the reason to include canola oil is that it is similar to Kitniyot even though it or even corn oil did not exist at the time of the generation So the question is why extend the minhagim to canola oil when the problem of the confusion doesn't exist but we don't extend it to non chametz cereal or breadstick where the possibility of mistakes is greater As previously mentioned rsza was against these chametz look a like products as are several contemporary rabbis OTOH the outside is nachman in lecithin in candies where there are many reasons to be making and they are making in chametz looking and tasting products where many are machmir From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 13:15:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170404201511.GI8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:33:22PM +0300, Simon Montagu wrote: : We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha : hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other : minhagim that people are so set against any change? Sorry if this will sound like circular reasoning, but it isn't because of the time lag: Minhagim that are *currently* treated very seriously can't be broken *going forward* as readliy simply because of the psychological / experiential impact of bending or breaking something that is so vehemently held. Since my argument is about mimetics, halakhah-as-culture, you can't necessarily get a textual / theory-based answer. On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 07:22:32PM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote: : We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them : My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and : many modern oils RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and : cottonseed oil and this is being expanded by many .. Well, RMF didn't actively permit peanut oil as much as report that back in Litta, peanuts were commonly consumed on Pesach. According to R/Dr Bannet, within my lifetime peanut oil was THE go-to oil for Pesach. But that's Litta. Minhag Litta didn't expand qitniyos to legumes found in the New World, after the original minhag formed. (Although they did take on avoiding New World grain -- maize / corn.) Minhag Litta was also lenient on mei qitniyos, and a far broader range of the northern half of Eastern Europe (I don't know what Yekkes hold) were lenient on shemes qitniyos in particular. Yes, by my minhagim, there are two reasons not to need a special formula for KLP Coke. If we could get anyone to give a hekhsher to certify there is nothing "worse" than mei New World qitniyos in it. But other parts of Europe went by reasoning, and did have stringencies including liquids and oils. That's their minhag, and it always was their minhag. Which gets me to my point: It's not really that any rav is expanding minhagim. It's that the heksher industry is going to be cost efficient. Heksheirim that say something is okay for 2/3 of their audience don't survive. Causing a lest-common-denominator approach to the spread of minhagim. Like trying to find reliable non-glatt meat in the US; the larger hekhsheirim don't even try. And so, as more move into the area whose minhagim exclude using peanut oil on Pesach, it becomes harder to find KLP certified peanut oil, and all too quickly people forget what was once the norm. I think that framing it as pesaqim and machloqes is imprecise. It's more like watching the evolution of new minhagim as our new communities from mixtures of the old ones. Not necessarily in directions we would like, but at least that's the framework in question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:11:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:11:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/17 15:22, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them We have no more authority to limit them than to eliminate them altogether. > My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and > many modern oils What people do has no relation to what they have the right to do. > RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and cottonseed oil RMF (almost alone) holds that the original gezera was on particular species, and peanuts were never included. The machlokes about cottonseed oil is precisely about whether it is a kind of kitnis or not. > the reason to include canola oil is that it is similar to Kitniyot > even though it or even corn oil did not exist at the time of the > generation Whether the oil existed then is lechol hade'os irrelevant. If the species is included in the ban then all forms are included. RMF however would presumably say that since rapeseed was not an edible species at the time, it was not included. Most acharonim, who hold that the ban was on the whole category, would presumably include it. > So the question is why extend the minhagim to canola oil when the problem > of the confusion doesn't exist but we don't extend it to non chametz cereal > or breadstick where the possibility of mistakes is greater Once again, because no individual rav or group of rabbanim have the authority to permit what is already forbidden, or to forbid for the entire people what is currently permitted. > As previously mentioned rsza was against these chametz look a like products That he was against something doesn't make it assur. > as are several contemporary rabbis OTOH the outside is nachman in lecithin > in candies where there are many reasons to be making and they are making in > chametz looking and tasting products where many are machmir But what authority do they have for this? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:33:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 17:33:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman In-Reply-To: References: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <0A.54.10233.A4114E85@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:01 PM 4/4/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via >Avodah wrote: >: There is a shiur about this at >: http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz > >So, I am listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on YUTorah at this link. >R' Avraham Pam said on many occations that we have to be aware of >those who spent all that time making the seder. (Typically the wives >and mothers.) Sometimes we spend so much time on Magid, that we then >rush through the beautiful se'udah they made to get to the last kos on >time. RAP thought that this bein adam lachaveiro issue is sufficient to >justify relying on the Avnei Neizer. Rav Schwab in his shiur on the seder (to be found in Rav Schwab on Prayer) suggests eating very little during the Seder besides the required amounts of Matzah and Moror, so that one will have room and appetite for the Afikoman and not have to "force" oneself to eat it. I do not know what Rebbetzen Schwab prepared for the Seder meal, but I assume it was not an elaborate meal based on what she knew Rav Schwab would eat. I know that R. Miller would not allow his children or grandchildren to read from the sheets that they came home with from Yeshiva. He told them to save it for later, probably the next day. And since I mentioned all of the material that the kids come home with from school, let me say that IMO the schools "spoil" the seder. To me it is clear from the Gemara in Pesachim that the children are not supposed to be "primed" with all sorts of knowledge about the Seder. The things we do are supposed to be new to them so that they will ask questions. My children when they were young and my younger grandchildren now know enough to conduct the Seder themselves! There is nothing new for them. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:59:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:59:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah Message-ID: I understand that one cannot use Egg Matza for the mitzva of Achilas Matza, but I'm not sure exactly why. I'm aware of two different reasons, and they seem mutually exclusive. 1) The Torah requires that this mitzva be done with "lechem oni" - poor bread, plain and lacking the richness that it would have if it were made with eggs, juice, oil, or the like. 2) Matza must be something that could have become chometz, but was baked before chimutz could occur. According to those who hold that flour and pure mei peiros will not ever become chometz, "matza ashira" isn't really halachic matza at all. I suspect that I am conflating various shitos, and that according to any individual shita, one reason or the other will apply, but not both. Can someone help me out? Thanks! Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:27:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:27:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I understand it, the purpose of reading the brachos from a card is to make it clear that one is not reading them from the Torah. I believe that's the reason for turning one's head to the side, haven't seen that as the reason for using a card. And that's only according to the opinion that the oleh leaves the Sefer Torah open while making the brachos. The opinion that the Sefer Torah should be closed is for the same reason if memory serves, and then of course no card would be needed at all. So I presume the reason for the card is simply for people who need it. Given that the whole reason for having a designated baal koreh in the first place was to save the embarassment of those who can't read their own aliya, I'm bemused by the permission for someone to decide they'd like to read their own aliya. Unless you say that a well known talmid chacham, or a guest of honour, would not embarrass the other olim by reading his aliya since he's known as a scholar. It does seem that avoiding the chashash of embarrassment was more important to chazal than to many contemporary kehillos. Maybe it needs some chizuk. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 23:41:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 06:41:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot Message-ID: And so, as more move into the area whose minhagim exclude using peanut oil on Pesach, it becomes harder to find KLP certified peanut oil, and all too quickly people forget what was once the norm. Which is a difference between Israel and USA Israel with a large sefardi community has top level hasgacha on kiniyot products also many candies now list that they contain lecithin so that the consumer can decide rather than the hasgacha deciding -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 20:45:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 23:45:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/17 17:27, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > Given that the whole reason for having a designated baal koreh in the > first place was to save the embarassment of those who can't read their > own aliya, I'm bemused by the permission for someone to decide they'd > like to read their own aliya. Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone wants to do his own, why not? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 21:53:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:53:50 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Are Mitzvos Fungible Message-ID: Obviously, and in spite of all the stories of people selling their Olam Haba it is a nonsense - good and evil deeds cannot be redeemed or transferred by a financial transaction or any agreement HOWEVER if anyone is inspired to do a good [or evil] deed or desist doing an evil [or good] deed because of another persons influence clearly that influencing person is rewarded accordingly and so when we learn Torah or do any other other Mitzvah and we are inspired to do it because of an institution or a person be they in Olam HaEmes or in this world a Zechis accrues for that person Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 21:18:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:18:03 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru - We have no authority to decree new gezeros Message-ID: Although it has been said on these hallowed pages Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru - We have no authority to decree new gezeros yet many felt that the new stainless steel Shechitah knives were forbidden machicne Matza was forbidden Ben PeKuAh is forbidden they're even arguing that soft Matza is forbidden for Ashkenazim etc. But it is Kula Chada Gezeira Thus newly discovered foods are Kitniyos And whatever the truth is we are V lucky that potato was not included and not reversed remember when peanuts were KLP? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 03:01:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:01:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pate de Foie Gras Message-ID: <20170405100107.GA16249@aishdas.org> Daf Yomi learners just learned BB 73b. It looks to me like the gemara is condemning, although on an aggadic level, the preparation of pate de foi gras. Since I can't quote the gemara, here's R' Steinzaltz's commentary (from : And Rabba bar bar Hana said: Once we were traveling in the desert and we saw these geese whose wings were sloping because they were so fat, and streams of oil flowed beneath them. I said to them: Shall we have a portion of you in the World-to-Come? One raised a wing, and one raised a leg, [signaling an affirmative response]. When I came before Rabbi Elazar, he said to me: The Jewish people will [eventually] be held accountable for [the suffering] of [the geese. Since the Jews do not repent, the geese are forced to continue to grow fat as they wait to be given to the Jewish people as a reward.] Rashbam ("litein aleihem es hadin"): For in their sins, they delay mashiach. They, those geese, have tza'ar ba'alei chaim because of their fat. Apparently even the messianic se'udah is insufficient grounds to justify torturing geese for their fat. Also implied is that the sin of making the geese suffer in their obesity is not a sin so great at to itself holding up the mashiach's arrival. Otherwise, R' Elazar would be describing a vicious cycle. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 03:51:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:51:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on > kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU > gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be > prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily > be mixed up with chametz. > > It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if > no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the > same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. I am both surprised and confused, by this post and almost all the ones that followed. It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and gebroks. Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right? So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate gebroks. I am not surprised that amei haaretz like myself have trouble understanding the definitions of kitniyos. But one thing is for sure: That our rabanim ought to understand that kitniyos and gebroks are two different things. Some might respond that today's "farfel, bread sticks etc" are being made not of matza meal but of potato and tapioca. I don't see that as relevant. *ANY* definition of kitniyos has to be one that doesn't include matza meal. And if matza meal is excluded, then you can't include potatoes merely because they are so useful. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 05:20:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:20:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <50BEA150-B533-4159-AFEB-ADE8B18EB7E1@sibson.com> > Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone wants to do his own, why not? > > -- Synagogue practices in particular are a very sensitive area, at least according to rabbi Soloveutchik. THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 08:56:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:56:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170405155630.GA29273@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:45:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any : given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, : it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone : wants to do his own, why not? Since when does logic have to do with emotions? Your line of reasoning would work for robots, not people. If everyone else is leining their own aliyah that day, someone who can't may still be embarassed and decline taking an aliyah with the ba'al qeri'ah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 05:57:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 08:57:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Tefillin on Chol Moed Message-ID: R Samuel Svarc wrote on Areivim >This, as it turns out, is a minority view. Not all Ashkenazim hold >that way, nor do Sefardim, nor a nice junk of the Litvishe wing. From http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/tefillinONmoed.htm The Aruch Hashulchan notes that "recently" a practice among some Ashkenazic Jews has developed to refrain from wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. He is referring to the practice of Chassidim, which was also the practice at the famed Volozhiner Yeshiva (as recorded by the Rav, Shiurim L'zeicher Aba Mori Zal p.119) And from http://dinonline.org/2014/04/07/tefillin-on-chol-hamoed-pesach/ The Rema adds that the Ashkenaz custom is to wear Tefillin and recite a berachah, but because of the sensitivity of the topic the berachah should be recited quietly. Later authorities espouse the compromise noted by the Tur, meaning that Tefillin are worn but the berachah is not recited (see Taz 31:2; Mishnah Berurah 31:8). YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 09:29:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:29:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170405162920.GB19562@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 06:51:14AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and : gebroks. I think the conversation works better as is. Gebrochts is a minhag to avoid the possible manufacture of real chameitz from any flour that happened to stay dry when the matzah was made. Qitniyos is a minhag or multiple minhagim to avoid things that either: 1- are stored in the same silos as with chameitz, in which case it's much like gebrochts in function. Or 2- are used in a manner similar to chameitz, and people might eat chameitz thinking it's pea porridge or mustard seed or whatnot. And these could indeed be divergant minhagim, where different explanations became primary drivers in different areas, leading to difference in how practice evolved. But explanation #2 does open the door for the original question. Pretzels made from oatmeal make it possible for someone to accidentally eat real chameitz pretzels. And if your ancestral version of qitniyos includes growing it to include new items that make the same mistake possible, eg corn, then why not all these gebrochts or potato / potato starch products -- not because they're gebrochts (if they are), but because reason #2 applies. : So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever : arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they : were rejected by communities that ate gebroks. No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) This really is a recent development. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 07:48:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:48:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Fungibility of Mitzvos In-Reply-To: References: <002801d2ae0d$a752e040$f5f8a0c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: R? Micha Berger quoted R? Natan Slifkin: <<< I have found that while people are shocked when one challenges the notion that you can learn Torah on behalf of someone who is sick, nobody has yet actually come up with any classical sources demonstrating otherwise. >>> I?d like to suggest a very slight difference between two scenarios: Suppose I say, ?Hashem, I am going to learn some Torah now, and I?d like the s?char for this mitzvah to go to Ploni, instead of to me.? That seems to be the situation that RNS is talking about. But suppose I say, ?Hashem, I am going to learn some Torah now, and I?d like *MY* s?char for this mitzvah to be that You heal Ploni, who is currently ill?, or ?? that You elevate Ploni to a higher level in Gan Eden?, or something similar. My point is that if there is no mechanism to transfer s?char from one person to another, perhaps we can still request that the s?char should take a particular form, and it would result in the same effect. I?m pretty sure that there *are* sources for requesting that the s?char should take a certain form. More accurately, I recall cases where one requests that his *onesh* should take a particular form, such as if it has been decreed that one should lose a certain amount of money, it should occur in tiny amounts over a long time, or some other similar request. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 08:52:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:52:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos HaGadol Message-ID: It is not easy to explain the origin of the Hagadol which is applied to this coming Shabbos. In the Haftorah, the prophet Malachi speaks of a Yom Hashem Hagadol which according to various customs is to be read when the Sabbath before Pesach happens to be Erev Pesach. And yet the term Hagadol as applied to the Sabbath before Passover has been accepted by all whether or not it falls on Erev Pesach. The Midrash offers additional insight as to why this Shabbos is termed Hagadol and tells us something most of us have learned that on the Shabbos preceding the 14th of Nissan (when the Pascal lamb was to be brought as an offering), the Egyptian masters entered into the homes of the Jews and noticed that each family had a sheep tied to its bedposts. The Egyptians asked: ?What are you doing with our sheep?!? The Jews replied: ?We are going to slaughter it as an offering to our God.? The Egyptian masters gritted their teeth in exasperation and walked out. This is another basis for the Shabbos preceding Pesach to be called the ?Great Shabbos.? It is the Shabbos that the Jewish people experienced a miracle ? they were not killed by their masters because of their subordination to the Will of the Almighty and they were not deterred by concern for their personal safety. THAT was ?greatness? and they were, indeed, truly ?great.? It is also interesting that every Shabbos symbolizes complete freedom ? freedom from technology and the mundane. Pesach typifies freedom and redemption. The parallel to Shabbos is profound. May this Shabbos be the ?GREATEST!? "The price of greatness is responsibility.? Winston Churchill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 14:25:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:25:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a5b4365-260b-ab41-7882-0043d896073e@zahav.net.il> On 4/5/2017 12:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone > who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from > gebroks, right? Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can get today which is no different than cake flour? [Email #2. -micha] On 4/4/2017 8:33 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and > halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all > other minhagim that people are so set against any change? If this one is different it is because people have set out to take down this minhag. Whereas something like changing from an Ashkenazi white with black stripes tallit to a more Sefardi all white one wouldn't be such a big deal because no one is making an issue out of it. In my community there is a back lash against the kitni-chumrot so I see it changing, somewhat. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 01:32:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:32:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Food in the desert questions Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: "In the mishkan, a mincha offering was brought. other offerings too. Some : required flour and oil. Where did they come from? " I just saw a Tosafos in Menachos 45b that discusses the question of flour in the midbar. Tosafos quotes Rashi as saying that they did not make the shtei halechem in the midbar because all they had was man (so they had no flour). Tosafos disagrees and says that they bought flour from merchants (based on the Gemara Yoma 75b). I would assume that Tosafos would say the same thing about oil. The Rambam in the Peirush Hamishnayos (Menachos 4:4) agrees with Rashi that they had no flour in the midbar. So to answer your question according to Rashi and the Rambam they had no flour and therefore did not bring anything flour based. According to Tpsafos they bought flour from merchants in the midbar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 22:03:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Meisner via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 01:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > I understand that one cannot use Egg Matza for the mitzva of Achilas > Matza, but I'm not sure exactly why. I'm aware of two different reasons, > and they seem mutually exclusive. > > 1) The Torah requires that this mitzva be done with "lechem oni"... > 2) Matza must be something that could have become chometz, but was baked > before chimutz could occur. According to those who hold that flour and pure > mei peiros will not ever become chometz, "matza ashira" isn't really > halachic matza at all. If matzah is baked with mei peiros and a kol she-hu of water, it would not be lechem oni but would be halachically matzah. Josh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 04:16:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:16:49 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller asked: "It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and gebroks. Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right? So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate gebroks." There is no question that this is a new problem, even 50 years ago no one made things out of matzo meal or potato starch that looked almost exactly like the equivalent chometz item. There has been an explosion of "imitation" chometz products over the last 20 years that look and even taste like chometz. This is more a spirit of the law issue. One of the reasons given for not eating kitniyos is that since kitniyos look like and/or can make things that look like chometz we are afraid that people will confuse them with chometz and come to eat chometz. This concern certainly applies much more to these modern products. If I can get kosher l'pesach cereal that looks exactly like chometz cereal there is certainly a risk of confusion. No one is saying that these things are kitniyos, what they are saying that in the spirit of kitniyos these should be prohibited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 05:06:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those measures should be. I wrote: : So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? : Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 : years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate : gebroks. and R' Micha Berger responded: > No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks > that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) > This really is a recent development. Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my mother made at home? I'm sorry, but I can't buy that. It is true that today's factory kitchens allow an amazing variety of technologies and abilities, including products that are almost indistinguishable from regular bread. But I maintain that this does NOT translate to an increased chance that someone will mix flour and water in their home kitchen, precisely because the factory and home are so far apart - both geographically and sociologically. If someone is enticed by the quality of a store-bought breadstick or pizza slice, I cannot imagine that they would attempt to duplicate it at home nowadays without a recipe. Seeing a breaded chicken cutlet at one's neighbor's home *IS* something that you might duplicate in your own home, and there is great danger there. But I just don't see that happening with factory-made goods. Anyone who is awed by the quality will read the box to figure out how they managed such a feat, and they will immediately see the potato and tapioca listed. (But I am willing to listen to other arguments.) My suspicion is that the anti-potato sentiments may have originated in the non-gebroks sectors. Pesach pizza and pancakes are very new to them, and I suppose I can understand their concern. But among those who have been eating gebroks for generations, I just don't understand why these new products bother them. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 03:35:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:35:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah Message-ID: R' Joshua Meisner wrote: > If matzah is baked with mei peiros and a kol she-hu of water, > it would not be lechem oni but would be halachically matzah. That's true. Theoretically, if one would bake it fast enough, before it becomes chometz, it would be real matza. But because of the mei peiros, it isn't plain matza, but it is "rich" matza - matza ashira, and thus disqualified from Mitzvas Achilas Matza. But as far as I know, no one makes such matza, because (there is a fear that) the combination of both water and mei peiros will allow the dough to become chometz much faster than usual. That's not the case with the stuff on the shelves that's labeled "Egg Matza" or "Matza Ashira" - This has no water at all, and its dough can never become chometz. If so, then it seems to me that the term "Matza Ashira" is a misnomer. It isn't matza at all, because it was incapable of becoming chometz. A better term for it might be "Matza-style squares" (which is the term that the industry has chosen for the potato and tapioca stuff). I suspect that at some point in history, some educator felt that the logic of "the fruit juice makes it rich bread" was more easily accepted by the masses, and the logic of "it can't be chometz and therefore it isn't matza" was too difficult for them. And from that point onwards, it was the go-to explanation, despite the technical shortcomings. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 05:28:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat Message-ID: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I've been thinking (pun intended) about staam daat" . (I have in mind "whatever HKB"H wants me to have in mind without actually knowing what that is [e.g., to be yotzeih the chazan's bracha]). Firstly what is the source of the concept. Secondly, Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal says works, that's what I want to think/occur). [relatrd to daat makneh and koneh issues] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:07:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:07:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru Message-ID: We all assume we can't have new gezerot. Is this really true? At least according to some opinions bicycles and umbrellas are allowed on shabbat. According to RSZA electricity (without a heat or fire) is really allowed on shabbat and certainly yomtov. Years ago many held that electricity was allowed on yomtov. Today we have things like fitbit watches which many feel are allowed on shabbat. Yet in practice the poskim prohibit all these things. Other things are prohbited in davening because it is a slippery slope etc. In essence these are all new gezerot perhaps without the nomenclature -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:21:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:21:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:06:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos : understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect : people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is : acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those : measures should be. Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change a minhag. And if we were talking about gezeiros, then we'd need a Sanhedrin or universal consensus to create one. ("Universal consensus", eg RSZA on electricity.) But we would also need that level authority to modify or repeal one. So there too there is a high barrier to change. So in either case, while I could appreciate R' Aviner's reasoning, I don't know if I would be comfortable applying it lemaaseh. :> No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks :> that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) :> This really is a recent development. : Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in : the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my : mother made at home? While, really I'm suggesting that an environment where -- even a bagel or a loaf of bread -- could be a gebrochts or potato starch replacement poses bigger problems than we faced 50 years ago. Because a person can pick up anything and mistake it for a KLP alternative. Much like one of the reasons given for qitniyos. The same was not true when the only KLP pancakes were rare and homemade. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:41:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:41:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Working on Chol Moed Message-ID: <1491493270335.3143@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If I don't work on Chol Hamoed my paycheck will be much smaller. Is this a davar behaved (irreparable loss)? Am I permitted to go to work on Chol Hamoed? A. A loss of profit is generally not considered a davar ha'avud. As such one cannot automatically assume that it is permissible to work on Chol Hamoed. Nonetheless there are situations where davar ha'avud would apply. For example, if a person will use up vacation days by not working during Chol Hamoed, and there is a preference to take vacation at a more convenient time, this may be considered a davar ha'avud. (See Shmiras Shabbos Kihilchoso, vol. 2, chapter 67, footnote 47.) Furthermore, if a person is struggling financially, and not earning a salary on Chol Hamoed would be stressful, this may be treated as a davar ha'avud. Nonetheless these leniencies are not ideal, and Rav Belsky, zt"l stressed that it is preferable to not work on Chol Hamoed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 09:44:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:44:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat In-Reply-To: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <958e2160-18d0-985e-70d4-9c571dea3a3f@sero.name> On 06/04/17 08:28, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Secondly, Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., > I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal says > works, that?s what I want to think/occur). Isn't that *exactly* what we do when we write in a shtar that we stipulate to having made whichever kind of kinyan is most effective ("be'ofan hayoser mo`il")? We don't know which of the various kinyanim we should be doing so we stipulate that whichever one it is, we did it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 10:01:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 20:01:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/6/2017 6:07 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We all assume we can't have new gezerot. Is this really true? ... > In essence these are all new gezerot perhaps without the nomenclature The nomenclature is vital. As I said in my previous email, we don't blur the distinctions between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan, and we don't blur the distinctions between gezeirot, takkanot, chramim, siyagim, minhagim, etc. Yes, it's forbidden to eat chicken parmesan. And it's forbidden to eat a pork chop. There's no wiggle room. Both are forbidden. So to someone on the outside, those prohibitions might look like the same thing, "perhaps without the nomenclature". But the nomenclature matters, because there are different rules for the two. Just as there are different rules for the various "add-ons". Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:49:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:49:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7c4f2947-d6c6-62b2-40fd-a9b977d026f4@starways.net> > Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy > in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes > that my mother made at home? Matza meal pancakes, which I grew up with as well, are nothing at all like regular pancakes. The difference is clear and obvious. Ditto for cakes. We used to have sponge cake at Pesach. And we thought of it as a Pesach cake. It wasn't something we had all year. I don't have a problem with fake treyf. So I don't really have a huge problem with fake chametz. But to pretend that there's no difference between what we used to have in the 60s, 70s, etc, and today is just silly. The difference is enormous. And while I don't have a huge problem with fake chametz, I see another distinction between fake chametz and fake treyf. You can't ever eat bacon. So making fake bacon is reasonable. But fake chametz? Really? We can't make it a week without waffles and pizza and pretzels? [Email #2. -micha] On 4/6/2017 6:21 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be > mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very > overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change > a minhag. WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be determinative. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 10:54:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:54:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:03:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept : of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be : determinative. Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei For that matter, the topic here is qitniyos -- which is itself a minhag avos, not halakhah. It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the accepted ruling in practice. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 13:59:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:59:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> I am confused by the term mimetic. I understand it in the sense of tradition, We are discussing various situations that didn't exist years ago, My parents didnt use Canola oil because it was not available but they did use cottonseed oil. What is my mimetic custom for lechitin? When I grew up we had mainly macaroon cookies. Any cakes even with matza meal tasted and looked different than chametz items. No one I knew used CI shiurim. In EY on the radio I still hear about the necessity of using CI shiurim at least lechatchila. I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. I recently heard a shiur from R. Aviner attacking much of these chumrot and R. Lior also has many kulot and these are considered right wing DL rabbis. As I stated before one difference between EY and the US is the existence of a large charedi sefardi community, This gives rise to kitniyot products with top level hasgachot. The easy availability of soft matzaot etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 12:10:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:10:26 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder Message-ID: is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a korban pesach? i think we all agree that the matzot to make a korech were soft matzot [and presumably mashiach will rule that's the way we should all be making them ]. if the zaytim were like larger then , would the sandwich have been the size of a big mac? or half a pizza? kiddush would have started the meal . then some form of maggid [ 3 hrs long? would the korban be edible that many hours later?] . so people washed and then what? hamotzi on 3 matzos? but the mitzva matza was to eat the korech no? so the rest of the meal was not matza followed by marror, but rather that of korech. so then the chiyuv-matza was the afikoman matza? or people would have chazon ish'ed it up twice---at the matza they washed on and again on korech? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 07:46:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:46:29 +0000 (WET DST) Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Apr 6, 2017 11:03:15 am Message-ID: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> > > ... This is another basis for the Shabbos preceding Pesach to be > called the "Great Shabbos." > No, it is not. Haggadol is not an adjective modifying Shabbath, because Shabbath is feminine. No one who speaks Hebrew uses masculine adjectives to modify Shabbath, ever (pedantic footnote: except in the fixed expression "Shabbath shalom umvorakh", which is said by people who do speak Hebrew, but which for other reasons is clearly an idiomatic expression that does not follow the rules of grammar, unless you want to call it a mistake, which is also fine with me). It is the same reason why we know that Lshon Hara` and `Eyn Hara` are not nouns modified by adjectives, because lashon and `ayin are feminine nouns. No one who speaks Hebrew would ever use the masculine adjective ra` to modify the feminine nouns lashon or `ayin. They are nouns modified by other nouns, and so is Shabbath Haggadol. (Whether lshon hara` and `eyn hara` are the correct pronunciation turns on whether the smikhuth forms in Rabbinic Hebrew are the same as the smikhuth forms in Biblical and modern Hebrew, a question that is irrelevant to the current discussion. They are unquestionably smikhuth forms, however they should be pronounced.) This alone is not sufficient reason to reject your translation "The Great Shabbos", because languages do not have to be translated literally and word-for-word. I do not reject the translation "the holy tongue" for "lshon haqqodesh", even though "lshon haqqodesh" literally means "the tongue of holiness", because languages do not have to be translated literally. If you want to translate "lshon haqqodesh" as "the holy tongue", fine. But you cannot do that with "Shabbath Haggadol", because we do not say Shabbath Haggodel, or Shabbath Haggdula, we say "Shabbath Haggadol", and gadol is an adjective, albeit a masculine one. As for what it does mean, well, if you want to say that Hagadol is a kinuy for God ("the Great One"), I think that is far-fetched, but I won't post an article publicly saying that you are wrong. It is clear to me that we say Shabbath Hagadol for the same reason that we say Shabbath Xazon or Shabbath Naxamu or Shabbath Shuva. You may disagree. But what you cannot plausibly say is that it means "the great Shabbath". Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:24:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:24:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matzah Meat (was Kitnios In-Reply-To: <728a7944561447f0984b79952cedf5a5@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <728a7944561447f0984b79952cedf5a5@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <86.ED.07959.212B6E85@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:03 PM 4/6/2017, Ben Waxman wrote: >On 4/5/2017 12:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone > > who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from > > gebroks, right? > >Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for >matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can >get today which is no different than cake flour? I must admit that I have no idea what you are referring to when you write about "roughly ground matza meal." Is this what is called cake meal? If so, it is good for making many things. See for example http://tinyurl.com/n6yo95b Also, do a google search for cake meal recipes, and you will see how many recipes come up I use "regular" matza meal to make matzah balls and they come out fine. See http://tinyurl.com/kl5tljs for a recipe for matza balls that calls for matza meal. I have never seen shmura cake meal. Has anyone? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 13:30:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:30:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 4/6/2017 8:54 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:03:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: >: WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept >: of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be >: determinative. > Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel > Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei > > It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering > cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the > accepted ruling in practice. I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:48:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:48:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170406214806.GH26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:30:40PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : >It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering : >cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the : >accepted ruling in practice. : : I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi : is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that : we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea : that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible. You are only discussing the absolutes, the case where the halakhah isn't known, and that where it is, but common practice differs. But in the part I left above, I described the gray area. There are cases where the logic for one position is more compelling than the other, but not muchrach. In fact, this is more common than a case where two rishonim or noted acharonim disagree and one opinion is found to be outright wrong. Between the brilliance of the people involved and the "peer review" as to which ideas reach us, it is very rare for us to find a true incontrovertable mistake, and even harder to know if we really did, or if it is our own assessment that's in error. In that situation, where we have to choose between multiple viable shitos, there are a number of things a poseiq would weigh. Different schools of pesaq may give each different weights. This kind of comparison of apples and oranges requires real shiqul hadaas, and is why pesaq is an art, not an algorithm. This is my usual list of categories of factors that go into pesaq. 1- Textualiam 1a- Logicalness of the rationale 1b- Authority of those who back each postion: majority, expertise (eg the Rambam and Rosh carry more weight than some other rishonim) 2- Mimeticism 3- Aggadic concerns -- whether it's chassidim not wearing tefillin on ch"m or some of RSRH's innovations. My point in #2 is that there are many times that we continue following what we do because it has a sound textual basis -- even though some other shitah may have a stronger such basis. And again, this is minhag, not halakhah. The whole topic of qitniyos rests on mimeticism, not formal halachic reasoning. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] P.O.P. Paradox Of Pesach Message-ID: <5204F12E-00B5-47B0-92DD-2D93AB3E7C87@cox.net> A great ambivalence is to be found in the symbolism of the Seder. On one hand, the white kitel is a manifestation of joy and purity, and on the other hand, it is also the shroud of death. An egg is a token of mourning, but at the Seder it recalls the korban chagigah, the additional sacrifice brought to assure joy on Pesach. The matzah is the bread of affliction as well as the food of freedom baked in haste as our forefathers rushed out of Egypt. The very word individual which refers to a single person ends with DUAL. Pesach brings out the duality of man but through the unity of the family, we are able to live with cognitive dissonance, paradox and conflict. ?We may have different points of arguments from perspectives of belief, faith and religion. But we must not hate each other. We are one human family.? ? Lailah Gifty Akita, (Think Great: Be Great!) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:04:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:04:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406220429.GK26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:59:51PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be :> mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very :> overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change :> a minhag. : I am confused by the term mimetic. I understand it in the sense of : tradition, Mimetic is from the shoresh mime, to copy. (Like a mimeograph.) Mimeticism is Judaism as culture. Things like absorbing that "Shabbos is coming" feeling of the erev Shabbos Jew. The pious Jew of today may be able to work himself up emotionally on Yom Kippur, the mimetic Jew of 100 years ago was simply terrified, without such work. (Both kinds of religiosity have their pros and cons.) Mimeticism evolves because culture evolves. Textualism is also tradition. But it's the formal tradition passed off from rebbe to talmid. RYBS's dialog down the ages that he watched gather around his father's table, or later, in his own shiur room. So the mimetic-textualist axis is not quite the same as the tradition-ideology one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:07:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:07:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> References: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> Message-ID: <20170406220711.GL26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 02:46:29PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote: : Haggadol is not an adjective modifying Shabbath, because Shabbath is : feminine. No one who speaks Hebrew uses masculine adjectives to : modify Shabbath, ever (pedantic footnote: except in the fixed : expression "Shabbath shalom umvorakh", which is said by people who : do speak Hebrew, but which for other reasons is clearly an idiomatic : expression that does not follow the rules of grammar, unless you want : to call it a mistake, which is also fine with me). What about Shabbos morning, and "veyanuchu vo"? The previous night it was "vahh". I agree with your thesis, I am more trying to get from you what the masculine noun "vo" refers to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:27:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav Message-ID: Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik heh under my understanding and also be milera. Is my understanding of the word incorrect? Kol tuv and Chag Kasher v'Sameach to all, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 00:29:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:29:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot Message-ID: from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) BTW the sefer contains 3 sections ; main, dvar halacha and orchot halacha. I am assuming that all 3 are from RSZA or notes of students. I will do my best in the translation but have added some of the notes in Hebrew RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who determines this minhag?) He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat. He adda that PERHAPS there is a reason to prohibit potato flour (serach kitniyot - based on chiddishin of RSZA to Pesachim). Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be prohibited (ie even according to those that eat gebrochs) (yesh ladun behem - Pesachim 40b - Rashi that when people are "mezalzel one should be machmir) In the notes that this was what RSZA said in shiurim and when asked a question responded that one should follow the family minhag. Nevetheless he remarked several times that cakes with matzah flour that look like chametz cakes that he didn't understand the heter when we go to lengths to avoid things that might be confused with chametz -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 23:27:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 06:27:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Afikoman_-_=93Stealing=93_and_Other_Rel?= =?windows-1252?q?ated_Minhagim?= Message-ID: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> Please the article at http://seforim.blogspot.com/2017/04/afikoman-stealing-and-other-related.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 20:28:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:28:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: > ... Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., > I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal > says works, that?s what I want to think/occur). [related to daat > makneh and koneh issues] I think Mishne Berura 649:15 might be exactly what you're looking for. I am paraphrasing him, and he was paraphrasing the Magen Avraham and Pri Megadim. But basically, the point is: >>> Suppose it is the first day of Sukkos, and you want to use someone else's lulav, but you can't, because on the first day you need to own it yourself. So l'chatchila, the best option is make it explicit that you want to acquire his lulav in a "matana al m'nas l'hachzir" (gift on condition of returning) manner. >>> But b'dieved, if you borrowed it in a "stam" manner so that you could be yotzay with it, then we presume that he gave it to you intending to do it in whatever manner would allow you to be yotzay, namely, "matana al m'nas l'hachzir". >>> However, if you explicitly used the word "borrow" rather than "gift", then you would not be yotzay. Also, if the lulav's owner is unaware that a borrowed lulav is pasul, it would not work then either. (End of Mishne Brura.) Here's my commentary: There are two requirements for "stam daas" to help us here. The first is that the conversation must be vague, because if it were explicit we would not be able to assign a meaning to the words. But the second requirement is very relevant to RJR's question: The lulav's owner has to be aware that a borrowed lulav is pasul. If the owner does have that awareness, then we say that his stam daas was to grant ownership to you. But if the lulav's owner is not aware of this halacha, then his stam daas is to *lend* the lulav, which would not be valid. We see from this that "stam daas" is not a magic wand that can be applied conveniently to any vague comment. Rather, it is applied with a lot of care and understand of what the person's likely intention really was. Please read the MB yourself and see what he means. Even better, check out the MA and PM that the MB was summarizing (because I did not go into that much depth. Maybe over Shabbos.) [Press Pause button... Okay, continue...] I have now reread RJR's post, and I noticed that while the MB ruled how the halacha views these two people and the lulav, RJR's post is much more "me"-oriented. He asks about the case where > I have in mind ?whatever HKB?H wants me to have in mind > without actually knowing what that is ..." It seems to me that this is an explicit vagueness. If "stam daas" works where outsiders are trying to figure out what Ploni probably meant, it should certainly work where Ploni himself is being deliberately vague. I never studied Logic to the depth that R' Micha and other have, but even I can see a serious flaw in the above paragraph. In the MB's case of the lulav, the owner had *something* in mind, and we are presuming to know what it was. But in RJR's case, the individual made an effort have nothing in mind at all, and I can easily understand someone who says that this simply won't work. I would suggest this as a practical solution: One should never say simply, "I have in mind whatever Hashem wants me to have in mind," because that is essentially admitting that he really has nothing in mind. Rather, one should use an explicit tenai: "If Hashem wants me to have A in mind, then I do have A in mind; but if He wants me to have B in mind, then I do have B in mind." Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#m_3151624698786785420_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:24:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav Message-ID: > Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH > translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". > Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik > heh under my understanding and also be milera. Upon reviewing the pshat in the word "bushala", it is possible that my understanding was incorrect and the structure would be similar to "yochLUha" where the translation of the suffix in both cases is "it" as opposed to "its" and thus not requiring a mapik heh. Shabbat Shalom, HT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:25:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:25:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67447a90-4764-0dce-4f82-b0f11d5c55af@sero.name> On 06/04/17 18:27, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: > Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH > translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". > > Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik > heh under my understanding and also be milera. It's a verb, not a noun. If it were written as you would have it it would be a noun, presumably meaning "its cooking", but then it would be "bishulah". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 08:46:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:46:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170407154652.GD32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:27:30PM -0400, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: : Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH : translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". : : Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik : heh under my understanding and also be milera. That would make it a posessed noun, "if its cooking was in a copper vessel". RSRH is treating is as a verb. In more contemporary American English, "if it had been cooked in a copper vessel". :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:47:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Afikoman_-_=E2=80=9CStealing=E2=80=9C_and_Othe?= =?utf-8?q?r_Related_Minhagim?= In-Reply-To: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> References: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <0a933758-f6de-9e33-4fd0-33f89b9dc517@sero.name> > http://seforim.blogspot.com/2017/04/afikoman-stealing-and-other-related.html My father gives presents to all those children who *don't* steal. He also explains that if the hidden matzah is stolen he will not pay any ransom for it but will simply use a different matzah. Thus the purpose of the minhag is preserved but the bad chinuch is avoided. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 08:44:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:44:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:10:26PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a korban : pesach? I assume koreikh was the norm. Not that Hillel argued they were necessary and no one else made wraps, but that everyone made a wrap, which is why a machloqes could arise as to whether one is yotzei if not. : i think we all agree that the matzot to make a korech were soft matzot [and : presumably mashiach will rule that's the way we should all be making them ]. One could be yotzei koreikh just putting a tiny lump of meat on a cracker. Not difficult. OTOH, we seem to have proven in numerous years that until the acharonic period, softa matzos were the norm in every community. (Ashkenazim too; see the Rama.) : if the zaytim were like larger then, would the sandwich have been the size : of a big mac? or half a pizza? But they were smaller, so no problem. Another perrennial is whether the growth of the kezayis is halachically binding even after archeology proved the historical assumptions wrong. : kiddush would have started the meal... And Ha Lachma Anya would have been 4 days before, as you can only invite people to join the chaburah BEFORE the sheep is set aside. For that matter, I'm convinced Ha Lachma Anya is not part of Maggid. Maggid ought to begin with questions, so let's assume it does. HLA is an explanation of Yachatz. And then, once we fact out qwhat it's like to have to ration our lachma anya, we express empathy for the dirtzrikh and dichpin. So perhaps Yachatz too would be before picking the sheep. . then some form of maggid [ 3 hrs : long? would the korban be edible that many hours later?]. Sure! How quickly does meat go bad where you live? It looks like there is a fundamental machloqes about the seider. Notice that Rabban Gamliel wasn't present at R' Aqiva's seider in Benei Beraq. OTOH, in the Tosefta at the end of Pesachim Rabban Gamliel hosts big seider in Lod, where they spent the whole night "osqin behilkhos haPesach". (This Tosefta goes with "ein maftirin achar haPesach afiqoman". A whole answer-to-the-chakham vibe here.) Notice that at R' Aqiva's seider "vehayu mesaperim beytzi'as mitzrayim". R' Aqiva held that a seider is all about the story. R' Gamliel -- the mitzvos. Most of Maggid we do R' Aqiva style: 1- We follow R' Yehudah, and tell the story of physical redemption. Avadim Hayinu. 2- Then (after an intermission in which we explain why we're doing multiple versions -- 4 banim, etc...) we follow Rav, and tell the story of spiritual redemption. Betechilah ovedei AZ. 3- And we tell the story using Vidui Biqurim and other texts. 4- Then, at the very end, we make sure to do the least necessary to be yotzei according to Rabban Gamliel. So it would seem we basically hold like R' Aqiva, that the main role of the foods is as aids to the story-telling. But Rabban Gamliel would have Maggid as /during/ the other mitzvos of the seider. We discuss the foods. : washed and then what? hamotzi on 3 matzos? but the mitzva matza was to : eat the korech no? so the rest of the meal was not matza followed by : marror, but rather that of korech. so then the chiyuv-matza was the : afikoman matza? or people would have chazon ish'ed it up twice---at the : matza they washed on and again on korech? The afiqoman was the sheep, all matzos umorerim. Before that was the chagiga, re'iyah and shulchan oreikh. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:48:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Meisner via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:48:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:10 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a > korban pesach? The Rambam in Ch. 8 of Hil. Chametz uMatzah provides a step-by-step description of the seder that includes the eating of the Korban Pesach, which is probably a good start. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 09:32:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:32:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4167b94e-52b7-16a4-0069-0697990750d6@sero.name> On 07/04/17 11:44, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And Ha Lachma Anya would have been 4 days before, as you can only invite > people to join the chaburah BEFORE the sheep is set aside. Not true. One can join or leave a chavurah right up to the moment of shechitah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 09:58:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 17:58:36 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Surely either we'd pasken like Hillel, and eat the full portion of Pesach, Matza and Maror in one sandwich, or else we wouldn't, and there'd be no Korech at all? On 7 April 2017 at 16:44, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > One could be yotzei koreikh just putting a tiny lump of meat on a > cracker. Not difficult. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 10:15:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:15:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170407171523.GI32239@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 05:58:36PM +0100, Allan Engel wrote: : Surely either we'd pasken like Hillel, and eat the full portion of Pesach, : Matza and Maror in one sandwich, or else we wouldn't, and there'd be no : Korech at all? I assume everyone ate koreikh. It's most reasonable to assume that a machloqes over an annual practice kept by everyone is theoretical, not pragmatic. Not that one person is saying what a significant number of people are doing is pasul / assur. For similar reasons, I assume that until the rishonim, people considered both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam tefillin to be kosher. Otherwise, how were both styles in existence and common use since the days of the Chashmonaim until some 1,300 years later when rishonim started voicing preferences? Note my use of the phrase, "I assume". Li mistaber, I have no strong arguments for it. Back to our topic... I figure everyone ate the matzah, marror and lamb in a wrap. Otherwise, how did Hillel come around and argue that what everyone was doing was pasul? And why would it stay with Hillel, wouldn't he have the Sanhedrin vote on it? Rather, the machloqes was whether one was yotzei if they did the weird thing and eat them separately. If this was a rare event, multiple opinions could persist without resolutions. Now when it came time to commemorate, rather than fulfill the mitzvah.... Matzah we have to eat separately from maror, because without the pesach, there may be a problem with our fulfilling the mitzvah of eating matzah without it being the only tast in the mouth. And then there's the question of what are we commemorating -- eating all three in one meal, and the wrap aspect was not a critical facet that needs commemoration, or are we commemorating a wrap? So, we do both. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 10:28:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel In-Reply-To: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> References: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:05:30PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : My son who lives in EY told me that Ashkenazim have to very careful : about the products that they purchase for Pesach, since many products : that are certified for Pesach contain kitnios. The item below reinforces : this. ... : Eretz Yisrael: Strauss Cottage Cheese Contains Kitnios : : April 3, 2017- from the Arutz 7 : : : "Badatz Mehadrin, the hashgacha of Rabbi Avraham Rubin Shlita, alerts... I was wondering about this. Qitniyos is batel berov. Ah, you may say: but they're intentionally mixing in the qitniyos, there is no bitul! So here's my question: If a Sepharadi makes cottage cheese containing qitniyos, he isn't really having Ashkenazim in particular in mind. And for him the qitniyos are mutar. By parallel, a non-Jew mixing 1:61 basar bechalav for his own use or for a primarily non-Jewish customer base isn't bitul lkhat-chilah, as a permitted person's intent doesn't qualify as lekhat-chilah. So, does this Sepharadi man mixing qitniyos in run afowl of the problem of bitul lekhat-chilah? Why can't one argue that as long as the qitniyos is a mi'ut of the cottage cheese, and as long as it's not against the mixer's own minhag or that of the main bulk of people for whom he is mixing, the food is permissible for Ashkenazim too? And does it have to be both the mixer's own minhag AND that of most of the people the cottage cheese if for? After all, this is minhag, not pesaq. It's not like an Ashkenazi holds a Saphradi ought to be holding like us too. What if an Ashkenazi was doing the mixing on a product where most of the target customer base is Sepharadi? (Now, add to that mei qitniyos, and whether corn should have been added to the minhag, the observation that it is primarily NOT made for Ashkenazi Jews, and ask the same thing about Coca Cola.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 15:48:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: <<< I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. >>> Is this only in the DL community? If so, can anyone suggest why this would be so? I can this of two very different possibilities: One is negative, that there is some sort of jealousy to the sefardim, or taavah for the many products that are available. The other is positive, that this is simply a natural development of how minhagim change over the centuries when communities mix. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 13:42:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 22:42:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel In-Reply-To: <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> References: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <43acd44d-c45c-b481-7dfb-2671547565a7@zahav.net.il> This is part of the backlash. People want the labels to read "contains kitniyot", not "for ochlei kitniyot only". Ben On 4/7/2017 7:28 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Qitniyos is batel berov. > > Ah, you may say: but they're intentionally mixing in the qitniyos, there > is no bitul! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 10:44:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:44:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58E92189.9030803@zahav.net.il> [Part 2, a mid-post detour. -mb] And as long as I am writing, a comment on the next posting in the Digest 48. Matza meal is the coarse version and is used for making latkes and kneidlach. Cake meal is the fine ground version for making cakes. Both were on the market and used by my mother in the US some 70- 80 years ago. And R' Micha mentioned a week or so ago that R/Dr Bannet pointed out that in my youth, peanut oil had the most machmir heksher of all Pesach oils. Three comments: It is true that chasidim used only peanut oil made by a Shomer mitzvot Jew. I am neither a R nor a Dr, and my family name ends with two t's. PKvS. David Bannett From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 10:44:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:44:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58E92189.9030803@zahav.net.il> [RCD tried to sneak multiple topics into the same email. For the sake of threading, I split it and fixed the subject lines. -micha] Without commenting on the meaning of Shabbat Hagadol, I'd like to comment on the "fact" that Shabbat is feminine and one would have to say Shabbat Hag'dola. The Rambam in Hilkhot Shabbat 30:2 says Shhabat Hagadol. I then looked in the Bar Ilan Shu"t and found that there are a dozen other sources for a male Shabbat. [End of part 1. Now, part 3. -mb] And then R' Micha on the vayanuchu va, vo and vam in the tefila: There were three nuschaot. One said Shabbat and va, Another said yom haShabbat and vo and the third said Shabbatot and vam. PKvS. David Bannett From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 20:22:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2017 05:22:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If the issue was jealousy of sefardim, people would want to drop the minhag entirely. There is that, but only on the fringe. These chumrot seem like a false imposition, something someone invented. You can only hear "when I was a kid, we ate X, Y, Z" or "I went to a shiur and the rav said X, Y, Z are muttar" so many times before asking yourself "so why don't we eat X, Y, Z"? And yes, intermarriage is a huge factor. On 4/8/2017 12:48 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I can this of two very different possibilities: One is negative, that > there is some sort of jealousy to the sefardim, or taavah for the many > products that are available. The other is positive, that this is > simply a natural development of how minhagim change over the centuries > when communities mix. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:00:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:00:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) > ... > He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak > was never accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat. > He adds that PERHAPS there is a reason to prohibit potato flour > (serach kitniyot - based on chiddishin of RSZA to Pesachim). > Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be > prohibited (ie even according to those that eat gebrochs) ... To me, it seems contradictory to allow gebroks yet forbid matza meal cake. Yet it certainly seems that this is how RSZA held. I think I'm going to have to retract most of my recent posts. Or add least append a big "tzorech iyun" to them. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:22:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimetics [was:kitnoyot] Message-ID: > Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be > mimetically defined, by definition, .... [--RMB] WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be determinative. Lisa >>>>> "Shema beni mussar avicha, VE'AL TITOSH TORAS IMECHA." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:19:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <23551cea-98c2-5446-2323-d0fb7e82cc09@starways.net> On 4/8/2017 1:48 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Eli Turkel wrote: > > <<< I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been > a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. >>> > > Is this only in the DL community? If so, can anyone suggest why this > would be so? I think it's because the DL community is the community that is (a) committed to the Torah and (b) not stuck in fear mode. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 01:16:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 11:16:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller asked why in the dati leumi community there is a backlash against kitniyos? I think there are a number of reasons for this: 1. Theological - The Dati Leumi community views the establishment of the State of Israel as a significant theological event, the beginning of the Geula. They view the state as having significance. Therefore, they view the Jewish people as much more of an organic whole and want to eliminate things that separate the Jewish people into groups. Kitniyos very much does that. There is no question that whan Moshiach comes the division between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no machlokes. The Charedi world on the other hand believes that we are still fully in Galus and nothing has changed. 2. The Dati Leumi community isw much less segragated between sefardim and Ashkenazim. There are no ashkenazi or sefardi yeshivas and there is quite a bit of "intermarriage". If your daughter marries a Sefardi do you suddently not go to her for Pesach because she eats kitniyos? 3. People realize the hypocrisy of not eating kitniyos while eating kosgher l'pesach pretzels. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:31:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:31:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Why can't one argue that as long as the qitniyos is a mi'ut of > the cottage cheese, and as long as it's not against the mixer's > own minhag or that of the main bulk of people for whom he is > mixing, the food is permissible for Ashkenazim too? > > ... What if an Ashkenazi was doing the mixing on a product where > most of the target customer base is Sepharadi? I would like to focus on the words "target customer base". We have to distinguish the manufacturer's customer base from the hashgacha's customer base. The two might be identical for a small brand that markets only to frum neighborhoods, but not for an industry giant like Strauss. We can presume that the manufacturer and their target customer base is mostly not makpid about kitniyos. Therefore, the manufacturer is doing nothing wrong by putting kitniyos into the product, and once they have done so, it is acceptable even for Ashkenazim, exactly as RMB suggests. But the hashgacha cannot put their certification on it. The target customer base of this hashgacha seems to be people who *are* makpid on kitniyos. (If they're not the majority of the hashgacha's clientele, they are at least a very significant minority.) And as such, the hashgacha has accepted the responsibility to act in place of their clientele at the factory. This turns it into a "bittul lechatchila" situation, and the hashgacha cannot grant an official okay to such products without an accompanying warning, which is exactly what they seem to have done. > (Now, add to that mei qitniyos, and whether corn should have > been added to the minhag, the observation that it is primarily > NOT made for Ashkenazi Jews, and ask the same thing about Coca > Cola.) Not just Coca Cola. Weren't we discussing chocolate bars a few weeks ago? Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 23:42:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 02:42:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman Message-ID: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> I tend to agree with the negative aspect of stealing the Afikoman. Very similarly, I feel the minhag to get so drunk on Purim so that you can?t distinguish between blessed be Mordecai and cursed be Haman is a very bad minhag and more offensive than stealing the afikoman. You are encouraging people to get drunk and that also has caused many problems in recent times. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:02:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:02:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman In-Reply-To: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> References: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 02:42:40AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : I tend to agree with the negative aspect of stealing the Afikoman. : Very similarly, I feel the minhag to get so drunk on Purim so that : you can?t distinguish between blessed be Mordecai and cursed be Haman : is a very bad minhag and more offensive than stealing the afikoman. Yeah, I don't see how teaching kids to steal the afiqoman is going to weaken their knowledge that it's wrong to steal. Should kids playing baseball not steal home? Just because the rule of the game is called "stealing"? But there is backlash against the drunk-on-Purim minhag too. The OU and RCA each put out something like annually. Hatzola puts out warnings. There are black-n-white wearing yeshivos that clamped down on their kids getting drunk when doing their Purim fundraising. And there has been backlash to the backlash, by people who value minhag. Really, the treatment of the two has been pretty parallel. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:19:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman In-Reply-To: <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> References: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <621677e8-92b7-ca89-7197-201a3af3f7e6@sero.name> On 09/04/17 09:02, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Yeah, I don't see how teaching kids to steal the afiqoman is going > to weaken their knowledge that it's wrong to steal. Should kids > playing baseball not steal home? Just because the rule of the game > is called "stealing"? That's a different sense of the word: "4. to move or convey stealthily". As in "with cat-like tread upon our prey we steal". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:48:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:48:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > There is no question that when Moshiach comes the division > between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The > Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no > machlokes. This is news to me. There is no machlokes here to be paskened. Everyone agrees that the halacha allows even rice to Ashkenazim. It is all minhag. Even if the Sanhendrin would want to, I don't know where they'd get the authority to do away with minhagim. On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim! > The Dati Leumi community is much less segregated between > sefardim and Ashkenazim. There are no ashkenazi or sefardi > yeshivas and there is quite a bit of "intermarriage". If your > daughter marries a Sefardi do you suddently not go to her for > Pesach because she eats kitniyos? That depends on your posek. By my memory, many poskim, including among the DL, hold that one can eat from the keilim, but to avoid actual kitniyos. And many other shitos in both directions. > People realize the hypocrisy of not eating kitniyos while > eating kosher l'pesach pretzels. I was arguing strenuously against this until a few hours ago, when I was reminded that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach held this way too. Perhaps I have overdosed on inoculations of matza meal cake and matza meal pancakes, and I cannot see myself ever sharing this view. But having seen RSZA's words, I cannot claim that it is only the little people who say this - it's the big guns too. And I would be indebted to any listmembers who would quote other gedolim on this topic. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 15:47:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 08:47:40 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyos - Why do today's Poskim argue with the Mishneh Berurah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can anyone show some Halachic source that argues with the Mishneh Berurah who Paskens that Foods containing LESS THAN 50% Kitniyos that is at the same time not visually discernible Although its taste is certainly discernible, is Muttar during Pesach? Is a Rov permitted to refuse to identify a Kosher product as Kosher (or worse, declare a product not Kosher) because of other considerations? See this article http://www.kosherveyosher.com/chocolate-pesach-lecithin-1001.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 01:45:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:45:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] order of the seder Message-ID: < See "leil haPesach be-taludum shel chachamim" (Hebrew) by David Henshkr who has a detailed discussion -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 01:47:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:47:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Matzah meal Message-ID: <> In Israel it is readily available in many supermarkets -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 02:04:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:04:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism Message-ID: <> Doesn't answer my question of how mimeticism deals with new situations. Sticking to kitniyot by patents used cottenseed oil but knew nothing about Canola oil or Lecitisthin <> Let me use this to sound off. I have a major problem with textualiism. In some circles it means studying a sugya and coming to a conclusion without any regard to the outside world. In regard to shiurim the Noda Yehuda has a question. One doesn't suddenly change minhagim because of a question. In recent years this doubling of shiurim has become popular because of CI. First there is evidence that CI himself did not use his own shiur. It is well known that some descendants of the CC don't use his kiddush cup because it is not shiur CI. However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. Even a slightly smaller shiur would hit various walls making it impossible to walk around while various testimonies make it smaller. There is now a new exhibition of a virtual 3D reality of walking around the bet hamikdash. It is based on aerial photographs of the current Temple mount and supplemented by details in the Mishna and archaeology using the topography of the land. Theis construction places the holy har habayit on the currently raised portion of the Temple mount. This yields an amah of about 38cm (CI=57, CN=44-48) Other proofs included the length of the Siloam tunnel which is documents in amot and can be measured. One of the strongest proofs is based on the meitzah of the cohen gadol which could not possibly hold the shiur of CI (note that if his hands were bigger this would redefine the amah). As to changes over the generations olive pits from the Bar Chocba era are the same size as today. In spite of a preponderous evidence that the shiur of CI is way too large almost all seforim in Israel give the amount of matzah to eat and wine to drink based on CI (at least lechatchila). This is textualism at the extreme in contrast to common sense -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 03:15:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "I have an opportunity to kill the terrorist..." Message-ID: <20170410101557.GA14700@aishdas.org> Anyone want to try this one, with meqoros? RSE raises two issues: killing a neutralized terrorist, and (I guess) dina demalkhusa on the topic. Chag Kasher veSameaich (belashon "lo zu af zu"), -micha The Jewish Press Tzfat Chief Rabbi Was Asked in Real Time whether to Kill Ramming Terrorist By David Israel -- 11 Nisan 5777 -- April 7, 2017 http://www.jewishpress.com/news/jewish-news/tzfat-chief-rabbi-was-asked-in-real-time-whether-to-kill-ramming-terrorist/2017/04/07/ Chief Rabbi of Tzfat Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, who is not known for particularly leftwing sympathies (he encourages his flock to refuse Arab renters, for instance), on Thursday night told a class he was teaching that one of his students had phoned him from the scene of the ramming attack that killed an IDF soldier. The student posed a halachic inquiry: "He told me, I see my buddy here lying down dead," Rabbi Eliyahu recalled, adding that his student had asked, "I have an opportunity to kill the terrorist - should I kill him or not?" Advertisement Around 10 AM, Thursday, an Arab terrorist rammed his vehicle into two IDF soldiers waiting at a hitchhiking post on Rt. 60, outside Ofra in Judea and Samaria. Sgt. Elhai Teharlev HY"D, 20, was killed, and the other soldier was injured. The terrorist was arrested by security forces. Rabbi Eliyahu said that his response was that "this terrorist deserves to die. However, unfortunately, the laws in this country are not well constructed, and so there is no legal way to do to him what needs to be done." "I told him that had he been able to do it while the attack was on it would have been possible, but we were after the event, unfortunately." Advertisement From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 03:39:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed Message-ID: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ > Let me run an idea by you guys... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha > 2. Melacha is forbidden on chol hamoed > 3. One of the permits for doing melacha is for tzorech hamoed, but in this > case, if possible you should do the melacha before the chag > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. > 5. If you find yourself on chol hamoed without pre-torn toilet paper, you > can tear it, however preferably not on the lines. > Am I crazy? :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 04:54:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:54:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> References: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2017 1:40 PM, "Micha Berger via Avodah" wrote... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha > 2. Melacha is forbidden on chol hamoed > 3. One of the permits for doing melacha is for tzorech hamoed, but in this > case, if possible you should do the melacha before the chag > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. > 5. If you find yourself on chol hamoed without pre-torn toilet paper, you > can tear it, however preferably not on the lines. > Am I crazy? Not at all. Please see Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa perek 66 footnote 78. RSZA was machmir for himself, though the author suggests that nowdays it would be unnecessary. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 06:39:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:39:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12e4046f8d104931a3a60fafe99b3947@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > There is no question that when Moshiach comes the division > between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The > Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no > machlokes. This is news to me. There is no machlokes here to be paskened. Everyone agrees that the halacha allows even rice to Ashkenazim. It is all minhag. Even if the Sanhendrin would want to, I don't know where they'd get the authority to do away with minhagim. On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim! --------------------------------------- Aiui there is some debate as to how much practice was/will be standardized-some believe (IIRC R'HS) that the shevet Sanhedrin set local practice and few issues went to great sanhedrin for standardization. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 06:41:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:41:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170410134127.GB29583@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:04:31PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> Mimeticism evolves because culture evolves. : Doesn't answer my question of how mimeticism deals with new situations. It answers your question by implying there is no answer. There is no rule for how common practice will evolve. Rules are textual. But the truth is, halakhah requires both. Not every evolution of a minhag is valid. That way lies Catholic Israel. It has to pass muster against the sources and sevara. :-)|,|ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 07:54:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Misc interesting Halacha questions from R Shlomo Miller shlitah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <035201d2b20a$5ef3d1a0$1cdb74e0$@com> Misc interesting Halacha questions from R Shlomo Miller shlitah http://baisdovyosef.com/rabbi-past-questions/ Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlitah for a printout of all the Q&As (100 pgs) https://www.dropbox.com/s/70y971r0ct2l7x8/RS%20miller%20bartfeld%20questions .doc?dl=0 or email me offline mcohen at touchlogic.com GYT, mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 12 12:45:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:45:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz Message-ID: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy A rav gave over some quick halachot and cited the Shulhan Aruch that if one finds chameitz in one's home, you cover it (if you find it on shabbat/yom tov) and later burn it, or burn it right away (cholo moed). I asked, if one sold one's chameitz, how can you burn it? It now belongs to the non-jew. This rav (and second rav) said that the sale only includes the chameitz that you specify. If you don't have a piece of chameitz in mind, you didn't sell it. OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz, everything in all of his properties. It makes no mention of what you have in mind. If a contract say "ALL" it means all, n'est pas? So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 12 21:09:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:09:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taanis Bechoros - Women? Message-ID: My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros. So I read her Mishne Berurah 470:4, which gives the reason as because there are no halachos in which female firstborns have any such kedusha. That seemed to satisfy her, but it didn't satisfy me. After all, if a boy is his father's first but not his mother's first, then he has no kedusha which would require Pidyon Haben. Aruch Hashulchan 470:2 gives that same logic, but explains that although the father's first doesn't get a Pidyon Haben, he *does* have special halachos about inheritance, and Aruch Hashulchan 470:3 says the same thing regarding a boy who was born after a miscarriage, or a firstborn Kohen, or a firstborn Levi. My question is: So what? Why is the special status of "firstborn for inheritance" more relevant than "would've been killed in Mitzrayim"? (Please note that there is another case that I'm *not* asking about, namely, where none of the people at home was a technical bechor, then whoever was oldest was subject to Makas Bechoros. Since that could vary depending on who was home in any particular year, I can easily understand why it never got included in the minhag.) Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 13 13:24:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 23:24:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefirot Ha`omer Message-ID: Every year I would like to get deeper into the combinations of sefirot (or middot) that appear in siddurim with the counting of the Omer, and every year I get lost and confused. For example, what is the difference between hesed shebigevura and gevura shebehesed? If tiferet is a synthesis of hesed and gevura, how does it differ from either of the above? And so on and so on. There seem to be a thousand books and websites that explain the sefirot and their combinations in modern terms, but I haven't found any that quote or even cite primary sources. Where might one look for such sources? Mo`adim lesimha! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 13 22:56:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:56:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim!" Given the illogic of the minhag of kitniyos I think not. Why would they impose a din that makes no sense in today's world. With regards to visiting children R' AKiva Miler wrote: "That depends on your posek. By my memory, many poskim, including among the DL, hold that one can eat from the keilim, but to avoid actual kitniyos. And many other shitos in both directions." I was saying that facetiously. WADR you missed the forest for the trees. Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child and can't eat all the food. You are looking at this from a pure halachic perspceticve but in truth, there is a non-halachic sociologcal perspective here that needs to be addressed as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 14 01:12:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 11:12:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefirot Ha`omer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71537556-72e6-e4ec-3ea1-61c0f913fb9b@starways.net> Lama li kra? It seems pretty clear on the face of it. Hesed she'b'Gevura means that you're doing Hesed by means of Gevura. Your intended result is Hesed. The way you're achieving that Hesed is by an act of Gevura. So let's take R' Aryeh Kaplan's understanding of the two Middot, where Hesed means going above and beyond what is required, and Gevura is restraining yourself, and here are a couple of examples. You're at the grocery store, and there's one box of Wacky Macs left on the shelf. You see a mother with a bunch of her kids coming down the aisle, and the kids are beginning for Wacky Macs. So you don't take it. You're limiting yourself in order to do something nice (but not required) for the mother. That's Hesed she'b'Gevura. You're at the grocery store, and you've taken the last box of Wacky Macs. You know you shouldn't eat it, because it's all starch and fat, but you can't help it. You're standing at the checkout line, and there's a mother behind you whose kids are giving her a hard time because they wanted Wacky Macs, but the store is out. So you decide that this will help you keep your diet, and you offer the mother the box of Wacky Macs. You're doing something nice (but not required) for the mother in order to limit yourself. That's Gevura she'b'Hesed. It's a thin line, sometimes. Figuring out what the actual action (or inaction) is and what the purpose is. Means and ends. As far as Tiferet, while you can see it as a synthesis of Hesed and Gevura, which is nice if you like the thesis-antithesis-synthesis paradigm, it's really the point of balance between them. Where you aren't refraining and you aren't overdoing. Another term for Tiferet is Tzedek. Meaning doing what you're supposed to do, or what you're allowed to do: no more and no less. I think that one of the reasons there aren't books that cite primary sources about this is simply because there aren't any. There are primary sources about what the meaning of each of the Sefirot mean, but the combination should be fairly clear. That said, I know it isn't. When I was a camper as a kid, we had discussion groups about whether we were "Jewish Americans" or "American Jews". I was 12 the first time we did it, and it was a mess. The next time, I think I was 14 or 15, and I already realized what the problem was, although the counselor leading the discussion didn't. It's a matter of definitions. If you look at it in terms of language, one of those words is the noun, and the other is the adjective. The noun is what you *are*. The adjective just modifies it. So "American Jew" is putting being Jewish first, and "Jewish American" is putting being American first. But a lot of the other kids (and the counselor) were looking at it from the point of view of which *word* came first in the phrase. And theoretically, I suppose, you could interpret X she'b'Y in the opposite way from what I've described above, but I'm not sure there's a real nafka mina, because we cover all the combinations. It just seems to me that the first week, we deal with the concept of *doing* Hesed, with all 7 possible intents, since these 7 Sefirot are fundamentally Sefirot of action (and interaction), as opposed to the first three, which are Sefirot of mind. But can you say that the first week, we talk about the concept of *intending* Hesed, with all 7 possible methods? I suppose. It's not the way I look at it, but absent primary sources to determine which way is right, I suppose it's possible. Shabbat Shalom and Moadim L'Simcha, Lisa On 4/13/2017 11:24 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > Every year I would like to get deeper into the combinations of sefirot > (or middot) that appear in siddurim with the counting of the Omer, and > every year I get lost and confused. For example, what is the > difference between hesed shebigevura and gevura shebehesed? If tiferet > is a synthesis of hesed and gevura, how does it differ from either of > the above? And so on and so on. > > There seem to be a thousand books and websites that explain the > sefirot and their combinations in modern terms, but I haven't found > any that quote or even cite primary sources. Where might one look for > such sources? > > Mo`adim lesimha! > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 14 06:40:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:40:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <491b0760-73a4-cf76-550a-2c2dfb57aeb3@sero.name> On 14/04/17 01:56, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > I was saying that facetiously. WADR you missed the forest for the trees. > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child and > can't eat all the food. If you think that's a problem now, wait till Moshiach comes and you have parents visiting their daughter who married a Cohen. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 11:52:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 20:52:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8fe0a1db-6349-9011-e2d4-ea78a89684eb@zahav.net.il> I've said this before but it bares repeating. I was married to someone with multiple food allergies. Cooking even at home was always a challenge. Going out to eat at someone else's house and giving them the list of what yes, what no made that it even harder. Whenever we had guests, we always asked about food allergies, kashrut requirements, and preferences. Compared to allergies, kashrut stuff was kid's play. More than that, I learned that it is perfectly OK to have food on the table that not everyone can eat. Any vegetarian who came over expecting to be able to eat everything was disappointed. Not being able to eat rice and having to settle for the five other dishes doesn't even make it on my radar. Thinking that one should be able to eat everything is a sense of entitlement that I don't accept. Ben On 4/14/2017 7:56 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child > and can't eat all the food. > > You are looking at this from a pure halachic perspceticve but in > truth, there is a non-halachic sociologcal perspective here that needs > to be addressed as well. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 18:36:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:36:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > Given the illogic of the minhag of kitniyos ... ... > Why would they impose a din that makes no sense in today's world. I could easily argue that avoidance of poultry and milk "makes no sense in today's world." I'd like to hear whether other people think that din to be logical or illogical. (One is a minhag, and the other is d'rabbanan, but that's a side issue. My question is whether one is less logical than the other.) Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 18:22:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:22:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini Message-ID: One of the main areas this portion deals with is kashruth. There is an overriding concept in the laws of kashruth that the characteristics of what we eat somehow have a great influence on the way we behave. We do not want to associate ourselves with cruelty, therefore we are forbidden to eat cruel animals, and in this case certain fowl. Among the fowl that are listed as being non kosher is the chasidah, the white stork. You may ask what cruel character trait does the stork possess. Rashi mentions that the reason it is called a "chasidah" is because it does chesed with its friends regarding the food it finds. On the surface this seems strange. If the stork acts kindly with its food, why is it disqualified as being kosher? A beautiful explanation to this difficulty has been given by the Chidushei Harim, a Chassidic 19th century Talmudic scholar, in which he explains the nature of the stork. He says that the fact the stork only shows its kindness with its friends defines its cruelty. A fowl who is not in the circle of the stork's good buddies is excluded from getting any help from the stork in finding food. In other words, the stork is very selective in its kindness. This type of kindness is misleading. We, as Jews, are commanded to help our foes. If we come across someone we dislike intensely who needs help, we are commanded to help. The stork, on the other hand, helps only his friends. It is this character trait of differentiating between close friends and others when it comes to providing food that makes the stork non-kosher. Chesed means reaching out altruistically, with love and generosity to all. The process of maturing involves developing our sense of caring for others. This is crucial for spiritual health. The Talmud likens someone who doesn't give to others as the "walking dead.? A non-giving soul is malnourished and withered. It is only through unconditional love that our successful future will be built. In the words of King David (Psalm 89:3): Olam chesed yibaneh - "the world is built on kindness.? May we live to see this kindness and care infused in all our lives. Kindness is the language the deaf can hear and the blind can see. Mark Twain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 12:40:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:40:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: <042313fe1c2b495fbe8f8efad437f69d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <042313fe1c2b495fbe8f8efad437f69d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: I was reminded of this question this evening. Our shul is nominally nusach Sefard. However if someone (like moi) does daven Ashkenaz, the gabbi is OK, but insists on things like: Saying Shir Ha'ma'lot in Maariv Saying Keter during Mussaf Ben On 3/30/2017 2:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Visiting a shul questions-actual practices and sources appreciated: > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:45:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:45:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ff40b88-0f88-fb08-9c92-10e44bbdfc3d@zahav.net.il> A bit of perspective here: this is the Orthodox version of a first world problem. 100 years ago how many Ashkenazim and Sefardim even met, much less intermarried or lived in the same neighborhoods? At most, this is a bit of growing pain. Ben On 4/14/2017 7:56 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child > and can't eat all the food. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:34:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:34:27 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: How do we determine when the dough is baked to the point where it can no longer become Chamets? when there are no Chutim NimShaChim When the Matza is torn apart there are no doughy threads stretching between the two pieces. These days this test is not available because so little water is added to the flour that there is no opportunity for the chemical reaction that activates the gluten and even when the Matza, or the batch of dough is torn BEFORE it is put into the oven there are NO Chutim NimShaChim [this is noted by the Chazon Ish] So if one suggests that there is a possibility that some flour within [but not on the surface of] the Matza which is protected from the heat of the oven and does not become baked [as once it is baked, flour can not become Chamets] then the Chashash that this flour might become Chamets if it becomes wet pales into insignificance and is completely eclipsed by the much greater risk that the middle part of the Matza which may not have been baked may actually be Chamets [Gamur] The fact that it is now now dry means nothing that is simply dehydrated dough AKA Chamets, maybe Chamets Nukshe Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:40:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:40:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed Message-ID: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ > Let me run an idea by you guys... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha....... > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. >>>>> It seems to me you are no more obligated to tear toilet paper for the whole week than you are to do all your cooking for the whole week before the yom tov. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:49:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:49:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taanis Bechoros - Women? Message-ID: <63e57.57f1ef36.46246de8@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros. << Akiva Miller >>>>> That's a pretty obscure medrash. It is seemingly contradicted by the Torah itself, which specifies that a pidyon haben is required for a firstborn boy because the firstborn boys were spared makas bechoros in Egypt. Nothing about a pidyon habas. On the other hand, according to Sefer HaToda'ah (Book of Our Heritage), "There are different customs associated with this fast. Some say that every firstborn, male or female, whether from the father or from the mother, must fast on that day. If there is no firstborn, then the oldest in the house must fast.....However others say that only firstborn males need to fast and this is the generally accepted custom." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 21:50:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Martin Brody via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:50:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Fast of the First Born. Message-ID: Akiva Miller posted "My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros etc." Maybe because the fast has nothing to do with the 10th plague at all? They should be celebrating, not fasting! Fasting is for repentance. More likely the Sin of the Golden Calf, when the firstborn lost their priestly status. On the 14th the first born have to watch the Aaronite priests slaughtering the Pascal offering instead of them. Cheers Martin Brody From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 20:55:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:55:38 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen son in law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: when Moshiach comes parents will seek a cohen for a son in law because it's a great investment, they can feed their son in law and his family with their tithes. It's like having the Bechor reinstated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 06:28:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:28:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is > impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har > habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. > ... > This construction places the holy har habayit on the currently > raised portion of the Temple mount. This yields an amah of about > 38cm (CI=57, CN=44-48) > Other proofs included the length of the Siloam tunnel which is > documents in amot and can be measured. ... I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction as well. The minimum shiur for a mikveh is 3 cubic amos, as this is the size that a typical person could fit into. Who among us could fit into a space 38x38x114 cm? (15x15x45 inches)? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 06:41:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:41:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > If you think that's a problem now, wait till Moshiach comes and > you have parents visiting their daughter who married a Cohen. Indeed! And I think an even more common case will be a husband (regardless of shevet) who wants (or needs) to eat taharos, but his wife is nidah. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:28:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:28:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170416212823.GC13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 09:28:13AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Eli Turkel wrote: : > However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is : > impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har : > habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. I pointed out that we know length of the water tunnel in meters and rounded to two digits precision amos. In contrast, the current Har haBayis platform post-dates Hadrian y"sh lobbing off the top of the mountain and dumping it into the valley between the kotel and the current Moslem and Jewish Quarters. So we really only have part of one wall to go on. The floor can't possibly date back to either BHMQ. But that doesn't mean the shiur is impossible. The shiur may indeed be at odds with historical interpretations of the halakhah. Even perhaps by accident. But would that necessarily mean it's not binding? In either case, the CI's ammah is textual. RCNaeh's ammah is a textualist's attempt to formalize a precise number that is basicallhy consistent with the praactice of the Yishuv haYashan. Mimeticism-driven. RAM himself replied: : I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction as well. : The minimum shiur for a mikveh is 3 cubic amos, as this is the size : that a typical person could fit into. Who among us could fit into a : space 38x38x114 cm? (15x15x45 inches)? According to http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13993-stature , in 1906, the average Jewish man was about 162cm high. Let's make his miqvah 165 x 31 x 31 cm. Same volume of water. A maximum belt size of something like 97 cm (39") would fit. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:49:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 10:29:56AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) ... : RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who : determines this minhag?) Well, if it's mimetic, you just watch what people do. And if so, RSZA's statement is descriptive, not descriptive. As in: Lemaaseh, people are nohagim not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach. : He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never : accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason than the one given. ... : Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be prohibited (ie : even according to those that eat gebrochs) (yesh ladun behem - Pesachim 40b : - Rashi that when people are "mezalzel one should be machmir) Who is being mezalzel on chameitz? If he saying that because some people are questioning qitniyos, we should strengthen qitniyos, then what does that have to do with foods not already under that umbrella? And even among those who question the minhag's sanity, is there really a major zilzul going on among Ashkenazim doing less and less to avoid qitniyios? On the contrary, as your translation opens, avoiding shemen qitniyos has spread well beyond the communities that originally had that minhag, to the extent that it's being applied to foods that in the past weren't on the list of qitniyos! The questioning is a counter-reaction to the growth of the minhag. Who is being mezalzel? : In the notes that this was what RSZA said in shiurim and when asked a : question responded that one should follow the family minhag... Ascerting mimeticism over his own textualism. Sevara aside, minhag is whatever is the accepted practice. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:30:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:30:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach - Lecithin does not render chocolate non-KLP for Ashkenasim In-Reply-To: References: <0b78331e-194b-c586-6de0-fc623959e4e3@sero.name> <32449da1-df34-d5e8-7170-a2c8676adf0e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170416213032.GD13509@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 07:25:10AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 2) The prohibition of being m'vateil an issur applies to the super : corporations that run the milk industry? This is a case where buying Chalav Yisrael, which is de rigeur in Zev's Chabad community, would be more problematic. After all, something done for CY milk is being done for Jews. Something done for stam OUD milk would not be. :-)||ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:38:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Poisoning in Halacha In-Reply-To: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> References: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170416213850.GE13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 10:16:10PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: : Tonight my chevrusa and I learned the sugya in Bava Kamma 47b of one who : puts poison in front of his friend's animal. A brief synopsis and : application of the sugya is at : http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/infected: ... : It struck us that it follows that if one poisons another human being by, : say, placing cyanide in his tea, which the victim then drinks and dies, : the poisoner is exempt from capitol punishment. It would seem that such : a manner of murder falls into the category of the Rambam's ruling in : Hilchos Rotze'ach u'Shemiras Nefesh 3:10: It might be similarly true, but I don't know if "it follows". After all, gerama in Choshein Mishpat has a more limited definition than in hilkhos Shabbos. So, it didn't have to be true that the same definitions of gerama and garmi apply in dinei mamunus as in dinei nefashos. Lemaaseh, they are consistent. I would ask the Y-mi-style question: How is retzichah more similar to mamon than it is to Shabbos? :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:10:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:10:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> References: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> Message-ID: <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 2:40am EDT, RnTK wrote: :> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook :> https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ :> Let me run an idea by you guys... :> 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha....... :> 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the :> beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. : It seems to me you are no more obligated to tear toilet paper for the whole : week than you are to do all your cooking for the whole week before the yom : tov. Actually, the heter is that the food tastes better when made closer to eating time. But if one is talking about food that would taste as good if made days ahead (including the logistical limitations of storage), one is actually supposed to be cooking it before YT. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 15:44:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:44:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> References: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> On 16/04/17 17:49, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never > : accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... > > But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod > bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason > than the one given. again, no he doesn't. We just went through this last week. He never proposed it, even as a hava amina, and never gives a reason against it. He merely reports, as a matter of fact and completely without comment for or against it, that he heard that in Germany they forbid potatoes because over there they make flour from them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 15:36:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:36:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> References: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8d50d8fe-f514-fdbf-c460-9971ad347ed9@sero.name> On 16/04/17 17:10, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Actually, the heter is that the food tastes better when made closer to > eating time. But if one is talking about food that would taste as good > if made days ahead (including the logistical limitations of storage), > one is actually supposed to be cooking it before YT. But not before chol hamoed. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 20:00:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:00:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> References: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170419030020.GA29092@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 06:44:54PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 16/04/17 17:49, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >: He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never : >: accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... : >But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod : >bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason : >than the one given. : : again, no he doesn't. We just went through this last week... And given the relatice abilities of RSZA and you to read the Chayei Adam, you're obviously mistaken. : never proposed it, even as a hava amina... He reports the existence of such a minhag, and recommends against its adoption. Close enough. You're setting yourself up as a baal pelugta of RSZA by splitting hairs to crration a distinction without a difference? Really? -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 19:56:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:56:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Isru Chag Message-ID: <68F6CB3B-3D32-4BF0-A68E-3AD77FD7EE69@cox.net> The gematria for Isru Chag is 278, the same gematria for l'machar found in Bamidbar, Ch.11, vs.18. This is in the Sidra, Beha?a'lotcha, where God has Moshe establish a Sanhedrin because Moshe complained that he could not carry on alone. God says to Moshe: "To the people you shall say, 'Prepare yourselves for tomorrow and you shall eat meat..." There is an interesting tie here. The day after a festival is the "morrow" and even though the holiday is over, we must always be preparing ourselves. (Also, in counting the omer, we are preparing ourselves for the climax of our faith in 50 days). A good Isru chag to all. ri ?By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.? Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 21:06:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:06:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: R' Meir G. Rabi explained his logic: > if one suggests that > there is a possibility that > some flour > within [but not on the surface of] the Matza > which is protected from the heat of the oven > and does not become baked > [as once it is baked, flour can not become Chamets] > then the Chashash that this flour > might become Chamets if it becomes wet > pales into insignificance > and is completely eclipsed by the much greater risk > that the middle part of the Matza > which may not have been baked > may actually be Chamets [Gamur] I do not follow this logic. He is comparing two distinctly different risks. For simplicity, I'd like to call one risk "insufficiently kneaded" and the other one "insufficiently baked". "Insufficiently kneaded" means that there might be some flour in the middle of the matza that never got wet and is still plain raw flour, and that if it gets wet it will become chometz. "Insufficiently baked" means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not get baked, and it is already chometz. And RMGR feels that the second of these is a "much greater risk". I don't know where he gets the statistics to say that "insufficiently kneaded" is a small risk (his words are "pales into insignificance"), and that "insufficiently baked" is a "much greater risk". Personally, my opinion is that *IF* one checks his matzos to be sure that they are uniformly thin, *AND* checks to be sure that they have none of the kefulos or other problems that halacha warns us about, then he can be confident that no part of the matza was insufficiently baked, and they are NOT chometz. Thus, there are steps that the consumer can take to minimize the risk that his matzos were insufficiently baked. In contrast, I don't know of any way that the consumer can check the matzos to verify that they were kneaded well enough; who knows if there might be a few particles of flour that never got wet? I guess the consumer has to rely on the manufacturer and hechsher to insure that they are doing a good enough job of kneading the dough. Anyway, my main point is that these two risks are distinct from each other. I don't see any logical connection between them. From the way he worded the subject line, it sounds like RMGR is making a "kal vachomer", that if one is worried about one of the risks, then he must certainly worry about the other one, but I don't see that. (In fact, I can't even figure out which risk he feels leads to the other.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 13:17:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:17:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: I am moving this to Avodah. >From: Ben Waxman via Areivim >To: Simon Montagu via Areivim , areivim > >Why is this even an issue? Meaning, why is it such an issue that people >with a different minhag are davening together*? Or is the issue that >both sides feel that the other is doing an aveira**? > >*Sefardim and Ashkenazim wrap their teffilin differently. That factoid >doesn't stop anyone from praying together. >** Which brings up other issues. >Ben My understanding is that people who wear Tefillen during Cho Moed are not supposed to wear them in a minyan where the custom is that no one wears Tefillen. I know that in a couple of shuls near me they are makpid that those who wear Tefillen and those who do not do wear them do not daven together until after the kedusha of shachris when Tefillen are taken off. In the Kivasikin minyan that I normally daven with, those who were Tefillen are upstairs in what is normally the ladies section. After Kedusha of Shachris, those upstairs join those downstairs for a Hallel. I have been told that in the Agudah in Baltimore those who wear Tefillen are on one side of the mechitza and those who don't are on the other side until after kedusha of shachris. So, apparently there is a problem with having a mix of Tefillen wearers and non-wearers during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 14:17:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:17:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:17:21PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : So, apparently there is a problem with having a mix of Tefillen : wearers and non-wearers during Chol Moed. Lo sisgodedu. The pasuq behind the whole notion of minhag hamaqom altogether. Eg see MB 31 s"q 8. The AhS OC 31:4 is okay with minyanim that are mixed between wearers and non-wearers. Nowadays, when the concept of minhag hamaqom is so weak and has so little to do with our sence of belonging, I think the psychology is the opposite as that assumed by those who apply lo sisgodedu. Having two minyanim is more divided, and certainly if it ends up an argument about which part of the minyan is behind the mechitzah. Look how in Israel, many minyanim ignore the halakhos of having a set nusach for the beis kenesses and just let each chazan use his own minhag avos! And this enables a single minyan to function in spite of diversity; a variety of Jews from different cultures able to daven together! Tir'u baTov! -Micha (PS: "wfb" summarized a nice list of sources about whether they should be worn from R Jacob Katz's article in Halakhah veQabbalah at .) -- Micha Berger Today is the 8th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed for another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 14:41:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:41:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Why would tefillin be any different to the various different practises about who does and doesn't wear a tallis? I have never heard of a non-tallis-wearing post-bar-mitzva boy being banished behind the mechitza at a yekkishe shul, or vice versa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 01:20:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:20:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> I didn't understand the question. My daughter married a sefardi and they eat kitniyot. I was by them for seder and everything served was without kiniyot. BTW I not aware of any shitah that there is a problem with keilim used for kitniyot. BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given modern communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a problem but there might be technological answers to that also. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 01:38:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:38:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kiniyot Message-ID: <<: RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who : determines this minhag?) Well, if it's mimetic, you just watch what people do. And if so, RSZA's statement is descriptive, not descriptive. As in: Lemaaseh, people are nohagim not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach. ... Sevara aside, minhag is whatever is the accepted practice. >> The question is "whose minhag". RSZA is stating what he saw. In my area of New York everyone used cottenseed oil. I recently saw a discussion of women saying kaddish. After a lengthy discussion the author concludes that the minhag is for women not to say kaddish. Well in almost all the shuls in my town women do say kaddish. I understand that even the Rama in SA in quoting minhag means Polish (Krakow) minhag and many other existing minhagim in Russia, or Italy were ignored. Similar things in the Sefardi communities. There are several cases that ROY opposes Morrocan customs as being against (sefardi) halacha but are heatedly defended by Moroccan rabbis. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 05:15:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:15:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Look how in Israel, many minyanim ignore the halakhos of having a set nusach for the beis kenesses and just let each chazan use his own minhag avos! And this enables a single minyan to function in spite of diversity; a variety of Jews from different cultures able to daven together! ---------------------------------- Which gets to the heart of the matter - some see diversity of Minhag as lchatchila (all the shvatim had their own Sanhedrin/practice) while others see it as a result of galut. IMHO this debate will continue ad biat hagoel (may it be very soon) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 05:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41e2d260-e360-8e8e-4d15-6f524b655121@sero.name> On 20/04/17 04:20, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make > sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given > modern communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush > hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a problem but there might be > technological answers to that also. The simplest method of getting word of kiddush hachodesh to the whole world on Shabbos/Yomtov is to have a goy send a tweet, which every Jewish house or shul could be set up beforehand to receive. Amira lenochri is of course midrabbanan, so the Sanhedrin can authorise an exception. But there's an even better solution: Kidush hachodesh (as opposed to notifying people about it) is docheh Shabbos/Yomtov. Eidim can be positioned in advance in places guaranteed to have no cloud cover and a good view of the moon (perhaps Ramon Crater?), and they can then drive to Yerushalayim, arriving in plenty of time to testify as soon as the beit din opens in the morning. They could even be positioned on desert mountaintops in chu"l, and fly in. Thus we could guarantee in advance that Elul will never again have a 30th day, and everyone could rely on that without actually being notified on the day. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 09:38:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:38:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:20:04AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make sense I : vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given modern : communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush : hachodesh instantaneously.... I would like to suggest a different angle on YT Sheini. It's not so much that Chazal were afraid of the same problems might arise in bayis shelishi. After all, the language in the gemara isn't the usual that we find with (eg) chadash on Nisan 16 or other taqanos to avoid that kind of problem. I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh ought to be al pi re'iyah. It is that important to remember that the progression is "meqadesh Yisrael vehazmanim", that people sanctify time, rather than the times imposing themselves on people. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 10:13:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:13:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> On 21/04/17 12:38, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I would like to suggest a different angle on YT Sheini. > > It's not so much that Chazal were afraid of the same problems might > arise in bayis shelishi. After all, the language in the gemara isn't > the usual that we find with (eg) chadash on Nisan 16 or other taqanos > to avoid that kind of problem. The language is "sometimes the kingdom will decree a decree"; therefore in an era when -- according to all opinions -- we will never again be subject to hostile kingdoms, it would seem no longer relevant. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 10:45:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:45:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:13:27PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The language is "sometimes the kingdom will decree a decree"; : therefore in an era when -- according to all opinions -- we will : never again be subject to hostile kingdoms, it would seem no longer : relevant. The language of the azhara to keep the minhag talks about zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah. Rashi ad loc says that the said gezeira would be against studying Torah, the community would lose the sod ha'ibbur and mess up their version of the calculation. But that's not the cause for keeping the minhag going. Because that rationale has nothing to do with where the messengers could arrive on time back when we needed them. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 11:23:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:23:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:58:36PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: :> The language of the azhara to keep the minhag talks about zimnin degazru :> hamalkhus gezeirah. :> Rashi ad loc says that the said gezeira would be against studying Torah, :> the community would lose the sod ha'ibbur and mess up their version of :> the calculation. :> But that's not the cause for keeping the minhag going. : The letter explicitly says that *was* the reason. You don't address my claim, just deny it. What the gemara says the letter read was: Hizharu beminhag avoseikhem! Zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah, ve'asi le'ilqalqulei. This is a motive given for "hizharu". (The letter expliticly says so.) Yes, it could mean that it's the motive for the minhag, which is so strong that that justifies not only keeping it going, but being warned But, given that the potential oppression does not justify the format of the minhag, this explanation must be for the caution alone. :> Because that :> rationale has nothing to do with where the messengers could arrive on :> time back when we needed them. : Those places never had a minhag of two days, so Chazal weren't going : to institute one now. Why not? If the problem is the unreliability of a computed calendar that is done once for centuries ahead without a Sanhedrin, this is new to those in Israel too! I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. Then they add, that one shouldn't say it's not /that/ important, because there is a pragmatic benefit as well. (In any case, Chazal were instituting a derabbanan based on a pre-existing minhag. I don't think you intended to imply that the "one" being instituted now was a minhag.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 11:42:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> On 21/04/17 14:23, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > What the gemara says the letter read was: > Hizharu beminhag avoseikhem! > Zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah, ve'asi le'ilqalqulei. > > This is a motive given for "hizharu". (The letter expliticly says > so.) > > Yes, it could mean that it's the motive for the minhag, which is so > strong that that justifies not only keeping it going, but being warned > But, given that the potential oppression does not justify the format > of the minhag, this explanation must be for the caution alone. No, it's not the reason for the minhag in the first place; we know what that was, and it no longer applies. That's why they wrote to the Sanhedrin asking whether they should abandon it. Hizharu means don't abandon it, keep it going anyway, and the reason for doing so is Zimnin degazru. > : Those places never had a minhag of two days, so Chazal weren't going > : to institute one now. > > Why not? Because that would be an innovation and Zimnin degazru is not enough reason to do so. But it *is* enough reason to continue an already existing practise that has just become obsolete. It takes a lot more to justify changing existing practise than it does to continue it. > I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that > qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices > from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. But there's no hint of this, and the letter explicitly says otherwise. > (In any case, Chazal were instituting a derabbanan based on a pre-existing > minhag. Yes, exactly. It's a din derabanan that behaves *as if* it were a mere minhag, because that's what the rabbanan said it should do. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 12:26:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:26:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421192640.GA20001@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 02:42:49PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : No, it's not the reason for the minhag in the first place; we know : what that was, and it no longer applies. That's why they wrote to : the Sanhedrin asking whether they should abandon it. Hizharu means : don't abandon it, keep it going anyway, and the reason for doing so : is Zimnin degazru. No, hizharu means "be careful", not "keep it going anyway". This is NOT "kevar qiblu avoseikhem aleihem. Shene'emar 'Shemi beni musar avikha, ve'al titosh toras imekha.'" (Pesachim 50b) ... : >I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that : >qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices : >from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. : : But there's no hint of this, and the letter explicitly says otherwise. Again, only once you mistranslate what it means lehazhir. This "explicitly" is not only far from explicit, it's not even there! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 13:37:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:37:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer > make sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside > Israel. Given modern communications, the whole world would know > the time of kiddush hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a > problem but there might be technological answers to that also. Shavuos mochiach. Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. If you can discover all of them, and explain all of them, and explain how Shavuos fits, *then* we can discuss "gezerot that no longer make sense". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 14:21:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:21:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> On 4/21/2017 7:38 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole > taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh > ought to be al pi re'iyah. That's a real possibility. In addition, I suggest that halakha is intended to be feasible without any technology. Just imagine changing something this fundamental to rely on an electronic network that will inevitably be subject to attack by EMPs at some point. I don't think it would be responsible. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 10:35:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 20:35:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole > taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh > ought to be al pi re'iyah. > It is that important to remember that the progression is "meqadesh > Yisrael vehazmanim", that people sanctify time, rather than the times > imposing themselves on people. Even more so once a Sanhredin is reconstituted and there is qiddush hachodesh ougal pi re'iyah.there is no use for YT sheni From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 19:18:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:18:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170423021813.GC19870@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:21:23AM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : That's a real possibility. In addition, I suggest that halakha is : intended to be feasible without any technology. Just imagine : changing something this fundamental to rely on an electronic network : that will inevitably be subject to attack by EMPs at some point. I : don't think it would be responsible. While I get your basic point... What EMPs? Even by Shemu'el's rather prosaic version of the messianic era, ein bein olam hazeh liyamos hamoshiach ela shib'ud malkhius bilvad. Gut Voch! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 00:03:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 03:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: <59924.64874017.462dabd2@aol.com> [1] From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" >> My understanding is that people who wear Tefillen during Cho Moed are not supposed to wear them in a minyan where the custom is that no one wears Tefillen. I know that in a couple of shuls near me they are makpid that those who wear Tefillen and those who do not do wear them do not daven together until after the kedusha of shachris when Tefillen are taken off. << YL [2] From: Allan Engel via Avodah >> Why would tefillin be any different to the various different practises about who does and doesn't wear a tallis? I have never heard of a non-tallis-wearing post-bar-mitzva boy being banished behind the mechitza at a yekkishe shul, or vice versa. << >>>> The difference between the tallis-or-not issue and the tefillin-or-not issue is that the former is in the realm of minhag while the latter is in the realm of halacha. People are not so makpid about differing minhagim in the same shul, but differing piskei halacha in the same shul -- that is much more serious. When you have some men wearing tefillin and others not wearing tefillin in the same minyan on chol hamoed, the presence of each subset implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 00:14:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 10:14:12 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> Hard to imagine that all communication would be lost for 15 days. It certainly is less likely than some problem with lighting fires between mountains. Remember that originally the "entire" galut knew the correct date of Pesach and Succot and so there was only one day of yomtov. Only when there was a deliberate attempt to mislead was the system changed. Also interesting is that there is no discussion of communities beyond Bavel. What was done in Alexandria and Rome? In any case even if locally they kept 2 days it was widespread. BTW I assume it took months to reach Rome. If there was a community in Spain (sefarad) it was even longer. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 12:34:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:34:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tazria Message-ID: <60DB8D20-7368-440D-830C-67A3C69835DD@cox.net> Rabbi Zelig Pliskin, in his book ?Love Your Neighbor,? quotes a hilarious true story about Lashon Hora. Someone asked a cerain woman if she wished to borrow a copy of ?Guard Your Tongue? to study the laws of lashon hora. Her response was: ?I don?t need it. I never speak lashon hora. But my husband really needs it. He always speaks lashon hora." We all know about lashon hora and how speaking ill of others is rather a poor reflection of ourselves. However, taken to another level, it was the S?fat Emes who said that it also can refer to having failed to speak lashon tov. This brings to mind the poignant story of a man weeping uncontrollably at the grave of his young wife. When the rabbi tried to console him by saying how good he was to her, he replied: ?Oh, rabbi, how I loved her so much and once I almost told her.? We have friends who take the time and effort to say nice things, and it would even be nicer if more of us did that. You never know the ripple effect a good word can have. ri After receiving another notice from school about bad behavior, a frustrated father sat to explain to his child the source of each one of the gray hairs in his once black beard. ?This one is from the last time the principal called about your misbehavior. This one is from the time you were mean to your sister. This one is from the time you broke our neighbor?s window,? etc., etc. The father looked at his child for a response to his appeal for better behavior, to which the child calmly replied: ?Oh, now it makes sense why Zaide has such a white beard!? Speech is the mirror of the soul Publilius Syrus, Latin Writer 85BCE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 11:47:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 18:47:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 256 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 25 15:03:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 22:03:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> "When you have some men wearing tefillin and others not wearing tefillin in the same minyan on chol hamoed, the presence of each subset implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment." Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people conscientiously following their family customs and davening together nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. Just a thought from a different perspective. Joseph Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 05:02:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:02:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "Shavuos mochiach. Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. If you can discover all of them, and explain all of them, and explain how Shavuos fits, *then* we can discuss "gezerot that no longer make sense"." The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 04:52:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:52:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Metzorah "LEPERS DO CHANGE THEIR SPOTS" Message-ID: On this, the Shabbos preceding Yom Haatzmaut, we read the Haftarah containing the following verse referring to the four lepers: ?And they said to one another: ?We are not doing the right thing; today is a day of good tidings and yet, we remain silent! If we wait until the light of dawn (until it?s too late), we will be adjudged as sinners; now come, let us go and report to the king?s palace.? Second Kings 7:9 It is fascinating that in our own times, this verse contains a challenging message. It is remarkable how the events of modern Israel ran parallel to the the story told in this Biblical chapter. The Arab armies besieging the Jewish community in Israel, their panic and sudden flight, the great deliverance which followed, and the birth of the State of Israel ? do we not see the hand of Providence in all these events? In one respect we are deeply worried. The lepers of the Haftarah possessed the moral obligation to proclaim the miracle. ?We are not doing the right thing. This is a day of good tidings and it is not proper that we should be quiet about it.? Many of us today (outcasts of yesterday) have still not risen to the moral height of recognizing that a miracle has transpired before our very eyes and therefore our duty to proclaim the greatness of the day! Let us, therefore, proclaim it to our children and to the world. Let us, with a firm belief in the future of Israel, do everything possible to assure its existence, strengthen its foundations, and thus look forward to the day of good tidings, the day of Israel?s total and quintessential Independence! rw John Adams: "I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations? They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews.? John F. Kennedy: "Israel was not created in order to disappear ? Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 13:29:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:03:43PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: :> implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This :> makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look :> bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. : Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly : perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people : conscientiously following their family customs and davening together : nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out : of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that : anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. I think we've lost sight of the original topic. Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. When I was a kid, we tefillin-wearers davened Shacharis in the basement, joining the rest of the shteibl only for the latter part of davening. We are therefore starting with data, the pesaq, and trying to figure out what that means aggadically. Not just blindly guessing about how things look in heaven. If things are as you portray it, the original question is stronger -- what you said doesn't resolve anything. BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos as self-identifications. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 15th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in Fax: (270) 514-1507 harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 14:42:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 21:42:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com>, <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> Lost sight of original topic? If that were a valid criticism we'd hear it at least once if not more in every issue. As to substance. I've been davening in shuls on chol haMoed for more than 50 years and every shul I've davened in, all Modern Orthodox led by rabbis who were well respected talmedei chachamim, had men with and without teffilin davening in one minyan together, sitting next to each other without problems or, I'm pretty sure, thinking of transgressors. That's MY data which I would hope is as valid as shteibl data. And that's what my response to my good friend Toby was trying to deal with. I wasn't the one to raise the perspective of Heaven but I found Toby's thoughtful comment refreshingly interesting and, as always, articulate, so I thought about it a bit and responded. I thought that what we do here on A/A. Joseph Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 26, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:03:43PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: > :> implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This > :> makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look > :> bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. > > : Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly > : perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people > : conscientiously following their family customs and davening together > : nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out > : of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that > : anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. > > I think we've lost sight of the original topic. > > Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in > a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises > evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. > > When I was a kid, we tefillin-wearers davened Shacharis in the basement, > joining the rest of the shteibl only for the latter part of davening. > > We are therefore starting with data, the pesaq, and trying to figure > out what that means aggadically. > > Not just blindly guessing about how things look in heaven. If things > are as you portray it, the original question is stronger -- what you > said doesn't resolve anything. > > BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are indeed > motivated by a consciencous following of family customs and the > perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. And how much > is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification with Litvaks or > Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than identification with the > Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos as self-identifications. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Today is the 15th day, which is > micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. > http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in > Fax: (270) 514-1507 harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 16:11:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:11:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:42:41PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : As to substance. I've been davening in shuls on chol haMoed for more : than 50 years and every shul I've davened in, all Modern Orthodox led : by rabbis who were well respected talmedei chachamim, had men with and : without teffilin davening in one minyan together, sitting next to each : other without problems or, I'm pretty sure, thinking of transgressors. : : That's MY data which I would hope is as valid as shteibl data. And : that's what my response to my good friend Toby was trying to deal with. Those are both anecdotes. (BTW, it was a pretty MO shteibl. We had more professors and other PhDs than you can shake a stick at. R/Dr SZ Leiman, R/Dr David Berger, Rs/Drs Steiner, Rs/Drs Sachat, progessors of Asronomy, Physics (R/Dr Herbert Goldstein, likely author of you physics textbook), Topology...) What is data is that the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed between tefillin wearers and not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 18:24:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:24:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com>, <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB wrote: "What is data is that the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed between tefillin wearers and not." Here's some "data" from R. Chaim (Howard) Jachter: "Nevertheless, in many North American congregations on Chol Hamoed, some wear Tefillin and others do not wear Tefillin in one Minyan. Are all these congregations disregarding the Mishna Berura and the Aruch Hashulchan? One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent authorities. The Gemara (ibid.) states that the coexistence of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad ? two distinct communities maintaining disparate practices in one community ? does not violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 1:158 and 159) notes that in this country Jews have gathered from the various sections of Europe and continue the Halachic practices of their former communities. Subsequent generations continue the practices of their parents. Rav Moshe asserts that American Jewry constitutes ?a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad? and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. The Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan addressed a situation in Europe, which radically differs from the situation in North America, as explained by Rav Moshe. However, it appears that one violates Lo Titgodedu if he wears Tefillin in public in Israel on Chol Hamoed." Joseph Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 22:54:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 01:24:46AM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent : authorities. ... Rav Moshe asserts : that American Jewry constitutes "a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad" : and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) : writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single : community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does : not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of : Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. : The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed... So, that answers the OP. Next question.. How long are we /supposed/ to continue being 2 BD be'ir echad, following the minhagim of our ancestral communities, rather than invoking lo sisgodedu and combining into communal minhagim in our current communities? EY is nearly there WRT tefillin on ch"m, with only a few holdouts like KAJ. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 04:29:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> , <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <36AE5716-00CB-4838-A9CE-5321370B72B4@tenzerlunin.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 27, 2017, at 1:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > > Next question.. How long are we /supposed/ to continue being 2 BD be'ir > echad, following the minhagim of our ancestral communities, rather > than invoking lo sisgodedu and combining into communal minhagim in our > current communities? Considering modern mobility, the world has been made so much smaller that I think the idea of strong communal minhagim imposed on all members of the community may be a thing of the past but not of the future. Joseph From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 16:48:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:48:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. ...<< Akiva Miller >>>>> I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 11:15:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent Message-ID: <20B9894A-31AD-494D-8049-66C38175C660@cox.net> It has been taught that a man must recite 100 b?rachot daily. There are different explanations why 100 and the following are a few: Rabbi Mayer said: a person is obligated to recite 100 Brachos each day. In the Jerusalem Talmud we learned: it was taught in the name of Rabbi Mayer; there is no Jew who does not fulfill one hundred Mitzvos each day, as it was written: Now Israel, what does G-d your G-d ask of you? Do not read the verse as providing for the word: ?what? (Mah); instead read it as including the word: ?one hundred? (Mai?Eh). King David established the practice of reciting one hundred Brachos each day. When the residents of Jerusalem informed him that one hundred Jews were dying everyday, he established this requirement. It appears that the practice was forgotten until our Sages at the time of the Mishna and at the time of the Gemara re-established it. There is an additional hint to the need to recite 100 blessings each day from the Prophets as it is written, Micah, Chapter 6, Verse 8: What does G-d ask of you (Hebrew: mimcha). Mimcha in Gematria is 100. There is also a hint to the need to recite 100 blessings from Scriptures as it is written in Psalms, Chapter 128 Verse 4: Behold, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the Lord (the Hebrew words: Ki Kain appear in the verse. The letters in those words total 100 in Gematria). I?d like to proffer another explanation. In most tests you take in school, a perfect score is 100 or an A+. Hence, when reciting a hundred brachot a day, we come as close to perfection as possible. ?If sin becomes an abomination to you, you will have a hundred percent victory over it.? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 17:35:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:35:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> References: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> Message-ID: <1210e77c-beca-a075-ee6d-2fb9df2cafe8@sero.name> On 27/04/17 19:48, via Avodah wrote: > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the > mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman matan toraseinu. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 18:13:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:13:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> On Areivim we were discussing how some activity could be labeled yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. Along the way I wrote that it couldn't be because the enviroment includes gender mixing. I concluded: : Arayos isn't yeihareig ve'al ya'avor until it's : actual relations. I'm not even sure that yeihareig ve'al ya'avor would : apply to bi'ah with a willing penuyah (who is not a niddah). Two people asked me off list to look at Sanhedrin 75a. In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he could speak to her; at least through a fence. According to either R' Yaaqov bar Idi or R Shemu'el bar Nachmeini, she was even a penuyah. (Peligi bah... chad amar...) But one could learn from that gemara that it would NOT be yeihareig ve'al ya'avor: Bishloma according to the man da'amar she was an eishes ish, shapir. But according to the MdA she was penuyah -- mah kulei hai? Two answers: R' Papa says because it's a pegam mishpachah, R' Acha berei deR' Iqa says "kedei shelo yehu benos Yisrael perutzos ba'arayos". So what's the exchange saying? That it is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor because of the consequent peritzus? Or that bishloma an eishes ish would be YvAY, but a penyah, who isn't, why wouldn't the guy be allowed to speak to her? As I said on Areivim "I am not even sure" which, because the gemara could be taken either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:03:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:03:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: R' Micha Berger concluded: > BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are > indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs > and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. > And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification > with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than > identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos > as self-identifications. That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the MB and AhS were on. By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? Do we really want to accuse the MB and AhS of that? I think there is another way we can look at this whole topic. Let's ask what makes Chol Hamoed Tefillin so unusual. Why is this case different than so many others? Someone else asked why there isn't any enforced uniformity regarding unmarried men wearing a tallis in shul. Why is that different? How about the differing ways of avoiding simcha during sefira? One person will make a wedding during the last week of Nisan, and another person FROM THE SAME SHUL will make a wedding after Lag Baomer. Not only is this tolerated, but the entire shul is allowed to attend both weddings! Why don't we insist that the whole town should go one way or the other, like with the tefillin? Sometimes I feel that our perspective on these issues is so very different than what prevailed in the unified kehilos of yesteryear, that we cannot ever hope to understand it. I think the confusion comes from try to impose one perspective on a differing situation. Perhaps we ought to "agree to disagree". Specifically: *WE* get strength from our diversity; *THEY* got strength from their uniformity. I personally worry about the misfits in those cultures, and the losses they suffered. But perhaps their leaders accepted that as an acceptable price for the chizuk that came to the larger group. We have been trained to be unwilling to accept such a price, and we fight for every single individual. But that too has a price, and we are often unable or unwilling to admit it. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:12:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:12:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement > in the mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. Yes, there is a disagreement over whether the Torah was given on 6 Sivan or on 7 Sivan. And there are lots of cute vertlach about whether Shavuos is about *Matan* Torah, or *Kabalas* HaTorah (and whether or not they happened on the same day). But the bottom line is the the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after Pesach. If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty about Shavuos. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:52:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:52:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025454.YQWS32620.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in >a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises >evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. There's something about this that I've never understood. Suppose a person is having a stomach problem -- isn't he supposed to refrain from wearing tefillin? So, in a shul, a guy is not wearing tefillin -- how do we even know what his reason is? (In fact, I think I recall hearing that R Moshe himself didn't wear tefillin many times towards the end of his life for this reason). So, of all the things regarding lo sisgadedu -- why tefillin? Why not all the other things that daveners wear differently? (E.g., different minhagim via-a-vis wearing a tallis before marriage?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:54:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:54:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Rabbi Mayer said: a person is obligated to recite 100 Brachos each >day. In the Jerusalem Talmud we >learned: it was taught in the name of Rabbi Mayer; there is no Jew >who does not fulfill one hundred >Mitzvos each day, as it was written: Now Israel, what does G-d your >G-d ask of you? Do not read the >verse as providing for the word: ?what? (Mah); instead read it as >including the word: ?one hundred? >(Mai?Eh). IIRC, there's a fun Ba'al HaTurim on this pasek: If you add the alef into the pasuk -- not only does it turn the word into "100" -- but the pasuk will then have 100 letters in it. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:58:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:58:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> > > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the > > mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. Indeed. Machlokes over whether it was Sivan 6 or 7. OTOH, the 50th day could also have fallen on Sivan 5, no? >The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed >calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman >matan toraseinu. Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? (I'm not being snarky -- it's a genuine question) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 21:45:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:45:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170428044535.GC2155@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:58:07PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" : when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? The explanation I like (eg from Maadanei Yom Tov) is that "zeman matan Toraseinu" is not a date in Sivan, but a number of days after Yetzias Mitzrayim or of the omer. Your question is based on the idea that "zeman" is a time on the calendar, not a point in a process (be it redemption or of omer). The MYT I mentioned earlier explains why Matan Torah was on the 7th whereas our Zeman Matan Toraseinu is on the 6th: He (the Tosafos Yom Tov?) notes that omer is both tisperu 50 yom and sheva shabasos temimos. It is 50 days or 7 x 7 = 49 days? So, uusually we think 49 days of omer, Shavuos is the 50th. The MYT says that 49 days of omer and the first day of Pesach is the 0th. Zeman Matan Toraseinu is thus after 50 days of process. For our Pesach, that's day 1 of Pesach + 49 omer, yeilding Sivan 6th. The first Pesach, though, Yetzi'as Mitzrayim was at midnight. So the first full day, usable as day 0, was the 16th of Nissan. Shifting everying off one day, so that process from physical ge'ulah to matan Torah ended on 7 Sivan. But whether you like that vertl or not, the idea that would answer your question is just that "zeman" is not necessarily a date; just as Shabbos is a time based on interval, not date. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:33:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:33:49 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <40e6067e-a5cf-689b-619a-908d5249a8a8@zahav.net.il> When was that prayer written, before or after the calendar was set? Ben On 4/28/2017 4:58 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" > when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 02:33:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:33:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the Exodus. Lisa On 4/28/2017 5:58 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed >> calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman >> matan toraseinu. > > Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" > when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:18:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:18:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428061804.GA19887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : "Insufficiently kneaded" means that there might be some flour in the : middle of the matza that never got wet and is still plain raw flour, : and that if it gets wet it will become chometz. "Insufficiently baked" : means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not : get baked, and it is already chometz. And RMGR feels that the second : of these is a "much greater risk". But... If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently kneeded, would any of the dry flour that went through the oven be still capable of becoming chaneitz if wet? If the dough is now too baked to rise any further, wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be to toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5, which discvusses things not to do because "shelma lo qulhu yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is that possible? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:22:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. Lo zakhisi lehavin. All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty. Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays being of the form of an uncertainty. But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain about the date. What am I missing in the CS's sevara? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 22:03:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:03:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite Message-ID: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> I signed up for something called Carbonite, which uploads everything on your computer to the Cloud where it might be possible to retrieve it all if your computer dies or is stolen. The thing is, either I have way too much on my computer or my computer is way too old and slow, but anyway, Carbonite started uploading on Sunday afternoon and now, Thursday night, it is STILL uploading. It continuously shows what progress it has made, and it is showing me that it has uploaded 43% of my computer. I am no math whiz but I can figure out that if it took from Sunday to Thursday to upload 43% it is not going to reach 100% before Shabbos. I asked the Carbonite tech person what happens if you turn off your computer in the middle, and he said Carbonite will just continue where it left off when you turn your computer back on. Interestingly we had a test case on Monday when my neighborhood lost power for six hours. When the power came back on, Carbonite did NOT resume where it had left off. Instead, I had to call Carbonite and ended up being on the phone for an hour while they told me to do this and that and then they did whatever and finally got Carbonite to resume its weary work. So here is my question for the learned chevra here on Avodah: Can I just leave my computer on all Shabbos, in another room with the door closed where I won't see it and it won't fashtair my Shabbos, and let Carbonite keep running and running? (It looks like it will take a whole nother week to finish.) Or should I sell my laptop to a goy and buy it back after Shabbos? (That was a joke, for those of you in Rio Linda.) Should I turn it off and resign myself to talking to tech support again for another hour to get it working again after Shabbos? Oy, siz shver tsu zein a Yid! Is leaving a laptop on all Shabbos with Carbonite uploading more like [A] leaving your lights, fridge and air conditioning on all Shabbos or [B] leaving a TV or radio on -- dubiously muttar, definitely not Shabbosdik or [C] making your eved Canaani work for you all day Shabbos -- a no-no or [D] giving your clothes to the Greek dressmaker to fix and telling her you need them some time next week, and if she for her own convenience decides to do the work on Shabbos, that's copacetic? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 06:44:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:44:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite In-Reply-To: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> References: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:03 AM, [Rn Toby Katz] wrote: > I signed up for something called Carbonite... > Can I just leave my computer on all Shabbos, in another room with the door > closed where I won't see it and it won't fashtair my Shabbos, and let > Carbonite keep running and running? (It looks like it will take a whole > nother week to finish.) ... What tzurus. I use crash plan. They each have their share of grief. I leave my computer on 24x7 except 2 day yomtov. I turn off the monitor and make sure the keyboard and mouse are secure before Shabbat. Why is it any different than leaving on the A/C? Back in the day, people would set the vcr to record a show over shabbat. That was a bit more dubious but was done. Good Shabbos From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 04:02:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:02:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org>, <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From: Micha Berger Sent: 27 April 2017 13:13 ... > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he > could speak to her; at least through a fence... > Bishloma according to the man da'amar she was an eishes ish, > shapir. > But according to the MdA she was penuyah -- mah kulei hai? ... > So what's the exchange saying? That it is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor > because of the consequent peritzus? Or that bishloma an eishes ish > would be YvAY, but a penyah, who isn't, why wouldn't the guy be > allowed to speak to her? Of note, that gemara is brought in Rambam Yesodei HaTorah in the context of acheiving cure for illness through hana'as issur. Meaning that it's not a halacha of gilui arayos per se, rather hana'as issur. He paskens it's assur even with a pnuya so that bnos yisrael won't be hefker. No mention of pgam mishpacha. (Parenthetically this seems to be an din of yeihareig v'al ya'avor midrabannon (so that bnos yisrael etc..). Any other such cases? I'd assumed YvAY is always d'oirasa, almost by definition) The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought. There is no suggestion that conversation in any normal situation is an issur hana'a per se, so therefore is not assur, certainly not Yeihareig V'al Yaavor. Therefore can't see how this gemara would be relevant to the army issue any more than the familiar dinim of r'eiyas einayim, kirva l'arayos etc which are no less relevant in the workplace and on the street. [Email #2. -micha] On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua. Nonetheless the whole gemara is still only relevant to a case of clear hana'as issur. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 07:57:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:57:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite In-Reply-To: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> References: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> Message-ID: <247ffd82-32aa-3bf1-c6ef-36c008a1a4a3@sero.name> On 28/04/17 01:03, via Avodah wrote: > Is leaving a laptop on all Shabbos with Carbonite uploading more like > [A] leaving your lights, fridge and air conditioning on all Shabbos > or [B] leaving a TV or radio on -- dubiously muttar, definitely not > Shabbosdik or [C] making your eved Canaani work for you all day Shabbos > -- a no-no or [D] giving your clothes to the Greek dressmaker to fix and > telling her you need them some time next week, and if she for her own > convenience decides to do the work on Shabbos, that's copacetic? It's A, shevisas keilim, which is a machlokes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. The halacha of course follows Beis Hillel, that we are not commanded on shevisas keiliim, so it's completely OK. The problem with B is hashma`as kol, which is a species of mar'is ho`ayin; passersby will hear the sound of work being done in your home and will suspect you, if not of actual chilul shabbos, then at least of amira lenochri. It is muttar if there are no Jews within a techum shabbos. C is of course completely out, mid'oraisa, even if the eved sets his own schedule. Avadim are obligated to keep Shabbos. D is amira lenochri, which is completely muttar mid'oraisa, but the chachamim forbade it lest you come to do melacha yourself. Thus it's muttar if the decision to do the work on Shabbos rather than during the week is completely up to the nochri. BTW you don't need to leave it to sometime next week; you can ask to have it ready when the shop opens on Sunday morning, and it's up to the cleaner whether to do it on Shabbos or to stay up all night motzei shabbos to get it done. It's only assur if there are literally not enough weekday hours between now and when you want it, so that the nochri *must* do some of it on Shabbos. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 07:27:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:27:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:14 PM 4/27/2017, R. Micha Berger wrote: >EY is nearly there WRT tefillin on ch"m, with only a few holdouts >like KAJ. This statement does not seem to be correct. See http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x Note the following from there. Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau?er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. and (I do not know what all of the ? stand for.) Here are a few names, a sampling of some past gedolim who wore tefillin on chol hamoed IN ERETZ YISROEL (either betzinoh or otherwise) ? Moreinu HaRav Schach, Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, Rav Michel Feinstein (eidem of the Brisker Rav), Pressburger Rav, and Rav Duschinsky, ????. The ???? ????? was in Eretz Yisroel. In his siddur Shaarei Shomayim, he has tefillin on chol hamoed. Rav Moshe Feinstein ???? writes in a teshuvoh that he knows of thousands of bnei Torah who put on tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel. ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????, ????? of Edah Charedis was heard also taking the position that someone whose minhog is to put on tefillin on chol hamoed cannot just suddenly drop it totally in Eretz Yisroel. The above and previous post is based on what I heard about this inyan ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????, ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????. I think there is an Oberlander minyan in Yerushlayim where they wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed as well, if I recall correctly. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 08:03:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:03:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7af7f734-f777-e833-2997-5d8daf3057af@sero.name> On 28/04/17 02:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos > : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not > : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day > : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a > : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most > : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But > : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the > : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. > Lo zakhisi lehavin. > > All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a > taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty. > > Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the > uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays > being of the form of an uncertainty. > > But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was > like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain > about the date. I think what he means is that even in their days, when most YT Sheni were safek d'oraisa, the 2nd day of Shavuos was a vadai d'rabanan pretending to be a safek d'oraisa. Nowadays that describes *all* YT Sheni (except the 2nd day of RH, which is a vadai d'rabanan not pretending to be anything else, because even in their days this was occasionally the case). So his explanation is merely historical, that what we have is not a new situation, because they had it on Shavuos. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 08:27:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:27:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is > the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the > case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which > we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the > Exodus. Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th day but on the 51st. So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the pseudo-Julian anniversary. Therefore I assume they did *not* say ZMT. In fact I assume they didn't say it even when it *did* fall on the 6th, since that was just a coincidence. Only when it was set to fall on the 6th every year did it take on a new nature as ZMT. This is all, however, on the assumption that we hold like the opinion that yetzias mitzrayim was on a Thursday. This is the basis of the entire sugya in Perek R Akiva Omer that we all know. But right at the end of that sugya, at the top of 88a a new source is suddenly cited, the Seder Olam, that YM was on a Friday, and the gemara seems to say "Aha! Forget everything we said till now, trying to reconcile the Rabbanan's opinion, now everything is simple: the Seder Olam follows the Rabbanan, YM was on a Friday, and MT was 50 days later on the 6th of Sivan, and the sources we've been working with, that say YM was on a Thursday, follow R Yossi, who says MT was on the 7th. So for years I've wondered why it is that we seem to ignore this source and continue to maintain that YM was on Thursday, even though it means accepting the strained explanations the gemara comes up with to reconcile them before it found the Seder Olam. If the SO was enough for the gemara to overthrow its earlier discussion, why isn't it enough for us? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 11:16:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:16:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: <24769a.1d3ee4d4.4634e11b@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> But the bottom line is the the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after Pesach. If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty about Shavuos. << Akiva Miller >>>> In the days when they kept two days Pesach because they didn't know when Rosh Chodesh had been, perhaps you can say that by the time Shavuos rolled around, the messengers had arrived to tell them when Rosh Chodesh Nissan (and therefore when Pesach) had been so by then they knew for sure when Shavuos was. But of course we still keep two days of Pesach until now, as we've been discussing, despite the fact that we no longer have a safeik about the date. So your statement, "If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty" is not really true or maybe is true but not relevant. After all, didn't you start counting Sefira on your [second] Seder Night? Was that not a stira -- counting sefira at the seder? After all, we're supposed to start counting "mimacharas haShabbos" -- the day AFTER yom tov, i.e., the first day of chol hamo'ed. So "fifty days after Pesach" turns out itself to be a slightly slippery concept. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 12:07:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:07:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent In-Reply-To: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> References: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Message-ID: I heard this from the late R Hershel Fogelman, of Worcester MA: The passuk says "ha'elef lecha Shelomo, umasayim lenotrim es piryo". What does this mean? The Gemara (Chulin 87a) says that the opportunity to say a bracha is worth ten golden coins. So we owe You, Melech Shehashalom Shelo, 1000 coins. But on Shabbos we are short 200. Who makes up these 200? Those who keep it with fruit. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 03:17:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 20:17:11 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: "Insufficiently baked" means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not get baked and it is already chometz. RMGR feels that this is a "much greater risk" than the risk of Gebrochts. I hope the following clarifies my argument that G is an utterly fake concern IF one is Choshesh that the baking has NOT reached the central part of the Matza as are Choshesh all those who do not eat G [bcs if it is properly baked then even if some flour remains bcs the dough was insufficiently kneaded that flour which has been baked CANNOT become Chamets] The problem is once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash that the central part of the Matza is not fully baked then never mind the problem of flour which will BECOME Chamets when it gets wet and given time WE HAVE A MUCH GREATER PROBLEM according to the Gebrochts-nicks argument we ALREADY HAVE CHAMETS in the Matza since the dough that is insufficiently baked is ALREADY Chamets -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 19:44:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:44:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently > kneaded, would any of the dry flour that went through > the oven be still capable of becoming chameitz if wet? > If the dough is now too baked to rise any further, > wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be > too toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5, > which discusses things not to do because "shema lo qulhu > yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is > that possible? What's the shiur of "qulhu yafeh"? Maybe roasting flour is more time-consuming than baking matzah? You want to say they're the same, but who knows? If we had a better handle on these things, our Pesach breakfasts could be farina or oatmeal made with chalita, but we have forgotten how to do that correctly. I have a friend who has been a Home Economics teacher at the local public high school for about 40 years. She likes to point out how different baking is from cooking. Cooking, she says, is about flavors, and you can put just about anything you like into a pot, cook it for a while, and it will be okay. "But baking is all about chemistry." You have to get the right ingredients in the right proportions at the right temperatures for the right time, or it will be a disaster. This distinction doesn't show up in Hilchos Shabbos, but it certainly does in Chometz UMatzah. Timing is key. I have no idea what the poskim say about varied situations of "shema lo qulhu yafeh", but it is very easy for me to imagine that if there is some dry flour inside the matza dough, the matza could be adequately baked while that flour is still not yet roasted enough to prevent later chimutz. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 04:10:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 21:10:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe Message-ID: R Micha points out RaMBaM does record the Halacha that we may not cook in water during Pesach toasted grains nor the flour ground from them because Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe perhaps they were not fully toasted and they may become Chamets one assumes this is because over-toasting the Camel grains ruins the taste and it was therefore far more likely that they were under-toasted than over-toasted Furthermore there is no test to apply to toasted grains as there is to baked Matza Matza is tested for being baked by tearing it apart and ensuring there are no doughy threads stretching between the torn pieces -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 19:17:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Acharei Mot Message-ID: Acharei Mot is the only Torah portion with the word ?death? in its title. The two words together are captivating: ACHAREI mot. In other words, we should be focusing on ?Acharei,? AFTER death. As depressing, difficult and mysterious as death is, we must not dwell on it. We must go on with our lives ?Acharei" AFTER. Life is eternal, and love is immortal, and death is only a horizon; and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight. Rossiter Worthington Raymond (April 27, 1840 in Cincinnati, Ohio ? December 31, 1918 in Brooklyn, New York) He was an American mining engineer, legal scholar and author. At his memorial, the President of Lehigh University described him as "one of the most remarkable cases of versatility that our country has ever seen?sailor, soldier, engineer, lawyer, orator, editor, poet, novelist, story-teller, biblical critic, theologian, teacher, chess-player?he was superior in each capacity. What he did, he always did well." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 20:58:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 05:58:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <77074713-e49c-4af3-1f69-39b611caa0e0@zahav.net.il> Read further down on the page: Your exceptions prove the rule. Sorry you are unfamiliar with minhagei eretz yisrael. They are esentially minhagei Hagra, brought here by the famous ?prushim? clan, and these minhagim have been accepted throughout Israel, with some exceptions.In Yerushalayim , they are accepted almost uniformly. The Tukotchinsky Luach for minhagim of the davening is a reflection of this and it is accepted by almost all. True, here and there, as your friend noted, there is a minyan that puts on tefillin. To each his own. But there are thousands of minyanim that don?t, and many of them do not hesitate to unceremoniously throw anyone out that dares put them on, even in the corner or in another room. I have seen this myself. Rav Schach?s custom, and certainly the Erlauer Rebbe indicate that the general custom is not to put on tefillin. None of the yeshivas, including Rav Schach?s yeshiva, adopted his minhag.None of the chassidim here do either except the relatively small numbered Erlauer. Ben On 4/28/2017 4:27 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > This statement does not seem to be correct. See http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x > > Note the following from there. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 20:53:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:53:56 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I had asked whether people had a view on the halachic propriety or otherwise of using a sous-vide machine over Shabbos and received no response. The sous-vide is a method of cooking which one might call very slow cooking. Bags with the food (e.g. meat) are places in a bucket or the like, and the machine is placed inside the bucket together with water which covers the plastic bag(s). It can take a really cheap cut of meat and make it tender and delicious. It?s buttons can be covered if someone is worried about Shehiya, I think the issue is Harmono. It can?t be both. One thing I noticed is that nobody seems to fiddle or touch the bags until the ?given time period?, and then one just pulls the plastic bags out. One can pre-program to turn the machine off, or it can continue keeping the water at the set temperature. There are various scenarios. Where the food is ready on Friday night. Where another bag of the food has a different texture is left till lunchtime on shabbos Where the meat is Mamash Raw (let alone not Maachol Ben Drusoi) on Erev Shabbos but will be good on Shabbos Where the concept of Mitztamek Veyofe Lo has nothing to do with Mitztamek, but rather a quantitative improvement that is still possible without it shrivelling The final issue is whether you say that since it might have had another 12 hours cooking and the temperature does not rise, that the meat is of a different VARIETY as opposed to quality. For example cooked versus roasted steak. Either way, here is a link to the only Tshuva I know of on this issue. I?m interested in reactions. There is a touch of Choddosh Ossur Min HaTorah from Rav Asher Weiss, but in the main, I can?t think of a reason why it?s not Hatmono. Disclaimer: I have not reviewed Hatmono for many years, and started to in dribs and drabs with the Aruch HaShulchan. This is the link to the Tshuva http://preview.tinyurl.com/kvxswnp or http://tinyurl.com/kvxswnp I spoke to Mori V?Rabbi Rav Schachter about it, and interchanged with his son Rabbi Shay, but they haven?t managed to show him the device and he won?t pasken until he has seen it (of course). "It is only the anticipation of redemption that preserves Judaism in Exile, while Judaism in the Land of Israel is the redemption itself." ______________________ Rabbi A.I. Hacohen Kook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 06:34:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:34:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >: The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos >: Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not >: differentiate between holidays... > All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaint[y]... > But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was > like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain > about the date. The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about second day of Yom Tov apply. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 09:48:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:48:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170430164805.GA11800@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 04:34:17PM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: : The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made : b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about second day of : Yom Tov apply. I know. That's my question. He says YT sheini of Shavuos was mishum lo pelug. So, if it's really lo pelug, then how/why would it be different in form than YT Sheini Sukkos, Shemini Atzeres or Pesach (x 2)? If it's lo pelug, then the usual qulos of pretending we're dealing with the old-time safeiq should apply -- or else, there is a pelug. No? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 09:57:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:57:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:02:29AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he : > could speak to her; at least through a fence... ... : The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone : who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as : issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought. ... : [Email #2. -micha] : : On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar : pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned : with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as : arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua. Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy for letting his taavos get so worked up. I see a slight conflict in your answers. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 11:05:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:05:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From AudioRoundup at Torah Musings: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/864540/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-sous-vide-cooking-for-shabbos-(and-through-shabbos)/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-From The Rabbi?s Desk ? Sous Vide Cooking For Shabbos (and Through Shabbos) Sous vide cooking (another thing we?ve lived without but now sounds like it will be the next sushi). If you do it for, or over Shabbat, is there an issue of hatmana or shehiya? FWIW the hashkafa at the end of R?Asher Weiss?s tshuva is well worth thinking about ? we seem to live in an age where any sacrifice is difficult. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 13:50:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> , <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I didn't think I was giving two answers, just clarifying further. So, let's work through it again. I must admit I have looked at neither Rishonim (except Rambam) nor achronim. But here goes: The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of YaVY. The gemara then says that this works fine for an eishes ish, The first question should be why that's obvious? Since when is conversation with an eishes ish YvAY? We answered that by saying, al pi Rambam, that the point of the gemara is to clarify how far we apply YvAY to hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation carries the din YvAY. That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. However, the bottom line for our original reason for analysing this gemara remains that it's not part of the cheshbon governing any standard interactions in which any ben Torah might participate, as it only applies to someone sick enough to have inevitable sexual hana'a from a conversation. R Micha's two correspondents can feel free to challange that whether off or on list. BW Ben Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy for letting his taavos get so worked up. I see a slight conflict in your answers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:22:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:45:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy : ... : OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the : rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very : clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz.... : : So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? I think the "out" is the clause "sheyeish lanu ba'alus alava". So, chameitz that you didn't have baalus on, but was delivered on Pesach wouldn't be included. (And would be a davar shelo ba le'olam, even if you did try to include it.) No, that doesn't cover things you owned since before Pesach and were unware "delo chazisei" that you only found on Pesach. OTOH, wasn't that stuff already mevutal anyway? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:30:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430173012.GB27111@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are :> indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs :> and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. :> And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification :> with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than :> identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos :> as self-identifications. : That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the : MB and AhS were on. : By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they : putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, : ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on : identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? ... I don't see how they are. If someone says there should be a single pesaq for a location and the shul could be consistent is talking about unity. Not about whether our community's minhagim are better or worse than those of another community -- they aren't present to suggest we're comparing. I was contrasting two different motives for breaking that unity: The first archetype is the one who does so because he takes more self-identity from his Litvisher (eg) ancestry than in being in part of the observant community, or Jewish community in general. The second is the one who is motivated by the logic of the pesaq or the hashkafah payoff. Such as someone who is "into" qabbalah for whom "qotzeitz bintiyos" means something and motivates not feeling happy in tefillin on ch"m. I was suggesting that lo sisgodedu only rules out the first motivation, not the second. But the acharon who promotes everyone following one practice isn't a question of whether their motivation is more important than lo sisgodedu to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:30:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430173012.GB27111@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are :> indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs :> and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. :> And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification :> with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than :> identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos :> as self-identifications. : That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the : MB and AhS were on. : By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they : putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, : ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on : identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? ... I don't see how they are. If someone says there should be a single pesaq for a location and the shul could be consistent is talking about unity. Not about whether our community's minhagim are better or worse than those of another community -- they aren't present to suggest we're comparing. I was contrasting two different motives for breaking that unity: The first archetype is the one who does so because he takes more self-identity from his Litvisher (eg) ancestry than in being in part of the observant community, or Jewish community in general. The second is the one who is motivated by the logic of the pesaq or the hashkafah payoff. Such as someone who is "into" qabbalah for whom "qotzeitz bintiyos" means something and motivates not feeling happy in tefillin on ch"m. I was suggesting that lo sisgodedu only rules out the first motivation, not the second. But the acharon who promotes everyone following one practice isn't a question of whether their motivation is more important than lo sisgodedu to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:08:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:08:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430170851.GD19139@aishdas.org> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 08:17:11PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The problem is : once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash : that the central part of the Matza : is not fully baked : then never mind the problem of flour : which will BECOME Chamets : when it gets wet ... Again, if gebrochts were about the middle not being baked, it would be worries about chameitz whether or not the matzah later gets in contact with water. It's about flour that didn't become kneaded. As the SA haRav states, the Besht ate gebrochts because in his day the 1 mil timer was stopped for kneading. We came up with this chumerah of trying to fit everything, including the kneading in the time limit. Which caused us to start rushing the kneading. (Yet, the Alter Rebbe of Lub lauded this new chumerah, despite it coming with new risks.) And so he justified chassidim of his generation following a new hanhagah that the Besht did not. (We discuss this teshuvah annually.) The question I asked is based on the fact that toasted flour doesn't become chameitz. And by simple physics, we expect that if dough, a huge lump, can bake through, then of course we would have completed the toasting of the same chemicals present in fine powder form, like any dry unkneaded flour within the dough. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 17:49:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 10:49:28 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <384BCE1C-0255-4CD6-9547-033963F2DA9C@gmail.com> Rich, Joel wrote: > > > From AudioRoundup at Torah Musings: > http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/864540/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-sous-vide-cooking-for-shabbos-(and-through-shabbos)/ > Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-From The Rabbi?s Desk ? Sous Vide Cooking For Shabbos (and Through Shabbos) > Sous vide cooking (another thing we?ve lived without but now sounds like it will be the next sushi). If you do it for, or over Shabbat, is there an issue of hatmana or shehiya? > > > FWIW the hashkafa at the end of R?Asher Weiss?s tshuva is well worth thinking about ? we seem to live in an age where any sacrifice is difficult. > > KT > Joel Rich R Joel, yes indeed. I got the Tshuva from R Aryeh :-) The other question is why does Halacha entail sacrifice. IF it's halachically sound it may be a hiddur! I know we have it on Tuesdays and everyone loves it. It is a superior form of cooking. If it's NOT Hatmono then why (if one has the implement) would one not use it. I find that a Hungarian Posek approach in general. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 17:34:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:34:13 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on Monday besides Hallel on tues Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 08:39:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 08:39:29 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> References: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <138374BA-01AB-4BF3-8554-304B33684B81@gmail.com> Young Israel century city holds both kulot. No tachanun Monday. Hallel Tues. Curious how most chul shuls do it. .I expect most follow israel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 09:51:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 18:51:40 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/1/2017 2:34 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on > Monday besides Hallel on tues Mine didn't and that was my experience in other shuls as well. The Tfilion app doesn't have Tachanun (but does have an added chapter of Tehillim for the fallen). Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 06:15:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:15:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> On Monday, May 1, 2017 6:02 AM, saul newman wrote: > Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on > Monday besides Hallel on tues Rav Ahron considered Hey Iyar to be Yom Ha'atzmaut and the day that Hallel (without a Bracha) is said and Tachanun is not said -- regardless of when Israel celebrates it (for whatever reason it may be delayed). I (and Yeshivas Brisk) did not say Tachanun at Mincha yesterday (Erev Yom Tov) nor today at Shacharis... nor will I say it at Mincha. I will say it tomorrow. HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 10:23:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:23:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Last year, in http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n055.shtml#10 , RHM gave R' Aharon Soloveitchik's shitah. Much like this year, although last iteration he added: One can review the Halachic sources RAS used in his book 'Logic of the heart, Logic of the Mind'. I responded in the post right below it, quoting RGS, http://www.torahmusings.com/technology-halakhic-change-yom-ha-atzmaut , who in turn was commenting on R/Dr Aaron Levin of Flatbush's evolving practice: In America, where the celebrations can be more easily controlled to avoid the desecration of Shabbos, many authorities did not recognize the change of date, among them Rav Ahron Soloveichik and Rav Hershel Schachter. They insisted that people recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar -- the day of the miracle of the declaration of the State of Israel -- regardless of when Israelis celebrate the day. Rav Aaron Levine's son, Rav Efraim Levine, told me that his father had to change his position on this question over time. Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a community to determine its own date to celebrate. To which I added: RAS might have decided similarly or not had he lived to see the day when the primary intercontinental communication was the telephone, not the aerogram. We can't know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 11:59:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 20:59:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: For Hebrew readers, Rav Yoni Rosensweig sums up Rav Rabinovitch's position on the matter: https://www.facebook.com/yonirosensweig/posts/1761639697197955 Bottom line: Moving Yom Aztmaout doesn't entirely remove the uniqueness of the day. While he does state that the rabbinate holds that one skips Tachanun only on the day Yom Aztmaout is celebrated, RYR doesn't accept that psak. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 12:35:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 15:35:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> On a lighter, more aggadic note, my father suggested that the existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to minimize chilul Shabbos is the very thing a Religious Zionist would be celebrating on Yom haAtzmaaut. Which reminds me of something Rav Dovid Lifshitz said about Yom haAtzma'ut. Rebbe said that Atzma'ut is something special, and certainly worth celebrating. But for now YhA is only half a holiday. We established the atzma'ut of Yisrael, but are still missing its etzem. To rephrase into my father's words: It is worthwhile to celebrate the existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to minimize chilul Shabbos, but what we pray for is the existence of a country that wouldn't have to! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 14:42:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 23:42:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the reading is pushed off until Sunday. Ben On 5/1/2017 9:35 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > It is worthwhile to celebrate the > existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to > minimize chilul Shabbos, but what we pray for is the existence of a > country that wouldn't have to! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 17:38:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 20:38:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:42:18PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the : reading is pushed off until Sunday. Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 22:29:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 07:29:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> Message-ID: 1) It is part of a package deal, the first part of which can fall on Shabbat. 2) When we go back to setting the month based on witnesses, it could fall on Shabbat. Ben On 5/2/2017 2:38 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. > > -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 23:12:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 09:12:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:42:18PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: > : It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the > : reading is pushed off until Sunday. > > Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. > 5 Iyyar certainly can fall out on Shabbat, and as it happens it doe so in exactly the same years when there is Shushan Purim Meshulash: Adar has 29 days and Nisan 30, so from 15 Adar to 5 Iyyar is 29 + 30 - 10 = 49 days or exactly 7 weeks. In other words, Shushan Purim and Yom Ha`Atzmaut (when not postponed or advanced) are always on the same day of the week. This last happened nine years ago in 5768 and will happen again in 5781 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 21:39:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 14:39:34 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Looking Jewish Message-ID: Gemara AZara 58a - R Yochanan b Arza and R Yosiy b Nehuroi, were drinking wine - they requested someone nearby to fix their drinks. After he fulfilled their request they realised he was not Jewish. May they drink the wine, is the Gemara's Q. But how could they make such a mistake? And how might the wine be permitted? the Gemarah 58b explains it was clear to the G that the Sages were Jewish, it was also clear that he thought that they knew he was not Jewish, and it was also clear that he as a non-J knew that if he handled the wine, they wold not be permitted to drink it So he thought - they MUST be drinking mead [which he may handle and mix for them] so even though he was actually handling wine, thinking it was mead, he would not make his usual pagan worship and so it did not become disqualified. So here is the tough part HE was CERTAIN they knew he was not J [that's why he was certain that they were drinking mead and not wine] however the truth was they DID IN FACT THINK he was J [and that is why they did invite him to fix their wine drinks] could this happen today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 04:48:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 07:48:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Ha'atzmaut Message-ID: <3866CC37-90C9-4337-8257-616B6EB01940@cox.net> The story is told of the Chafetz Chayim, zt"l, that he asked one of his visitors who had come from a great distance, "How are you?? which in Yiddish is, "Vos makhst du," literally, "What do you do?" So in answer to this inquiry, the visitor replied, "Thank God, I have a thriving business, I have no financial problems, I have a beautiful home with a swimming pool,? etc. etc. The Chafetz Chayim repeated, "Vos makhst du?" and the visitor, a bit confused as to why the question was repeated, gave the same reply. So for the third time, the same question was asked of the visitor, at which point the visitor looked at the saint and he said: ?I don?t understand why you asked me three times 'How I am.? I told you that thank God, I have a thriving business, a lot of money, a beautiful home, etc.? The Chafetz Chayim replied: ?You don?t understand. You told me what GOD is doing for YOU, but I asked, 'What are YOU doing?' I therefore repeat: 'Vos makhst du?'" How does this apply to Israel Independence Day? We know what Israel has done for US. The question remains: What are we doing for Israel, and what are we doing for each other? May we become ?Independent" enough to help others who "depend" on us. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 11:50:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Avram Sacks via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 13:50:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Cong Or Torah in Skokie said tachanun at shacharit, but not at mincha on erev Yom Ha-Atzmaut. On YhA, at ma'ariv we added additional tehillim at the end of davening, as found in the Koren siddur for Yom HaAtzmaut. At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. Kol tuv, Avi Avram Sacks From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 13:16:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 16:16:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Looking Jewish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170502201609.GB17585@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:39:34PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Gemara AZara 58a ... : the Gemarah 58b explains ... : So he thought - they MUST be drinking mead : [which he may handle and mix for them] : so even though he was actually handling wine, : thinking it was mead, he would not make his usual pagan worship : and so it did not become disqualified. ... : could this happen today? Their wine was this thick syrup that required dilution (mezigas hakos) to be drinkable. They also often had to add spices and/or honey to make it palatable. Inomlin / yinomlin (spelled with a leading alef or yud, depending on girsa; Shabbos 20:2, AZ 30a) was wine mixed with honey and pepper (Shabbos 140a). So, if the grapes were particularly sour, and more honey was added, perhaps it wasn't that easy to determine that it was wine (enomlin) and not meade. A problem 2 millenia of vintners eliminated through breeding better grapes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 14:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 17:20:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5908F811.8040504@aishdas.org> Beautiful sentiments, to be sure, but 100% emotional and 0% halachic. Was there live music on 6 Iyar? KT, YGB On 5/2/2017 2:50 PM, Avram Sacks via Avodah wrote: > Cong Or Torah in Skokie said tachanun at shacharit, but not at mincha > on erev Yom Ha-Atzmaut. On YhA, at ma'ariv we added additional > tehillim at the end of davening, as found in the Koren siddur for Yom > HaAtzmaut. At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel > (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and > ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it > is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet > observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in > Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added > that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about > those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA > on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 15:17:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 18:17:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akrasia and Ritual Message-ID: <20170502221754.GA25834@aishdas.org> Akrasia is a classical Greek term for why we so often don't do what we believe. In more mesoretic terms -- the problem of akrasia is the question of "what is the yeitzer hara?" In http://www.thebookoflife.org/akrasia-or-why-we-dont-do-what-we-believe there is an interesting piece on how ritual helps solve akrasia. It might help one's qabbalas ol mitzvos: ... There are two central solutions to akrasia, located in two unexpected quarters: in art and in ritual. The real purpose of art... (Fans of RAYK or Dr Nathan Birnbaum might want to read the part I'm skipping here.) Ritual is the second defence we have against akrasia. By ritual, one means the structured, often highly seductive or aesthetic, repetition of a thought or an action, with a view to making it at once convincing and habitual. Ritual rejects the notion that it can ever be sufficient to teach anything important once - an optimistic delusion which the modern education system has been fatefully marked by. Once might be enough to get us to admit an idea is right, but it won't be anything like enough to convince us it should be acted upon. Our brains are leaky, and under-pressure of any kind, they will readily revert to customary patterns of thought and feeling. Ritual trains our cognitive muscles, it makes a sequence of appointments in our diaries to refresh our acquaintance with our most important ideas. Our current culture tends to see ritual mainly as an antiquated infringement of individual freedom, a bossy command to turn our thoughts in particular directions at specific times. But the defenders of ritual would see it another way: we aren't being told to think of something we don't agree with, we are being returned with grace to what we always believed in at heart. We are being tugged by a collective force back to a more loyal and authentic version of ourselves. The greatest human institutions to have tried to address the problem of akrasia have been religions. Religions have wanted to do something much more serious than simply promote abstract ideas, they have wanted to get people to behave in line with those ideas, a very different thing. They didn't just want people to think kindness or forgiveness were nice (which generally we do already); they wanted us to be kind or forgiving most days of the year. That meant inventing a host of ingenious mechanisms for mobilising the will, which is why across much of the world, the finest art and buildings, the most seductive music, the most impressive and moving rituals have all been religious. Religion is a vast machine for addressing the problem of akrasia. This has presented a big conundrum for a more secular era. Bad secularisation has lumped religious superstition and religion's anti-akrasia strategies together. It has rejected both the supernatural ideas of the faiths and their wiser attitudes to the motivational roles of art and ritual. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 21:48:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 06:48:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0a07acaa-4c79-5eb5-b387-1887573b3cd1@zahav.net.il> There is an oversimplification here, that the issue is the secular. Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed off even if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash. Getting the country ready for these days means hundreds, thousands of people have to be in place. This includes soldiers, policemen, etc who are 100% dati. Holding these events on a date that would force these people to work on Shabbat is simply a non-starter and everyone understands that point. I have to add the following: My dream is that people will come to understand how wrong it is to make people (including dati'im) work on Shabbat when Lag B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate steps. Ben On 5/2/2017 8:50 PM, Avram Sacks wrote: > He added that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 21:30:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 21:30:06 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] nidche Message-ID: since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on thurs, does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded this way already in the 50's? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 06:38:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 16:38:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:30 AM, saul newman via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on thurs, > does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded this way > already in the 50's? > To be precise, they are only nidche if Pesah starts on Tuesday, like this year. If it starts on Shabbat or Sunday they are brought forward to Wednesday & Thursday. If my memory is accurate, the bringing forward has always been in practice, but the postponement from Sunday-Monday to Monday-Tuesday was introduced later, within the last 10 or 20 years. When I was first in Israel in the 1980s, YHA was still sometimes observed on a Monday. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 06:06:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 09:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> On 5/3/2017 12:30 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on > thurs, does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded > this way already in the 50's? It was instituted during the tenure of Rabbis Amar and Metzger. [Email #2. -micha] On 5/3/2017 12:48 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > There is an oversimplification here, that the issue is the secular. > Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed off even > if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash... > I have to add the following: My dream is that people will come to > understand how wrong it is to make people (including dati'im) work on > Shabbat when Lag B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate > steps. That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to 5 Iyar. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 14:34:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 17:34:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5a7c4dde-aeda-0d6e-0a6f-3824d06a66da@sero.name> On 03/05/17 09:06, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is > no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- > certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically > viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to > 5 Iyar. Why can't a religious holiday be defined by the day of the week, like Shabbos Hagodol and Behab? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 16:28:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 19:28:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: R' Micha Berger reposted from elsewhere: > Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this > subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on > the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his > position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, > Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut > celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with > perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a > community to determine its own date to celebrate. Why should telecommunications affect the day that my community says Hallel? Should we all start reading Megilas Esther on 15 Adar? R' Ben Waxman wrote: > Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed > off even if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash. Maybe not as unique as it seems. Isn't there a gezera against Motzaei Shabbos weddings for exactly this same reason - because of the likelihood that the preparations would begin on Shabbos? RBW also wrote: > My dream is that people will come to understand how wrong it > is to make people (including dati'im) work on Shabbat when Lag > B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate steps. Amen!! Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 20:43:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 05:43:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: Someone pointed out to me off line that the reading is on Friday, Al HaNissim on Shabbat, and Seuda/Matanot is on Sunday. Ben On 5/1/2017 11:42 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the reading > is pushed off until Sunday. > > Ben > > \ > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 21:26:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 14:26:20 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: <26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com> Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can never fall on a Thursday. Under the current arrangements, it cannot fall on a Monday, so those who fast on BeHaB and also wish to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzma?ut no longer need to be concerned. In Hilchot Yom Ha-Atzma?ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim (ed Nahum Rakover, 1973), there is an article by Rabbi Meir Kaplan which discusses what to do when the two did coincide. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 21:29:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 07:29:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Avram Sacks via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel > (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and > ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it > is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet > observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in > Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added > that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about > those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA > on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. ?Since the issue here is tachanun, hallel and suspending sefira restrictions, I fail to follow his logic. We are being asked to not say tachanun on the same day as the not-yet-observant?, on 6th Iyar. But why the 6th any more than the 5th. We should say hallel on the 6th, the same day as the not-yet-observant. Hardly. Sefira restrictions are suspended on the 6th like the not-yet-observant? If the entire sentiment is when we should have ceremonies to mark the significance of the State, you could that any day, or every day, as often as you like. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 22:11:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:11:39 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Nidche In-Reply-To: 26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com References: 26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: <8ff4cb3fb9929c8cf4af49714131daf8@mail.gmail.com> I wrote in haste. Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can fall on a Friday (as it does next year), in which case it is brought forward a day. David Havin *From:* David Havin [mailto:djhavin at djhavin.com] *Sent:* Thursday, 4 May 2017 2:26 PM *To:* Avodah *Subject:* Nidche Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can never fall on a Thursday. Under the current arrangements, it cannot fall on a Monday, so those who fast on BeHaB and also wish to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzma?ut no longer need to be concerned. In Hilchot Yom Ha-Atzma?ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim (ed Nahum Rakover, 1973), there is an article by Rabbi Meir Kaplan which discusses what to do when the two did coincide. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 07:53:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 10:53:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [From an Areivim discussion of how to be safe from house fires on Friday night.... -micha] On 03/05/17 18:26, Akiva Miller via Areivim wrote: > When eating the evening seudah elsewhere than where you're sleeping, > consider lighting at the seudah location, so that they won't be > unattended. My mitzvah is to light my own home, not someone else's. I know women have the custom of saying a bracha when lighting in someone else's home, but I'm not sure on what basis they do so. It seems to me they're not fulfilling their own mitzvah but rather helping their hostess with her mitzvah, just like helping someone else with his bedikas chametz. In that case (as opposed to doing the whole thing as his agent) one is supposed to hear his bracha, not make ones own, so why is this different? Thus it seems to me that this falls into the category of minhagei nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked, but the women have their own traditions and are not asking. But I don't see a basis for men, who don't have those traditions, to follow them. Yes, we are required to follow "toras imecha", but it seems to me that this means those things that women have traditionally taught their sons, not those that they have traditionally only taught their daughters. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 08:52:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:52:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <54B1C0DF-2CD4-49B5-92A0-AC29B878E3F2@sibson.com> The psak I receive many years ago is that you light where you sleep. One concern was to make sure the candles would run long enough so they were still burning when you came home so you could get benefit from them Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 13:50:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 20:50:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Tatoo Taboo and Permanent Make-Up Too Message-ID: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/ken8l8y There is a widespread myth, especially among secular American Jews, that a Jew with a tattoo may not be buried in a Jewish cemetery[1]. This prevalent belief, whose origin possibly lies with Jewish Bubbies wanting to ensure that their grandchildren did not stray too far from the proper path, is truly nothing more than a common misconception with absolutely no basis in Jewish law. Jewish burial is not dependent on whether or not one violated Torah law, and tattooing is no different in this matter than any other Biblical prohibition. Please see the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 15:13:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 18:13:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Tatoo Taboo and Permanent Make-Up Too In-Reply-To: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> References: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <72ddedb9-4172-c476-3fe6-acbb37a1e577@sero.name> > Jewish burial is not dependent on whether or not one violated Torah law, There are cemeteries, or sections within them, where only observant Jews can be buried, in line with the halacha that one may not bury a rasha next to a tzadik. But a person who qualified for burial there would not be rejected for having a tattoo, since it would be assumed that he had long ago repented. (The sin is *getting* the tattoo, not *having* it; once it's been done there's no obligation to remove it.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 20:54:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 21:54:36 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> On May 3, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is > no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- > certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically > viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to > 5 Iyar. My gut is with you on this. But then we do need to at least address the precedent of Purim. We don?t say Hallel, but we say a bracha on the Megillah. And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid chillul Shabbos. Now there are some important differences. For one thing, Purim seemed to be a concern of ignorance, not secularity. But it does seem to establish the precedent that it can be done. Whether it should be done is a different question. Following the precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off until Sunday, but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. Yom HaZikaron could be pushed earlier. ? Daniel Israel Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center of Santa Fe, President daniel at kolberamah.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 21:00:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 22:00:22 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> On Apr 30, 2017, at 11:22 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:45:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy > : OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the > : rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very > : clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz.... > : > : So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? > > I think the "out" is the clause "sheyeish lanu ba'alus alava". So, > chameitz that you didn't have baalus on, but was delivered on Pesach > wouldn't be included. (And would be a davar shelo ba le'olam, even if > you did try to include it.) I have been bothered by this same question for many years, and mentioned to my Rav over Pesach. It was his impression that contracts in EY more commonly did not use loshen including unmarked/unknown chametz. I think that is common in the US. I suggested that it is motivated by a desire to protect against the case of accidentally consuming chometz sh?evar alav haPesach where the person completely lost track and by the time he ate it, he didn?t remember he sold it. But it does seem that burning it would depend on how the contract was written. And I would take it a step further and point out that if it was sold, there is a serious geneivah issue. > No, that doesn't cover things you owned since before Pesach and were > unware "delo chazisei" that you only found on Pesach. > > OTOH, wasn't that stuff already mevutal anyway? Can I burn something that was hefker without acquiring it? If I declare something hefker (I?m not sure the legal implication of batel), and then I burn it, wouldn?t that imply I?m koneh it? Which makes things much worse. ? Daniel Israel Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center of Santa Fe, President daniel at kolberamah.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:08:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:08:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: On 04/05/17 23:54, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > . And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid chillul > Shabbos. The megillah only goes back, never forward. > Following the precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off > until Sunday, but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. The precedent of Purim is to pull it back to Friday *or Thursday*. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:40:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:40:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: 5 Iyar can also be on Shabbos (as it will in 2021), and its commemoration is pushed back two days, to Thursday. Nonetheless, that Thursday can never be a part of BeHaB, since the fasts begin on the Monday after the first Shabbos following Rosh Chodesh Iyar, and the preceding Shabbos is either the 28th or 29th of Nissan. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 6 12:32:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 21:32:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <04a24079-f3e7-a7e9-d195-3dac00552ebe@zahav.net.il> Yom HaZikaron and Yom Azmaut are an inseparable pair. There have been call to break the connection (to make it easier for the bereaved families to celebrate YA) but so far no one is willing to do so. Ben On 5/5/2017 5:54 AM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > Yom HaZikaron could be pushed earlier. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 21:20:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 00:20:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> On 5/4/2017 11:54 PM, Daniel Israel wrote: > On May 3, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: >> That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is >> no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- >> certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically >> viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to >> 5 Iyar. > My gut is with you on this. But then we do need to at least address > the precedent of Purim. We don?t say Hallel, but we say a bracha on > the Megillah. And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid > chillul Shabbos.... > Whether it should be done is a different question. Following the > precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off until Sunday, > but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. Yom HaZikaron could > be pushed earlier. On Purim Meshulash, the Al HaNisim remains on Shabbos, and the Megillah with the bracha is relocated to the day everyone else is celebrating. Moreover, there is no clash between simcha on 16 Adar and some pre-existing minhag to diminish simcha. Those are some of the differences. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:01:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 18:01:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: Discussion of chametz ?received? during Pesach can be listened to here: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/877269/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-girls-scout-cookies/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -From The Rabbi's Desk - Girls Scout Cookies KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 6 22:53:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 07 May 2017 07:53:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives today, certainly not in any practical manner. More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber). Ben On 5/5/2017 6:20 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > On Purim Meshulash, the Al HaNisim remains on Shabbos, and the Megillah > with the bracha is relocated to the day everyone else is celebrating. > Moreover, there is no clash between simcha on 16 Adar and some > pre-existing minhag to diminish simcha. Those are some of the differences. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 07:26:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 10:26:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Haircuts when Lag Baomer is on Sunday Message-ID: Rama 493:2 writes: "When [Lag Baomer] falls on Sunday, the practice is [nohagin] to get haircuts on Friday l'kavod Shabbos." What makes this Friday different from all other Fridays of sefira? If Kavod Shabbos is ample justification to get a haircut on Omer 31 (which is in the aveilus days by all reckonings), then it ought to justify a haircut on Omer 24 (the previous Friday) also, shouldn't it? But I have never heard of anyone allowing a haircut on Omer 24 simply because it is Erev Shabbos, so there must be an additional factor at work. For many years, I presumed the logic to be as follows: If a person would need a haircut on Friday Omer 31, or on Friday Omer 24, and fail to get that haircut, then he has failed to do Kavod Shabbos, but he did it by inaction. He did it in a "shev v'al taaseh" manner, and it is quite common for halacha to suspend an Aseh with a Shev V'Al Taaseh. (Compare skipping this haircut to skipping Shofar on Shabbos.) HOWEVER - If a person would go out of his way ("kum v'aseh") and actually get a haircut on Sunday, that is intolerable. To have been disheveled on Shabbos (even if justifiably), and then suddenly be all fancied up the very next day, that is an insult to Shabbos, and we cannot allow Shabbos to be insulted in that manner. So when the Rama writes that we allow the haircuts "for kavod Shabbos", what he actually means is that we allow the haircuts "to avoid insulting Shabbos." And this is what makes this weekend of Sefiras Haomer different from all the others: On the other Sundays of Sefira, no one is getting a haircut anyway, so the whole question doesn't exist. But in this year, on this particular weekend, we do have this problem. The Rabbis *could* have chosen to protect the kavod of Shabbos by forbidding us to get haircuts when Lag Baomer is on Sunday, but instead they chose to protect the kavod of Shabbos by allowing us to get haircuts when Omer 31 is on Friday. Or so I thought for many years. But I have questions on this logic. According to what I have written, getting a haircut on Sunday is a bad idea - no matter what time of year it is. Yet I don't recall ever hearing anyone advise against it. In particular, when this situation of a Sunday Lag Baomer occurs, I have often hear people cite this Rama as granting permission to get their haircut on Friday. But in actuality, shouldn't it be less of a permission, and more of a *recommendation*? When a person asks the question, shouldn't the answer be, "Yes, you can get the haircut on Friday, and that's even better than waiting for Sunday." But I have not heard anyone suggest this. That's about as far as I was going to write, but then I went to the seforim to make sure I understood the Rama correctly. Indeed, his phrasing, "nohagin to get haircuts on Friday l'kavod Shabbos", could easily be understood to mean DAVKA on Friday rather than Sunday. But although it *could* be understood that way, I don't remember anyone actually doing do. And then I came across Kaf Hachayim 493:33, who writes that the Levush held differently than the Rama in this situation: > The Levush writes that if the 33rd is on a Sunday when the > non-Jews are not barbering because of their holiday, *that's* > when you can get a haircut on Friday. Meaning that in a place > where you *can* get a haircut on Sunday, then you should *not* > get the haircut on Friday. But from the words of the Rama, who > writes "l'kavod Shabbos", he means to allow it in any case. > And Elya Raba #9 writes the same thing about this Levush, that > the Rama allows it l'kavod Shabbos in either case. To rephrase: If one has a choice between getting his haircut on Friday or Sunday, then the Levush gives precedence to the minhagim of aveilus during Sefira, and requires us to wait until Sunday for the haircut, and *not* get the haircut on Friday Omer 31. The idea of suddenly showing up with a haircut on Sunday does not (seem to) bother the Levush, and this is totally consistent with the lack of anyone ever being told to avoid Sunday haircuts the rest of the year. But the Kaf Hachayim (with support from Elya Raba) rejects the approach of the Levush. He seems to accept the word of the Rama, plain and simple, that we can get haircuts on Friday Omer 31 because it is l'kavod Shabbos. And, according to Rama, this applies whether the barbershops are open on Sunday or not. Even if one has the option of waiting until Lag Baomer, he can "violate" the aveilus of Sefira on Omer 31, because the haircut is l'kavod Shabbos. This leaves me stuck with my original question: If Kavod Shabbos is ample justification to get a haircut on Omer 31, then it ought to justify a haircut on Omer 24 also, shouldn't it? Obviously no, but why? with many thanks in advance for your thoughts, Akiva Miller PS: The Levush is not totally machmir; he does allow leniency, but only in the case of where Lag Baomer is on Sunday, AND the barbers are closed on that day. Only in such a case does he allow a haircut on Omer 31. I have to wonder why he would allow that exception, rather than disallowing it entirely. Here's my guess: The Levush was aware of poskim who allowed haircuts on Friday Omer 31, but he felt this to be an improper violation of the aveilus, and paskened that people should wait for Sunday Lag Baomer. But if the barbers would be closed, that means people would have to wait another two weeks for their haircuts, in which case he allowed the leniency. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 03:46:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 13:46:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: No, I'm pretty sure it was the 50th day. The first day after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the first day of the Omer. The 49th day after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the 49th day of the Omer. Shavuot is thus the 50th day after our leaving Egypt. On 4/28/2017 6:27 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >> I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is >> the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the >> case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which >> we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the >> Exodus. > > Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th > day but on the 51st. So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th > of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the > pseudo-Julian anniversary. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 06:38:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 09:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: On 07/05/17 06:46, Lisa Liel wrote: > No, I'm pretty sure it was the 50th day. The first day after our > leaving Egypt corresponds to the first day of the Omer. The 49th day > after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the 49th day of the Omer. > Shavuot is thus the 50th day after our leaving Egypt. Everyone seems to assume we left on a Thursday. The first day after we left was a Friday, so the 49th day was a Thursday. Mattan Torah was definitely on a Shabbat, thus the 51st day. There's no way out of that, unless we adopt the Seder Olam's view that the gemara suddenly springs on us at the end of the sugya that we left on a Friday. Then it all works perfectly, and as I read the gemara that seems to be the conclusion, but I've never seen any later source even deal with this view; everyone who mentions the day of the week on which we left Egypt takes for granted (as the gemara did for most of the sugya) that it was a Thursday. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 03:51:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 06:51:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minhagei Nashim Message-ID: In a thread about Ner Shabbos, R' Zev Sero wrote: > Thus it seems to me that this falls into the category of minhagei > nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked, > but the women have their own traditions and are not asking. But I > don't see a basis for men, who don't have those traditions, to > follow them. Yes, we are required to follow "toras imecha", but > it seems to me that this means those things that women have > traditionally taught their sons, not those that they have > traditionally only taught their daughters. That's an interesting way to classify things. I suppose it makes sense in the context of Ner Shabbos, which a mother would certainly teach to her daughters, but probably not to her sons. In this system, I suppose she would also teach Kitchen Kashrus only to her daughters, but Brachos to all her kids equally. Please consider the following scenario. I suppose it could happen even today, but it might be easier to imagine if you place it during the many centuries when there was no schooling for girls... A wife is preparing some food for dinner. She notices something unusual. Maybe it has something to do with meat and dairy, or maybe it has something to do with the just-shechted chicken she's kashering. Anyway, she concludes - based on what her mother (and both grandmothers and all her aunts) taught her - it's not a problem. Her husband happens to walk in, sees the same thing, and points out that it is a very clear black-and-white halacha that this food is assur. One could say that this sort of thing happens very rarely, because the men tend to stay out of the kitchen. But if you ask me, that only proves that the couple is unaware of the problem. It probably happened quite often, but no one noticed because the husband wasn't around. How could this *not* be a frequent occurrence? The men are busy learning, and the information never reaches the women. I concede that if a woman is unsure, she will ask, and some halachos will filter over to her side. But if she is *not* unsure, she could be blissfully unaware that her imahos have had a tradition for many generations, and it differs from the tradition that her husband got from generations of avos and teachers. And if this sort of thing can happen in Hilchos Kashrus, how much more often might it occur in Hilchos Nida? You may notice that I am taking pains to tell this story without prejudice as to which side is the truer halacha. Just because the women weren't in yeshiva, that does not prove them to be in error. All it proves is that there's been no opportunity for shakla v'tarya. Neither side can be discredited until they've carefully debated the issues. So who is right? As I wrote, these questions have been bothering me for years. But someone said that "Emunah is not when you have the answers; it's being able to live with the questions. " I got that chizuk from R' Haym Soloveitchik in his now-classic "Rupture and Reconstruction", which is all about these opposing chains of tradition, the mimetic and the textual. (The full text is on-line at www.lookstein.org. Just google the title.) He writes in footnote 18 there: > The traditional kitchen provides the best example of the > neutralizing effect of tradition, especially since the mimetic > tradition continued there long after it was lost in most other > areas of Jewish life. Were the average housewife (bale-boste) > informed that her manner of running the kitchen was contrary to > the Shulhan Arukh, her reaction would have been a dismissive > "Nonsense!" She would have been confronted with the alternative, > either that she, her mother and grandmother had, for decades, > been feeding their families non-kosher food [treifes] or that the > Code was wrong or, put more delicately, someone's understanding > of that text was wrong. As the former was inconceivable, the > latter was clearly the case. This, of course, might pose problems > for scholars, however, that was their problem not hers. Neither > could she be prevailed on to alter her ways, nor would an > experienced rabbi even try. There is an old saying among scholars > "A yidishe bale-boste takes instruction from her mother only". Somehow, these chains do find a way to work together. But I must be clear: I am NOT talking about a machlokes haposkim, where the wife was taught one thing and the husband was taught something else. In that case, there is much common ground, and they (or their rav) can go to the sources to figure out what the couple should do. I'm talking about a much more fundamental problem, where generations have passed on different traditions, without anyone ever realizing that there was a mismatch. (I'd like to close by pointing out that I am neither asking anything new in this post, nor am I trying to answer anything. But RZS mentioned a "category of minhagei nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked", and I simply wanted to expound on that category.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 09:43:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 12:43:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: In Avodah Digest 35:53 on Apr 19, R' Micha Berger wrote: > The AhS OC 31:4 is okay with minyanim that are mixed between > wearers and non-wearers. That's not what I see in the last line there: "In a single beis medrash, don't have some doing this and some doing that, because of Lo Tisgodedu." In Avodah Digest 35:55 on Apr 26, he seems to have corrected that: > ... the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed > between tefillin wearers and not. [You seem to have missed http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol35/v35n055.shtml#07 I didn't correct myself; I was forced to reread the AhS by RHK's post. -micha] This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. IF I understand that AhS correctly, he says that if there is only one Beis Din in town, then everyone must follow it, so Lo Tisgodedu doesn't apply. And if there is more than one Beis Din in town, then everyone can follow their own beis din, so again, Lo Tisgodedu does not apply. So when DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be factionalized like that. That is the AhS's explanation of why each town should be united and follow one set of days for the aveilus of Sefira: The question is totally minhag, and not under the jurisdiction of the local posek. It is a minhag of the people, and the people should get together and be united in one practice. The AhS doesn't mention it in that siman, but this explanation does help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 consistent with 493:8? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 8 05:32:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 15:32:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The relevance of the middle perakim of Bava Basra today Message-ID: Perakim 4-7 of Bava Basra (which Daf Yomi has been learning) deal with the sale of various things, what is included and what is not. The common denominator seems to be that these are seemingly solely based on the accepted business practice during the time of Chazal and what people expect to get when they consumate a deal. There are few to no Torah based sources for any of these. Here is a general outline of the perakim. Perek 4 - Hamocher es habayis discusses what is sold when you sell real property (houses, bathhouses, courtyards, fields, etc.) and what is not, for example when you sell a house the Mishna states that you include teh door but not the key Perek 5 - Hamocher es hasefina discusses the sale of movable objects, again detailing what is included in the sale and what is not (boats, wagons, animals, etc.) Perek 6 - Hamocher peiros lachaveiro discusses the sale of agricultural products. It details how much spoilage/wastage there can be in grain and wine etc. It also discusses selling land to build things on it like a house, graves, how much land is given, what access etc. Perek 7 - Deals with sales of real property how exact do the dimensions need to be. Given the above, are these at all relevant today? A house buyer in 2017 clearly has very different expectations as to what he is buying in comparison to the times of Chazal as does someone buying wine, a field, a boat, etc. The same goes for all of these categories. Since the mishnayos seem to be based solely on accepted business practice and have are not based on pesukim can we simply ignore these today? Am I missing something here? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 8 10:47:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 13:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The relevance of the middle perakim of Bava Basra today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170508174705.GA2335@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:32:57PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Perakim 4-7 of Bava Basra (which Daf Yomi has been learning) deal with the : sale of various things, what is included and what is not. The common : denominator seems to be that these are seemingly solely based on the : accepted business practice during the time of Chazal and what people expect : to get when they consumate a deal... : Given the above, are these at all relevant today? ... First reaction: They would be relevant to a poseiq trying to learn how to determine which of today's expectations have halachic import. It would require doing the saqme kind of mapping of market norms to law that chazal did, so the poseiq could learn from example. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 9 05:44:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 08:44:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor Message-ID: <4667BA80-CCF4-42D3-833D-99611C34F822@cox.net> ?And you shall count unto you from the morrow after the day of rest from the day that you bring the omer of the wave-offering; seven complete weeks shall there be.? (Vayikra 23:15) The Rambam included the counting of the Omer as Mitzvah 161 in his Sefer Hamitzvot. Those Rishonim who disagree, do count it as a mitzvah d?rabbanan and therefore, when we conclude the counting each night we pray: ?May the merciful One bring back to us the Temple service to its place speedily in our days, Amen, selah.? So the question has been asked why we do not say a ?sheheheyanu? when we first count the Omer on the second night of Pesach. The Rashba answers that according to most Rishonim who disagree with the Rambam, the counting is connected intricately with ktzirat ha?omer, harvesting the omer, ha?va-at ha?omer, the bringing of the omer and hakravat ha?omer, the offering of the omer as a sacrifice (Vayikra 23:10&16). So since these mitzvot are obviously inapplicable today it pains us to remember what we are missing when we count the omer. Therefore, the rabbis say, we pronounce no sheheheyanu which is said only when we experience joy. When I started counting my blessings, my whole life turned around. Willie Nelson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 06:33:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 09:33:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kedoshim Message-ID: It was brought to my attention that I hadn?t sent out a commentary on Parashas Kedoshim. Here is a belated d?var. ?In the presence of an old person you shall rise and you shall honor the presence of a sage and you shall revere your God ? I am Hashem.? (Vayikra 19:32) This verse is so rich with interpretation. According to Rashi, following one view in Kidudushin 32b, the two halves of the pasuk explain each other, i.e., the mitzvah is to rise and honor a sage who is both elderly and learned. Others hold that these are two separate mitzvot: to rise for anyone over the age of 70 and to rise for a learned righteous man, even if he is below the age of 70. The halacha follows the latter view, the rationale being that anyone can reach the age of 70 but it takes blood, sweat and tears to achieve scholarship and righteousness. I recall as a youngster being in awe when everyone in the beis medrash would stop what they were doing and a hush fell over the crowd as everyone rose immediately as soon as the Rosh Yeshiva entered the hall. There comes to mind the famous saying in Makkoth 22b: ?How foolish are those people who stand up when the Torah is carried by, but do not stand up when a scholar walks by,? indicating that greater than a piece of parchment upon which the Torah is written, is a human being who has put his whole life into learning and struggling in order to acquire a knowledge of Torah, and who in his personal life is a living embodiment of what the Torah teaches and represents. Along similar lines is the custom in some hassidic circles to kiss the hand of a talmid chochom upon first seeing him in the same manner as kissing the Torah when it passes by. The one thing we must never forget is the basic issue involved. It is not the mere person that is the center of the commandment; it is the ?v?yorayso mey-Elohechoh, Ani HaShem that is here involved. In rising before and granting honor to the talmid chochom, we affirm our profound belief in the Torah of God. Who sows virtue reaps honor. Leonardo da Vinci -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 13:24:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 16:24:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety Message-ID: In Avodah V35n60, RJR responded to RZS, who had responded to RAMiller: >>> When eating the evening seudah elsewhere than where you're sleeping, consider lighting at the seudah location, so that they won't be unattended. <<< >> My mitzvah is to light my own home, not someone else's. << > The psak I receive many years ago is that you light where you sleep. One concern was to make sure the candles would run long enough so they were still burning when you came home so you could get benefit from them < As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*); and as I learned as a kid every Pesach that my family was at a hotel (because my parents didn't have Pesach cooking utensils, dishes, etc. in their apartment), everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 14:55:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 21:55:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As RJR implies, I thought the key component of neiros Shabbos was enjoying their light (in contradistinction to neiros Chanukah); and as I learned as a kid every Pesach that my family was at a hotel (because my parents didn't have Pesach cooking utensils, dishes, etc. in their apartment), everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... All the best from Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA _______________________________________________ Except if they were incandescent bulbs in the individual hotel rooms. In that case I was taught that the women make a bracha on the bulbs in their room Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 04:54:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:54:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Lo Taamod Message-ID: Rav Asher Weiss discusses in parshat Vayeitzeih on lo taamod al dam reiacha that one would have to give up all his assets to save a single life if he is the only one who can do it. However, "it's pashut" that if others can also do it, that he doesn't have to give up all his assets. Why is it so pashut if others refuse? (i.e. why isn't it a joint and several liability?) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 04:55:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:55:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Local Government Message-ID: Anyone have any sources on how local government, if any, functioned in times of Tanach? Was there any besides the court system? What was the role of the nesiim of the shvatim? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 12:02:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:02:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App Message-ID: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Someone mentioned tahorapp.com on-line, so I took a look at their web site. To quote: > Keeping Tradition & > Keeping Your Privacy > Rabbinically Approved! Anonymously send pictures of your Taharas > Hamishpacha questions to a Rav right from your own home. Receive answers > quickly and privately. Download Tahor App For Free! I then thought of "The Dress" , a picture of a black-and-blue dress that floated around the internet that many of us perceived as white-and-gold. So, given that people guess at the background lighting when they see a picture and then subconsciously correct for it (see explanation on wikipedia page), how could a rav rely on a Tahor App image? So, I filled out their contact form with something to that effect, and a short discussion followed. They replied: : Color Precision: : Thank you for your inquiry, : To clarify (as this seems not to be clear): : "Tahor" is meant to serve as a halachically approved "filter" for a : majority of Shailos (many of which are straightforward and simple to : determine). It is meant to allow those who may not have access to a rov, or : who may not feel comfortable going to a rov, to have an option, when : halachically viable, to send in their sample anonymously. : What this app is not: : This app IS NOT meant to be an umbrella replacement for the process of : showing questionable bedikah cloths to Rabbonim. Rabbonim were all able to : pasken correctly because of our advanced white balance technology and : Rabbinic measurement capabilities. The cloths which are borderline or : questionable, will be told to show the actual cloth to a Rabbi. : It is obviously preferable to take the cloth directly to the Rabbi when : possible, but many many women are not doing it! This will allow them to : keep Taharat Hamishpachah and get accurate answers. I felt I was getting a barely touched form letter, so I paraphrased my original question: } But given that the human eye will misinterpret colors when the lighting } differs between the camera and the person looking at the picture, how } can you know the results are accurate? After all, the differences in } perception of the colors of The Dress is far far greater han that between } a tamei brown and a tahor one. And their reply: : Shalom, : Yes, this is true. : This is why the Rabbis will only answer questions through the app which are : clearly one or the other. : An example of this would be if a stain on underwear is less than a gris. : The Rabbi can with complete accurately declare this Pure/Impure. : If the Rabbi feels that it is not so clear, he will tell the user to go to : a Rav. I am letting it drop there, because I am not going to argue anyone into wondering whether or not his pet project works. But I myself am still wondering.... Given how pronounced optical illusions can be when it comes to color and how subtle many determinations are, can a rav even know when the question is "clearly one way or the other" rather than only seeming obvious? I saw the dress in a catalog, so I know I am getting it wrong when I look at the infamous picture. And yet, it's suprising. If it weren't for people reporting a different color set, I would have considered white-and-gold "clearly" right. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 30th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation Fax: (270) 514-1507 result in holding back from others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 12:57:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: See the following timeline: http://crownheights.info/jewish-news/575460 http://crownheights.info/chabad-news/575513 http://crownheights.info/communal-matters/575546 http://crownheights.info/chabad-news/575559 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 07:33:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 10:33:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> There is a definite dearth of rabbis on the site. I am somewhat conflicted on this. OTOH, the nuances of coloring will be distorted by many displays - perhaps all displays. OTOH, perhaps women who otherwise would not ask she'eilos would use this service. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 08:37:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:37:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App Message-ID: <11c7f4.7c2a7fc4.464730a1@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org Someone mentioned tahorapp.com on-line, so I took a look at their web site. To quote: > Keeping Tradition & > Keeping Your Privacy > Rabbinically Approved! Anonymously send pictures of your Taharas > Hamishpacha questions to a Rav right from your own home. Receive answers > quickly and privately. Download Tahor App For Free! I then thought of "The Dress" , a picture of a black-and-blue dress that floated around the internet that many of us perceived as white-and-gold...... .....So, given that people guess at the background lighting when they see a picture and then subconsciously correct for it (see explanation on wikipedia page), how could a rav rely on a Tahor App image? -- Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>>> According to wiki the human eye can distinguish about ten million different colors. Other sources say "only" seven million. (Not relevant here but interesting: Some birds, some fish, some reptiles, even some insects, like bees, can see colors we can't see.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision A computer screen can display about 33,000 different colors -- only a small fraction of the number of shades in nature that the human eye can see. http://www.rit-mcsl.org/fairchild/WhyIsColor/Questions/4-6.html The takeaway -- to my mind -- is that the tahor app probably can't be relied on. The rav needs to see the actual color, not on a screen. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 08:36:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:36:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:33am EDT, R Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: : I am somewhat conflicted on this. OTOH, the nuances of coloring will : be distorted by many displays - perhaps all displays. OTOH, perhaps : women who otherwise would not ask she'eilos would use this service. Because of "The Dress" I am worried that "perhaps all displays" really understates the possibility of getting a color wrong. While the problem you raise is real. I would still recommend yoatzos as a better solution. Still, there are women who still wouldn't go to antoher woman, or who live in an area with no one to ask. RnTK wrote: : According to wiki the human eye can distinguish about ten million different : colors. Other sources say "only" seven million. ... : A computer screen can display about 33,000 different colors... : small fraction of the number of shades in nature that the human eye can see. ... : The takeaway -- to my mind -- is that the tahor app probably can't be : relied on. The rav needs to see the actual color, not on a screen. I think the problem I raised can lead to more profound misassessments. The precision of color displays will blur the edges. And the rabbis behind Tahor App say that it's only for more clear cases. What had me concerned is that that perception is based on more context colors and lighting specifics than the phone's camera may capture. Thus "the dress", which is explained, amongst other startling optical illusions involving color perception here . It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in different lighting than it was taken. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 09:33:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 12:33:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 517 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 11:53:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 14:53:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:33:14PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote: : The 33rd day of the Omer is a minor holiday commemorating a break in : the plague. The common translation of askaria is some kind of lung disease. However, the only explanation of the gemara that predates the late acharonim is R' Achai Gaon's -- that the word is sicarii. Meaning, they were killed by Roman dagger- or shortsword-men. Tying the deaths of the omer to the Bar Kokhva rebellion. (The sicarii of the events of Tish'ah beAv were Jewish dagger bearers. Same word, different people.) If I may add, which emphasizes the connection to shelo nahagu kavod zeh lazeh. The galus was started by sin'as chinam; it couldn't be ended by people who still hadn't mastered showing another kavod. (A scary thought about our own hopes...) : This day is observed as a day of rejoicing because on this day, the : students of Rabbi Akiva did not die. Actually, it's not a day of mourning because they didn't die. It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. Or perhaps it's the day Rashbi left the cave the 2nd time, or.... For Litvaks, Yekkes, and other communities, Lag baOmer as a holiday is a new thing. Also, as per other iterations, Lag baOmer at Meron appears to have originally been Shemu'el haNavi's yahrzeit (Mag beOmer? Yom Y-m) at Nabi Samwel, and only moved when Arabs going to Nabi Samwel (from Tzefat) dangerous. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 12:42:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 15:42:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/05/17 11:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while > convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in > different lighting than it was taken. But isn't that explicitly taken care of by the instruction to the user to take the photo only in direct sunlight, and by the instruction to the rav to look at it only on a specific monitor at a specific brightness? However reliable or unreliable the technology is, at least *that* concern has been addressed, hasn't it? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 13:01:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 16:01:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> References: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/05/17 14:53, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined > communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- > find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) > writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then > a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping > the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. No typo is necessary. What could "yom simchas Rashbi" mean if not his yortzeit, which he explicitly instructed his talmidim to celebrate as if it were his yom hillula? That's where the whole concept of celebrating yortzeits rather than mourning on them comes from, as well as the concept of referring to them as "wedding days". > Also, as per other iterations, Lag baOmer at Meron appears to have > originally been Shemu'el haNavi's yahrzeit (Mag beOmer? Yom Y-m) at Nabi > Samwel, and only moved when Arabs going to Nabi Samwel (from Tzefat) > dangerous. This paragraph got garbled enough that if I didn't already know what you meant I could not have figured it out. But it's my understanding that it wasn't danger from Arab marauders that put an end to the pilgrimages to Shmuel Hanavi (from all over EY) but rather a government decree barring Jews from the site. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 14:49:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:49:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: References: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512214922.GB4067@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 04:01:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined :> communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- :> find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) :> writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then :> a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping :> the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. : No typo is necessary. It happened. Necessity isn't at issue. We know what the older version was, and there used to be a ches there. "Shemeis" is simply not what RCV wrote. : What could "yom simchas Rashbi" mean if not : his yortzeit, which he explicitly instructed his talmidim to : celebrate as if it were his yom hillula? Well, isb't that what I said in the last sentence quoted? But it's only the most likely (in my opinion) possibility, and not -- as you are taking for granterd -- the only one. To continue from where you chopped off that text: > Or perhaps it's the day Rashbi left the cave the 2nd time, or.... Simcha, in the sence that seeing the man carry two hadasim for besamim -- zekhor veshamor -- yasiv da'ataihu. His simchah learning with his son-in-law, R' Pinchas b Ya'ir. "Ashrekha shera'isi bekakh..." Shabbos 33b-34a give you plenty of reason to believe he was joyous, and wanted to share that joy with the qehillah. Or maybe R Aqiva started teaching his 5 new students in earnest the very day the massacre or plague stopped. And therefore Lag baOmer is the day Rashbi started learning qabbalah. Or maybe... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 18:04:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 11:04:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The rabbi is shocked He realises After pesach is concluded That one of the contracts he's supposed to sell to the G Was not sold to the G If ownership According to Halacha Is determined by believing one is in control And when that control Is lost There's YiUsh Then this Chamets Had no owner During Pesach This Chamets For all intents and purposes During Pesach Has no owner. And Chamets can be Muttar Even if owned by a Y If it's abandoned For the duration of Pesach That's the Halacha Re the Mapoles The shed collapse On a crate of whiskey It's buried under at least 3 Tefachim It's Muttar after Pesach And it seems Even without Bittul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 14:33:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:33:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512213304.GA4067@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 03:42:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 12/05/17 11:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while : >convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in : >different lighting than it was taken. : : But isn't that explicitly taken care of by the instruction to the : user to take the photo only in direct sunlight, and by the : instruction to the rav to look at it only on a specific monitor at a : specific brightness? ... My wife and I saw The Dress for the first time together, and reported different results. in that picture it is obvious it was taken on a sunny day. And we both saw it in the same lighting. So, I don't think it sufficiently takes care of the problem. Maybe if the distributed a color sheet that must be included in the picture in proximity to the kesem, and the rabbinic side of the software corrects the colors displayed based on knowing what the sheet should look like. If the woman prints the color chart herself, you widen the uncertainty. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 14:23:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 23:23:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I have also been in touch with them (the programmer and one of the rabbis). I haven't come to a final conclusion, but my impression so far is: (1) The people on this project are y'rei Shamayim who take what they are doing seriously and have worked very hard for a long time on developing something that will be reliable (2) It is definitely not as good as seeing a mareh in real life (3) It is not good enough for borderline or difficult-to-pasken cases, and when difficult marot are submitted the rabbis will tell them that they need to be evaluated in person (4) They have had quite good results testing this app with easier cases (and most marot that women ask about are easier cases), which is why they have the confidence to release it (5) There are clear instructions on photographing the mareh in sunlight (6) This is only available for iphone - and deliberately so. They have the camera and white balance technology to give a good enough image, and because everyone is using the same type of phone and operating system, there is more control. Developing an android version will be significantly more challenging. If asked, I think I would cautiously tell women that IF they have no way to get the mareh evaluated in person (they do not live near any qualified Rav or yoetzet, or they are traveling), and they have an iphone and carefully follow the instructions, this seems to be reliable. I have worked online with Rav Auman for a long time, and while I haven't actually met him in person, I do trust him to know what he is doing. I'm still checking into it. If any of you have iphones (like most Israelis, I have an android) and have installed the app, I would be very interested in hearing feedback. Thank you! Shavua tov, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 19:10:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 22:10:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Music on the night of Lag B'Omer Message-ID: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> It seems quite common that people have bonfires with music on the evening of Lag B'Omer. I haven't found a compelling reason for this custom - even those who are meikil like the Rama to lift the Aveilus on Lag B'Omer don't do so until the day, I thought, as miktzas hayom k'kulo. Does anyone have an explanation for this? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 21:20:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 00:20:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Music on the night of Lag B'Omer In-Reply-To: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> References: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <112dafa9-5b8f-9e78-8b3e-2c0fcd51e25b@sero.name> On 13/05/17 22:10, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > It seems quite common that people have bonfires with music on the > evening of Lag B?Omer. I haven?t found a compelling reason for this > custom ? even those who are meikil like the Rama to lift the Aveilus on > Lag B?Omer don?t do so until the day, I thought, as miktzas hayom > k?kulo. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Yes. If one is merely noting the end of aveilus, then it starts in the morning, tachanun (or Tzidkas'cha) is said at the previous mincha, and bichlal it's not a celebration, any more than one celebrates when getting up from shiva. I've never heard of people singing and dancing and playing music on such an occasion, even if it's permitted. But if one is celebrating Rashbi's yom hillula then it's a full holiday, an occasion for song and dance and music, and of course it starts at night, with no tachanun at the previous mincha. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 12:11:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:11:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin Message-ID: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 12:27:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:27:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin In-Reply-To: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> References: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170515192700.GA20468@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:11:29PM -0400, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? MB 40:3 says that's the universal minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 14:49:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 17:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped Tefillin Message-ID: <5F399CEB-B043-4AB8-A067-A8E1495829DF@cox.net> Saul Newman wrote: Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? To the best of my knowledge, YES. However, I also recall that one could give extra tzedaka in lieu of fasting. rw From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 16 19:26:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 22:26:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World" Message-ID: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> This Torah portion sets forth the blessings that are seen in this world in response to our deeds. It then continues with the Tochacha, words of admonition, "If you will not listen to Me and will not perform all of these commandments?" Interestingly, there are seven series of seven punishments each. God warns us throughout the portion that He will punish us in "seven ways for your seven sins. We are now counting seven days a week for seven weeks; the Torah has just recently given the laws for Shemita ? seventh year the land lies fallow and seven periods of seven years, we celebrate the Jubilee year. What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the diatonic scale, seven continents, etc. We wind the T'fillin straps around our forearm seven times. We sit shiva for seven days. At the wedding we chant 7 blessings (sheva b'rachos) and the wedding is followed by seven days of celebration. Even the Torah begins with seven -- the First verse has seven words also containing a total of twenty-eight letters which is seven times four. Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion. When we say "Baruch Hashem" we are praising God for something that is hopefully whole and complete. The acronym for Baruch Hashem (Beis, Hay) also equals 7. Finally, the patriarchs and matriarchs total seven: Avraham, Yitzchok, Ya?akov, Sarah, Rivka, Rochel, Leah. (Please don?t write me to say your phone number has seven digits or the rainbow has 7 colors or that there are seven letters in the Roman numeral system or that nitrogen has the atomic number of 7 or that there were 7 dwarfs with Snow White). :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 05:31:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 12:31:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality, Message-ID: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> See below concerning a frequently discussed issue: Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today, especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:30:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:30:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World" In-Reply-To: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> References: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170518143027.GB13698@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:26:19PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven : represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the : diatonic scale, seven continents... Although the diatonic scale and the division of the colors in the spectrum to fit the numbers 7 are human inventions. They say more about what 7 means to humans -- even without revalation -- than anything inherent. ... : Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion... As does the word. Without niqud, the letters /sb`/ could be read as "seven" or "satiated". (Or swear... go figure that out.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:18:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:18:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170518171844.GD26698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh : Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on : Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives : today, certainly not in any practical manner. A tighter comparison... The minhag as recorded in the SA clearly ran into Lag baOmer -- and ending mourning with the usual miqtzas hayom kekulo. Then the hilula deRashbi turned Lag baOmer into a holiday, and this new holiday overrode the older minhagim of aveilus. What's good for one new holiday ought to be good for another (YhA, where this conversation began), no? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:24:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:24:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:24:41PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was : enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*)... As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel YT") but it's "neir Chanukah". Their kids wouldn't forget. : everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get : enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel : dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... Fire hazard is safeiq piquach nefesh, and ein danin es ha'efshar mishe'i efshar. However, wouldn't the alternative been lighting in the dinig hall, near one's table? The point is to eat by neir shel YT, not to sleep by them! And in this case (combining the above with what RJR wrote), shouldn't they have provided incandescent lamps for each table? (Not that there were small bulbs of other sorts when we were growing up.) Wouldn't it be easier to justify making a berakhah on turning the light on than on lighting in a third room or a table off to the side of the dining room dozens of yards from where you are eating? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:35:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:35:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality, In-Reply-To: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170518143502.GC13698@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:31:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why : there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters : of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the : masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as : all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak : halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would : contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today, : especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.] Not sure what this means. There are halakhos about triage. About how much tzedaqah to give and how to prioritize them. There are a lot of halakhos about morality. I fail to see how this isn't circular. The open moral questions RYBS is referring to are those too situational for every possible situation to be addressed with its own pesaq. Ar the Ramban puts it on "ve'asisa hayashar vehatov". If "morality" is being used in a sense to limit it to those quetions that did not get halachic resolution, isn't he just saying the interpersonal questions that didn't get a pesaq didn't get a pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:46:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:46:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170518144626.GD13698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei : Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events : of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber). It seems (but is not muchrach) from the AhS 394:1-3 . As I wrote (in part) in 2010 . The AhS distinguishes between a global minhag from the Geonic period not to marry and a later minhag bemedinos ha'eilu. He attaches the minhag of 1-33 (and including miqtzas yayom kekulo) to when the talmidei R' Aqiva died (s' 4-5) and the minhag of the last days to "minhag shelanu" (s' 5), localizing the last days to the descendent of those who fled the Crusaders east. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:14:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 11:04:32AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : If ownership : According to Halacha : Is determined by believing one is in control : And when that control : Is lost : There's YiUsh : Then this Chamets : Had no owner : During Pesach But if this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as -- it would be open and shut. I think ba'alus (as opposed to ownership) is defined by having the legal responsibility for something, and only as a consequence about having control or a right to use it. Which would explain why qinyan, a mechanism for eatablishing shelichus or shibud, is more thought of as a means of establishing baalus. Because baalus is also primarily on the hischayvus side. And so, it has as a consequence actual legal right of control, rather than depending on belief that one is in control. Which is why a ganav needs yi'ush plus shinui. Yi'ush, loss of belief of having control, is NOT enough to end ba'alus. But that's ba'alus. We don't have ba'alus over chameitz on Pesach. For example, an avaryan who dies on Pesach while violating bal yeira'eh bal yeimatzeih (BYBY) does not leave that chameitz to his sons. BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs from choshein mishpat, and is not baalus. ... : And Chamets can be Muttar : Even if owned by a Y : If it's abandoned : For the duration of Pesach ... : And it seems : Even without Bittul. ... The mishnah on Pesachim 31b says that if it's buried so deep a dog cannot dig it up, it is a form of bi'ur. R' Chisda in the opening gemara says it needs bitul. But in any case, the question is whether this is destruction. The gemara likens it to bi'ur. Not about a loss of ownership. Which would create a whole different question, as Tosafos (Pesachim 4b "mideOraisa") understand relinquishing ownership to be the very definition of bitul. (The majority opinion -- Rashi "bibitul be'alma", Ritva, Ran, and the Rambam 2:2 -- say it's a form of bi'ur.) Rashi and the Ran say the need for bitul after a mapolah fell on one's chameitz is derabbnan, a gezeira in case it gets unburied. But while buried, it's kebi'ur. The Samaq (#98) says the need for bitul is de'oraisa. And the MA holds that the Semaq would require buried chameitz not was not batul to be dug up and burnt on Pesach. The Mekhilta (on Shemos 12:19, see #2 ) says that chameitz owned by a nakhri which is in a Jew's reshus or a Jew's chameitz are excluded from BYBY by the pasuq's extra word "beveteikhem". "Af al pi shehu birshuso". The Mekhilta is making a split between reshus and BYBY. And it could be we are discussing three different concepts of "ownership", with reshus and baalu being different from each other as well. There is also a whole sugya about buried issurei han'ah on Temurah 33b-34a (starting at the mishnah) that I would need to understand better with rishonim and posqim to really comment in full. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:38:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:38:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> References: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 18/05/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel > YT") but it's "neir Chanukah" In L's case, "neir shel shabbos kodesh", but "neir chanukah". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 13:53:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 21:53:30 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? Message-ID: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> A thought just struck me, and I wondered if this chimed with anybody. The Rambam says (Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 halacha 13): ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????. Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. The Tur says the same except that he has Torah shebichtav and Torah sheba'al peh around the other way (Tur Yoreh Deah Hilchot Talmud Torah siman 246): ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??"? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???"? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? The Sages said all who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking with Torah shebichtav but with Torah shebaal peh he should not teach her ab initio, but if he taught her it is not as though he taught her Tiflut The Beis Yosef says it is a scribal error in the Tur, and should be the same way as the Rambam, and that is how he has the statement in the Shulchan Aruch, and the Taz agrees, pointing to Hakel. The Prisha notes that the Beis Yosef says that it is a scribal error but adds: ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??"? In any event there is to give a small reason for this version in the books of the Tur, since with all of them it is written and published so, because there is a greater loss when Torah shebichtav is brought out as words of nonsense than with Torah shebal peh. However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil Siman 199, the Maharil writes: ?????? ????? ???"? ??????' ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?"? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ? - ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?????' ???? ???? ?? ??? ????' ?? ???????, ??? ??' ??"?? ?"?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????, ??"? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????, ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??'? ???? ???? ??????, ??? ??? ????? ????? ... ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???, ???? ?"? ????? ?????, And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut as it says in perek notlev and we learn it from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, when wisdom enters so does cunning since when wisdom enters the heart of a person there also enters into it cunning and according to the explanation of Rashi because of this she will do things privately, and if so we are concerned that she will come to damage since their knowledge is light and even though it is considered a mitzvah eit l?asot lashem so that one should not drown out the reward by loss and all the more so where there is not a mitzvah ... And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by way of tradition from outside, And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous generations: ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like it says ?ask your father and he shall tell you? and in this it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their upright fathers. But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in the form of the Mishna? That the Torah sheba'al peh was passed from father to son by oral transmission (albeit that at one point schools were instated for those lacking fathers who could teach them)? And on the other hand doesn't the Rosh (ie father of the Tur) famously say that today one fulfils the mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah by writing other seforim in Hilkhot Sefer Torah, chap. 1 as is brought by the Tur and Shulhan Arukh in Yoreh De'ah 270:2? So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al peh - as the vast majority of the details are sourced in Torah sheba'al peh, and if they were only to be taught what is in Torah shebichtav, they would all turn into Karaites! And indeed that women were, as the Chofetz Chaim suggests, taught in the home with the tradition handed over by their fathers in the same way as Torah sheba'al peh has always been learnt all the way back to Moshe Rabbanu. While if you understand Torah shebichtav as including mishna and gemora and rishonim, all so long as they have been written down, then one could indeed understand that as being a possible practical distinction - ie not to teach women to read and write and understand what is in the written seforim? Now perhaps one might say that if the Rambam had poskened like Rav Elazar in Gitten 60b as understood by Rashi, that Torahshebichtav is the majority and Torah sheba'al peh is the minority, because he includes in Torah shebichtav anything that is learnt out of the Torah by way of midrash or gezera shava etc, then it might be possible to understand that by and large women could both learn to do the mitzvot incumbent on them and simultaneously avoid Torah sheba'al peh, but he doesn't, as in his introduction the Mishna he categorises Torah Sheba'al peh into five categories, and is clearly in this poskening like Rav Yochanan. So how, according to the Rambam, did women know what to do if they were never taught Torah sheba'al peh, even ba'al peh, remembering that it is the Rema's addition to the Shulchan Aruch in the name of the Smag (actually Smak) via the Agur that adds in the halacha that women need to learn all the mitzvot that are relevant to them? Is not the Tur's version actually the one that makes more logical sense - especially if you explain Hakel as per the gemora in Chagiga that the women came to listen (ie hear it orally, without looking at the text)? Not that this would seem to explain Rabi Eliezer himself, as Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna in Sotah 21a - objected to women learning that sometimes drinking the Sotah water would not result in immediate death, and in the Yerushalmi, Sotah perek 3 daf 19 column 1 halacha 4 he objected to telling a woman why there are three different types of deaths listed vis a vis the chet haegel when there was only one sin - both of which pieces of learning were, at least in his day, definitely Torah sheba'al peh. So given that the Rambam poskened like Rabbi Eliezer, he would have needed, if a distinction was to be made, have to phrase it the way he did. But maybe what the Tur was saying is that, Rabbi Eliezer or no, the Rambam's solution is not workable, and given the way the gemora explains Rabbi Eliezer's limud from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, and that already in his day that kind of learning was found in Torah shebichtav, the whole thing can be made workable by turning it the other way around? Has anybody seen this suggested anywhere? Any thoughts? Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 15:56:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 08:56:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> References: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 19 May 2017 3:15 am, "Micha Berger" wrote: >: If ownership >: According to Halacha >: Is determined by believing one is in control >: And when that control >: Is lost >: There's YiUsh >: Then this Chamets >: Had no owner >: During Pesach > If this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as I don't understand. Please explain. One who is unaware of the loss of his wallet, believes he is still in control. We Pasken that he remains the owner. Famous story, woman lost her money at a trade fair, was found and taken to the Rov. Although there was no question that it was the money she had lost, there was no way to Pasken that it had to be returned to her. YiUsh. Until Reb Y ? explained that she was never the owner and her state of mind was not relevant. It was her husband's money and he, being unaware it was lost, still firmly believed he was in control. YSheLoMiDaAs suggesting that since he'd be in a different state of mind, if he knew the facts, in other words YSheLoMiDaAs, is still a Sevara that recognises and circulates around the principle that ownership depends upon ones state of mind. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 09:16:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 12:16:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts Message-ID: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Two Faces of Love Twice a day the Jew gives expression to one of the most potent forces in social life ? LOVE. In the morning we plead for ahavah rabbah, abundance of love, for in the morning we want love to expand and grow throughout the day. In the evening, however, when darkness descends upon us, we pray again for love, but not in quantitative terms. Instead we plead for ahavat olam ? enduring and eternal love. In the dark night love does not grow; it deepens. Two Philosophies of LIfe Sarah advised her husband to cast out Ishmael, when she saw he was ?Miitzachaik? and she feared he would be an evil influence on his brother ?Yitzchok.? Interestingly, both ?Miitzachaik? and ?Yitzchok? have a common root, meaning to laugh or to play. What is the disparity? The difference is compelling: ?Mitzachaik? is in the present tense and ?Yitzchok? is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael?s philosophy of life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future. Conversely, she saw that Yitzchok?s philosophy of life was to live life spiritually, delaying immediate gratification and living his life in a way that would provide genuine happiness and enjoyment in the future. The future depends on what we do in the present. Mahatma Gandhi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 11:14:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 14:14:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes Message-ID: <20170519181429.GA31873@aishdas.org> >From this week's emailing from The Halachah Center / Beis haVaad leInyanei Mishpat . There are a number of halachic discussions about e-cig use -- whether kashrus concerns apply, health issues, but then they close with this interesting (to me) more aggadic point. Note found interesting was that R' Yosef Greenwald assumes that venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem isn't about preserving life, but preserving one's ability to pull the ol mitzvos. (That sounds weird, but an animal "pulls a yoke", no?) Which includes preserving life. And thus includes intoxication and other mind- or mood-altering chemicals that could hamper one's ability to function. I could have seen argiong for each as separate values, but... Holy Smokes! A Halachic Discussion Regarding E-Cigarettes Are e-cigarettes problematic from a halachic standpoint? By: Rav Yosef Greenwald ... The Health Concerns of E-cigarettes ... 1. Are E-Cigarettes Any Better than Cigarettes? ... 2. Derech Eretz and a Life of Meaning Let us conclude with one more point about the general imperative to protect our health and its relevance to this case. Although as mentioned there is an injunction to safeguard our health based on v'nishmartem, we also have an assurance of shomer pesaim Hashem, that Hashem will protect those who engage in normal activities, as Rav Moshe explained, which is based on the Gemara (Yevamos 12b and elsewhere).[10] Consequently, eating greasy french fries, doughnuts, and the like, may not be the healthiest thing to do. However, doing so would not violate a halachic prohibition, as eating these foods is considered in the realm of normal behavior (like smoking used to be), and we can apply shomer pesa'im Hashem. There have recently been some questions asked about the kashrus on medical marijuana, due to the possibility that the recreational use of marijuana may be normalized soon. However, before discussing the kashrus questions, one must ask whether it is acceptable to consume marijuana. It would seem to be in the same category as significant alcohol consumption. Leaving aside any possible physical damage caused from overdosing, there is no specific halacha that forbids one from getting drunk, aside from being careful not to miss the proper time for Tefilla, and not issuing halachic rulings while in an inebriated state.[11] Nevertheless, it should be obvious that this is wrong, based on what could be called the "fifth section of the Shulchan Aruch," using common sense in living one's life. Clearly, Hashem does not want a person to waste away their life in a state in which one cannot serve Hashem properly. Rather, one should live life as an intelligent, sober person. One who overdoses on alcohol, or engages in mind-altering or mood- altering by ingesting marijuana, is taking away the ability to function as a normal person. This falls under the category of derech eretz, proper conduct, which precedes the observance of halacha. In other words, even if one does not directly violate the Shulchan Aruch, one must live in a manner in which the Torah and halacha can be fulfilled. To return to e-cigarettes, this notion of living healthy is an important reason why, even if it is concluded that they are 100% kosher even without certification, a non-smoker should not start using such a product. In the merit of being able to curb one's physical temptations, hopefully we as a people can merit to reaching great spiritual heights, and achieve the closeness to Hashem that He, and we, so desire. ... [11] Both of these issues are discussed in the Gemara (Eiruvin 64a) and are cited in the Shulchan Aruch. ... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 12:08:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:08:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Does Orthodox Commitment Provide What is Needed for Good Character? Message-ID: <20170519190815.GA24683@aishdas.org> From http://jewishethicalwisdom.com/does-orthodox-commitment-provide-what-is-needed-for-good-character Critical reading for anyone interested in what AishDas stands for. Jewish Ethical Wisdom Blog Does Orthodox Commitment Provide What is Needed for Good Character? Posted on April 6, 2017 Posted By: Anthony Knopf Does Orthodox commitment provide what is needed for good character? Not yet, I answer in this article. ... Rashei peraqim: Introduction Feeling and Thinking Ethically - Not Always a Matter of Halakha Exclusive Focus on Halakha Distracts from and Attenuates Moral Sensitivity More is Required :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 12:19:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:19:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts In-Reply-To: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> References: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170519191925.GA30260@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:16:28PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The difference is compelling: "Mitzachaik" is in the present tense and : "Yitzchok" is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael's philosophy of : life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as : much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future. However, "Yishmael", the name, is also in future tense, and later in his life, "Yitzchaq metzacheiq es Rivqah ishto" (26:8) -- in the present tense. And while "Yishmael's" name is about listening, not tzechoq, is not listening MORE fundamental to a healthy relationship? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 02:14:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 19:14:00 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah at the Age of 12 Message-ID: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> My maternal grandfather, who lived in Lithuania until his late teens, told me on a number of occasions that he celebrated his bar mitzvah when he was 12 years old, as his father had died and he was considered to be an orphan. Some years ago I recalled this and decided to learn more about the custom, but each of the rabbis I asked had never heard of it. Recently, however, I was re-reading A Tzadik in Our Time: The Life of Reb Aryeh Levin and, at page 95, he recounts that he attended a bar mitzvah of an orphan in Jerusalem on his 12th birthday. Does anyone know anything of this custom? David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 13:39:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:39:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs > from choshein mishpat, and is not baalus. We can see a connection between BYBY and "responsibility" by the situation of a shomer. Even in a situation where a shomer is absolutely not the owner or baal in any sense of the term, he will still violate BYBY if he is responsible for the chometz that he is watching. (I don't know which side of the discussion this supports, but it seems very relevant to *some* side, so I figured I'd mention it.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 19:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'midbar Message-ID: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> Israel?s brithplace was b?midbar ? in the wilderness. It has been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced the monotheistic faith. Man is always in need of fulfillment and his promised land is far away. He is always on the road to the actualization of his dreams, seeking better things and yearning for a fuller, fulfilling life. The wilderness is the symbol of man searching for his destination. It is told that a Chassidic Rebbe, impatient at the sad, mad state of the world (sound familiar?) and overcome with longing for the happiness of mankind, prayed to God: ?If Thou cannot redeem Thy people Israel, then at least redeem mankind!? May we reach the promised land in our lifetime! rw ?Ay me! sad hours seem long.? William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 19:00:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:00:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "Krias Moshe Leynen"? Message-ID: <7c27ddbf-5df2-526c-c8bd-dbfd5a94b96e@sero.name> Has anyone heard of such a thing? I came across it in a Munkatcher publication. If it were buried in a block of text I'd take it for a typo for "Krias Sh'ma Leynen", referring to the children who come on the vach nacht to say Krias Sh'ma for the baby. But it's in a prominent position where I think surely someone would have noticed such a blatant typo and corrected it before it went to print, so my current working theory is that it's some minhag that neither I nor anyone I've asked so far have heard of. So I'm throwing it to the wider Avodah community; does anyone know what this is? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 23:08:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 02:08:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah at the Age of 12 In-Reply-To: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> References: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 20/05/17 05:14, David Havin via Avodah wrote: > My maternal grandfather, who lived in Lithuania until his late teens, > told me on a number of occasions that he celebrated his bar mitzvah when > he was 12 years old, as his father had died and he was considered to be > an orphan. > > Some years ago I recalled this and decided to learn more about the > custom, but each of the rabbis I asked had never heard of it. Recently, > however, I was re-reading A Tzadik in Our Time: The Life of Reb Aryeh > Levin and, at page 95, he recounts that he attended a bar mitzvah of an > orphan in Jerusalem on his 12^th birthday. > > Does anyone know anything of this custom? There is, of course, no such custom of becoming a bar mitzvah early. But it was a common custom that a child with no father would begin putting on tefillin a full year before his bar mitzvah, rather than a few weeks or months as is the usual custom. See Aruch Hashulchan 37:4, who says this is "murgal befi hahamon", but he knows of no reason for it, and disapproves of it. See: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=374&pgnum=295 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 14:40:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 17:40:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts In-Reply-To: References: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Message-ID: <2B3DC5BF-D4C8-4C0D-A9B0-01AE8A89E41E@cox.net> > "Yishmael", the name, is also in future tense ...which means "he WILL hear or listen" which fits in with his personality and character. Presently he doesn't listen and does what he pleases. When he gets old, he will then listen. > And while "Yishmael's" name is about listening, not tzechoq, is not > listening MORE fundamental to a healthy relationship? A healthy relationship is fundamental with many elements: one of which is certainly listening NOW, not in the future. Can you imagine telling your child to do something and he says I'll do it in the future. He isn't even listening because as you point out "He WILL listen -- a lot of good that does for the present. And psychologists will tell you that a healthy relationship must have laughter and humor which can only increase the health of a relationship. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 22 07:47:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 10:47:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag Baomer in pre WWII Mir Yeshiva in Europe In-Reply-To: <1494871334409.64146@stevens.edu> References: <1494871334409.64146@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170522144737.GB29499@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:02:36PM +0000, Prof Yitzchak Levine posted on Areivim: : Please see http://mrlitvak.blogspot.com/ I can understand a desire to reaffirm the authentic Litvisher derkeh. But meanwhile, we have more learning than at any time in Litta's history, and kids are still uninspiring and fleeing in horrendous numbers. How often do people mention the RBSO? How much do we discuss or base decisions on the kelalim gedolim baTorah (cf RBW's recent review of RJB's The Great Principle of the Torah -- ve'ahvta lerei'akha kamokha, de'alakh sani, eileh toledos ha'adam, shema Yisrael, tzadiq be'emunaso yichyeh, etc...)? So, Lag baOmer may not be more than cheap sentimentality. But even if I were to agree this was true, I would still argue that we are in desperate need of sentimentality -- and will settle for the cheap kind rather than letting the pursuit of perfection become excuses for less emotional expression. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 10:54:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:54:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? Message-ID: We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that are on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv is al pi din. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 12:38:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:38:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Added textual mar'eh meqomos alongside the links. -micha] On 23/05/17 13:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would > like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. > Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that > are on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv > is al pi din. These would seem to be dispositive: [Rambam, Hilkhos Shekheinim 10:11:] http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/c310.htm#11 [SA CM 155:26:] https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9F_%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9A_%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9F_%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98_%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%9B%D7%95 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 13:35:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 16:35:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170523203556.GC10104@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 08:54:41PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would : like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. : Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that are : on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv is al pi : din. Related question, really came up last week. Someone had a tree that neighbors were complaining about, that it looked like it was dying and might fall on the neighbor's roof. On a windy day recently it actually snapped -- but not falling on the roof, instead the tree brought down the power lines. A number of people on the block lost food before power was restored and other expenses were incurred. Is the owner of the tree liable al pi din? What if the neighbor hadn't warned him, so that we cannot know if the owner was aware of an issue or not? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 42nd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliability crucial for universal brotherhood? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 13:37:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:37:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'Note found interesting was that R' Yosef Greenwald assumes that venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem isn't about preserving life, but preserving one's ability to pull the ol mitzvos. (That sounds weird, but an animal "pulls a yoke", no?) Which includes preserving life. And thus includes intoxication and other mind- or mood-altering chemicals that could hamper one's ability to function.' The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it either as far as I recall. So that leaves us fairly free to guess what it means, I suppose. I'd assumed it means preserving health, inasmuch as nefesh usually refers to life force, and we wouldn't need it to refer to preserving life itself, since that's covered by a) prohibition of suicide and b) al taamod al dam reyecha. And preserving health would presumably be in order to keep mitzvos the better, no? And I think an animal bears a yoke and pulls a plough. Lashon Hakodesh is always 'nosei ol'. Which corresponds better to bear than pull. So we carry/bear the ol mitzvos I think. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 14:25:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 07:25:01 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away - Mashkon Pikadon Message-ID: In Siman 440 chametz foods owned by a G in the care of a Yid (a ?shomer? / guardian) Siman 441 chametz foods owned by a G left in the care of a Yid as a ?mashkon? (lit. collateral) for guarantee of a loan from the Yid Pesachim 5b Two pesukim Shmos 13:7 ?Chametz shall not be seen to you and leaven shall not be seen to you in all your borders.? You may not see your own (i.e. keep in your possession), but you may see that of others (i.e. non-Jews)? Shmos 12:19 ?For a seven-day period leaven shall not be found in your homes.? a Yid may not accept Chamets deposits from non-Jews.? there appears to be an inconsistency Gemara Pesachim 5b If a Yid may see Chamets of non-Jews why does the Beraisa prohibit the chametz deposit of a non-Jew? It depends upon whether the Y has (monetary) responsibility for the Chametz, When a Y accepts monetary responsibility for the chametz he is considered to be owner to the extent that he is Over BYBY Mishnah Berura discusses whether the Y can sell the ?pikadon?. concludes yes If the Y has no monetary responsibility (i.e. for loss, theft or negligence) it may be kept in his house during Pesach but to ensure it is not mistakenly eaten must close it in a room The ?shomer? who assumes monetary liability becomes a part-owner therefore, a Jew's chametz with a non-Jewish ?shomer? does not absolve the Y he is Over BYBY A visiting non-Jew who brings his own chametz into the home of a Jew need not ask the non-Jew to remove the chametz and may even invite him into his home and eat the chametz right at his table provided the Y does not eat together with the G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 13:42:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:42:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim Message-ID: > > > > I am not expressing an opinion here on the permissibility of maharats, or > of women's ordination. I merely wish to express my respect for those on > both sides of this important question, and my hope that the dispute will > remain on the level of a machloket l'shem shamayim and that ultimately all > of us will benefit from this challenging and passionate conversation. > > ---------------------- Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilana. I have found that discussions about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven ... and of not having a recognized posek to support their halachic position. The discussions rarely focus on the relevant halachic issues. It's nice to hear someone who is willing to respect the other side...and recognize that the discussion is a machlokes l'sheim shamayim. -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 17:37:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 20:37:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170525003710.GA22308@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:42pm EDT, R Michael Feldstein wrote: : Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilana. I have found that discussions : about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because : those who support : shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven ... and : of not having : a recognized posek to support their halachic position. The discussions : rarely focus on : the relevant halachic issues. A discussion on Avodah can focus exclusively on the relevant halachic issues. A decision of what to do in practice has to include deferring to the position that actually is backed by recognized posqim. And one side's unwillingness to ask the question on this level itself becomes a relevant halachic issue. However, the following is true anyway: : It's nice to hear someone who is willing to respect the other side...and : recognize that : the discussion is a machlokes l'sheim shamayim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 20:03:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 05:03:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly accused of being agenda driven. Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. Ben On 5/24/2017 10:42 PM, Michael Feldstein via Areivim wrote: > I have found that discussions > about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support > shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 04:57:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 11:57:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> On 5/24/2017 10:42 PM, Michael Feldstein via Areivim wrote: > I have found that discussions > about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support > shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven _______________________________________________ Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:28:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:28:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? Message-ID: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:30:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:30:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shoftim-Mesorah Chain Message-ID: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&st=&pgnum=484 Fascinating article on the mesorah chain-were the shoftim really part of it ?(doesn't deal with broader question of why we don't see Sanhedrin in Nach). KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:46:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 10:46:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shoftim-Mesorah Chain In-Reply-To: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170525144620.GA16912@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:30:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&st=&pgnum=484 : Fascinating article on the mesorah chain-were the shoftim really part of it ?(doesn't deal with broader question of why we don't see Sanhedrin in Nach). Is this the right link? The article appears to be about the revalation of Tanakh "Dargot haNevu'ah baTorah, Nevi'im uKhtuvim", starting with Devarim vs the other 4 chumashim, then Navi vs Kesuvim. By R Moshe Menachem haKohein Shapira. I think you mean an earlier article, MEsoret haTSBP beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah Neustadt. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252pgnum=474 Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:26:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:26:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minhagei Nashim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526012654.GA29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 06:51:56AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I am NOT talking about a machlokes haposkim, where the wife was taught one : thing and the husband was taught something else. In that case, there is : much common ground, and they (or their rav) can go to the sources to figure : out what the couple should do. I'm talking about a much more fundamental : problem, where generations have passed on different traditions, without : anyone ever realizing that there was a mismatch. Is this really a problem? I highly recommend learning AhS. One of the things you get to watch is how much this conflict drives the dialectic of halakhah. Unlike the clean-room approach to halachic theory one gets from lomdus. You get a sense of how much acceptance of a practice in the field drives how much willingness to accept or draft a dachuq theory to explain how it could be justified in theory. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:43:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:43:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'midbar In-Reply-To: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> References: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170526014307.GC29809@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:37:34PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has : been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced : the monotheistic faith... But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged during the Exodus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:39:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526013946.GB29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, : and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying : observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes : when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ... : [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is : outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be : factionalized like that. .... : help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, : despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it : is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to : the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply : to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. : I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 : consistent with 493:8? Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag, as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin on ch"m either. It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the local court(s) or inherited. Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag side of the AhS's chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 20:53:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 23:53:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes Message-ID: R' Ben Bradley wrote: > The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is > that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui > which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in > fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha > nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it > either as far as I recall. This surprised me so much that I looked it up. Here's what I found: These words are from Devarim 4:15. The only comment of the Torah Temimah is: "This is brought and explained above, in the pasuk Ushmor Nafsh'cha (#9)." So I look at Devarim 4:9, and the Torah Temimah quotes a lengthy story from Brachos 32b, which references both pesukim (4:9 and 4:15). The comments of the Torah Temimah that I found particularly relevant to RBB's comment are found in the second and third paragraphs in Torah Temimah #16, and I will quote them here: > The Maharsha writes here, "This pasuk is about forgetting > the Torah, and these pesukim have nothing at all to do with > a person protecting his own nefesh from danger." According > to him, the tzadik of that story said what he said to the > government official merely to get out of the situation, > because the pasuk is really not about Shmiras Haguf. Further, > the fact that it is a common saying, for people to quote the > pasuk V'nishmartem Me'od L'nafshoseichem for any physical > danger - according to the Maharsha that's a mistake. > > But isn't it the explicit opinion of the Rambam, who wrote > in Rotzeach 11:4, "It is a Mitzvas Aseh to remove any > michshol which could be a Sakanas Nefashos, and to be very > very careful about it, as it is said, 'Hishamer L'cha, > Ushmor Nafsh'cha Me'od.'" So it is explicit that the language > of these pesukim *is* about protecting one's body. At first glance, this seems to go against what RBB wrote. BUT: Even according to the Rambam as cited by the Torah Temimah, it seems to me that the most one can say is that Ushmor Nafsh'cha (Devarim 4:9) talks about physical danger; we don't necessarily know that about V'nishmartem (Devarim 4:15), and it is not clear to me why the Torah Temimah closes that paragraph referring to "THESE pesukim" (hapesukim ha-ayleh). Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 03:18:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 13:18:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Bmidbar Message-ID: Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has : been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced : the monotheistic faith... But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged during the Exodus >> However, the avot were shepherds and it has been suggested that being alone with the flock and nature helped them perceive monotheism. BTW I am now reading The exodus you almost passed over by Rabbi Fohrman who demonstrates that the debate between Moshe and Pharoh and the 10 plagues all revolve about monotheism versus polytheism -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:39:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526013946.GB29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, : and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying : observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes : when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ... : [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is : outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be : factionalized like that. .... : help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, : despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it : is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to : the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply : to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. : I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 : consistent with 493:8? Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag, as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin on ch"m either. It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the local court(s) or inherited. Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag side of the AhS's chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 19:22:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 22:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government Message-ID: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> There is a popular theory that the positive description of the gov't found repeatedly found in the AhS is self-censorship and an attempt to make sure his works make it through the government censorship and approval process. But there are times he goes far beyond this, complimenting them in ways no censor would have expected, never mind demanded. For example EhE 42:51, the discussion of marrying in front of witnesses \who are pesulei eidus deOraisa -- eg converts away from Judaism. Rashi has a case of an anoos who got married with other anoosim, and they all returned. Rashi ruled that she needs a gett, because maybe they had hirhurei teshuvah and at that moment were valid eidim. Then he adds Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed. They would never force someone to convert. Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah, we don't have to be chosheish for it. So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus? In terms of timing, the first booklets of EhE started coming out in 1905. (After YD, which came out 1897-1905.) He stopped sometime during or before 1908, his petirah; but he could have written this well before 1905 -- I only know the publishing date. 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other things. Which then led to a new Russioan Constitution, a multi-party system, the Imperial Duma... and 11 years later, the Soviets. So, it's hard to believe he meant it, but it's hard to believe he would risk empty flattery with those stakes! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 04:50:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 07:50:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> On 25/05/17 22:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Then he adds > Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu > shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed. > They would never force someone to convert. He goes on far longer than that. So long that no reader could possibly miss his meaning. > Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he > continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's > converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah, > we don't have to be chosheish for it. > > So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he > suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO > obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up > to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus? This was a period when some publishers of siddurim felt it necessary to print "avinu malkeinu ein lanu melech bashamayim ela ata". He may very well have feared that including a practical psak about anoosim would arouse the censor's ire, especially since the censors were themselves mostly meshumodim. > 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which > was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other > things. Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would have been obvious to him too. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 07:57:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other :> things. : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would : have been obvious to him too. I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation audience. Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his contemporary readers. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 08:33:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 11:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2dc5d4d3-0686-0f3a-9692-24d0aa39595b@sero.name> On 26/05/17 10:57, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which > :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other > :> things. > > : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see > : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which > : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would > : have been obvious to him too. > > I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in > his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation > audience. candlesticks? I think you meant gelecther. But there's no false psak, just a false description of the metzius, which is so over the top that nobody could miss it. > Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining > qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting > them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his > contemporary readers. How could he possibly know what future conditions might be? Any reference in any sefer to "our times" has to be understood as about the author's times, not the reader's. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 07:53:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:53:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly : accused of being agenda driven. : : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response. Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality. Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a non-halachic agenda by making it look holy. (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:57:32AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post : modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all : agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid) But there are limits to eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. When in a halachic debate, one should be limiting oneself to the various answers that are objectively right. Thus presuming there is an objectively right, while still not being absolutist about it. And if we assimilated too much postmodernism to be able to see where eilu va'eilu ends (tapers off), we should be leaning on posqim who can. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 09:54:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 12:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Tvunah] St. Petersberg White Night Zmanim Message-ID: <20170526165420.GA22041@aishdas.org> >From the web site of R' Asher Weiss's pesaqim . I was told that they had a similar problem in the summer in Telzh. Motza"sh was havdalah, melaveh malkah, night seder, shacharis kevasikin, sleep. Tvunah in English Beit Midrash for Birurei Halachah Binyan Zion Under the Leadership of Maran HaRav Asher Weiss Shlita White Night Zmanim Questions: 1. During White Nights here in St. Petersburg we end Shabbat at midnight (2:00). This is also the time of alot ashahar. Accordingly, there is no opportunity to say a blessing on the candle and eat Seudat melawe malka. Question: Is it possible to rely on the opinion of rabbi Ovadiya Yoseph that alot ashahar is 72 dakot zmaniet before dawn, and accordingly there is a certain night after Chatzot for Bracha on the candle and melawe malka? 2. Can we finish fasts of 17 of Tamuz and the 9th of Av after tzet kahovim according Gaon (0:03 and 23:03)? Answers: 1. Since it is already the beginning of the light of the new day and hence Alot Hashachar, the bracha on the candle for havdala should not be said. However since it is still a few hours before Netz Hachama [sunrise] one could be lenient to eat Melave Malka. In fact, with regards to Melave Malka one could be lenient and eat before Chatzos, as long as 72 minutes have passed since shkiya [even though with regards to Melacha one should be machmir until Chatzos]. 2. With regards to ending Rabbinic Fasts, one could rely on the zman of Tzais Hakochavim according to Rabeinu Tam [according to the Pri Megadim that it is a set time in all places], waiting 72 minutes after shkiya. [Hebrew meqoros ubi'urim elided.] :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 45th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Malchus: What is the beauty of Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity (on all levels of relationship)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 27 12:11:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 22:11:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> On 5/26/2017 5:53 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly > : accused of being agenda driven. > : > : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. > > I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat > believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their > halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response. > > Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda > to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have > a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality. People keep using that word, "feminist". I don't think that's what feminism means. This is egalitarianism, which may overlap with feminism in some areas, but is a different ideology. And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to reality. That would imply that halakha comes first and responds to reality. I think that in the vast majority of cases, and if you want, I'll give you ample examples from the writings of JOFA/YCT people, it is a sense that egalitarianism is a moral imperative. That the egalitarian worldview is quite simply the *only* moral worldview, and that to the extent that halakha comforms to that worldview, it is a moral system, and to the extent that it does not, it is not. > Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means > of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a > non-halachic agenda by making it look holy. It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality that predates this entire debate. When the egalitarians want to try and read their ideology back into Jewish history, they often do so with things like Rashi's daughters laying tefillin, a fiction which is accepted as fact by Conservative and Reform Jews, but has absolutely no historical basis. There is a legitimate argument to be made that those on the side of tradition are afraid of change. But not that they are *only* afraid of change. Casual change of halakhic norms has caused enormous damage in recent history, and wariness or even fear of such things is both rational and reasonable. Again, there may even be something admirable about trying to equalize the two sides the way you're doing here, but it doesn't match the reality. One has only to listen to the types of arguments that are used by the two sides to see that they are operating on the basis of vastly different paradigms, where one *starts* with the Torah and one *starts* with egalitarianism. > (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about > fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" > a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos > that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, > etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or > resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and > general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha. The words of the Ramchal and Rabbenu Bachya are not as rigorously chosen as those in the halakhic areas of the Torah, and are far more easily "adapted" to foreign ideologies. I don't say that they are unimportant, but let's not let the tail wag the dog here. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 27 20:44:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 23:44:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: To quickly review an old question: If Rus and Orpah converted at the *beginning* of the story, then how could Naami send Orpah back to her people? But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews? Some answer this question suggesting that there was a sort of "conditional" conversion at the beginning, and while Rus later affirmed her conversion to be sincere, it was revealed that Orpah's was never valid to begin with. I have never understood this answer, because of the ten years that elapsed from the supposed conversion until it was retroactively nullified. (By analogy, suppose (chalila) that Jared and Ivanka would split up, and Ivanka would claim that she was only putting on a show all along. Who would believe her? Those who currently accept her geirus as valid, would anyone accept such a bitul of it?) Today I came across a different approach to the question. Like any other area of halacha, hilchos geirus has its share of halachic disputes. For example, which parts of the process require a beis din; perhaps a beis din is needed only l'chatchila, or is it me'akev? Or: If the conversion candidate admits that he/she has mixed motivations (such as being interested in a Jewish spouse, but also sincerely l'shem Shamayim), is this acceptable or is it posul even b'dieved? Pick either of those questions, or make up another one of your own. Let's say that both Orpah and Rus converted at the beginning of the story. Let's also say that everyone was up-front and sincere about whatever they claimed their motivations to be, such that no one was surprised ten years later. In other words, there was no disagreement about the facts of the situation. But there WAS a machlokes among the poskim of the time, about the halacha to apply to that situation. Machlon, Kilyon, Rus and Boaz all held like the poskim who said that the conversion was a valid one, at least b'dieved. But Naami held like the poskim who ruled it to be invalid, even b'dieved. Thus, Machlon and Kilyon were able to marry these women in good conscience. For ten years Naami held Orpah and Rus to be non-Jewish, but there wasn't much she could do about it, because their husbands held that they *were* Jewish. When the husbands died, Naami finally had the opportunity to express the view of her poskim. Orpah accepted Naami's advice (for whatever reason), but Rus was committed to continuing her new religion (for whatever reason). At this point, perhaps Rus had a second geirus to keep her mother-in-law happy, or maybe not. Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to speak of. A possible hole in my suggestion appears in pasuk 2:20, where Naami explicitly admits that Boaz is one of "OUR" relatives, and one of "OUR" redeemers. This would not make sense if Naami rejected the validity of the original conversion. However, this occurs AFTER pasuk 2:11, in which Boaz tells Rus (I am paraphrasing): "I know your whole story. Don't worry. I hold your geirus to be valid, and I hold you you be a relative." In the final analysis, Naami goes along. Maybe she decides to accept Boaz's shitah l'halacha, or maybe she merely goes along as a practical matter, given the fait accompli that both Boaz and Rus hold that way. Have I left any loose ends here? Previous approaches have focused on uncertainties of intention. This approach says that everything that happened in Moav was clear, and the only gray part was a machlokes haposkim, but we know which shitah was followed by each character of the story. I invite all comments. advTHANKSance Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 09:16:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 12:16:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0789e301-2374-0dd3-0f9e-8befc1c1052c@sero.name> On 27/05/17 23:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was > valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to > speak of. There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. What is the point of this mitzvah? It's to pay off his obligations and redeem his good name; Ruth -- whether Jewish or not -- was also his obligation, and had to be redeemed. Thus Boaz need not have believed that the initial conversion -- if there was one -- had been valid. But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:51:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:51:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Rut converted when Naomi tried to send her back, while Oprah chose not to convert. Ben On 5/28/2017 5:44 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without > Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 10:50:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 17:50:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> >From last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should always follow the local custom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:16:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:16:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mezonos After Kiddush Message-ID: <1495995457275.89387@stevens.edu> >From Friday's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. Must Kiddush be followed by a meal with bread, or is it sufficient to make Kiddush and then eat mezonos? A. There is a halacha that Kiddush may only be recited at the place of one's meal. This requirement is known as Kiddush b'makom se'udah (Pesachim 101a). If one does not eat a se'udah after Kiddush or recites Kiddush in a location other than where he eats the meal, he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of Kiddush and must make Kiddush again when and where he eats. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch (OC 273:5) quote the Ge'onim who hold that one can fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush without actually eating a full meal at the time and place that he makes Kiddush. Rather, a person can consume a mere ke'zayis of bread or even drink an additional revi'is of wine as his Kiddush-time "meal" to fulfill the requirement of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. The Magen Avraham (273:11) and Aruch Ha-Shulchan (273:8) explain that, according to the Ge'onim, one can eat Mezonos food (e.g. cookies, pastry, or cake), after Kiddush to satisfy the rule of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. This view has become widely accepted, and many poskim permit partaking of Mezonos foods after Kiddush but ideally advise against satisfying the mitzvah by merely drinking an additional revi'is of wine (see MB 273:25). Some halachic authorities, including the Chasam Sofer, as quoted by Rav Moshe Shternbuch, shlita (Teshuvos V'Hanhogos 5:80), have ruled that if one makes Kiddush and then eats Mezonos foods, he must make Kiddush again later at his actual se'udah. This was also the opinion of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l. In the next Halacha Yomis we will discuss whether cheesecake is a proper pastry for one to fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. For more on this topic please read Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer's excellent article "Eating Dairy on Shavuos" featured in the 5777 - 2017 Shavuos Consumer Daf HaKashrus. After eating pungent, strong-tasting cheese one should wait before eating meat, the same amount of time that one waits between meat and milk, regardless of the cheese's age. The following chart shows which cheeses require waiting: Aged Cheese List - Kosher -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:59:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:59:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros Message-ID: <1495998054786.63765@stevens.edu> I received the following response to my earlier email about this topic Sadly, you will always find 1 or 2 people in every shul who "sit" while the entire tzibbur stands. This strikes me as downright arrogant, and IMHO is done more to make a "statement" than to follow a minhag that might be prevalent in some communities. C'mon; if 100 or 200 people are standing, should someone stick out and sit because that's the way he was taught.....? To this I replied Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. And in light of this, may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed. I bet this never occurred to you. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:15:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:15:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> References: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> Message-ID: Some people look at this as purely a matter of minhag, and so criticize those who do not follow the local minhag, calling them arrogant. Well, the Rambam thought this was an issue of an incorrect hashqafa, and worth ignoring any minhag started in ignorance. Part of the problem with modern Jews is that everything to them is an issue of minhag. They do not understand that sometimes there are really important hashqafa issues from teh Torah involved. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels at ou.org ________________________________ From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 1:50 PM To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? >From last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should always follow the local custom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:34:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:34:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to : reality... It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem. ... : It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as : being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality : that predates this entire debate... True, as I wrote : >(My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about : >fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" : >a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos : >that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, : >etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or : >resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and : >general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) >From this perspective, those who are in favor of change are advocating a definition of Torah that includes only black-letter law. ... : It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of : Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha... Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that halakhah must conform to and the law itself. Not "primacy over halakhah", but a voice in resolving between two positions when black-letter law could be drafted to support either. It may only get a quieter voice, it still must have its say. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:16:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 16:16:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the rituals above the menshlichkeit. There's a story I've heard many times. This version comes from Rav Frand at https://torah.org/torah-portion/ravfrand-5755-naso/ > At the eulogy of R. Yaakov Kaminetzsky, zt"l, one speaker > related the following: There was a nun in Monsey, New York > who complained about the way the Jewish population related > to her: Everyone used to walk right past her... The "correct" > people ignored her, and the "super correct" people spat. This > nun then related that there was, however, one old Jew with a > white beard that used to say "Good Morning" every single day. > (That Jew was R. Yaakov.) That?s Kiddush Hashem and "looking > the other way" is Chillul Hashem. Such stories are NOT hard to find. The "frum" newspapers and magazines and parsha sheets are full of them. I don't know why so few people greeted that nun pleasantly. I hope that it changed when that story started to get around. If I write any more, I'll get even more depressed than currently. Suffice it so say that the only reason I'm posting this at all, is to clarify the point that I think RMB was trying to make, and to agree with it. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:52:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:52:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as kedoshim tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in the sense of being like aggadeta. Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos would be incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give the value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan pesukim and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos. Most often that's implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the gemara of value based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the expense of what looks otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular dracheha darchei noam is cited. I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic. Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not operate in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how the value system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We ignore meta-halachic pesukim at our peril. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:18:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:18:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Ben Waxman wrote: > I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their > very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, pages 48-52. R' Zev Sero wrote: > There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the > mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. > But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than > being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why > put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether > it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only > applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk > literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging > such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves. Good question, especially since my post explicitly allowed for "an unknown machlokes". The problem is that the machlokes would have to be one where Machlon, Kilyon, Ruth, and Boaz all held that Ruth's marriage was valid, with only Naami holding it to be not valid. My understanding is that Avoda Zara 36b allows for the *possibility* that it is muttar *d'Oraisa* to marry an Avoda Zara woman who is not from The Seven Nations. And Ruth, being from Moav, was *not* from those seven. But at the very most, that gemara would allow (on a d'Oraisa level) sexual relations, and even doing so "derech chasnus" - as a marriage. It does NOT go so far as to consider Ruth as part of the extended family such that Boaz would have any responsibility to her. I would want a source for that. Granted that there might be some "unknown machlokes" which would consider Ruth to be part of Boaz's family, even if she did not convert at the beginning of the story. But I think such a suggestion would be venturing into fantasyland. Here's why: Even if it is mutar d'Oraisa for a Jewish man to publicly marry an Avoda Zara woman (who isn't from the Seven Nations), the children from such a marriage would not be Jewish, and that's d'Oraisa. In other words, even if the marriage is legitimate, the children are not part of the man's family. And if the children are not part of his family, then kal vachomer, Boaz is certainly not part of his family. So unless you can show a valid source that Boaz held (or even *might* have held) by patrilineal descent, then I can't see RZS's suggestion as reasonable. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 15:07:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:07:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: "And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying, 'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them: May HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers 6:22-26] The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins between man and his fellow man. Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his or her face towards the offender. So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is equally important. Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 15:27:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: <4EECF03B-E505-4324-B37E-96A99F67F0A9@cox.net> "And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying, 'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them: May HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers 6:22-26] The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins between man and his fellow man. Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his or her face towards the offender. So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is equally important. Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 16:14:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 19:14:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170528231426.GD6467@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:16:38PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : : > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of : > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without : > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot : > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... : : I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and : more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly : does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But : for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the : rituals above the menshlichkeit. : This is why I wrote that the hashkafah is necessary in order to observe halakhos like qedoshim tihyu. But I realized the language problem, which is why when I replied to Lisa I used the idiom "black-letter halakhah", to refer to the kind of laws that can be codified in the SA. Which isn't only ritual. Eg the limits of ona'as mamon is black-letter halakhah. One of the saddest things about the writings of the CC (other than the MB) is that they represent the realization that shemiras halashon and ahavad chessed were going to continue to get short shrift unless someone made black-letter halakhah out of them. When in reality, HQBH would be "Happier" -- I am guessing, of course -- if we would do things things simply because ve'ahavta lerei'akha kamokha. At the Alter of Slabodka put it: I don't love mtself because there is a mitzvah to do so. So too, the mitzvah is to develop of love of others, and therefore all these things would come naturally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:31:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 14:31:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: It seems to me that the opponents of ordination of women are hiding behind conflation of terms. What is first needed is an understanding of what ordination is in this day and age. The plain meaning of the Shulchan Aruch YD 242:14 is that it is permission from a teacher to a student to instruct in issur v'heter. it is perhaps more instructive to go through the process step by step and see where those who object have a problem. 1. women learn the subject matter 2. the teacher thinks they are capable 3. if the teacher dies, according to SA YD 242:14, nothing further is needed 4. the teacher gives the student permission(to avoid transgressing on the prohibition of moreh l'fnei rabo) So, if there is a problem, which step is the problem and why? is it that a teacher cant give a women permission to be mora l'fnei raba? what is the source for that? Essentially what we use the term semicha today is a teacher giving the student immunity from transgressing a particular prohibition. If the issue is that of a woman giving hora'ah, then it is necessary to establish exactly what that is in this day and age. Is it just 'mareh mekomot'? is it more formal hora'ah? we should keep in mind that R. Schachter, in defining terms for converts, writes that hora'ah in issur v'heter is NOT serarah, and that according to some opinions, judging dinei mamanot is not serarah. Furthermore, he writes of a difference of opinion whether semicha is a din in dayanus, or a din in hora'ah. So, if semicha is a din in dayanus, and not hora'ah, then there is no reason to bring the restrictions from dayanus over to hora'ah. and, if semicha is a din in hora'ah, then the restrictions on dayyanus don't apply to semicha. I would add that the entire basis for the claim that women cant get semicha starts with the restriction on women being witnesses, then that being extended to judges, and then being extended again to semicha. It is not necessarily a given that these extensions should be made. We should note that there are a number of others who are prohibited from being witnesses- those who lend with interest, deaf, blind, etc. The internet reports that there are those who were deaf that recieved orthodox semicha. I dont have any information on semicha for the blind. However, it does not appear that the OU has taken a position on these, nor has anyone accused the deaf and the blind who are seeking semicha of being heretics nor have they been threatened with being kicked out of Orthodoxy. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 17:00:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:00:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529000002.GA17436@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:01:37AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Areivim wrote: : 'that a pesaq is by definition someone eligable to be a dayan,' : Which surely most community rabbis are not, since most have yoreh yoreh but not yadin yadin. 1- Eligable, not qualified. 2- Who said one has to have Yadin Yadin to serve as a dayan? Yes, to judge fiscal matters, we need someone who knows CM, but for someone to decide questions of YD? On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:21:20PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Areivim wrote: : I was thinking along very similar lines. In which case, the main : (only?) difference between the yoetzet and the community rabbi is that : the rabbi's job also includes "masculine" roles like leadership, while : teaching and paskening are neutral and shared. As I wrote in every other iteratrion of this question, there is a difference between teaching halakhah pesuqah and applying shiqul hada'as. Someone who follows a rav's pesaq is obeying lo sasur, and therefore did the right thing even if the rabbi's shiqul hada'as was faulty. Any hypothetical qorban chatos would be the rabbi's. If the person is not among those covered by mikol asher yorukha, then the qorban chatas is yours for listening to her, not the Maharat's. On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 02:31:52PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that the opponents of ordination of women are hiding : behind conflation of terms. What is first needed is an understanding of : what ordination is in this day and age. The plain meaning of the Shulchan : Aruch YD 242:14 is that it is permission from a teacher to a student to : instruct in issur v'heter... I cwould use the word "hora'ah" rather than the misleading "instruct". One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in the same town as one's rebbe. ... : 3. if the teacher dies, according to SA YD 242:14, nothing further : is needed : 4. the teacher gives the student permission(to avoid transgressing on : the prohibition of moreh l'fnei rabo) I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. IOW, we have no indication that when the Rama says that if the rebbe was niftar, nothing else is needed that he is talking about anything more than needed to satisfy kavod harav ONLY. IOW, one of these two criteria is necessary, but -- even assuming competency is a given -- are they sufficient? Semchiah could well be hetero hora'ah plus. Both R/Prof Saul Lieberman and RHS argued they are not. And so it appears from Taosafos. And since we have no indication that the Rama is disagreeing with Torafos... For that matter, since the form "yoreh yoreh" is peeled off of the formula for ordaining a member of sanhderin -- "Yoreh? Yoreh! Yadin? Yadin! Yatir bekhoros? Yatir bechoros!" -- there is sme connection to dayanus as per Tosafos implied in the traditional ordination text itself. ... : I would add that the entire basis for the claim that women cant get : semicha starts with the restriction on women being witnesses, then that : being extended to judges, and then being extended again to semicha. : It is not necessarily a given that these extensions should be made. We : should note that there are a number of others who are prohibited : from being witnesses- those who lend with interest, deaf, blind, etc. : The internet reports that there are those who were deaf that recieved : orthodox semicha... Deaf? To you mean cheireish, a caegory we rule refers to the uneducable and thus does not mean today's deaf mutes? Blind? Chalitzah has a special gezeiras hakasuv, "l'einei", specifically because a blind man is allowed to serve as a dayan. (And as RHS points out, geirim can be dayanim for other geirim, so we see their disqualification to serve in most courts is not athat they are outside of lo sosuru, but another issue.) But I do not think those who lend with interest are kosher rabbanim. Refardless of social ills which may cause that din to be largely ignored in practice. Our discussion here should not be about whether you or I agree with the OU's priorities, but whether the shitah they are supporting in the particular question at hand is well-founded in principle. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 16:53:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 19:53:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg cited a story with an apparent contradiction, and resolved the contradiction this way: > Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between > man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can > show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But > when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His > face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his > or her face towards the offender. > > So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the > Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately > towards other human beings is equally important. It seems to me that although religious or ritual behavior is important, Rebbe Yossi HaKohen is teaching us that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is EVEN MORE important. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 17:18:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:18:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 07:53:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that although religious or ritual behavior is : important, Rebbe Yossi HaKohen is teaching us that behaving : appropriately towards other human beings is EVEN MORE important. Look at the list of holidays in parashas Emor. 23:21-22 describe Shavuos. Look which mitzvos are associated with Shavuos. Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which mitzvos are listed specifically? Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice of Shavu'os reading. To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani. We really need a flavor of O that takes Hillel's "de'ealh sani", or R' Ariva's or Ben Azzai's kelalim gedolim, or for that matter the oft-quoted medrash "derekh eretz qodma ... leTorah" as one's actual first principle for life. And not just a platitude for the early grades, a truism repeated unthinkingly to get nods during the rabbi's sermon. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:11:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:11:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Someone who follows a rav's pesaq is obeying lo sasur, and > therefore did the right thing even if the rabbi's shiqul > hada'as was faulty. Any hypothetical qorban chatos would be > the rabbi's. If the person is not among those covered by > mikol asher yorukha, then the qorban chatas is yours for > listening to her, not the Maharat's. L'halacha, I totally agree. L'maaseh, it is critical to determine who is a "rav" and who isn't. That is, who is "covered by mikol asher yorukha" and who isn't. It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these teachers, because, after all, *Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! > I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. > IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that > anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. I agree that YD 242 is about kavod harav. And if the rav is niftar, then that permission is no longer necessary, but that's not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about who is covered by mikol asher yorukha. So why wouldn't the semicha place a musmach into that category? In other words: Suppose a certain person *is* in that category, and then gives semicha "yoreh yoreh" to another individual. Doesn't the semicha announce to the world that the second individual is now covered by mikol asher yorukha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:15:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 05:15:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> If "black letter law" is the criteria, then issues like womens Megila readings and women dancing with a Sefer Torah disappear. All the opposition because these practices are not "Torat Sabba" doesn't even begin if all we do is ask "Muttar? Yes? Fine". Ben On 5/28/2017 9:34 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of > : Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha... > > Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black > letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that > halakhah must conform to and the law itself. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:20:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 05:15:03AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : If "black letter law" is the criteria, then issues like womens : Megila readings and women dancing with a Sefer Torah disappear. All : the opposition because these practices are not "Torat Sabba" doesn't : even begin if all we do is ask "Muttar? Yes? Fine". I am totally at lost as to your intent. Megillah reading or dancing with a sefer Torah are reducible to black-letter law. In contrast to, for example, deciding how to triage my tzedaqah donations. Wehther that reduction can be done within vanilla halachic process or by appeal to metahalakhah, or by appeal to the general "feel" of halakhah -- like the Rambam's "li nir'eh" -- is a different question. But either way, the question exists. So, what do you mean? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:06:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:06:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat/R. Micha Message-ID: R. Micha, thanks for the response. so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah. And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't necessarily apply to anything else. But the OU authors claim that some of YD 242 is based on classic semicha, and therefore all the restrictions of classic semicha should apply. But that makes no sense of you are claiming that YD 242 ONLY applies to the teacher/student relationship. So your own argument works against your claim. There is not a single hint that anything else about classic semicha applies to what we currently call semicha. (Incidentally I wonder when the first claim of more extensive connections were made, and why, if there is such a close connection, we dont mandate that semicha be done only in Israel, and all the other attributes of classic semicha, it seems that the ONLY aspect of classic semicha that is being brought forward is the prohibition on women). You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much against that possibility. It states: ??????? ???????????? ??????????? ????????? ??????, ?????? ??????????? ???? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ????? ??????????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ???????????, ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????????. ????? ??????????? ?????, ????????? ?????????????? ??????, ????????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????????.(???''? ?????? ??''? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ?' ?????? ????????). ?????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ???????????, ???? ???????????? ???????, ?????? ??????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????, ??? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????. (???''? ?????? ??' ?' ?????''? ??' ?''? ???''?). ?????? ????????? ???????????(?????????? ???''? ?????''?). ?????????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????????, ????? ??? ????????? ?????, ???? ????????? ???? ?????????? ???????, ???? ?''?. ?????? ?''? ?????????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???????????? ????????, ????? ??? ???? ??????????? ??????????? ????????????? ????????????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????, ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????????? ????????. specifically, semicha IN THIS TIME, so that people know that....he has permission. So if his teacher died, there is no need for semicha. The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general" It is very forced to claim that there is more here. You basically have to read things into it that are not there. I am not sure if you are claiming that women cant have semicha? or that they cannot be moreh hora'ah. because it seems very clear here that those who can be moreh hora'ah can get semicha b'zman hazeh..And there is a long list of poskim who agree that women can be moreh hora'ah. Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable. And also, that even though the Talmud specifically states that someone in a particular category cant be a judge or witness, when the understanding of that person's abilities changes, there is potential for them to be witnesses and/or judges- essentially in some cases, where the understanding of the Talmud was at variance with what we know now, the restrictions on some categories is not fixed. If I am reading correctly, R. Herschel Schachter in b'din ger dan et chavero (available at YUTorah August 2002), seems to state that hora'ah in issur v'heter is NOT a issue of serarah. and, according to some opinions, being a dayan for dinei mamanot is similarly not an issue of serarah. Perhaps more to the point, In 'Kuntrus HaSemicha"(published in eretz hatzvi and it seems to be the basis for a talk given at an RCA convention- the talk is available at YUTorah(1985) Smicha in the talmud and today), if I understand correctly, R. Soloveitchik made a distinction as to whether Smicha was a din in dayanus or in Hora'ah. It would seem that such a distinction would indicate that restrictions on dayyanus via semicha do not automatically apply to hora'ah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 00:14:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:14:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 5/28/2017 10:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >: And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to >: reality... > It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are > other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem. I'm not sure that the views of Avodah's LW are the point. To the extent that they argue in favor of those with "other, less defensible, ideologies", it's reasonable to argue against those "other, less defensible, ideologies". And I would be willing to supply examples of where members of Avodah's LW do appear to see it that way, but I suspect such examples would be bounced as "adding more fire than light to the discussion". On 5/28/2017 11:52 PM, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of > Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' > I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as > kedoshim tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in > the sense of being like aggadeta. I don't see that. They are halakhic in the sense that they are commandments. > Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos would be > incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give the > value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are > part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan > pesukim and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos. Most > often that's implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the > gemara of value based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the > expense of what looks otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular > dracheha darchei noam is cited. There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what can be done today. When members of the left claim that brachot should be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old. > I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic. > Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not > operate in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how > the value system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We > ignore meta-halachic pesukim at our peril. The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum". If you mean that the system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to respectfully disagree. The ethics must themselves come from within our own cultural framework, based on our own traditions. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:32:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:32:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:11:37PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least : equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, : because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has : not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself : included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these : teachers, because, after all, *Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! I do not think the typical yo'etzet is qualified under mikol asher yrukha regardless of how capable she is. The term only applies to be elegable to recieve full semichah -- if the chain hadn't been lost, or could be restored. THat's the thesis of what I'm pushing here; that even the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services. And, since this seems ot be turning into a full reprise, even though we should all know the other's position by now, my third problem is with egalitarianism in-and-of itself. It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah. By justifying finding worth in this way, we are indeed teaching girls their traditional role is inferior and they can't reach equality. Rather than trying to find equal meaningfullness without egalitarianism. Second, the fact that we can't reach full eqalirianism implies something about the anature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely consistent with our religion. It should mean that we should really think through our even wanting to make halakhah more egalitarian, and how to balance that with the clear message of laws like davar shebiqdushah, talmud Torah, esrog, sukkah, shofar... Again: 1- Who can pasqen 2- Who was shul designed to serve 3- Trying to accomodate agalitarianism is both strategically and in terms of values, a bad idea. Notice the absense of the word "serarah". Trying to minimize or eliminate the role of serarah in our conversation won't do much to sway me, as it has little to do with my arguments to begin with. Now, back to R/Dr Stadlan's email: :> I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. :> IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that :> anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. : I agree that YD 242 is about kavod harav. And if the rav is niftar, : then that permission is no longer necessary, but that's not what the : discussion is about. The discussion is about who is covered by mikol : asher yorukha. So why wouldn't the semicha place a musmach into that : category? It could or couldn't -- I believe couldn't. (Following R/Prof Lieberman and RHS.) But SA 242 can't be cited on the topic either way, since the se'if is not on topic for our discussion. R/Dr N Stadlan brought it as the defintion of the role of semichah, so I wanted to dismiss taking this siman that way.` "Mikol asher yorukha" is written in the context of dayanim. The only reason why we say it applies to today's musmachim, despite the lesser kind of semichah and the lack of sanhedrin is that "yoreh yoreh" is framed as a splinter of dayanus (which is where the phrase "yoreh yoreh" comes from) and that they are appointed to act as the surrogate of the last (so far) sanhedrin. None of which pro forma can be applied to women. Only someone who could be a dayan, if the situation were such that they could become qualified and real semichah were available can serve as their fill-in. On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:06:06PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah. : And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't : necessarily apply to anything else. But the OU authors claim that some of : YD 242 is based on classic semicha... They note that the Rama in 4-5 is drawing from the Mahariq, and then explain that the Mahariq tells you he is basing his conclusion on the idea that what's true for classic semichah should be true for our current Yoreh-Yoreh (YY). They also cite the AhS 242:30, who assumes that only those eligable for classic semichah can be ordained YY. Those are the ony two mentions of siman 242 in the paper, neither of which refer to the se'ifim you did. And what you are attributing to the OU is actually the Mahariq and the Ah -- a source and an interpreter (who is for us a source in his own right) of the SA -- not their own take. : You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly : where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much : against that possibility. It states: ... : The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the : ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general" YD 242:14 isn't trying to define semichah. It's in a siman about kevod harav, not a siman about semichah. You are nit-picking in the wording about se'ifim that are only tangentially related, and ignoring the Rama's stated source. I disagree with how you read the se'if, since his "only" would be about kevod harav, not "semichah is only". But really that's tangential. Your read of the Rama contradicts one of the sources he names. ... : Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be : witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable... I do? Where do I say that? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 22:01:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 01:01:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the entire aliya in which the dibros appear. For those who feel the dibros merit standing, they are indeed standing. For those who feel that the dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria of the dibros begins. Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since their end is always the end of the aliya. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:04:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 23:04:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/05/17 15:18, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Ben Waxman wrote: >> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their >> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. > > Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that > Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent > introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, > pages 48-52. Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation that has such "gedolim". > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the >> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. > > It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it > something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus > and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus > then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. On the contrary. If it were a matter of yibum then it would depend on whether there was an original marriage. But then why would it be connected to redeeming the field? It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations would not be settled. Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz agreed with them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 00:10:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:10:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/28/2017 10:18 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Ben Waxman wrote: >> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their >> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. > Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that > Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." Yes, but the dor in question was one where "each man did what was right in his own eyes". So their being gedolei hador doesn't mean they were any better than, say, Yiftach. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:23:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:23:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation : that has such "gedolim". According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah Neustadt , this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam. Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim". But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el... If this is the Rambam's intent, it would fit a number of gemaros which refer to various shofetim as amei ha'aretz. See the article. OTOH, Tosafos's treatment of the question of how Devorah could serve as shofetes presumes the role includes being a dayan in the halachic sense (and then explains why Devorah is neither role model nor eis-la'asos exception), rather than only the serarah question of her being a civil leader. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:17:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:17:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29/05/17 01:01, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his > minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not > to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two > different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the > entire aliya in which the dibros appear. For those who feel the dibros > merit standing, they are indeed standing. For those who feel that the > dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up > specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria > of the dibros begins. Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since > their end is always the end of the aliya. Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. (Personally I stand for the whole leining so it's not an issue for me, but this is what I've seen.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:33:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:33:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <10c1c9ed-6b4e-cb90-8297-cdeb5a507e94@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <13c3a1e0-26da-f70b-7b13-b80c95bf5d1d@zahav.net.il> <58F44DE5-8AE0-4CF7-BC79-7048F752624D@sibson.com> <10c1c9ed-6b4e-cb90-8297-cdeb5a507e94@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: > Ok let's accept your presumption-Who that has the authority to determine which changes are with in the halachic system and which aren't. Can I say libi omer li if I have smicha and that's good enough? If not , how do you draw the line? ------------------------ I can't say that I can draw a clear line. Certainly someone who passes a 2 year smicha program (a change, BTW) shouldn't be doing this type of thing. It seems that change doesn't require unanimous agreement and very possibly it can be done even if the greatest rabbis disagree. My example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher. Ben ----------------------- Yup, as said, the wheel is still in spin with regard to this and the other current thread Maharat/smicha. Now "everyone knows" it was obvious that Chassidus would be accepted and Conservative not (see Kahnemaan Tversky on how we all do this) Anyone who thinks these or those are simply matters of black letter law discussions (hat tip R'Micha) IMHO is fooling themselves. Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 06:09:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 09:09:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in > the same town as one's rebbe. If the shiur-giver is very careful to merely read and explain the QSA, then I'd agree with you. But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require require semicha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 06:12:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 13:12:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] (no subject) Message-ID: "Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. And in light of this, may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed." Do you also sit for the musaf amidah on Rosh Hashana and Ne'ilah on Yom Kippur? And since there are those who cannot and do not stand for those because of physical infirmities, would you suggest that everyone sit for those teffilot so as not to embarrass the ones who truly must sit? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 09:41:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros Message-ID: <33c01f.93b651f.465da93b@aol.com> From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. YL >>>>>> I want to thank RYL for the reminder we all need -- myself very much included -- not to be too quick to assume we know other people's motives. Sitting during the reading of Aseres Hadibros may indeed be an indication not of arrogance but of arthritis. Let us be kind to one another, even in our thoughts. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 07:26:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 29/05/17 08:23, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation > : that has such "gedolim". > > According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP > beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah > Neustadt, > this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam. > > Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim > of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim". > > But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers > of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past > that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el... I actually had that article in mind, but was not taking Rashi's side. Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel Bedoro". So even if Machlon & Kilyon were considered "gedolei hador" that wouldn't seem to be sufficient reason to assume that they acted properly, even in the sense that they had an opinion which is one of the shiv'im panim and followed it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 09:46:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:46:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum," or you call it something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. Akiva Miller >>>>>> There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events in Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 13:01:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 20:01:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <92dae2a6-a1ea-f563-f350-cddd9a9fbade@starways.net> References: , <92dae2a6-a1ea-f563-f350-cddd9a9fbade@starways.net> Message-ID: 'There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what can be done today. When members of the left claim that brachot should be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old.' No argument there at all. The point was really to buttress the truism that halacha and Torah are not synonymous. Halacha works within the larger structure of Torah and is guided by principle and values. Your point that this idea is mangled and misused throughout heterodoxy is well taken though. I was not suggesting that someone can pick a favourite value, decide that it doesn't shtim with a particular halacha and proceed to mangle the halacha into submission. Not for a moment. 'The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum". If you mean that the system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to respectfully disagree. The ethics must themselves come from within our own cultural framework, based on our own traditions'. Again, agree 100%. Don't think I suggested otherwise. I'm a neo-Hirschian after all. What I was taking issue with was your contention that it is 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' That's true for the heterodox tendency to sidestep halacha (or worse) due to what they consider to be ethical issues. But it doesn't take into account the centrality of of values in the whole system of Torah, including underlying TSBP. Just for example, Pirkei Avos is not halachic but it's vital and has implications for halacha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 12:38:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:38:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> References: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> Message-ID: <2ba3e007-8860-37d6-2941-c41f1aac13bf@sero.name> On 29/05/17 12:46, RTK wrote: > There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events > in Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no > mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was. 1. How could anyone hold there was a mitzvah of yibum, when the Torah explicitly limits it to brothers? 2. If he held as a matter of halacha that Boaz was wrong, then he should have insisted on redeeming the field without marrying Ruth. The fact that on being informed of this requirement he backed out of the whole deal shows that he acknowledged Boaz's point. Therefore that point was not about yibum but about mitzvas geulah. Boaz pointed out that Machlon had an obligation to Ruth, and so long as it remained outstanding the mitzvah to discharge his obligations would remain unfulfilled. Ploni agreed, and since he could not do that he waived his rights. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 12:51:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:51:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel : Bedoro". The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah". Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so? Yes, it's dachuq. But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include the generation's gedolim. I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology, but that doesn't mean I share it. However, given Chabad's linking HQBH medaber mirokh gerono shel Moshe to Moshe bedoro keShmuel bedoro to yield the notion that every generation has a Yechidah Kelalis, a single tzadiq who is uniquely that generation's person in that role, I would think the notion that Yiftach as that person but not one of the baton-passers of mesorah to be even harder to fathom than within my own hashkafah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 13:25:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:25:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <46edbb0e-6394-3e98-a574-f1c53410f0bf@sero.name> On 29/05/17 15:51, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the > : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the > : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel > : Bedoro". > > The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing > Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah". Yes, precisely. And yet he was the "gadol hador". > Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our > obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring > whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so? > > Yes, it's dachuq. > > But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but > not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm > not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include > the generation's gedolim. Your unstated but clear assumption is that "gedolei hador" means "gedolei *hatorah* shebador". I am challenging that assumption. I am saying that when Machlon & Kilyon are described as "gedolei hador" it does not mean that they were talmidei chachamim, any more than it means that when Yiftach is described as "kishmuel bedoro". It just means they were the generation's leaders, and thus if they did wrong everyone else would follow their lead. Meanwhile Pinchas was still the gadol hatorah. Remember, "Yiftach bedoro" is an explicit gemara, so the Rambam can't dispute it. So how can this machlokes between Rashi & the Rambam, that the article posits, exist? This is how. The Rambam accepts Yiftach bedoro, that Yiftach was indeed the "gadol hador", but that is irrelevant to his topic; he is listing who passed the Torah down from that generation to the next, and that was not Yiftach but Pinechas. > I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I > think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology, Wow. Just wow. No, it has nothing to do with Chabad *or* theology. It's an explicit pasuk and gemara. Yiftach was the one and only gadol hador, because the pasuk says so, and he had the same authority as Shmuel because the gemara says so. But one wouldn't ask him a shayla about "an egg in kutach". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:03:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing. Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R. Micha's interpretation: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/ Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to understand the Rama, but one of them is: " The first and simplest view, drawing the logical conclusion from the above depiction of semikhah and adopted by Rama in both the Darkhei Moshe and Shulh?an Arukh, concludes that anyone is eligible to receive semikhah when their teacher certifies they have acquired requisite knowledge and licenses them to issue halakhic rulings. The scope of this license may be limited to certain areas of law (depending on the studentVs actual knowledge and qualifications) and may be granted to one who is ineligible to receive Mosaic ordination that was present in Talmudic times. As such, basic contemporary semikhah is based on oneVs knowledge and competence to answer questions of law". the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have sources to rely upon. I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong with semicha for women. The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 05:08:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 08:08:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am going to revise and restate my original post, which got sidetracked onto issues of marriage to a non-Jewess, and of the role of a "redeemer", which I confess to knowing very little about. But it is very clear to anyone who has looked at it (again, pages 48-52 of ArtScroll's Ruth is an excellent summary) many of Chazal were uncomfortable with the possibility that Machlon and Kilyon would marry women who had not been converted at all. At the same same, they are also very uncomfortable with Naami telling women who *had* converted that they should leave. Some have tried to resolve this by suggesting some sort of "tentative" conversion, but I cannot imagine that we'd allow such a conversion to be cancelled after ten long years. Instead, my solution is that there was a genuine halachic machlokes involved, such that Machlon and Kilyon held the conversion to be valid (at least on some minimal b'dieved level), while Ruth held it to be totally invalid. This simple approach answers all the problems listed above. (It also allows you to think whatever you like about the level of Machlon's and kilyon's gadlus.) I will leave it as an open question whether Ruth reconverted to satisfy Naami's shita, or whether Naami resigned herself to accepting the first geirus. I also retract all my comments about Boaz, as they will turn on topics that I am woefully ignorant about. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:32:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 17:32:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging > Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an > obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he > owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations > would not be settled. > Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages > were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz > agreed with them. I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a related question which is probably simpler: What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then there was no kiddushin. I'll repeat that: Even if it is mutar to marry a woman AZ-nik (not from the Seven Nations) that marriage is one of convenience, maybe even love, but not of kiddushin, and I'm not aware of any halachic obligations that the husband has toward such a wife. I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have towards the husband himself, and we see in pasuk 4:4, that Ploni Almoni was willing to buy the field from Naami in order to meet those obligations to Elimelech. But in 4:5, Boaz pointed out that buying it from Naami would be insufficient. He'd have to buy it from both Naami and Ruth, at which point Ploni declined and Boaz himself accepted the responsibility. My question is: *What* responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid? (I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so, then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech left. Why did they wait ten years?) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:51:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 23:51:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > RMB: the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. > All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and possibly the latter. > > RMB: Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of > shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use > to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi > in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services. > On the one hand, I completely agree with you. One of the things I love about Orthodox Judaism is the all-women spaces - women's shiurim and batei midrash and tehillim groups and ladies' auxiliaries and all-girls schools. I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have comfortable space for women as well. I understand that the "men's club" gets to run the tefillot and be the gabbaim and the ba'alei tefillah and ba'alei korei and rabbi - and that losing that space would not be good for men. But I hope that having an ezrat nashim open for all tefillot (during the week, Shabbat mincha) would not ruin the mens' club atmosphere. Does having a woman give the drasha go too far in this regard? I think it depends on the community. > > > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah.... > Second, > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about > the > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely > consistent with our religion.... > Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. I think you have presented some compelling reasons for declining to endorse or promote the institution of maharats. I see no reason for maharats to be universally accepted. However, I believe that the maharats personally, and the communities they serve, remain clearly within the Orthodox community. We can disagree strongly with another Orthodox sector's practices (Hallel on Yom Ha'Atzma'ut comes to mind) without declaring them out-of-bounds. Finally, a perspective from Israel. Women rabbis/maharats are a particularly contentious issue in the US, because (a) it is similar to changes made by the Conservative and Reform movements, (b) a very common career path for American male rabbis is the shul rabbinate, which is particularly problematic for women, and (c) it seems to have perhaps been instituted in a manner designed to provoke controversy. In Israel, Conservative and Reform are a small minority with little influence. Most male rabbis work in education, writing/translating/publishing, or computer programming - all perfectly acceptable careers for learned women. Full-time shul rabbis are almost unheard of. And I can think of three or four respected, mainstream, dati leumi institutions that are essentially giving women the equivalent of smicha, without a lot of fanfare. Some people think this is great, some people think this is awful, and many people have not really noticed - but there isn't a big brouhaha and questioning of Orthodox credentials. Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it seems to be shaping up as the latter. Chag sameach, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 03:10:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 06:10:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170530101006.GA10791@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have : sources to rely upon... Again, the Rama cites the Mahariq... So, so rule leniently is to read the Rama and ignore his source. : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the : specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. Well, in the case of Maharat in particular, the big bold print in the middle of the certificate reads "heter hora'ah larabbim". http://www.jta.org/2013/06/17/default/what-does-an-orthodox-ordination-certificate-look-like Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 49th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 7 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 goal of perfect unity? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 04:51:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 06:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R Micha. You did not answer my question. When you and/orthe OU panel use the word semicha when you forbid it to women, what exactly does it mean? Heter hora'ah? Something more? Something different? Clarity please. Thank you Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 07:27:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shavuos (Lifeline) Message-ID: <448A28D9-D7AC-47C4-807C-08E3C10A0318@cox.net> The Rabbis tell us the Book of Ruth teaches neither of things that are permitted or forbidden. Why then is it part of Holy Scriptures? Because its subject matter is gemilus chassodim. Along the same line, three times a day we recite ?God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob.? However, we conclude the blessing ?mogen Avraham? ? only with Abraham. Why? In explanation, a Chassidic Rabbi explains that each of the patriarchs symbolizes one of the three essentials as articulated in Pirkei Avos 1:2). Jacob represents Torah; Isaac, Avodah; and Abraham, gemilus chassodim. Though all three principles are vital, kindness is sufficient to stabilize the world (how we need it now more than ever!). An interest in the performance of good deeds was the quality that marked Abraham ? a quality which can be a shield and support to us even when other qualities in our nature are weak ? hence, MOGEN AVRAHAM. Ruth was no ordinary convert. Her name gives us a clue to her essence. In Hebrew, Ruth's name is comprised of the letters reish, vav, tav, which add up to a numerical value of 606. As all human beings have an obligation to observe the seven Noachide commandments ? so called because they were given after the flood ? as did Ruth upon her birth as a Moabite. Add those seven commandments to the value of her name and you get 613, the number of commandments in the Torah. The essence of Ruth, her driving life force was the discovery and acceptance of the 606 commandments she was missing. Another lovely aspect is the meaning of the name "Ruth." In Hebrew the name is probably a contraction of re'ut, ' friendship,' which admirably summarizes her nature. The meaning in English is also very apropos: ? Compassion or pity for another ? Sorrow or misery about one's own misdeeds or flaws. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 15:46:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 01:46:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Naso In-Reply-To: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> References: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos > 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which > mitzvos are listed specifically? > > Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice > of Shavu'os reading. > > To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms > of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of > observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani. > Barukh shekkivanti. I made exactly this comparison in a Tikkun Leil Shavuot this time last year, and a parallel observation in a shi`ur last Shabbat: when the Zohar needs an example of how Basar veDam can make a hit`aruta dil'tata which will cause a hit`aruta dele`ela and kickstart the process of atzilut shefa from the upper to lower worlds, it typically says something like "hoshiv ani al shulhanecha". Because for Hazal, the Torah is above all Torat Hesed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 06:06:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:06:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. ---------------------------------------------------- Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the debate on black letter law? KT Joel Rich (full disclosure-kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-not everything that is permitted to you should be done) THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 07:22:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:22:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Probably the best and most succinct historical analogy I've seen for this question. Ben On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > > Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women > rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the > vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it > seems to be shaping up as the latter. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 13:59:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:59:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation. Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. How can this be? Dare we imagine that he did such things unauthorizedly? Certainly he must have had/received some sort of Heter Hora'ah. If so, then when and how did he get it - and without getting semicha at the same time? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 10:22:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] matched soldier and praying for them In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014801d2d969$41c5c800$c5515800$@com> A while ago on Avodah, a well known (chareidi) Baal machshava was quoted as disagreeing strongly with the concept of matching frum people with a nonfrum soldier in order to pray for them. "we have no brotherhood with secular Israelis" Recently, I posted to Avodah a link to a collection of 1400 short tshuvot from HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlitah (of Toronto) On the above topic, he writes there.. #600 Pray As They Go Q. There are two organizations here in Eretz Yisroel, one called; Elef LaMateh, and the other; The Shmirah Project. Basically, their intent is to match Israeli soldiers with Avreichim and bochurim learning. Each Avreich and Bochur who volunteers, receives the name of a specific soldier (his name and his mother's name) that he takes responsibility to daven for and learn specially for so that in the merit of the tefillos and learning, that soldier will merit to return home alive and well. (Is this a good idea) A. HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is a great mitzvah to pray, learn Torah and accomplish mitzvos for the benefit of all our brethren B'nay Yisroel in times of peril and need, especially for those who put their life in harm's way to save and protect others. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 00:39:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:39:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should be identical for each community and each generation? - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 20:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: . I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start farming? I suppose it was pretty desolate after a ten-year famine, but did she even try? She must have at least gone there to see the place, if for no other reason than to be sure that no squatters took over while she was gone. Without making sure of such things, how could she even hope that anyone (even a goel) would buy it? Maybe she expected to get a better profit from Boaz than she'd get from farming it herself, but maybe there are other answers? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 20:05:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:05:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the distinction? When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on this. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 02:14:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (ADE via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:14:59 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are still being machshiv some pesukim over others. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk > *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:32:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:32:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <510d4fd4-6c91-fb85-0c23-f6cdfa7ffcbf@sero.name> On 02/06/17 05:14, ADE wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one >> pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this >> reason. > Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are > still being machshiv some pesukim over others. There is no requirement to treat all pesukim exactly the same. One is entitled to stand or sit during KhT as one wishes, and has no obligation to choose one policy and stick to it. The problem is only with standing up for special pesukim, such as Shma or the 10D. Since there's nothing special about the pasuk before the 10D, there's no problem with deciding to stand for it. And when the special pesukim come along one is already standing, so one has no obligation to sit down. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 18:46:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:46:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> In our personal religious commitments there are those among us scrupulous in performance of the ceremonial mitzvot but at the same time displaying reckless disregard of our elementary duties towards our fellowman. Halacha embraces human life in its totality. One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social trait from our behavior! A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 08:31:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:31:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought In-Reply-To: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> References: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170602153131.GA15356@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made : a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study : of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social : trait from our behavior! Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, among the aphorisms of his listed in R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 21:28:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:28:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4dd6e4f1-2d00-a274-ace0-e5d2a803039a@sero.name> On 01/06/17 23:05, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I only see four instances of "Ruth Hamoaviah", three in ch 2, and only one in ch 4, in Boaz's description of the situation to Tov. Since his purpose was to scare him off, it made sense to mention her origin, so Tov would be reluctant to risk his future. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:20:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:20:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/2/2017 6:05 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I can't cite a source for it, but I remember once reading that Ruth HaMoaviah was intended to praise her, since she gave up her position in Moav to join us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:31:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:31:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Actually if the land had lied fallow for 10 years, it should be in good shape. Granted it needs weeding but the soil should be good. It only requires a relatively small amount of rain for grass to grow and re-invigorate the soil. Maybe she was too old to work the land and figured that a sale would provide her with enough money to live out the rest of her days in dignity? Ben On 6/2/2017 5:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 00:04:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 09:04:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? They came back on Pesach, at the beginning of the barley harvest. Nothing was growing on their land, presumably. Planting is after Sukkot, at the beginning of the rainy season. If they planted, it would be a full year until they could harvest the first barley. As we see from Megillat Rut, the barley then had to dry and wasn't threshed or winnowed until after the wheat harvest (early summer?). When they come back, they have nothing. They need to eat. And two women alone will not be able to do all the work of planting and cultivating in the fall. They would need money to hire workers and probably buy or rent an animal to help with plowing. And to buy seed. They didn't have the capital to go back into farming, or the means to support themselves until the first crop. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 21:17:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:17:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <272b8698-d5c1-55a1-560b-2bc6d0c39b74@sero.name> On 01/06/17 23:01, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? It seems to me that finding a buyer for the property was not at all important to her, and in fact she had shown no interest in doing so until she saw how she could use it to get Boaz to marry Ruth. It was Boaz who spun the story out for Tov in order to scare him off; first he drew him in with the prospect of an easy transaction for Naomi's portion of the field, but then he threw in the Ruth monkey wrench. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:18:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:18:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/2/2017 6:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the > halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I > think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: > > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? In the set of priorities that we had back then, the principle of yerusha was more important than simple economics. As I understand it. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:21:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:21:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22efff8f-5ee7-d47e-8701-b1541a7a8e41@zahav.net.il> And of course the irony is even greater in that many yeshiva rabbis will tell their guys to go to a community rav because they, the yeshiva rabbis, don't deal with shailas. Ben On 5/29/2017 4:11 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least > equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, > because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has > not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself > included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these > teachers, because, after all,*Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:16:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:16:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> On 6/1/2017 10:39 AM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly > egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the > experiences of women and couples and families and communities to > affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian > direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. > > RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument > is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically > permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically > forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without > asking whether HKB?H prefers it? > > Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should > be identical for each community and each generation? > I'm not sure that's the question. The problem is, as I see it, that when one adopts an external -ism as an ideal, and try and "move in a somewhat more -ism-friendly direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted", they're essentially saying that their motivating principle is that -ism. That halakha isn't the motivating principle, but merely bookends. Limits to how far they can push the -ism that's important. It's the difference between a static principle and a dynamic one. What you're describing has egalitarianism as the dynamic force, and halakha as a static one. A fossil. And there's no way to maintain that worldview for long without starting to chafe against the static limits. At which point, people put their shoulders into it and *push* those limits a little bit further. And then a little further than that. And they feel frustrated by those limits. That's probably the biggest problem. It turns halakha into shackles and frustration. And you only have to read articles written by certain YCT teachers and grads to see the hostility that comes out of that. Yes, there are people who can manage to walk the tightrope and not fall into that kind of frustration, but they are few in number, and not representative of the "movement", as such. And many of them, in my observed experience, eventually fall off. Permit me to illustrate this mindset with something that just happened *as* I was writing this. My 17 year old daughter was reading a comic book from the early 1990s. In the comic, the hero (Superboy) is 16, but all of the women he dates are in their 20s. Today, we call that statuatory rape, and have little to no tolerance for it. But if you recall the early 90s, that idea was rather new, and while the writers of the comic gave lip service to the idea, even having characters laughingly calling Superboy "jailbait", it wasn't nearly as taboo as it is today, at least when the younger person was male. But my daughter is livid about it. Appalled. And she isn't able to imagine a world in which that was the way people thought. Similarly, people immersed in the egalitarian ethos so prevelent in the Western world today cannot *imagine* a world where that isn't the universally accepted ideal, except for barbaric and backwards societies. It's a given that egalitarianism is the more advanced worldview. The more civilized worldview. That to the extent that a worldview is less egalitarian, it is less civilized. More backwards. So now consider what it means to say, "I want to be as egalitarian as possible, within the bounds of halakha". It means "I want to be as civilized as possible, within the bounds of the less civilized and more backwards system of halakha." How can that help but breed disrespect, discomfort, and eventually contempt for halakha? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:50:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:50:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> Message-ID: > > LL: The problem is, as I see it, that when one adopts an external -ism as > an ideal, and try and "move in a somewhat more -ism-friendly direction > WITHIN what is halachically permitted", they're essentially saying that > their motivating principle is that -ism. That halakha isn't the motivating > principle, but merely bookends. Limits to how far they can push the -ism > that's important...... > > Similarly, people immersed in the egalitarian ethos so prevelent in the > Western world today cannot *imagine* a world where that isn't the > universally accepted ideal, except for barbaric and backwards societies. > It's a given that egalitarianism is the more advanced worldview. The more > civilized worldview. That to the extent that a worldview is less > egalitarian, it is less civilized. More backwards. > > So now consider what it means to say, "I want to be as egalitarian as > possible, within the bounds of halakha". It means "I want to be as > civilized as possible, within the bounds of the less civilized and more > backwards system of halakha." How can that help but breed disrespect, > discomfort, and eventually contempt for halakha? Yes, if one defines one's ideology and worldview primarily as feminist, one is going to struggle with halacha. Some people struggle and still maintain Orthodox practice. Some become "halachic egalitarian." But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah live in an increasingly egalitarian society. Even women who would never dream of making a women's zimmun (range of psak on this goes from obligatory to optional to assur) have their own credit cards and vote in elections and choose whom they want to marry. Halachic psak does not exist in a vacuum; it applies to a particular metziut in a particular time and place. I can certainly see room to argue that the institution of maharat is an example of an attempt to "push" halacha to evolve artificially to conform to feminism. But to some extent, increased involvement of women teaching and learning all areas of Torah, at all levels, is a natural halachic development in response to changing reality. Each posek will draw his own line as to what is a positive development (maharats? yoatzot? Rebbetzin Heller?), and what needs to be reined in. Halacha is dynamic. (This is true even if the Conservative movement also says it!) Obviously, there are boundaries, but there is also plenty of room for different opinions, and for development over generations. I am not advocating always choosing the most feminist interpretation possible within the bounds of what is mutar. I am pointing out that increasingly egalitarian psak within halacha reflects the reality in which we live. Shabbat Shalom, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 10:00:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Martin Brody via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:00:09 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat etc. Message-ID: "R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation" Did the Chazon Ish have semicha?.I think not -- Martin Brody -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 11:35:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:35:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <960df966-7387-baf7-202b-5a6624127fed@sero.name> On 30/05/17 16:59, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura > did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the > ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite > involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send them to the rav. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 11:46:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:46:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37d489e2-09cc-d836-f973-74d1b831ec0a@sero.name> On 29/05/17 17:32, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging >> Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an >> obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he >> owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations >> would not be settled. >> Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages >> were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz >> agreed with them. > I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to > respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too > complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a > related question which is probably simpler: > > What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then > there was no kiddushin. I don't see how this matters. Machlon was shacked up with this woman for ten years, and left her high and dry. She was now in Beit Lechem living in poverty, and everyone who saw her would say "there's Machlon's widow, poor thing". Thus seeing her settled was an unsettled obligation that Machlon had left behind, so taking care of it was part of the goel's duty, just like paying off his credit cards and returning his library books, so that nobody should be left with a claim against his memory. > I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's > relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have > towards the husband himself [...] My question is: *What* > responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might > be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid? Yes, the goel's duty is to his relative, not to the relative's creditors. But that duty *is* to discharge the relative's obligations, which he is himself unable to discharge, whether because of poverty (as in the Torah's example) or death (as here). Neither Tov nor Boaz owed anything to Ruth, but Machlon did. > (I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the > family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we > want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be > paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so, > then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech > left. Why did they wait ten years?) Redeem it from whom? At that point it still belonged to Elimelech. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 12:55:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 15:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170602195535.GA7359@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 09:09:10AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this : other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that : question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require : require semicha? Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also not an open question that requires decision-making rather than just reporting the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:51:26PM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: : > the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore : > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. : All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to : offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not : sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and : possibly the latter. I am missing something. My assertion was that "the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur" for the same reason that she could never give hora'ah as a dayan either. I wasn't denying the reality that there are women who know enough for their knowledge not to be a barrier to their pasqening. ... : I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the : other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have : comfortable space for women as well... I think there should be comfortable space for women too, and that it makes sense for it to be in the same building. Our topic was women rabbis. My first point was my belief that the Mahariq holds like Tosafos, the Rama like the Mahariq, and therefore we cannot ordain a poseqes. In this, my 2nd point, I was arguing that since shul and minyan as Anshei Kenses haGadolah invented them are men's spaces, we shouldn't want women speaking from the pulpit or otherwise making it a co-ed experience, a second element of the rabbi's job. : > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for : > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be : > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah.... : > Second, : > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about : > the : > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely : > consistent with our religion.... : : Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that : is highly egalitarian... And this was my third point. That the notion doesn't fit the gestalt built of numerous halakhos. I don't think our living in a world where opportunity is increasingly egalitarian changes that. The disjoin poses a challenge, not a license. : And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the : experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect : religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction : WITHIN what is halachically permitted. I tried to explain why that can't happen. You're not moving into a setting of greater equality; you are aiming women toward hitting a glass cieling. The implied message of "as much egalitarianism as allowed" is that it's the role traditionally given to men that is meaningful, and women can't fully take on that role. To my mind the long-term outcome, once there is little room for further innovation left, will be worse that trying to find different but equally valuable roles. Aside from the "minor" problem that that message about male roles is simply sheqer. On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 01:06:28PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that : as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted : (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by : r'mb's black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether : HKB"H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all : or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the : debate on black letter law? I don't think that's fair. We all learn in the early grades that derekh eretz qodmah laTorah, but we'll talk about frum theives, but not frum shellfish eaters. Our culture's focus on those mitzvos and dinim that can be reduced to black-letter is a problem we need to work on, and not a given to be leveraged further. On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:50:32AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: : But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah : live in an increasingly egalitarian society... Egalitarianism as metzi'us, the fact that gender roles are progressively becoming more similar, is different than eqalitarinism as a value -- the notion that they should. At the very least, halakhah is telling us there are a number of greater values that override egalitarianism. I argued that some of them actually impact who enters the rabbinate. But really the burden of proof lies in the other direction: It is change that needs justification. One has to prove that whatever those conflicting values are -- and I guess this would require identifying them -- they are not issues that impact the desirability of ordaining women. So, to get less abstract, here's an example. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting : R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing. : Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid : muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R. : Micha's interpretation: : http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/ But lemaaseh he wrote a letter against ordaning women that held up JTS changing policy until after R/PSL's passing. has a complete translation by Rabbi Wayne Allen. The issue isn't how RGS read the letter, but the letter itself. And I understood your father-in-law differently than your (and your wife's, judging from her choice of subject line) take. He writes: Professor Lieberman might have been opposed to any clerical role for women. Nevertheless, he only cited the classical sources that indicate that only men may be dayyanim or even serve on a bet din as laymen (hedyotim). Since Yeshivat Maharat is careful to remain within the bounds of Halakhah by not ordaining women to roles that are proscribed by Halakhah, Professor Liebermans responsum does not apply to the yeshivah or to any of its graduates. So he agrees with RGS that R/PSL was opposed to orgaining women as rabbi. After all, most of the letter is about what we mean today by "Yoreh Yoreh", and how it's NOT dayanus. It was about admitting women to JTS's semichah program, to "being called by the title 'rav'", not "dayan". It would seem that minus the political pressures within JTS, R/PSL's letter would at most permit "Rabbah uManhigah". Your FIL writes that R/PSL only cites sources about dayanus, not that his point was only about dayanus. And as we saw, there is a connection made between who can become a dayan and who can give hora'ah. His only mention of the political dynamics at JTS at the time is to explain his own position -- why he was against ordaining women when he was among those starting UTJ, but is in favor of Yeshivat Maharat. His letter to your wife does not speak of this issue in terms of his rebbe's position. For that matter, his description of R/PSL's lack of proving his point WRT non-dayan rabbanim reads as explaining why his own position was justified despite R/PSL's letter, rather than justified by that letter. He doesn't say RGS is wrong, he says it's "beside the point". : Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and : Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to : understand the Rama, but one of them is: But the burden or proof is on the innovator. You can't simply say your read is possible -- and given the aforementioned citation of the Mahariq, I don't see how this se'if can be, you would have a self-contradictory siman. But in any case, you have to prove your read is the Rama's intent; saying "it's possible" is not enough to justify a mimetic rupture. ... : the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have : sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have : sources to rely upon. I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and : Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong : with semicha for women. "Rather than nitpicking"? How do we learn a sugyah without nitpicking? In any case, you jumped from "could be read as someone to rely upon" to "someone to rely upon". : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the : specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. Sorry I made you wait long enough that you felt a need to re-ask this question. Semichah today may well be a heter hora'ah, but that doesn't mean that it's the only barrier to hora'ah. And if one's rebbe passed away, there is no need for heter hora'ah -- and yet still other barriers could exist. Tosafos, and the Mahariq cited by the Rama link the authority for hora'ah with being eligable to gain the qualifications and become a dayan. That's a barrier to hora'ah even if someone's rebbe wrote them a "qlaf" or passed away. We would have to find another shitah about hora'ah, show it's not dekhuyah -- and given we're talking about an opionion that disputes 3 pillars of Ashkenazi pesaq (if I include the Rama's se'if 4), for someone of Ashekazi background, that's a tough row to hoe. And then there are my other two problems.... Both of which would also reflect on Rabbah uManhigah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 3 20:23:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 23:23:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . Is semicha required for hora'ah? To illustrate the possibility that it is *not* required, I wrote: > Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura > did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the > ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite > involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. R' Zev Sero responded: > Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, > and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send > them to the rav. And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression of his personal opinion. Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"? I had written that a non-semicha person could give a shiur in Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, provided that he is careful to merely read and explain the text, but ... ... > But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this > other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that > question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require > require semicha? R' Micha Berger responded: > Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also > not an open question that requires decision-making rather than > just reporting the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community. "Black-letter halacha" is often not as black as we might think. Who gets to decide which shita is the dominant one? If the community has a recognized rav who issued a ruling on this exact question, then I can quote that. But in the great majority of cases, there are two or more shitos, and I have no idea which is "dominant". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 3 22:51:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 07:51:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c3c1e25-04b7-878e-d93b-d6b5edc10a0f@zahav.net.il> My intent, or my desire, is to reduce the number of issues on which we decide to break Torah community into even more pieces. If these issues are meta halachic, or have a bad feeling, then let's take the argument between the RWMO and LWMO down a notch or two. Let's lower the tones. For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi community consider to be kefira. If so, than kal v'chomer many of the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in getting hung up on multiple non-issues. Ben On 5/29/2017 4:20 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I am totally at lost as to your intent. Megillah reading or dancing with > a sefer Torah are reducible to black-letter law. In contrast to, for > example, deciding how to triage my tzedaqah donations. > > Wehther that reduction can be done within vanilla halachic process or > by appeal to metahalakhah, or by appeal to the general "feel" of halakhah > -- like the Rambam's "li nir'eh" -- is a different question. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 04:36:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 07:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a0d51cd-f693-b8a0-f2bd-a23a15a3e44a@sero.name> On 03/06/17 23:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > >> Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, >> and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send >> them to the rav. > And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to > find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim > wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us > which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other > expression of his personal opinion. > > Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"? AIUI no, it is not. Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a specific shayla for a specific person. Writing books does not involve any shikul hada`as, it merely involves setting down the halacha as one understands it, including, if applicable, the range of options available to a moreh hora'ah when applying his shikul hada`as. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 09:40:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 12:40:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170604164052.GA8050@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 11:23:05PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to : find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim : wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us : which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other : expression of his personal opinion. Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone know what has been said in the years since the standardization of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh. I argued that the difference between the AhS and the MB was not that one was a mimeticist and the other a textualist, but that the AhS was out to justify accepted pesaq, and the other is a collection of texts, a tool for the poseiq -- not pesaq. The personal opinion is just that, advice, not hora'ah. Or, other assumed you need to dismiss the MB's self-description as reflecting the CC's anavah, and not to be taken at face value. But then one has to explain the numerous stories of the CC personally not following the MB's conclusion -- the size of his becher, his tzitzis were tucked in, he supported the building a a community eiruv, etc... (Something is broken on my blog right now. It may take a 3-4 refreshes before getting anything but the AishDas "page not found" page.) In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable. And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving R Ploni answering questions. (The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the model.) This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads -- or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her rebbe's license? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 08:48:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:48:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you understand the OU panel as defining it. Otherwise you are just using a nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning. The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here: http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah ). There was a period when leaders did not have semicha, The Tzitz Eliezer points out that Sephardim for a long time did not have semichah, yet communities had religious leaders. So one does not need semikhah to be a communal religious leader(in keeping with the Rama in 242:14). Furthermore, R. Lichtenstein points out(Leaves of Faith vol 2 293) "originally a samukh would pronounce a decision that was binding by don't of his authoritative fiat. ...Now, he essentially serves as a reference guide, providing reliable information about what the tradition and its sources, properly understood and interpreted, state; but it is they, rather than he, that bind authoritatively." (quoted in the name of the Rav, in the name of his father, Rav Moshe.) Furthermore, as R. Lichtenstein points out, the Rambam viewed that Smikhah applied to hora'at issur v'heter as well as din. However, as R. Schachter himself points out, (see Kuntrus Ha semicha in Eretz Hatzvi chap 32) the other Rishonim hold that Semichah is a Halacha in beit din, NOT Hora'ah. AND, there are lots of authorities who clearly state that women can give Hora'ah. So you really need to define exactly what you mean by Semicha and how you are using it So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that apply to beit din. That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist. The semikhah for that type included wearing a specific garment, only being given in Israel, and according to most(but not all), prohibited to women. According to most Rishonim, that category did not apply to Hora'ah, just beit din. And, R. Lichtenstein illustrates that there is a clear and gaping difference in authority. There have been many years and many communities where leaders did not have any formal semikhah. But obviously there was some sort of Hora'ah going on. So it is clear that Hora'ah doesn't require semikhah, unless you want to argue that they were doing it all illegitimately. granting a degree of ordination was re-established(perhaps in response to universities, perhaps other reasons, see "The Emergence of the Professional rabbi in Ashkenzic Jewry by Bernard Rosensweig in Tradition, especially references in note 6) and the word Semikhah was used(although not always and not always exclusively). But you are arguing that somehow someway the restrictions from ancient Semikhah still apply- well, actually you are only arguing that the restrictions on women still apply, you have conveniently neglected to argue for the restriction of semikhah to Eretz Yisrael, for the wearing of special clothing, and all the other restrictions that were in place on ancient Semikhah. I have not had a chance to see the Maharik inside. But just because he applies halachot of relationships between teacher and student doesn't seem to be a reason to generalize that everything that applied to ancient Semikhah applies to today's neo-semikhah. That logically makes no sense. Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus tradition trope. It is a false dichotomy. First of all, as R. Shalom Carmy wrote, the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism. More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of our Masoretic values has changed over time. We don't value slavery or polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more. And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah. Furthermore, our Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a women. L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 07:40:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:40:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is becoming increasingly clear to me that I need a very basic lesson in the concepts of "redemption" and a "redeemer's" responsibilities. In my experience, we find two different sorts of redemption in Judaism. (I was going to write "in Halacha", but it seems that Boaz's actions were more sociological and ethnic than halachically mandatory.) One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and "redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many others. The other sort of kedusha has nothing to do with kedusha, but rather ownership of land. If I'm not mistaken, we find this in Shmitta, Yovel, and ordinary land sales in a walled city (and maybe elsewhere too?). In these cases, land has been sold outright, but under certain circumstances, the original owner has a right to buy it back from the new owner. AFTER WRITING THE ABOVE, I remembered another sort of redemption, that of the Goel Hadam. That seems irrelevant, because even though Naomi is now destitute, and her husband and sons are dead, no murder was committed. I also found yet another kind of Goel, described in Vayikra 25:47-54: If a person became poor and sold himself, then close relatives are obligated to redeem him and purchase his freedom. Although Naomi and Ruth did not reach that level (slavery), I can easily imagine that a social sort of redemption would require Tov or Boaz to help them out. I would call this "tzedaka" (not geula) but I suppose this might be the origin of the rule that one's primary obligation in tzedaka is to relatives. Many thanks to all who wrote to me (both on- and off-list), who put so much effort into helping me learn this subject. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 03:01:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:01:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= Message-ID: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a commentary how do you read it? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 02:59:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 09:59:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] support? Message-ID: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah restrictions are generally not observed (e.g., hello includes a social hug between the sexes), although Reuvain is meticulous in his observance of them. He is in his office in a conference with two colleagues when Miriam, the wife of a third tier social friend, also well past childbearing age, comes to the office door and says with a tear in her eye, "Reuvain, I hate to do this to you." Reuvain quickly asks his colleagues to excuse them, and Miriam blurts out, "David (her husband) just passed away," and she begins to slump, crying. Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to comfort her and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not make any request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but she did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion of the community which did not presume a social negiah restriction. Was Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, what should he have done? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:23:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 15:23:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:01:10AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a : commentary how do you read it? I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq venimtza qal" were written out. That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:43:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 22:43:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?va=E2=80=99v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <30b106b1-2a2d-f8dd-e692-4af1979063c9@starways.net> v'doke On 6/4/2017 1:01 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a > commentary how do you read it? > Kt > Joel rich > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:33:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 15:33:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] support? In-Reply-To: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170604193342.GA24739@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 09:59:23AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a : Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah : restrictions are generally not observed... A real maaseh shahayah, which would liely garner the same thoughts. One day, around 10am, the woman sitting in the cubicle next to mine gets a call on her cell, and after a few moments had her screaming and crying. It was the Salvation Army, where her son volunteered and lived. He didn't wake up that morning. Another co worker of ours, a yehivish guy who grew up in Israel but lives in Lakewood, got us a conference room, dialed some phone calls for her -- the coronor's office and the like. He was clearly cfrom communities in which persumed social negi'ah restrictions are fully observed. But when our co worker broke down in a fresh round of crying, he put his arm around her. I think to do anything else is to be a tzadiq shoteh. But I never asked a she'eilah; that was just my gut reaction at the time. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:01:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 23:01:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Noam, It's not a "trope". While there can be situations in which egalitarianism vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them. Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not. It seems a poor argument, as well. I don't believe there is anyone who, without the impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical concepts of justice demand that we ordain women." Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Distinctions are one of the hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and non-Jews or men and women. We have never viewed having different roles as indicating superiority and inferiority. That judgment is foreign to our tradition. Foreign to halakha. Foreign to the Torah. Please note that I'm not talking about whether, given the assumption that having different roles conveys inferiority, one could argue in favor of equalizing roles in the name of justice. I am talking about that assumption itself. It is an assumption that comes from egalitarianism, and cannot be found in Jewish tradition, which is not subject to Brown v Board of Education. Different does *not* necessarily mean unequal in Judaism. Polygamy was never a "value". To Mormons, perhaps. Not to us. It was simply something permitted. Slavery is out of the question purely on dina d'malchuta dina grounds. Were that not the case, we might still engage in it. We certainly haven't changed the halakha pertaining to either kind of avdut (K'naani or Ivri). You say that modern values have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in our Mesorah. Can I ask where the need for such a re-evaluation comes from? It was my understanding that we value all of our Mesorah, and do not sift through it, deciding what parts of it we value and what parts we do not. Also, please note that I have specifically referred to egalitarianism, and *not* to feminism. I don't believe that feminism requires egalitarianism, and the moves by the left to try and force Orthodox Judaism into an egalitarian framework have nothing to do with the basic idea that women are fully competent adult human beings, which is what feminism was originally about. On 6/4/2017 6:48 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus > tradition trope. It is a false dichotomy. First of all, as R. Shalom > Carmy wrote, the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to > Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism. > More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of > our Masoretic values has changed over time. We don't value slavery or > polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more. > And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for > us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah. Furthermore, our > Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna > in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a > women. L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:53:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:53:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . I wrote that the Mishneh Berurah, despite a lack of semicha, > frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the > ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression > of his personal opinion. R' Micha Berger responded: > Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed > this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone > know what has been said in the years since the standardization > of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh. Yes, he does self-describe as a summary and teaching/learning tool. But he does *not* specifically disclaim being a posek for halacha l'maaseh. The Igros Moshe and many other recent seforim do that, but I do not see it in the Mishneh Berurah. As an example, let's open to the very first page. He writes in MB 1:2 (near the end) about Netilas Yadayim upon waking in the morning: "Some say that for this, the entire house is considered like four amos. But (4) do not rely on this except in a shaas hadchak." Let's analyze that: He cites an unnamed lenient opinion, and clearly tells us not to rely on it. Note 4 leads us to his own Shaar Hatziun, where he gives his source, the Shaarei Teshuva. The Shaarei Teshuva, fortunately, is printed on this same page, and I direct your attention to the last four lines of #2, where the lenient opinion is named as being the Rashba. It is not clear to me whether the psak to *not* rely on that Rashba comes from the Shvus Yaakov, or whether it is from the Shaarei Teshuva himself. But either way, it is clear to me that the Mishne Berurah is taking sides, and IS PASKENING TO US that we should be machmir unless it is a shaas hadchak. > In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in > every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, > which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise > unreachable. Then we need to figure out what *is* required for hora'ah. Because it seems clear to me that the Chofetz Chaim felt that he met the criteria, and (perhaps more importantly) Klal Yisrael agreed. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:58:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 19:58:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2F566ED7-C27E-4141-9BAA-E81C69F30CE1@sibson.com> > > I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq > venimtza qal" were written out. > > That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. > > HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" > -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. ------------ I had always been taught the latter. The bar Ilan data base uses the former. I suppose one could rationalize one person's try and it will seem easy is another's it's a bit of a stretch. Then again Kuf lamed could be kal lhavin or kasheh li. :-) Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 15:56:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 17:56:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > It's not a "trope". While there can be situations in which egalitarianism > vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them. > Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to > the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not. It seems a poor > argument, as well. I don't believe there is anyone who, without the > impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical > concepts of justice demand that we ordain women." > Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Distinctions are one of the > hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and > non-Jews or men and women. We have never viewed having different roles as > indicating superiority and inferiority. That judgment is foreign to our > tradition. Foreign to halakha. Foreign to the Torah. Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" It isn't an issue of being like men, it is an issue of fairness and justice. Regarding 'modern values' and Mesorah. please read Rabbi Walter Wurzburger, regarded as one of R. Soloveitchik's most prominent students here: http://download.yutorah.org/TUJ/TU1_Wurtzburger.pdf Since chazal owned slaves and the Gemara didn't outlaw them, obviously owning slaves was not seen as odious as it is now. I doubt that current rabbis have the same positive view of slavery as you do. in fact, one published author does not. see R. Gamliel Shmalo here: http://download.yutorah.org/2013/1053/798326.pdf Similar to polygamy, I doubt that any current rabbinical authority thinks that polygamy should be instituted(except in the very rare situations of heter me'ah rabbonim when in practicality there is only one wife) Many authorities, including Rav Lichtenstein, R. Nachum Rabinovitch(and see R. Wurzburger's article for citations to classic authorities of the past) and others state clearly that encountering 'modern values' helps us figure out which how to better balance the values already in our Masorah. And, as I pointed out, our Masorah has already moved towards egalitarianism, as demonstrated that most MO poskim don't hold by the Mishna in Horiyyot. And who was denying that there are different roles? no one denies that there are different roles for the genders. But Halacha should be the determinant of what those differences are. Not someone saying, "well, there have to be differences, and I am going to tell you what those differences should be." If there are no good Halakhic arguments against women's ordination(and there aren't), then claiming that there should be different roles for different genders is not a coherent argument. Basically you could use the same argument for everything and anything, since there is no Halachic basis for it. You could say that women shouldn't ride bikes because gender roles have to be different. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:47:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <6736acd1-ba2d-c1bc-1762-d8e55bb8e473@sero.name> On 04/06/17 06:01, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a > commentary how do you read it? Vest du velen kvetchen, kadoches vest du vissen On 04/06/17 15:23, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. > HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" > -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. Or "vedayeq vetimtza qashe" -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 20:38:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 23:38:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605033858.JVPC32620.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a >specific shayla for a specific person. I guess the question is: is that related to semicha? Note the following (by Joel B. Wolowelsky, from that Tradition issue last year that focused on women's leadership issues) The standards of the semikha might vary from yeshiva to yeshiva even though the text of the klaf certificate is generally the same. I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters of grave import. Very few rabbis are viewed as posekim, and their authority surely does not rest on any formal semikha they were awarded at an early stage in their professional career. Most rabbis even most pulpit rabbis are relied upon to relate what the accepted halakha is, not what it should be. They are not assumed to be posekim. Rabbi Menachem Penner, Dean of RIETS, recently made this clear when he stated that: not all individuals given the title of rabbi are entitled to serve as decisors of Jewish law... Following the halakhic opinion of a scholar or rabbi who is not recognized as a posek would represent a fundamental breach in the mesorah of the establishment of normative halakha... Musmakhim of RIETS, along with all learned individuals, are entitled to their personal opinions on halakhc matters and the halakhic system as it functions today and may publicize their views as opinions that are not halakhically binding. If this is true of musmakhim of RIETS, who have completed many serious and demanding years of study, all the more so for the myriads of rabbis who earned their semikha by simply sitting for a less-demanding final exam after self-study or learning in a beit midrash up until their wedding, at which time they received semikha. We should quickly note that this is not intended to imply a diminution of the value of semikha. Rather it reflects an unprecedented expansion of Torah study in our community. Which raises the obvious question: if so many men have semicha that shouldn't engage in hora'ah, what's the problem of having a woman in a similar position? [Email #2.] Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that in Israel, this doesn't seem to be so much of an issue. May I recommend an utterly fascinating article on this: A VIEW FROM THE OTHER SIDE By Rachel Levmore, Ph.D. - Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 05:42:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 12:42:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" ----------------------------------------------------- As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question (chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", on what basis are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" I'd say the debaters on this issue would be well served to read J Haidt's The Righteous Mind https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj_nMSM3abUAhUG7CYKHRfcAJgQFghZMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Frighteousmind.com%2F&usg=AFQjCNH2OB9Ny75lbVswde2ndpkNKXvilQ&sig2=hBXRmEu1I6x-J0radUdXqA to better understand why they aren't convincing each other KT Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 12:00:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lo Taamod In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605190033.GD3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:54:06AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Asher Weiss discusses in parshat Vayeitzeih on lo taamod al : dam reiacha that one would have to give up all his assets to save a : single life if he is the only one who can do it. However, "it's pashut" : that if others can also do it, that he doesn't have to give up all his : assets. Why is it so pashut if others refuse? (i.e. why isn't it a joint : and several liability?) I am not sure halakhah has the concept. The nearest I can think of is a zeh vezeh goreim, such as if a shor tam pushes another ox into a third party's bor bereshus harabbim. SA CM 410:32 rules that the baal habor must pay 3/4. Hezeq by a shor tam need only be reimbered 50%. So, the owner of the shor tam only has to pay 50% of his half of the guilt -- 25%. The baal habor therefore would cause the loss of the other 75%, so he has to reimberse it. But there is a machloqes about what happens when one of the two doesn't have the money -- does the other have to pick up the difference, or not? If not, then wouldn't that mean halakhah doesn't have a notion of joint and several liability?" But even if he does have to pay what the other can't... One may still be choleiq between someone who did something that incurs a fine and a chiyuv to spend money. It's not really a "liability". And this is beyond the usual limits of a chiyuv.... If there are others who can save the guy, RAW says I'm not chayav to spend all my money, but what about spending up to a chomesh, like for any other chiyuv? Maybe even if there is joint and several liability, it stops at 1/5 rather than 100%. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 12:33:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:33:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? In-Reply-To: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim : b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman : shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? The SA says "yekhavein lehispalel besha'ah shehatzibur mispallelim". Your question is why the Rama -- or is the Semag, I couldn't find the citation -- doesn't mention minchah. I think the MB s"q 31-32 *implies* that the emphasis is on Shacharis and Maariv since the solar landmarks vary the most, and therefore the minyan is more likely to have their own idiosyncratic time -- late Shacharis or early Maariv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The waste of time is the most extravagant micha at aishdas.org of all expense. http://www.aishdas.org -Theophrastus Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 11:49:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:49:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170605184905.GC3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 10:00:22PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : Can I burn something that was hefker without acquiring it? If I declare : something hefker (I'm not sure the legal implication of batel), and then I : burn it, wouldn't that imply I'm koneh it? Which makes things much worse. We might argue whether bitul chameitz means something other than hefqer. But even if it does, how can a formula that ends "vehefqer ke'afrah de'ar'a" not render it *also* hefqer? I am not sure what kind of qinyan burning would be. (Shinui? but shinui to something worthless is back to not having anything shaveh perutah to own.) Taking from hefqer means there is no maqneh, does that mean there is no qoneh? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 11:37:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:37:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a : conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of : YaVY... Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because there is no actual issur la'avor. : Since when is conversation : hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes : the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation : carries the din YvAY. I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from hirhurim. And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA: : That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, : causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of : hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and : certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? : : The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya : due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the downward character spiral. Tie'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:13:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? In-Reply-To: <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> References: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5424769a-057e-b1d6-87b8-130dad06850d@sero.name> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > : S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim > : b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman > : shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? It seems to me that "shacharit v'arvit" here may not mean the tefillot but the times: they should daven each morning and evening when they know the minyan in the city is davening. The city minyan presumably does mincha and maariv together in one evening session, so that's what individuals should do. This is so especially if this is from the Smag, and we know from Rashi and Tosfos Brachos 2a that the minhag in France at that time was to daven maariv immediately after mincha, while it was still daylight. We also know from elsewhere that minhag Ashkenaz at a later time was similarly to go straight from the Kaddish Tiskabel after Mincha to Vehu Rachum and Borchu, with no Aleinu or Shir Hamaalos/kaddish (or Ledavid in Elul) in between. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:55:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:55:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:40:56AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and : "redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually : to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many : others.... I think that bringing up pidyon and temurah just cloud the issue. IMinsufficientlyHO, it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that strikes me as a progression): - the go'el hadam - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) - and of people (ibid v 48) - the end of galus To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on its nachalah. But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first -- "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why there are different words in lh"q. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 14:06:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:06:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605210617.GB23709@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 03:18:13PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that : Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent : introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, : pages 48-52. Which ties to the other thread about how we're to view Yiftach or Shimshon -- baalei mesorah or amei ha'aretz? It's possible that at the nadir points in the days of shofetim, being the gadol hador didn't rule out also having fundamental flaws. : R' Zev Sero wrote: :> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the :> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. : It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it : something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus : and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus : then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. If it was some general Semitic notion of ge'ulah, then perhaps being common-law spouses in a 7 Mitzvos b' Noach sense would be enough to trigger ge'ulah, even if yibum would require real qiddushin. After all, the basis for ge'ulah was likely that the woman came to depend on the family for her support, and it would be wrong to let her down. Which is true of a Moaviah intermarrying into a Jewish family, even if the marriage only seemed real to her. I am also reminded of the Rambam IB 13, discussed hear repeatedly ad nauseum. Shimshon's and Shelomo's wives were p[resumed Jewish until their actions showed that they not only had ulterior motive, they lacked a true motive (qabbalas ol mitzvos) altogether. Geirei `arayos all are in that boat -- if we think they were mequbalos al mitzvos along with wanting to convert to marry, we presume they're kosher Jews but suspect and watch whether behavior matches presumption. Rus would be in a similar situation, no? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 14:55:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:55:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> References: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4674ee8c-5f5e-c740-051a-00191c18b4fb@sero.name> On 05/06/17 16:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > IMinsufficientlyHO, it pays to just stick to trying to find a common > theme to all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that > strikes me as a progression): > > [...] > > - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's not an > actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) Where is the word found in this context? My position is that the use in Megilath Ruth is an instance of the next meaning. > - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) - and of people (ibid v 48) This one. AIUI the underlying theme of this mitzvah is discharging ones own obligations, or those of a relative who is unable to do so himself. When one has sold the family patrimony, one must buy it back so that people will no longer look at one as someone who had to do that. If one can't, then whoever in the family can afford to do so must buy it back, to clear ones name. Included in this is a sub-obligation that if one is aware that a relative has to sell family land, and one can afford to buy it, one must offer to do so, so he is never subjected in the first place to the ignominy of selling it out of the family. (That, as near as I can tell, is what was happening in Ruth. Naomi and Ruth, having claimed Elimelech's property for their ketubot, were now purportedly looking for a buyer, and turned to the family to give them first refusal.) By extension this also includes discharging other obligations, not to do with the family land, such as ones obligation to a woman whom a relative has left destitute, so that her state will not be a disgrace to the family. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:56:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 20:56:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to comfort her > and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not make any > request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but she > did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion > of the community which did not presume a social negiah restriction. Was > Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, > what should he have done? I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to include any contact in any social situation in addition to more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly consistently not included are professional scenarios where your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors, nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says there that even in his generation he was unique in being able to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for this situation. But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei aveira then there is no issur of negia. I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred option. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 03:08:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 10:08:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? I heard from Rav Matis Weinberg that the final reference to Ruth Hamoavia emphasises that, despite the way we usually think of geirus, and despite everything she's gone through, she remains a Moavia. Meaning that she retains her Moavi roots and personal context, and brings the positive from that into Klal Yisrael. I understand him as polemicising against the tendency to destroy ones previous identity, consciously or otherwise, in order to join the Jewish world either as a ger or a baal teshuva. Ben ________________________________ From: Avodah on behalf of via Avodah Sent: 02 June 2017 03:34 To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 72 Send Avodah mailing list submissions to avodah at lists.aishdas.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org You can reach the person managing the list at avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." A list of common acronyms is available at http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms Avodah Acronyms ? The AishDas Society www.aishdas.org Here?s a hopefully useful but incomplete list of acronyms that are standard to Avodah, but aren?t in common usage. I marked each either ?A? for those specific ... (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) Today's Topics: 1. Re: Maharat (Rich, Joel via Avodah) 2. Re: Maharat (Ben Waxman via Avodah) 3. Re: Maharat (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 4. matched soldier and praying for them (M Cohen via Avodah) 5. Re: Maharat (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) 6. Elimelech's land (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 7. Ruth Hamoaviah (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 8. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (ADE via Avodah) 9. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (Zev Sero via Avodah) 10. A Holiday Afterthought (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) 11. Re: A Holiday Afterthought (Micha Berger via Avodah) 12. Re: Ruth Hamoaviah (Zev Sero via Avodah) 13. Re: Ruth Hamoaviah (Lisa Liel via Avodah) 14. Re: Elimelech's land (Ben Waxman via Avodah) 15. Re: Elimelech's land (Zev Sero via Avodah) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:06:28 +0000 From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" To: 'Ilana Elzufon' , "'The Avodah Torah Discussion Group'" , Micha Berger , "Akiva Miller" , Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05 at VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. ---------------------------------------------------- Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the debate on black letter law? KT Joel Rich (full disclosure-kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-not everything that is permitted to you should be done) THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:22:13 +0200 From: Ben Waxman via Avodah To: Ilana Elzufon , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Micha Berger , Akiva Miller , Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Probably the best and most succinct historical analogy I've seen for this question. Ben On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > > Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women > rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the > vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it > seems to be shaping up as the latter. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:59:33 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation. Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. How can this be? Dare we imagine that he did such things unauthorizedly? Certainly he must have had/received some sort of Heter Hora'ah. If so, then when and how did he get it - and without getting semicha at the same time? Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:01 -0400 From: M Cohen via Avodah To: , Subject: [Avodah] matched soldier and praying for them Message-ID: <014801d2d969$41c5c800$c5515800$@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A while ago on Avodah, a well known (chareidi) Baal machshava was quoted as disagreeing strongly with the concept of matching frum people with a nonfrum soldier in order to pray for them. "we have no brotherhood with secular Israelis" Recently, I posted to Avodah a link to a collection of 1400 short tshuvot from HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlitah (of Toronto) On the above topic, he writes there.. #600 Pray As They Go Q. There are two organizations here in Eretz Yisroel, one called; Elef LaMateh, and the other; The Shmirah Project. Basically, their intent is to match Israeli soldiers with Avreichim and bochurim learning. Each Avreich and Bochur who volunteers, receives the name of a specific soldier (his name and his mother's name) that he takes responsibility to daven for and learn specially for so that in the merit of the tefillos and learning, that soldier will merit to return home alive and well. (Is this a good idea) A. HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is a great mitzvah to pray, learn Torah and accomplish mitzvos for the benefit of all our brethren B'nay Yisroel in times of peril and need, especially for those who put their life in harm's way to save and protect others. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:39:53 +0200 From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah To: "Rich, Joel" Cc: Avodah , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Micha Berger , Akiva Miller Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should be identical for each community and each generation? - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:01:50 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" . I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start farming? I suppose it was pretty desolate after a ten-year famine, but did she even try? She must have at least gone there to see the place, if for no other reason than to be sure that no squatters took over while she was gone. Without making sure of such things, how could she even hope that anyone (even a goel) would buy it? Maybe she expected to get a better profit from Boaz than she'd get from farming it herself, but maybe there are other answers? Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:05:01 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the distinction? When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on this. Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:14:59 +0100 From: ADE via Avodah To: Zev Sero , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are still being machshiv some pesukim over others. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk > *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:32:23 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: ADE <9006168 at gmail.com>, The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: <510d4fd4-6c91-fb85-0c23-f6cdfa7ffcbf at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 02/06/17 05:14, ADE wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one >> pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this >> reason. > Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are > still being machshiv some pesukim over others. There is no requirement to treat all pesukim exactly the same. One is entitled to stand or sit during KhT as one wishes, and has no obligation to choose one policy and stick to it. The problem is only with standing up for special pesukim, such as Shma or the 10D. Since there's nothing special about the pasuk before the 10D, there's no problem with deciding to stand for it. And when the special pesukim come along one is already standing, so one has no obligation to sit down. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:46:10 -0400 From: Cantor Wolberg via Avodah To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50 at cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In our personal religious commitments there are those among us scrupulous in performance of the ceremonial mitzvot but at the same time displaying reckless disregard of our elementary duties towards our fellowman. Halacha embraces human life in its totality. One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social trait from our behavior! A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:31:31 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Cantor Wolberg , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <20170602153131.GA15356 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made : a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study : of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social : trait from our behavior! Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, among the aphorisms of his listed in R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I. :-)BBii! -Micha ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:28:00 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Akiva Miller via Avodah , "akivagmiller at gmail.com >> Akiva Miller" Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: <4dd6e4f1-2d00-a274-ace0-e5d2a803039a at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 01/06/17 23:05, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I only see four instances of "Ruth Hamoaviah", three in ch 2, and only one in ch 4, in Boaz's description of the situation to Tov. Since his purpose was to scare him off, it made sense to mention her origin, so Tov would be reluctant to risk his future. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:20:16 +0300 From: Lisa Liel via Avodah To: Akiva Miller , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 6/2/2017 6:05 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I can't cite a source for it, but I remember once reading that Ruth HaMoaviah was intended to praise her, since she gave up her position in Moav to join us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus [https://static2.avast.com/11/web/min/i/mkt/share/avast-logo.png] Avast | Download Free Antivirus for PC, Mac & Android www.avast.com Protect your devices with the best free antivirus on the market. Download Avast antivirus and anti-spyware protection for your PC, Mac and Android. ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:31:41 +0200 From: Ben Waxman via Avodah To: Akiva Miller , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Actually if the land had lied fallow for 10 years, it should be in good shape. Granted it needs weeding but the soil should be good. It only requires a relatively small amount of rain for grass to grow and re-invigorate the soil. Maybe she was too old to work the land and figured that a sale would provide her with enough money to live out the rest of her days in dignity? Ben On 6/2/2017 5:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:17:52 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Akiva Miller via Avodah , Akiva Miller Subject: Re: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: <272b8698-d5c1-55a1-560b-2bc6d0c39b74 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 01/06/17 23:01, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? It seems to me that finding a buyer for the property was not at all important to her, and in fact she had shown no interest in doing so until she saw how she could use it to get Boaz to marry Ruth. It was Boaz who spun the story out for Tov in order to scare him off; first he drew him in with the prospect of an easy transaction for Naomi's portion of the field, but then he threw in the Ruth monkey wrench. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/avodah http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org ------------------------------ End of Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 72 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 04:24:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:24:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <545028A09009CEB1.0C33F862-E0BD-4F09-B72B-2B14A928A471@mail.outlook.com> I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter, the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat, is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin and relay the answer. We have fine female educators like Shani Taragin etc and we have Yoatzot Halacha as above. I consider this ordination movement as a Western valued and inspired institution. Indeed, these days I know Shules look for husband *and* wife teams. The Rebbetzin occupies an increasingly important place. This is most certainly also true of successful Chabad Houses, and here I speak of people like Rivki Holtzberg hy'd whom I knew well personally and I watched as the women gathered around her and the men around her husband. This is the mimetic tradition not withstanding exceptions. That, I believe is the thrust of the OU proclamation and it is dead on the money. Judaism certainly adapts but it is not the plasticine for Western values and aspirations. Even at a funeral, where one expects little hope for Yetzer Hora, the Halacha mandates the Shura to be separate for males and females. This category of notion underpins our Mesora and always did; right back to the days when our tents were arranged with Tzniyus in mind. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 07:26:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:26:41 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap Message-ID: can anyone explain and show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from non-Kosher fat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 07:23:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:23:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh Message-ID: regarding Chamets buried under a collapsed building where we remain the owner - we intend to salvage it after Pesach but are not transgressing BY and BY without needing to make Bittul I explained that Halachic ownership is determined by ones perception of control and explained this is the reason that YiUsh means one is no longer an owner for example you forget your wallet holding your ID and some money in a restaurant even though you go back in the HOPE of finding it or are HOPING an honest person will return it this is nevertheless YiUsh you no longer believe you are in control although RaMBaM encourages that the finder return it Halachically the finder is entitled to tell you Once upon a time this was yours - but you were MeYaEsh so it is no longer yours and I picked it up AFTER you were already MeYaEsh This is the foundation for the Pesak of R Y E Spektor that money lost by a woman at a trade fair MUST be returned because there was NO YiUsh the money had been found and taken to the local Rav it matched perfectly the description given by the woman who lost it but the finder insisted he wants to keep the money unless he is obliged to return it even though the woman had Simanim Muvhakim there was no doubt the money found was the money she lost she was certainly MeYaEsh she is not the owner Reb Y E Spektor Paskened that there was no YiUsh her husband is the owner and he, sitting many miles away was unaware of the loss of the money so there was no YiUsh R Micha argues that this is not correct he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost so there is no YiUsh however if they would know it is lost they would be MeYaEsh I would suggest that there is no problem the Machlokes is simply a dispute about ACTUAL belief one is in control versus POTENTIAL belief one is in control for example walking behind a fellow Yid you notice a diamond fall off his ring he would be unaware of his loss if we say YiUsh requires DaAs then there is no YiUsh yet you would have to wait until you see the fellow stop and look around for something then you can take your foot off the diamond and take it home [BTW is such a person a Rasha? or worse, not a Mentsch?] If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs then you can take the diamond straight away because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 10:48:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:48:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> , <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a : conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of : YaVY... Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because there is no actual issur la'avor. I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where there's an issur involved? That's why I'm suggesting that since it's on pain of yeihareig then we know there must an issur la'avor so the point of the sugya is to work out what that is. The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below. : Since when is conversation : hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes : the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation : carries the din YvAY. I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from hirhurim. >From hirhurim? Chazal were gozer yeihareig on hirhurei aveira? If that were true we'd find the same din in a lot of other places. Which is why is seems to me we must be dealing with something else here. And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA: : That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, : causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of : hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and : certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? : : The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya : due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the downward character spiral. Me'heicha teisi that we're dealing with Hilkhos De'os here? Where do you find a din of yeihareig in Hilchos De'os? Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does. Your partially stated assumption is that this din in both man d'amrim is d'rabanan. Rambam strongly implies otherwise. Kol tuv Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 09:19:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha wrote: "In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable. And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving R Ploni answering questions. (The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the model.) This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads -- or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her rebbe's license?" me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using. They are hiding behind ambiguity. if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do hora'ah. AND, you cant use the model of semicha to prohibit women from hora'ah, becuase in the Venn diagram of the topic, there is hora'ah outside the lines of semicha. So R. Micha et al need to provide some other basis for their issur of hora'ah, AND, address all those who write that a woman can provide hora'ah. AND, address the quote from R. Penner that the semicha for REITS graduates is not one to pasken(or perhaps even to give hora'ah). AND, address why(rather than simply say) the Rabbanut semichah test system, perhaps the most popular semicha in Orthodoxy, does not undermine his entire thesis. One can give a woman 'heter hora'ah l'rabbim' because there has not been a cogent argument presented not to do so, and there are many poskim who write that a woman can give hora'ah. The argument regarding 'what would HKBH' want is interesting. Does he want us to restrict women from doing things just so that we can say there are differences between men and women? Or, did He establish Halakha to help us sort out those that He wants, rather than ancient ones that and are gradually being re-evaluated, similar to how we have gradually moved away from embracing slavery, polygamy(in the vast majority of instances), restrictions on the deaf/dumb, the devaluation of women(see Mishna in Horiyyot 'men's lives are saved prior to women....), the idea that a women's wisdom is only with the spindle, one who teaches his daughter Torah has taught her tiflut, etc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 11:28:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:28:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/6/2017 7:19 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all > those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to > clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using. They are > hiding behind ambiguity. if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then > saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do > hora'ah. Are you suggesting that the burden of proof is on those *opposed* to a radical change in Jewish practice? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 11:18:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:18:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> (And also some "Re: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim".) On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:48am CDT, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you : understand the OU panel as defining it. Otherwise you are just using a : nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning. To me, "semichah" is a secondary concept. My focus was to assert whose halachic decision-making can qualify as hora'ah. That question involves semichah in the discussion. We were discussing the Rama YD 242:14. The Mechaber writes in strong terms that a higi'ah lehora'ah is obligated to actually provide hora'ah. The Rama there adds that this is only if there is no barrier of kevod harav -- his rebbe passed away, gave him semichah, is a rebbe-chaver, or the like. He doesn't make semichah a definition of magi'ah lehora'ah, but only a removal of a barrier, a necessary condition in the usual circumstances. Not a defining feature. If we look at the Rama in se'ifim 5-6, he tells you he is basing himself on the Mahariq (113.3, 117 [and the OU panel adds, cf 169). The Mahariq's position is based on assuming that what was true for classical semichah is still true for modern day semichah. The Rambam (Sanhedrin 4:8) agrees with that comparison -- he derives the need today for netilas reshus from Mosaic semichah. IOW, who needs reshus for hora'ah? Someone who is magi'ah lehora'ah and has kevoad harav issues in giving hora'ah without one. A magi'ah lehora'ah can only be someone eligable to sit on a BD of [Mosaic] musmachim (or according to the Rambam, other mumchim). Not because "rabbi" is defined by "has semichah", but because "yoreh yoreh" or Yesivat Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim" declares someone to be a hegi'ah lehorah. I find the OU's argument compelling, fits the words of R/Prof SL's letter and is probably his intent, and how I understood the sugyah in general before the notion of an O woman as rabbi became a topic people would seriously discuss. I am interested to know if you asked R/D Novak which one of us understood his intent. Did he mean to explain R/Prof SL's position or explain why he differs with it in ways that makes Yeshivat Maharat an option? Agreed that few rabbis pasqen, and that we could have female clergy that avoid this first issue that I have even if a Maharat's semichah read "Rabbah uManhigah" instead of "heter hora'ah lerabbim". : The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship : between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah : to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here: : http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah ... : So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that : apply to beit din. That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist... And yet the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama all think that one continues enough of the other that we can draw conclusions across that bridge. It's not me doing the category taking, it's the Rambam and the SA. What greater authorities do you need? While on the topic of magi'ah lehorah... On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 11:24am GMT, Isaac Balbin wrote: : I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his : students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the : aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was : a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter, : the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat, : is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is : 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin : and relay the answer. There is a difference. Hopefully, someone who get "Yoreh Yoreh" is first magi'ah lehora'ah. But that's a sliding scale. They could get reshus to pasqn because there are less weighty or less involved questions they can and should be answering, while still being aware when they are in over their heads and should call RMF. Whereas the impression I got from RYHH's posts here on Avodah is that a Yo'etzet isn't supposed to ever be giving pesaq; only answering questions that the community has definite answers for -- reporting halakhah pesuqah. But then there's the second and third issues.... 2- How do we know shul is no supposed to be a men's club? Men's clubs work, or at least the Rotary and the Masons have for centuries. Movements that went egalitarian now have issues getting male participation in shul; this is a big topic in Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs (C umbrella organization) discussion. And more fundamentally, how do we know that this social dynamic was not Anshei Keneses haGdolah's intent? I would assume indeed it was. This would rule out having a woman for much of the congretational role of rabbi. 3- Halakhah is inherently non-egalitarian: a- Importing an external value over those implied internally. And more functionally, we are telling women that indeed, the traditionally male role is the better path to holiness -- let us help you run at that glass ceiling. b- This is bound to lead to greater frustration as soon as LWMO has gone as far as it could up to that halachic limit. and c- It is making a claim that is false. One is sacrificing Judaism's model of equal worth despite hevdel for the sake of egalitarianism and erasing havdalah. The last being more of a perceptual issue. And this may explain why you can get a bit further not using the word "rabbi". It's not merely a word game, there is an issue at stake; are we trying to be egalitarian, or to accept a system in which kohanim not only defy egalitarianism, but apparently start out holier than I am. Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW. On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 7:51am IST, Ben Waxman wrote: : For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community : that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like : Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi : community consider to be kefira. Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'" (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not! : If so, than kal v'chomer many of : the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are : some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in : getting hung up on multiple non-issues. There are two possible sources of division here. 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators, and therefore in practice will be a separate community. Comfort zone isn't only a psychological issue. it nostalgia, mimetic tradition, Toras imekha or minhag Yisrael sabba, communal continuity is a big issue. 2- The ideological problem isn't in the bottom-level issues but in how they highlighted the loss of common language. The opposition to these changes are talking about Mesorah, values, etc... and the proponents just see the issue as "if it's halachically allowed, why are you giving us a hard time?" This lack of common language, more specifically, the lack of a notion of metahalakhah* is disconcerting. So to my mind the schism-level battle isn't over ordaining women, Partnership Minyanim, or whether Document Hypothesis is a viable option without O as much as these decisions are apparently being made by a different set of rules. And that could quite validly be a schismatic level issue. (* In this sense of the "word" "metahalakhah". We on Avodah have also used "metahalakha" to refer to the halachos of making halakhos, even when the rules are more black-letter. Such as discussions of when we say halakhah kebasrai, or whether there is acharei rabbim lehatos in this post-Sanhedrin era.) Back to R/Dr Noam Stadlan... I believe in a role for women in the clergy that isn't that of poseiq, part of minyan, nor claiming to be egalitarian. The OU thinks that categorizing the resulting role set as "clergy" is itself too egalitarian. Again, I see that as a perceptual issue. But they too end calling for finding more venues for women to contribute communally and to be visible role models. (An Areivim-esque tangent: It would be interesting to see if the OU acts on these closing remarks as rapidly as they did about the 4 member shuls that already have Maharatos.) But then, the only difference between the position now taken by Aish or Chabad kiruv today and the actual permission granted in the driving responsum is perception as well. In terms of dry facts, both were premitting causing the non-observant to drive on Shabbos rather than let them remain disconnected. They only differed in how they let the person perceive his own driving. And yet one was a major part of a broad collapse of observance, and the other is apparently increasing observance. Presentation and perception matter. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:03:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:03:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606150330.GB26549@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:23:51AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : R Micha argues that this is not correct : he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control : then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs : i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost : so there is no YiUsh : however if they would know it is lost : they would be MeYaEsh Rather, I was saying ownership hinges on responsibility, which I suggested was both a consequence of and license for having actual control. : I would suggest that there is no problem : the Machlokes is simply a dispute about : ACTUAL belief one is in control versus : POTENTIAL belief one is in control It would help if you can find a case where somone has potential of believing they control an item for reasons other than having actual control, and has the din of ba'al, OR someone has potential to believe they lost control of an item for reasons other than actually losing control, and does not have ba'alus. Yi'ush is giving up on finding it again, not knowledge of loss of control, real or potential. Let me use your example to explain how I see it: : for example : walking behind a fellow Yid : you notice a diamond fall off his ring : he would be unaware of his loss ... : If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs : then you can take the diamond straight away : because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss But this is a case where he loses actual control. The yi'ush shelo mida'as is more of an expectation not to regain it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:06:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606150633.GC26549@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:26:41AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : can anyone explain and : show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim : to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from : non-Kosher fat "Preferable"? Because we make a point of using dish soap that is ra'ui la'akhilah. So, using a treif one means taking a position on akhshevei. I believe the OU knows they are just pandering to the market when they give such a heksher, though, and don't lehalakhah require it. (But you did say "preferable", and avoiding even a shitah dechuyah could be deemed preferable.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:55:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 09:53:30PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil : Siman 199, the Maharil writes: ... :> And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive :> commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we :> should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut ... :> And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible :> to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules :> and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in :> our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and :> hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by :> way of tradition from outside, I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather than knowledge of abstract ideas. However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. There I ass more promise. he quotes the Rambam (which you already discussed) and the Sema"q's haqdamah (from near the end). There the Maharil talks about oseiq beTorah as in kol ha'oseiq beparashas olah kei'lu hiqrivu qorban, and that this should apply even to mitzvos in which they are NOT obligated (like qorbanos). Is this exclusively TSBK? It might; the Maharil talks about men saying birkhos haTorah before reading pesuqim they do not understand. Ayin sham. : And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in : Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous : generations: :> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their :> upright fathers. Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. Which the Maharil you cited appears to be doing as well. I place more hope on the second Maharil. Which is why I disagree with: : But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the : ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach : women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was : taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in : the form of the Mishna?... Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an example to imitate. (Tosafos believe Rabbe compiled the mishnah; writing down didn't happen for centuries. So what the mishnah was to the amora'im was an official text to memorize and repeat. As in "tani tana qamei deR' ..." Not that it really touches on our discussion.) : So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what : the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women : to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al " peh... True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask why, etc... but it's not an "education" setting. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 16:57:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men gather. Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis. So that women can gather around women rabbis. certainly it is not an argument against women rabbis. And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals does not apply either. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 18:50:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:50:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: - R' Shalom Simon wrote: > I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value > as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters > of grave import. No one?!? I imagine this might be true about people who are relatively learned, and relatively savvy in the ways of certain yeshivishe circles. But I can testify that it is certainly not true of a typical less-learned nominally-Orthodox person. Towards the end of my first year in yeshiva in Yerushalayim, as I made my plans to returns back to the USA, my friends were nudging me to stay for a second year. I felt that the proper thing for me to do was to return, as per my plans. But their annoying reached a certain level, and I felt the most effective response would be to ask my gemara rebbe (who I was very close with), and then I'd be able to tell them to keep quiet. Surprise! He answered me honestly, that leaving the yeshiva would be a mistake, I needed a second year of chizuk, etc etc etc. I was devastated, having to choose between his p'sak and what *I* felt to be right. In the end, I wasn't strong enough to follow Hashem's halacha. I left the yeshiva, returned to YU for the one remaining year to get my degree, and then returned to my yeshiva in Yerushalayim. All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha. Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 19:25:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 22:25:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support? Message-ID: - R' Ben Bradley wrote: > I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur > derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what > consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to > include any contact in any social situation in addition to > more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly > consistently not included are professional scenarios where > your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors, > nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who > can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like > the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says > there that even in his generation he was unique in being able > to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for > this situation. > > But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively > certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei > aveira then there is no issur of negia. I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses, physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her, she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia. But in the case at hand, the physical contact is not incidental. It is the goal. Nay, I would argue even more strongly: The mere physical contact isn't the goal -- The EMOTIONAL RESPONSE to the contact is the goal! The whole point of hugging this person is for emotional support. I certainly agree that this sort of hugging is on a lower level that the sort of hugging that leads to sexual relations. But at the same time, it *IS* more intimate than the examples you cited. A person will choose a doctor, nurse or therapist, based on their medical ability -- but the sort of hugs we are discussing here are valued more when from a friend than from a stranger. > I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And > preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in > sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved > in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred > option. "The need to comfort the bereaved..." Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor" regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this "needed" comfort from someone else. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 20:28:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 03:28:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R Meir Rabi asked for mekoros. I suggest Yechaveh Daas 4:43 Although Chacham Ovadya is Meikel he does bring Rishonim who would hold its an Issur Derabonnon as in Pesach for 'off' Chametz. This is probably the place to look but I don't have the Sefer in front of me at the minute. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 03:38:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 06:38:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607103838.GC10990@aishdas.org> There are also sources in RAZZ's column in Jewish Action https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_kosher_soap (He sent me the link privately. Perhaps R/Dr Zivitofsky wanted to spare me being corrected in public.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 06:35:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:35:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> >Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed >incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis >are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community >in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to >do so?" >----------------------------------------------------- >As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question >(chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", >on what basis >are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a >Halachic reason to do so?" But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no? We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni or Tzlophad's daughters. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 06:49:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 08:49:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maharat Message-ID: R. Micha- if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL). It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is one of them. You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get semicha. You obviously hold that a woman cant be a judge, and the barrier to the woman is actually not semicha, but her not being qualified to be in the category of hl. Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness. There are others in that category. Since there is no reason to differentiate between those in the category, you are saying that all those others in the category also are forbidden, not from semicha, but from being in the category of HL. We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be dayyanim in some cases. So, the disqualification of women from HL actually wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot. So your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not claiming to be eligible for semicha. I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive lomdus. Is there a source that specifically states that women are forbidden from being HL? The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age. It seems that you may be distinguishing between hora'ah, and HL, there being hora'ah that is not in the category of being given by someone that is HL(if not, you have to deal with the myriads of sources that state specifically that women can give hora'ah). So you and the OU authors may be referring to HL in the mosaic understanding, and moderns, including YM, are using it in a different fashion, to refer to non-formal HL. Because if there is hora'ah that is not part of the formal HL, there is no restriction on women. And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? what is the basis for that? It seems that even assuming that you are correct(for which I have not found any support in any references), there is no basis for excluding women from having non formal hora'ah, someone acknowledging that they are capable of that non-formal hora'ah, and them functioning as a rabbi and doing what rabbi's do in shuls and elsewhere. Your restriction only keeps them from occupying a formal title which is not neccessary or needed for the job description. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 07:05:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 14:05:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> References: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> Message-ID: <94258eaf26e94a0ea0c49de3630ef2ce@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no? We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni or Tzlophad's daughters. ========================= So just to complete the loop-the question is who gets to answer this request for whom Kt Joel rich _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rn0JnHwKAKxEU5lYbmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGWm5q4mhsFBBsamlgbGDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAF5osAg&Z THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 09:38:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607163850.GA12495@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:49:45AM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL). It's not me positing it. Look again at YD 242:13-14, warning against the talmid shelo higia' lehora'ah against giving any, and the chakham who did higi'ah lehora'ah and was not moreh, applying condemnatory pesuqim to each. The SA is based on R' Abba amar R' Hunah amar Rav on AZ 19b. : It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can : give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is : one of them. So yes, it is clear. The SA says so outright. : You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get : semicha... Again, not me, Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq all assume comparability between the two. A Mahariq the Rama then cites (se'if 6) as the basis for his concluding how a musmach should behave toward the rav who gave him semichah, when not his rebbe. So it would seem the Rama buys into the notion that our "semichah" of declaring someone a hegi'ah lehora'ah (and in the case of a rebbe, implicitely that he has permission to be moreh) follows the rules of Mosaic semicha for beis din. So, thinking you are arguing against me, rather than centuries of dissentless precedent, you propose a line of reasoning at odds with the Rambam and Tosafos: : Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for : those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness... The Sema and Be'eir heiTev (on CM 7:4) does say yalfinan lah mei'eidus. See Nidah 49b But see the Y-mi, Shevuos 4:1 (vilna 19a) brings several derashos. One of them (R' Yosi bei R' Bun, R' Huna besheim R' Yosi) does learn is from a gezeira shava from eidus. ... : We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be : dayyanim in some cases. So, the disqualification of women from HL actually : wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot. So : your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not : claiming to be eligible for semicha. One thing at a time. Eligability for true Mosaic semichah and how it reflect on who can give hora'ah is what's relevant now. Not who can serve in other judicial roles that did/will not require semichah. : I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive : lomdus. Is there a source that specifically states that women are : forbidden from being HL? There are numerous sources that say women can't get real Mosaic semichah, and numerous sources that say that the laws of today's "semichah" are derived from those. The fact that I don't know anyone before the current dispute actually connect the two to deny something no (O and pre-O) observant community considered a plausible question even as recently as the late 1990s (including a statement by R' Avi Weiss) really doesn't make the argument less compelling. If you have A =/= B and B = C, do you really demand a source telling you that A =/= C? : The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara : and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age... No, that HL in the SA is the same. ... : And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the : requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? ... Never claimed that. I separated my problem with declaring a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" for women from my problem with a woman serving during services and from my 2 or 3 problems with giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings in halakhah. You have only responded to the first. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 10:33:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:33:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607173338.GB9596@aishdas.org> As I see it, the question WRT hora'ah is whether we follow the Rama's lead and hold like the Mahariq, or the Birkei Yoseif CM 7:12 a viable shitah -- and then, does "viable" mean "advisable"? (We aren't heter shopping, after all.) The Birkei Yoseif says Af de'ishah besulah ladun, mikol maqom ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah basing himself on one of the opinions in Tosafos (Yevamos 45b "mi", Gittin 88b, ve'od) about what it means that "Devorah melamedes lahem dinim". (Devodah vs. ishah asurah ladun is the topic of 11.) It seem to me that "melameid lahem dinim" is a different use of the word "hora'ah" than the SA is using in YD. And thus it seems to me that Birkei Yoseif would explicitly permit a yo'etzet, who is teaching established halakhah and defering questions that require shiqul hada'as to a rav. But he is not describing hora'ah as assumed in a Maharat's heter hora'ah lerabbim and the YD 242 sense of magi'ah lehora'ah and who needs such a heter when he does. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 10:12:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:12:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607171230.GA2858@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:25:57PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses, : physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a : "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one : will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so : too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked : her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her, : she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia. "Melakhah she'inah tzerichah legudah" is specific to the 39 melakhos, so "sort of" indeed. Besides, might be more of a pesiq reishei. In any case, when a professional violates negi'ah, the heter is ba'avidteih tarid (BM 91b). And it's specifically to professionals and the air of professionalism. (As well as the lowered odds of a problem for someone who has a license at risk.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 12:22:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 21:22:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/7/2017 3:50 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I > will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I > *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for > disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi > Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha. > > Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar > things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent. I would agree that this is an extreme example. I don't know you so I can't say anything about you in particular (not that I would anyway, not on a forum) but I would expect a yeshiva guy who had been learning with a teacher/rav for a year to take the teacher/rav's words much more seriously than the average ba'al habayit. The first thing a ba'al habayit would do is say "Well, I went to him for advice, not psak, so I don't have to listen to him". >I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value >as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters > of grave import. I don't know what constitutes grave import - an abortion? learning Biblical Criticism? Marrying someone of questionable yichus? Whether or not a particular business maneuver constitutes fraud in the eyes of halacha (or if it isn't but is illegal)? Accepting charity from criminals? Would the average MO Jew speak a rav and get his psak on these issues? Or do people limit themselves to strict Orach Chayim issues like eating on Yom Kippur? Are there issues that people will do whatever the rabbi says and ignore what he has to say about other things (obviously people ignore what rabbis have to say about a lot of issues, but I mean a straight psak)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 11:57:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maharat Message-ID: R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress. You are engaging in a theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls. (they were not arguing against specific wording on a claf, they were arguing against holding a specific position). Given what you wrote, we both agree that the OU argument against does not hold water. Even if they are technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are capable of doing so(even if according to you they actually do not need permission from their rav). Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R. Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and others. Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav) have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and the authority is in the sources, not the person. You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments. You have admitted that the issue of women semicha has not been considered until recently. So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong. (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an arguement, that it be consistent. So if you are claiming that the reason women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot. you cant have it both ways). Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.' Please read the article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier. He makes it very clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that external 'modern values' are an important part of that. Modern values are neither positive nor negative. Those that find resonance in the Mesorah are elevated. R. Nachum Rabinovitch and R. Lichtenstein point out that our goal is to make moral progress. You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'. It isn't about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion. As R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice. I happen to be married to a Maharat student and personally know many of them and their teachers. It is the ultimate in hubris and mansplaining for you and the others to claim to know what their motivation is. It was reprehensible of the OU panel to claim to know what the motivation is when they failed to talk to anyone actually involved in the enterprise. Even if we incorrectly grant that it is due to 'egalitarian yearnings,' is that wrong? I suggest that our Mesorah has incorporated egalitarian yearnings. The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way, and those that would probably would give all sorts of apologetics and rationalizations for it. (I am aware of the different shitot, and know that RSZA for example gave so many other rationales to decide that even though l'halacha he held this, there were so many other bases for deciding ahead of gender that practically it never would have been applicable.) Even the OU panel said that we value women the same as men. Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women. The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large or as small as possible? Because as we have decided above, if we go by strict halacha, there is no problem with women serving as shul rabbis. is it a value to have differences, and because you want to have differences, you are going to prohibit women from doing things? Just to have differences? There are differences between Jews and Converts. Is it a Halachic value to maximize the differences, or minimize the differences between Jew and Gerim? R. Moshe wrote that a convert can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah is not a problem. Would he have agreed that a women can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah is also not a problem for her? (rosh yeshiva does not require semicha). Mishpat echad yehiyeh lachem, ka-ger ka-ezrach. The OU paper brought up tzniut. I do not think that the MO community thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a violation of tzniut. So there is no violation of tzniut when women or men perform the functions of clergy on their side of the mechitzah(one could designate a man to take of things on the men's side of the mechitzah if you were worried about interactions across the mechitzah). if you are claiming that this is a tzniut problem, then it applies to every interaction of women and men, inside the shul and outside. The OU paper claimed that a synagogue required greater tzniut, and therefore women cant perform rabbinical duties. That is a non-sequitor. First of all, it hasnt been demonstrated that appropriately dressed and acting people are a problem with tzniut. and, why is this particular action the one picked to fulfill the mandate of more tzniut? perhaps the men fulfilling EH 21 would be a better starting place. I understand you and others not being comfortable with ordination for women. no one is asking for you to be comfortable with it. If you dont think it is a good idea(halacha v'ain mori'in kein), that is fine to say. But it isn't fine to say that Halacha bans it when it doesn't, and it isn't ok to try to kick people who are shomrei Torah u'mitzvot out of the tent because of your comfort or lack of comfort. I would hope that you are at least as uncomfortable with some of the people on the far right wing. No one is asking for you to go to their shul, ask them a shailah, or learn their Torah if you dont want to. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:10:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:10:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:57:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress. You are engaging in a : theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU : rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls... Well, my first point is a discussion of hora'ah, and consequently for whom is semichah meaninful. But my argument on this point is a subset of the OU's argument on that point. See their paper, pp 8-9 : Given what you wrote, we both agree : that the OU argument against does not hold water. Even if they are : technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give : hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are : capable of doing so (even if according to you they actually do not need : permission from their rav). HOW do you get from what I wrote an implication that we have agreement on that? I think it's firmly established by aforementioned rishonim (plus others in the OU's footnotes) that if someone is ineligable for Mosaic semichah they are ineligable to give hora'ah and therefore have no use for today's yoreh-yoreh. Or the Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim"? : Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch : who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R. : Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a : later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't : invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and : others. Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav) : have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and : the authority is in the sources, not the person. Asked and answered, although in a post after the one to which you replied. Some use the word hora'ah to mean "melameid lahem dinim". Which is not hora'ah as the Rama is discussing it. I pointed you to the Birkei Yoseif. The Chinuch is similar; his : You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments... Another? What's the first? : So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only : poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong. The OU paper doesn't make that argument. Not that I see everything the way the OU panel does. (But halakhah lemaaseh, I would be more likely to follow their opinion than my own.) Nor did I find RJF's analysis of this claim in neither (his general position on ordaining women) nor the only place where I saw him discuss the OU panel on Lehrhaus. As an activist on the subject, I'm sure you've spent more time reading up on it than I. Could you kindly provide more specific references? But let me deal with what you wrote: IOW, you are saying that because our ancestors thought the idea was absurd, we ought to go ahead? What such an argument would say is that we historically had numerous women capable of being rabbis and even so no one even considered making any of them one. The OU's section on mesorah should explain why such attitudes have precedential authority. But again, none of this reflects on what I myself was arguing : (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an : arguement, that it be consistent. So if you are claiming that the reason : women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from : being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including : that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot. you cant : have it both ways). I argued the opposite causality. Lo sosuru mikol asher YORUKHA refers to dayanim. So, someone who is excluded from becoming a dayan can't be the subject of the pasuq, and their decisions don't fall under the halakhos generated by this pasuq. Their decisions are not hora'ah, in the pasuq's sense. (YOu had me saying: Can't give hora'ah implies can't be dayan. I am really saying: Can't be dayan implies can't give hora'ah.) : Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.' Please read the : article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier. He makes it very : clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that : external 'modern values' are an important part of that. Modern values are : neither positive nor negative... Not because they're modern, no. But obviously some are positive, some negative. We can judge them. Mesorah and its values are logically prior to modern values. Numerous halakhos are unegalitarian. Even if egalitarianism is a good idea for benei noach, as a perspective it is inconsistent with that the Torah expects of Jews. : You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'. It isn't : about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers : to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion. As : R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice... The motive I attributed, really echoed back from what I heard in prior iterations, is not that anyone is about making halakhah more egalitarian, but a desire to make halakhah fit a more egalitarian reality. So I don't know what you're rebutting. I argued that some realities reflect values that must be resisted rather than accomodated. We can talk about the end of inequality in the workplace as a good thing, but can we talk about reducing the differences in avodas Hashem, differences that can't be eliminated because halakhah demands they're there, as a good thing? Good point here to address RSSimon's post. On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 09:35:14AM -0400, Sholom Simon wrote: : But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight : halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's : education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent : this", no? To avoid making this a false dichotomy, you have to define halakhah broadly, to include the obligation to live according to the values and general guidelines of aggadita -- mitzvos like qedoshim tihyu, vehalakhta bidrakhav, ve'asisa hayashar vehatov (a/k/a Chovos haLvavos or Hil' Yesodei haTorah and Hil' Dei'os). I think this is what the OU is trying to get to with the concept of "Mesorah". But if I may be frank, they are handicapped in their ability to discuss the aggadic by too many of them seeing the world with Brisker eyes. Back to R/Dr Stadlan... In addition to the question needing to be asked about the Torah's evaluation of a modern value before we simply adopt it (rather than tolerate, limit the scope, or entirely reject).... Second, I do not think justice is served by telling women to find their religious meaning in a headlong rush toward a glass ceiling. I think it's more just to teach them how to find meaning in ways that aren't dead-ended for them. More equal, if less egalitarian. ... : Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women. : The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large : or as small as possible?... That decision should be made by starting with "why does halakhah have those differences"? And what do our aggadic sources say? As I said above, we judge whether to adopt, tolerate or resist new values based on TSBP. : The OU paper brought up tzniut. I do not think that the MO community : thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a : violation of tzniut... Tzenius isn't about clothes. I don't agree with their argument, but don't fight strawmen. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 13:55:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:55:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a > woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken > that way I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:21:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 23:21:05 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB writes: >I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" >in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather than knowledge of abstract ideas. No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these were not "textual" sources - how would you translate ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? better though, to keep the flow and that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? >However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult to understand them as having been written by the same person. Indeed the Birchei Yosef, who seems to have only seen the first one inside, and seen the second one referred to in other sources, particularly the Beis Yosef,( who himself seems to have had the second on but possibly not the first) challenges the quotations from the second teshuva on the basis of the first, and seems to suggest (in the politest possible way) that the Beis Yosef got it wrong, because they just do not match. I do not know any real way to reconcile these two, and can only note that the two compilations of teshuvos were compiled by different students of the Maharil . : And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in : Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous : generations: :> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their :> upright fathers. >Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk, it is about actively teaching (albeit oral). Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting up of schools), but it is a strange pasuk to use if he was talking purely about mimeticism. >Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at all the experiential aspect. When the gemora cites a ma'aseh rav, is this *not* TSBP because it would seem to be mimetic? >I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an example to imitate. The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two types of TSBP. And the other alternative would seem to be to write this kind of teaching out of TSBP. But is not a lot of TSBP, even though by no means all of it, this kind of teaching. Is not the gemora etc filled with this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. : So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what : the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women : to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al " peh... >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting. But the Rambam doesn't say either - "but with regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she ba'al peh taught in a formal educational setting, but that not taught in a formal education setting is fine". And note of course that one cannot just observe Mum taking challa, one also needs to be told about the correct shiur. It is highly unlikely that anybody would necessarily conclude, by watching week after week, exactly what the correct shiur for taking chala and the bracha is by mere observation. That has to be communicated as a form of rule. Ok a situational rule, - taught in context, but the tradition would be lost in a generation if it was left for every generation to guess the correct shiur by watching closely enough week after week. >-Micha Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:53:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:53:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we have now is historically completely wrong. From "b'inyan semichat chachamim' published in Or Hamizrach: 'At this time when semicha is batel, all the mishpatim from the Torah are battel..based on lifneihem- and not lifnei hedyotot. And nowadays we are all hedyotot. And the only way it works is that we act as shlichim of Mosaic beit din' So everyone is a hedyot. More to the point in section five there is a detailed examination of semicha included what was required in various areas. 'The Chatam Sofer writes...that this semicha of morenu and chaver has NO BASIS IN SHAS but is a ashkenazi minhag and does not contain anything real'. 'They issue of semicha that they estabkished(tiknu), according to the Rivash, because it is forbidden for a student, even one who is hegiah l'hora'ah, to give hora'a or to establish a yeshiva(note that this obviously is not hora'ah)while his teacher is alive....therefore they had the PRACTICE of semicha...that he is no longer a student but can teach others(the word is l'lamed, not hora'ah)' There is a lot more. But it is quite clear in the sources brought in this article that the historical record clearly shows No connection between Mosaic semicha and what was begun in the Middle Ages. Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:53:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 22:53:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> References: , <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> Message-ID: <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 7, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > >> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: >> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way > > I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this Not really. They basically say either that there are other tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why.specific citations available upon request Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:07:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:07:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> References: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> Message-ID: On 07/06/17 18:53, Rich, Joel wrote: >> I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that >> this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this > Not really. They basically say either that there are other > tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it > would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why. That's what I thought too. I was surprised to read RNS not only insisting otherwise but deducing an entire shita from this supposed fact. In practise I doubt it was ever meant to be implemented kipshuto, because even on its own terms it applies only when all else is equal, and it rarely is. But it seems to me that when all else *is* equal, i.e. when we have no other information so all else is zero, and we are free to set our own priorities without fearing negative consequences (that too constitutes additional information which makes all else not equal), then the halacha must still apply. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:51:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:51:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170607225122.GA14289@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 05:48:13PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : > Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because : > there is no actual issur la'avor. : : I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on : pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where : there's an issur involved? Red shoelaces? : The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that : yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below. No, it could be preservational and still deOraisa. Like my example of a ben soreier umoreh, who Chazal say dies al sheim ha'asid -- we're also preventing the continuing deteriation in a downward spiral. This "downward spiral" was what I was calling Hil' Dei'os. Hirhurim and hana'ah -- devarim sheleiv in general -- aren't even punishable altogether, how could they allow a court to decide yeihareig? Most dinei nefashos don't even qualify. : Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context : of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must : be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as : issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does. And qiddush hasheim could involve avoiding something that is not assur either. (Agian: red shoelaces.) That too is death to preserve an attitude. I am just saying that your desire to make this yeihareig ve'al ya'avor is putting an overly formal halachic box. Whether or not something is a qiddush hasheim or otherwise worth dying for is not necessarily reducible to a Brisker chalos-sheim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:17:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:17:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we : have now is historically completely wrong... And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah? The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up to imitate the other with no continuity between them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:58:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> Message-ID: The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way, and that saying that modern semicha was set up to imitate ancient semicha(to such an extent that the same prohibitions apply) is a distortion of history and Halachic history. Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources. The Rama makes more sense when read in the context of the quotes that I provided from the Chatam Sofer et al. The Rambam, could well be discussing ancient semicha in the sources you describe........ On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun > 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: > : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we > : have now is historically completely wrong... > > And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based > on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical > study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah? > > The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up > to imitate the other with no continuity between them. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 23:40:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 09:40:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> References: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> Message-ID: <5938F16E.9010705@biu.ac.il> the topic is addressed in this article: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0048-0068.pdf ?A MAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER from Tradition in 2014 Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > >> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a >> woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken >> that way > > > I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this > is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? > What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument > is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the > question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O? > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 06:14:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:14:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check Message-ID: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> [RJR poses these questions at the start of his Audio Roundup column on Torah Musings . I prodded him to share them here as well, as questions work better in an actual discussion venue. But I didn't think he would do so without plugging his column! So, here's my plug: Worth reading, and if you have one -- pointing subscribing to on your news agreegator / RSS reader. -micha] A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled the commandment to wear tfillin. In fact, many pasul tfillin were pasul from the start (e.g., missing a letter). The Rav later reported that a listener heard the shiur and had his tfillin checked and found such a psul, even though he had bought the tfillin from a reputable sofer and had them checked earlier by another reputable sofer. The Rav was pleased with this result. Two questions: 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status) appropriate? 2) As a societal issue, how should current rabbinic leadership view the tradeoff of now requiring (suggesting) frequent checks? We will have some who will have the listener's result. OTOH, we will also have those whose tfillin will more likely become pasul due to uncurling the klaf and the increased costs of checking. BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan checking be appropriate? Kt Joel rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 06:15:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:15:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Parenthesis Message-ID: <1c9fcdd2c38f43e7af59d24ffe246c8b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> [See my plug of RJR's column in the previous post. His question about a distraught new widow and negi'ah as well... And that's just the column's *padding*! Extra credit if you answer the question about parenthesis while "vayehi binsoa'" and its upside-down nuns is still in parashas hashavua. -micha] 1. In the Shulchan Aruch -- who is the author of the statements in parenthesis in the Rama like print that don't start with Hagah? 2. In Rashi (or Tosfot), who decided to put certain words in parenthesis and why? (e.g., differing manuscripts, logic, etc.) Kt Joel rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 04:31:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 07:31:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . I would like to start a new thread to discuss exactly what we mean by "redemption". I will begin by quoting most of R' Micha Berger's recent post from the thread "Elimelech's land": > ... it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to > all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that > strikes me as a progression): > > - the go'el hadam > - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's > not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) > - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) > - and of people (ibid v 48) > - the end of galus > > To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even > something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on > its nachalah. > > But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more > to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first -- > "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of > redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why > there are different words in lh"q. Several years ago I tried working on this as part of my preparations for Pesach. The first obstacle I encountered was (as RMB mentioned in the last line here) that there are so many interchangeable synonyms. The first two that came to my mind are "geulah" and "pidyon", such as in Yirmiyahu 31:10: > Ki fadah Hashem es Yaakov, > Ug'alo miyad chazak mimenu. I agree that a good starting point, as suggested by RMB, is "restoration". This carries over to English as well, and I could cite several pieces of literature whose theme is "the chance to redeem myself," where someone suffered a significant loss of status (justified or not) and is trying to correct that loss, and restore himself to his prior status. This is very much what Naomi was trying to accomplish. But I'm not so sure how relevant it was to Mitzrayim, where the problem was not merely social status, but physical danger. And that brings more synonyms into the mix: yeshuah and hatzalah. A useful tool for distinguishing synonyms is when they occur near each other in the same context. I brought an example of pidyon and geulah above from Yirmiyahu, and here is a case of hatzalah and geulah: Shemos 6:6-7: "V'hotzaysi... V'hitzalti... V'gaalti... V'lakachti..." On this, Rav SR Hirsch explains: "Whereas hitzil is deliverance from a threatening danger, gaal is deliverance from a destruction which has already occured." In Shemos 8:19, RSRH seems to say that "padah" refers to redemption when "anything has fallen into the power of someone else, to bring it out of that power." I suppose that relates to kedushah (Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, etc) because the redeemed object is no longer encumbered by the halachos that applied before. On the other hand, Vayikra 25:24-54 teaches about using money to redeem land, or a house, or an eved. In those pesukim, the word "redeem" appears as some form of geulah 17 times, but as pidyon not even once. How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? Looking forward to your thoughts Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 04:49:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:49:29 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500 From: Noam Stadlan via Avodah > R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men > gather. Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis. So that women > can gather around women rabbis. I'm sorry this does not compute halachically or logically. The men don't gather around the Rabbi either, and I have never seen a problem when the Rav who has been directing everything requests women on one side and men on the other. > certainly it is not an argument against > women rabbis. It was a comment that even in a place where the Yetzer Horah is least likely to have an influence, we are asked to be separate from each other. > And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like > the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly > dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual > immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals > does not apply either. Ger does not make that their focus. They have Gedorim for their own wives even if dressed Tzniusdikly etc One doesn't have to be modern orthodox to encounter women in the workplace either. It would be good if there were more women asking shaylos period. For Nida shaylos there have always been ways to treat a matter discretely. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 07:30:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of > any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even > punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of > the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? Yes, it's what the victim's blood needs and deserves, and the victim is unable to provide it for himself, so as the closest relative it's his duty to provide it for him. The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. Ya`akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because Kel Nekamos Hashem. We are commanded to love our fellow Yidden so much that we forgive them and *forgo* our natural and just desire for revenge, just as we would do of our own accord for someone we actually loved without being commanded. Even the neshama of a murder victim is expected to forgive his Jewish killer, and Navos was punished for not doing so. But we can't forgive on someone else's behalf, especially on our father's behalf, or assume he's such a tzadik that he must have forgiven his killer. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 09:13:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:13:39 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Psak of a Musmach Message-ID: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> The Maharat thread got me thinking about this, but it is a bit of a tangent, hence the new thread. It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don?t recall that it is mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 07:23:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 10:23:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170608164150.ETSG4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> At 09:43 AM 6/8/2017, via Avodah wrote: > >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather >than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she >noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask >why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting. Surely, *some* of it is. Rn Ch L gave the example of a shiur, but there's an awful lot that goes on in the kitchen, and I would guess (I don't know, as I've never been a mother or a daughter) that the mother would be almost negligent if she didn't actually explain some various rules. (I'm using a slotted spoon here, but in cases x, y, z, I can't use a slotted spoon; or: when I do this it's not considered borer because x, y, z; or: if I want to return the pot to the blech, I have to have in mind x,y,a; or: this is how you make tea, and this is how you make coffee, and this is why I can't melt the ice in a cup, and this is why you can defrost the orange juice, etc etc etc). I have a teacher who told me that any women who is doing a competent job in the kitchen has to have learned TSBP. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:28:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:28:47 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> Message-ID: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of >> any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even >> punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of >> the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? > > The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like. Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:45:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 14:45:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <3c673353-b5e9-d704-9cb0-52aff2f213c7@sero.name> On 08/06/17 14:28, Daniel Israel wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not >> Jewish. > An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. > Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos > chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an issur on doing so againstyour own people, because you are commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in itself does not come from any Jewish source. > That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like. > Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam > should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise > above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes. He's not go'el ha'emes, he's go'el hadam. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 13:43:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 20:43:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? ------------------------- The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an extension of the beit din. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:40:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 18:40:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Psak of a Musmach In-Reply-To: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> References: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <70d0ce58d48443a8a6b7fb558f001745@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From: Daniel Israel via Avodah Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 12:14 PM > It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, > then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying > on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or > her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not > obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don't recall that it is > mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha. Good starting point is first Mishna in horiyot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 14:01:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:01:33 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> References: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2D819FCB-5A0D-497C-8E21-EE99A6A9069A@kolberamah.org> A few points that have been swirling around my head reading through this thread. 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? Let?s concede, for sake of argument, that there are halachically permissible ways for a woman to do much of what communal rabbis actually do in practice. Not everything that is mutar is advisable. I don?t see why we should be embarrassed that community policy is being set by Torah principles which are not purely halachic. And while we are all entitled to our own opinions, community policy must be set by gedolei Torah of a certain stature. I don?t believe any of the Rabbaim who are supporting these ventures, with all due respect to their legitimate scholarship and accomplishments, are among the select few who a significant portion of the Torah world look to for answers to these kinds of questions. They were never among those who set gedarim for the community before they become involved in this issue, and so it should be no surprise that their taking the initiative on this issue is widely not accepted. 2. As far as hora?ah, we are discussing it like there is a clear line: halacha p?sukah and hora?ah. (And some comments make a third distinction, between what a local Rav can pasken, and what requires phone call.) But every case requires some amount of shikul hada?as. Sometimes it is so trivial we don?t notice it (?is this specific package of meat marked ?bacon,' treif??). But there are lots of questions we essentially MUST pasken for ourselves. Things like, ?is my headache painful enough to justify taking asprin on Shabbos??. OTOH, most of the questions we ask a Rav (?is this spoon okay??) aren?t really about shikul hadaas, they are more about his knowing all the relevant sugyos. I.e., they are topics that we could (should?) learn enough to answer for ourselves. Note also that any responsible Rav is continually evaluating which questions he feels capable of answering on his own. Just to be clear, I?m not saying there is no distinction to be made. Given that hora?ah lifnei Rabo is assur, clearly there is such a category. But what it is is not so clear cut. Also, I?m not pointing this out to support Rabbanus for women (although one could formulate such an argument), rather to suggest that hora?ah is not this place this needs to be argued out. 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher.? I think this is a good model. First, I would note that there are definitely still circles which strongly disagree with aspects of the chassidic approach. What has changed is that no one is seriously concerned that it will degenerate into widespread k?firah. (Keep in mind there was precedent. Chassidus arose soon after exactly that happened with regard to the Sabbateans.) That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, much as happened with the Conservative movement. Fifty years from now, if that happens, the question will be answered. If it doesn?t happen, then those who are still opposed may be willing to make their peace with it as part of Orthodoxy, even they don?t themselves hold that way. Given this long term view, perhaps the vehement opposition is an important part of the processes (as it may well have been with regard to chassidus). 4. Related to the prior point, RnIE (I think) suggested that this is less of a big deal in E?Y. And RSS posted a link to an article by Dr. Rachel Levmore that concludes with a list of reasons the situation may be different in E?Y and the US. For myself, WADR to those involved, who I am sure really feel they are acting l?sheim shemayim, I share RMB?s concern that they are aiming at a glass ceiling (extremely well put!). And, consequently, I suspect that there will eventually be a schism with at least some of that camp transforming into a neo-Conservative movement. After reading the above mentioned article by DrRL, perhaps another reason for the difference is that in E?Y these developments are fundamentally a response to a need. That is, there are specific issues having nothing to do with female clergy which are creating a need, and in some natural way it has come out that the best solution is the creation of these new roles for women. Whereas, in the US, the driver seems to be a conviction that there should be some form of female clergy, in and of itself. Which leads to a concern I?ve long had about many issues where people point to historical halachic change to justify contemporary changes. Perhaps certain changes are okay if they happen on their own, but we really shouldn?t be pushing for them to happen. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 14:25:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 17:25:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170608212546.GB25737@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 06:58:57PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam : Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way... But you neither explain 1- If it is a "distortion of history and Halachic : history" to claim that current yoreh-yoreh is an imitation of the elements of true Mosaic semichah that are still meaningful, how and why the Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq the Rama quotes lehalakhah all derive laws of yoreh-yoreh from Mosaic semichah for dayanus? Nor 2- How the CS's claim -- citation would be helpful -- that today's semichah is "merely" an Ashkenazi minhag means that this minhag was not set up to certify who is standing in the shadow of the true Mosaic musmach? Don't we need something explicit from the CS before we can just assume he would not deduce the rules of the minhag from the rules of true semichah. After all, you're setting him up against the precedent of doing just that (in Q #1). See the AhS YD 242:29-30. He explains that contemporary "semichah" is to announce to the nation that (1) he is higi'ah lehora'ah, and (2) his hora'ah is by permission of the ordaining rabbi. (He also requires a community to have a rav ha'ir, and others need the RhI's reshus to pasqen in his town as well.) This is much like what you said the CS says, as well as the Rivash. And the Rivash, which appears from your quote is the CS's source, talks about hora'ah -- just as the AhS does. In any case, I am looking for the Tzitz Eliezer's discussion of Sepharadim and their not accepting the notion of contemporary "semichah". Because IIRC, his discussion about semichah, not higi'ah lehora'ah. Recall, AISI the real question isn't the nature of a semichah, but how can be higi'ah lehora'ah. Semichah is only a good belwether, because it's not meaningful to say yoreh-yoreh to someone who can't give hora'ah with or without that permission. And it's semichah the CS dismisses as minhag; the extra gate can be minhag without changing who is allowed to enter. The discussion of semichah doesn't touch on who can give hora'ah, it is just out one precondition before actually doing so. : Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of : the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the : Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources... I don't know what you mean. Does the Rambam derive halakhah from dayanim musmachim with Mosaic semichah to today's morei hora'ah or not? Does Tosafos? Do they not take it for granted that the laws are consistent between the two, without which those derivations would not work? What exactly is your other understanding? (To reword Q #1.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 19:36:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:36:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will bow out. A few details: I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look up the underlying sources to be sure. The article is in Or HaMizrach 44 a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski(I hope the transliteration does him justice). There are other sources on the the Halachic/ historical aspects of semicha including one by R. Breuer in the journal Tziyon. and many others. I do not have time to find and read them all, but I think the point is clear in the article cited above. In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may explain my difficulty in finding it. I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot both of which are not applicable(or have not been applied) to modern semicha. So it is a stretch to state that this Rambam implies anything about current Hora'ah or semichah. I have not found any specific statements that a woman is not qualified to reach the state of 'hegiah l'hora'ah', and certainly not in the modern(non-Mosaic) context. I am not arguing that some of the sources cant be read to come to this conclusion, but it seems to be a novel halachic statement(similar to the OU rabbis making a new halachic category of "stuff that a shul rabbi does") and the only characteristic is that women are forbidden from it. I suggest that if someone on the left had made a similar claim, they would be accused of pretzeling the Halacha to support a pre-existing mahalach. I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable understanding of the Halacha. And perhaps even that those who oppose are the ones who are trying to find arguments when a fair reading of the sources indicate that there really is none specifically applicable to the issue at hand. Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical Ethics on the topic of triage. thanks Noam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 20:55:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 05:55:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Cherlow's Post Message-ID: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> https://www.facebook.com/RabbiCherlow/posts/1442987509096046 In response to a question regarding a psak that supposedly allows women to recite Sheva Brachot and an accusation that certain rabbis are distorting the halacha because of feminism, Rav Cherlow wrote a response. I am summarizing a few points. Full text is in the link above.. Introduction: Your words are a perfect example of how someone can break the Torah's most serious commandments and yet act as if he is a yirei shamayim. 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah. 2) Never mock rabbis (or anyone) because you disagree with their opinions. Mocking people publicly is one of the most serious aveirot. 3) Never use a nickname for others, in this case "Dati Light". 4) Always be careful about generalizing. 5) Never accuse someone of being guilty of what you assume to be their hidden motivations. You don't know and accusing someone violates "M'devar sheker tirchaq". More importantly, you're assuming that you're a tzaddiq and don't have an agenda. 6) Never use a group name to mock someone. The Torah world owes feminism a great debt for things its done (Talmud Torah for women, leading the fight against sexual harassment, etc) along with strong criticism for other things done in its name. 7) Always try and live according to Halacha as it is written. Don't have other gods, like opposition to chiddushim. 8) Bring halachic arguments to halachic discussions. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 02:15:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:15:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: On 6/8/2017 9:28 PM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah > > wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. > > An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. > Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos > chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. > Where is there any issur on taking revenge? Against fellow Jews, yes, of course. But generally? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 04:21:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:21:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Cherlow's Post In-Reply-To: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> References: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <9f3eaf48-0c03-fc88-cc90-e84a27b77ea9@sero.name> On 08/06/17 23:55, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in > Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to > do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you > guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah. And yet in this case the newspaper seems to have got it right, and R Cherlow's correspondent simply hadn't bothered to read it before fulminating. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:06:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:06:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption Message-ID: Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it. Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time before they went into exile was simply waiting time? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 07:32:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 17:32:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern > day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? Who says it was? > What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin > (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah > tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work > to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It > doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it. Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite. But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. I don't think their much more lengthy exile was a punishment. I think it was simply necessary. Had they rejoined us, by which I mean all of them, and not just those who Jeremiah brought back, and we had been exiled as a single nation, things would have been different. But viewing themselves as a separate nation from us, how would you envision things having worked in the ancient world? I don't think it would have been significantly different from what happened with us and the Samaritans. In fact, the Samaritans called themselves Israelites; not Samaritans. (That's the root of the mistake in the Christian "good Samaritan" story, btw.) > Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time > before they went into exile was simply waiting time? Not at all. Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 07:50:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:50:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 09/06/17 11:06, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern > day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? Assuming that it was, and that Yirmiyahu didn't bring them back. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:20:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:20:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <019f7de8-108b-d533-3e11-4556470c1c43@sero.name> On 08/06/17 22:36, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is > that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the > time of the Gemara. I think that is obvious, and it didn't occur to me that this could be what R Micha was referring to. I thought there must be some other Rambam, perhaps a teshuvah, where he discusses "modern" semicha to whatever extent such a thing even existed in his day and place. BTW I have seen it suggested that the original semicha was kept alive at the yeshivah in Damascus (they would cross into the borders of EY to confer it) until it was destroyed in the 2nd Crusade, which, if true, would mean there may still have been living musmachim in the Rambam's day. > Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. > That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar > statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical > Ethics on the topic of triage. But that article doesn't support the claim you made, that there exist poskim -- and in fact that it is the unanimous position of MO poskim -- that this halacha is no longer operative. The article cites sources relevant to the entire topic of triage, in all circumstances, including the mishneh and gemara in Horiyos, and I didn't see any suggestion that they are less authoritative or applicable today than they ever were. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:00:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1af6febd-3d16-f901-472d-92f0a5cd66e7@sero.name> Another idea: To expect a redeemer from the House of David one must first subject oneself to that House. Those who reject its sovereignty can't (by definition) expect one of its members to save them, so on being exiled they would naturally assume that this would be their new home and these their new neighbors, with whom they must assimilate. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 11:08:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 05:32:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: :> Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any :> modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? : Who says it was? First, I think we concluded among ourselves that the 10 lost tribes are really 9+1 lost tribes, with Shim'on, living in Malkhus Yisrael, being a separate case. With, perhaps, it's own spiritual malais. They lived amongst sheivet Yehudah; is it likely their culture was more like Yisrael than their own neighbors? With that tangent out of the way... It's a machloqes tannaim in Sanhedrin 10:3 (110b), no? "The 10 shevatim are not destined to return, 'Vayashlikheim el eretz achares kayom hazah' (Devarim 29) [derashah elided]... divrei R' Aqiva. "R' Eliezer omer: [his own derashah] ... even as the 10 shevatim went through the darkening, so too it will grow light for them. The gemara's discussion focuses on the previous part of the mishnah's machloqs -- their olam haba. But Rebbe says they do have olam haba and seems to be implying that the kaparah is total -- so they will return to EY. The Sifra (Bechuqosai 8:1) has R' Aqiva saying they won't return, but based on (Vayiqra 26:38), "vavadtem bagoyim..." And it has R' Meir as the one disagreeing with R' Aqiva. In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman, we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim. Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. R' Chaim Brisker uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. Which R' Aharon Lichtenstein uses as a snif not to support giving them Israeli citizenship in "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity." :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:19:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:19:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema Message-ID: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in the famous midrash about Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry halacha guide demands that they be sourced? Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 09:39:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:39:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170609163954.GA24832@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:36:08PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will : bow out. A shame, as we went in circles on one issue and didn't touch the others. Including my assertion that the Chinuch (142) speaks "ishah chokhmah hare'uyah lelhoros" and "assur lo leshanos letalmidav" -- whether someone who has the skills to give hora'ah shouldn't be teaching when drunk. No mention of hora'ah, but ra'ui lehora'ah and teaching. Because, he explains, their teaching will be accepted by those who look up to them, as if it were hora'ah. Similarly the Chida (Birkei Yoseif, CM se'if 7:12) rules out ordaning women, following the example of Devorah. People can voluntarily listen to Devorah (or, it would seem, to a yo'etzes), but she cannot be appointed a rabbi nor ordained as one because her opinion could not be imposed. Picture the town hiring a rabbi that any chazan can say, "Well, I don't follow him" and therefore can break from the shul's norm, or even "I don't follow him on this one." But more to the point, following the Chinukh (who is cited), he says "deDevorah haysah melamedes lahem dinim." R' Baqshi Doron mentions this problem in his letter, which RGS has scanned at http://www.torahmusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Rav-Bakshi-Doron-on-Women-Rabbis.pdf#page=2 REBD concludes that because of this, women should not be tested or given semichah, as that would be an appointment rather than voluntary acceptance of a particular teaching. And, while the Chida (and thus REBD) says "ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah", he is defining this as teaching law, not interpresting law -- nidon didan. Which is consistent with the Chinukh the Chida is building on. Nor did we get to my non black-letter-halakhah concerns. Including my concern that the whole project reflects a misrepresentation of Judaism's demands by thinking that anything that can fit the black letter of the law is in compliance with the Torah. That there is none of the more nebulous side of the law; an obligation to pursue a given value system and ethic. The fact that "Mesorah" is dismissed as political rather than a real Torah issue is to my mind a blunder; and your disinterest in discussing this aspect actually hightened those concerns. Nor the question of telling women that they are correct to seek value in a manner that has a glass cieling for them. Nor the question of whether a woman belongs in shul service, or whether it was designed to be a Men's Club. And if not designed, whether its function as a Men's Club is too useful to be sacrificed. As one example, but not the whole problem: Will male attendance lessen if we lose that character; will Tue, Wed and Fri (workdays with no leining) Shacharis attendance among O men go the way of Shabbat attendance among their C counterparts? But on, the topic we did discuss... : I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing : certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look : up the underlying sources to be sure. The article is in Or HaMizrach 44 : a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski... But having a reference in the CS itself would have been more ... : In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of : the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may : explain my difficulty in finding it. It's the Rama who says 113. (It's either that the copy in OhC is idiosyncratic, or, the OU copied a typo in the Rama and didn't check. I know that's what I did.) : I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he : is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the : Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz : Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot ... Limnos ledavarim yechidim is not always to be a dayan. One can get reshus lehoros be'issur veheter or lir'os kesamim but not ladun. It's the same process as geting reshus ladun or ladun dinei kenasos, or... Do you think "lir'os kesamim" was ever limited to dayanim? The fact that the Rambam treats reshus lit'os kesamim and reshus ladun as one topic that's the whole point! (And that addresses Zev's recent post, which I approved while this one was sitting around mid-edit.) Now that you found the Mahariq that the Rama se'if 6 says he bases himself on, I would have like to have heard if you disagree that he too is treating the rules for yoreh-yoreh and the rules for Mosaiq semichah as one topic. And Tosafos? : I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the : discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very : least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of : women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable : understanding of the Halacha... I haven't heard a complete defense, but I didn't see at all a positive case for. After all, the burden of proof is on the innovator. We didn't touch the whole conversation of proving that the innovation is positive enough *in Torah values* to justify settling for just what could be read as a not 'beyond the pale' understanding. On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 03:01:33PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? ... : 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My : example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were : huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are : today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher." ... : That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two : camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that : this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically : okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, : much as happened with the Conservative movement... My own concern is (as Avodah long-timers should expect) more meta. Why is the only quesiton that of black-letter halakhah? Why the ignoring of -- what do I call it, "gray-letter halakhah"? -- laws that don't codify cleanly, that require a feel for what seems in line with the Torah, that which RHS calls "Mesorah"? (Although "mesorah" has become an ill-defined concept, including both Torah-culture values and mimetic practice. For that matter, I find that R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's use of "mimeticism" also blurs both, as both are transmitted culturally.) To me, that's a critical meta-innovation that warrants asking if we're still all playing by (evolving our practice with) the same rules. I am not worried about a slippery slope to C. To my mind, that's worrying about when the problem, if there is one, becomes symptomatic. To me the question is whether procedurally, the process R/D NS is defending is already unlike the rest of O IN A DEFINITIONAL WAY. After all, once you define MO to include an openness to modern values, following the Torah becomes just using the halakhah as a test -- can this new idea fit black-letter law or do we have to do without? But also our test itself changes. Deciding which shitah to follow depends in part on our priorities, and in LWMO, those modern values also define the priorities. As R/Dr Stadlan put it: : ... I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very : least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of : women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable : understanding of the Halacha... Thinking something is okay to do as long as one can find understandings of shitos that can combine to show the idea is plausible and not "beyond the pale" is to my mind itself beyond the pale. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 12:07:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:07:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> On 09/06/17 11:19, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in the famous midrash about > Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem > Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a > source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry > halacha guide demands that they be sourced? > > Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice? I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. When we say the Rambam doesn't give his sources, we mean that he doesn't tell us where in the gemara he derives the halachos. He doesn't expect his audience to be familiar with the gemara, and he's not interested in convincing those who are, or in defending himself to them. But he always gives the pasuk where a mitzvah or halacha is stated, or tells us that it comes "mipi hashmuah", or was instituted by chazal or by the geonim. When he gives a psak which doesn't come directly from the gemara he says "ken horu hage'onim", "ken horu rabosai", or "ken nir'a li". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 12:51:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:51:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> On 09/06/17 14:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman, > we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim. Only if he's from the countries where they were taken. > Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his > day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact; the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. As for the men's descendants by nochriyos, according to the first lashon Shmuel derived from the pasuk that they're nochrim, and according to the second lashon it's a halacha pesukah ("lo zazu misham"). But according to either lashon the problem of the women was solved. Also, there's no "by his day". Either the problem was solved within one generation, or it was never solved at all. Not by his day. By at latest the 2nd BHMK. Either Yirmiyahu brought them back, so they're not there any more, or the first generation had no children so they died out then and there, or the Sanhedrin decreed them to be goyim. > R' Chaim Brisker Where is this R Chaim? > uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not > halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. On what basis? Unlike the ten tribes' descendants, these children exist. How can they not be Jewish? Even if you want to say the second lashon applies to both the men and women, and it means they lost their Jewish status, this was not a gezera, it was derived from a pasuk, that Hashem took away their Jewish status, so in the absence of any pasuk about other people how can it be extended? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:03:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:03:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >In Yevamos... : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. : : Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke; he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...") : the : women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there : never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. That's Ravina. Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu". Which is inconsistent with Ravina. Whom I forgot about entirely. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 11:31:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:31:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check In-Reply-To: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 01:14:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is : needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without : knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled : the commandment to wear tfillin... : Two questions: : 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha : by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status) : appropriate? We're discussed variants of this question before. Usually WRT whether a person in the same situation buit with their mezuzah will get less shemirah. My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was really cheilev. And if that is true of cheilev and timtum haleiv, why not the protection of mezuzah or the effects of wearing tefillin? But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely, are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome. And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... If someone is doing everything they're supposed to, and we're not talking about the teva necessary to allow for human planning, then why wouldn't Hashem just give a person as per their deeds. Why have a whole metaphysical causality if it doesn't aid bechirah, nor Din, nor Rachamim? .... : BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has : changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan : checking be appropriate? I take this as evidence of the "Litvisher" answer. If it were really a problem, why wouldn't halakhah reflect a greater need to check? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:33:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:33:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 12:15:04PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos : >chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. : Where is there any issur on taking revenge? Against fellow Jews, : yes, of course. But generally? "Revenge is bad" is not the same as "revenge is assur". The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim. In which case, he would hold that only lo siqom would hold for them, whereas only lo sitor would apply to a yisra'el chotei. But Shabbos is coming, so I can't check about "chaveirim". But in any case, the notion that hene'elavim ve'inam olevim shome'im cherpasam ve'einam mashivim, aleihem hakasuv omeir, "ve'ohavav ketzeir hashemesh bigvuraso" (Shabbos 88b) has nothing to do with who the counterparty is. Not a chiyuv or issur in and of itself. But the person who doesn't take offense nor act on taking offense is among "ohavav". Similarly, the Rambam (ibid) talks about lo siqom in terms of "ma'avir al midosav al kol divrei ha'olam", not just offenses by chaveirim. This appears to be included in his "dei'ah ra'ah hi ad me'od". :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:26:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check In-Reply-To: <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> References: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <781fc94e-241d-e738-5060-522eeeb4f325@sero.name> On 09/06/17 14:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When > something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell > the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about > the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was > really cheilev. But if it's nisbarer afterwards that it really was chelev the kelim need to be kashered. Ditto if it's nisbarer after someone toveled that the mikveh was pasul all the taharos he touched since then are retroactively tamei. In fact if a mikveh is found to have been pasul all the taharos touched by all the people who used it since it was last known to be kosher are retroactively tamei. > But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely, > are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk > to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the > case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome. That's not a mystical position, it's a plain rational Litvisher position on risk assessment. > And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... Now *there's* mysticism! To a Litvak that shouldn't be a consideration. The din is the din, and it's not up to us to justify it. But IIRC you never deal with the explicit gemara about mikvaos. A gemara that explicitly distinguishes the case of kohanim who were found to be pesulim from *every other case* in the Torah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:40:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:40:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <81e3d31e-aa58-5f1a-fefb-bdc0297298a2@sero.name> On 09/06/17 16:03, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : >In Yevamos... > : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his > : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. > : > : Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact > > "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke; > he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the > issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...") No, he wasn't. Lo zazu misham has no connection to finding a solution to any problem, and there's no indication that "they" were even thinking of this problem. It's simply a statement that it was agreed upon by all that the pasuk makes the ten tribes (or at least their men) nochrim. No connection to any practical problem. > : the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there > : never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. > > That's Ravina. No, it isn't. It's Shmuel himself, answering why the womens' descendants are not a problem -- they didn't have any. Ravina is the one who says the halacha we all know, that the child of a nochri and a Yisre'elis is a Yisrael. > Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu". > Which is inconsistent with Ravina. It's irrelevant to Ravina, because in this lashon he isn't citing the general halacha about the child of a Yisrael and a nochris being a nochri, but instead says those children (of the men with nochriyos) were ruled to be nochrim from the pasuk. The women's children still aren't a problem, because there weren't any. But even if you say that according to the second lashon Shmuel didn't say the women were sterile, and he meant the pasuk to apply to both the men and the women, still it's specifically about them, not meshumadim in general. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:51:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:51:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: > The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any > Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different objects. > I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only > those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim. I don't believe so. The only non-Jewish "chaverim" I can think of are the sect that ruled in Persia in the Amoraim's times -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 15:36:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 18:36:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not > Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, > but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min > ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world. Me'am Lo'ez (R' Aryeh Kaplan's The Torah Anthology, pg 293) explains: "You must realize that your brother is suffering very much because he has no place to go. If his soul comes to heaven, it will be all alone, since no one else is here. If it comes down to earth, it feels great anguish when it sees its body's blood spilled on rocks and stones." > Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source? > And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because > Kel Nekamos Hashem. I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples, but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than "yikom". In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean it's appropriate for us. RZS continues in another post: > But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an > issur on doing so against your own people, because you are > commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want > revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in > itself does not come from any Jewish source. Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 14:07:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:07:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> Message-ID: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other places. I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? This one stands out. On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and > sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the > previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons > for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third > parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha > four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 14:16:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:16:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' AM wrote: 'Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor" regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this "needed" comfort from someone else.' Halachos of contact between husband and wife are more strict than with strangers, vis all the harchakos during nidda which are unique to a spouse, due to the familiarity of pas b'salo. So I wouldn't be as surprised. Although just to return my theme for a moment, If I'm right then the act is one of outright mitzva, probably including kiddush hashem. If I'm wrong, then the act is one of aveira lishma. Now I realise that we don't hold with aveira lishma these days, but when the overall cheshbon is as stated, I think I'd be willing to chance it. Especially when you add the possibility, as R'MB mentioned, that if you don't do it you're a chasid shoteh. Because then the cheshbon becomes tzadik or chasid shoteh for not doing it vs big mitzva or aveira lishma for doing it. Given that in any given circumstance we wouldn't be able to be clear about which of these would apply, I think the worst of those four options is probably the chasid shoteh. If this was on Areivim I'd sign off with :) Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 19:04:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:04:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170611020429.GA20848@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: : >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any : >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. : : Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase : with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei : amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different : objects. See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. Gut Voch! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 20:45:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:45:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <720f24ed-7e17-74ae-afc7-3e7d2a0f3a7b@sero.name> On 10/06/17 17:07, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and >> sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the >> previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons >> for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third >> parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha >> four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. > Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the > Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other > places. > > I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he > often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat > haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? > This one stands out. He has to give the source, explain why we do this, and he uses as few words as he needs to. He says mesorah hi beyadeinu; what else could he say? How could he express that any more concisely? BTW he cites medrash all the time; that's where halachos come from, after all. But here he doesn't mention any medrash, just this mesorah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 22:39:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 07:39:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Who says it was? As was stated in other posts on this thread, it is a machloqet in the Gemara if they will or won't come back. That more or less proves my point - their return, if it happens will be something completely different than what happened with the rest of the tribes. Even if we take the claims of various people claiming to be descendants seriously, they still have to convert. Their return will be tipot-tipot, individuals, that have to be re-integrated and not whole groups. > > Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of > assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where > they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite. But > even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . . Not at all. > Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were people from the > northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first > posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two separate exilic > populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our exile to have ended successfully? The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, it doesn't speak well of our history. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 23:54:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 09:54:49 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03c78b43-410c-30ec-c2bf-33691b72f348@starways.net> On 6/10/2017 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > > R' Zev Sero wrote: > >> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because >> Kel Nekamos Hashem. > I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. > Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is > intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. You're mistaken about the Hebrew. Yikom is not "uphold". That would be yakim. Yikom has a dagesh in the quf because of the dropped nun. There is literally no question whatsoever that Hashem yikom damo means may God avenge his blood. > It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples, > but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an > experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh > apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem > mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 > hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both > numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than > "yikom". Yinkom is a mistake. Just like the future of nosei'a is yisa and the future of nofel is yipol, the future of nokem is yikom. > In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean > it's appropriate for us. Consider Bamidbar 31. In the second verse, Hashem tells Moshe: Nekom nikmat bnei Yisrael me-ha-Midyanim. Take the vengeance of Israel against the Midianites. In the next verse, Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael latet nikmat Hashem b'Midyan. To take the vengeance of Hashem against the Midianites. Moshe isn't arguing with Hashem here. When we take vengeance upon our enemies, it *is* Hashem's vengeance. I recommend that you watch the video of Rabbi David Bar Hayim debating Jonathan Rosenblum at the Israel Center back in 1991 (I think). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYefNy1D0DY They both bring sources for their arguments on the subject, and rather than repeat all of them here, have a look. > RZS continues in another post: > >> But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an >> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are >> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want >> revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in >> itself does not come from any Jewish source. > Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo > sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) It doesn't just say lo tikom v'lo titor. It says lo tikom v'lo titor *et bnei amecha*. Do not take vengeance or hold a grudge *against* your own people. Detaching the first part of that from its object is unjustifiable. It would be like taking lo tochal chametz, dropping the object, and saying that we're forbidden to eat. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 02:02:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:02:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. > Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is > intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. > "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will avenge". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 20:40:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:40:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68dacd1f-f6c7-8792-daad-b5b21531f3bc@sero.name> On 09/06/17 18:36, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not >> Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, >> but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min >> ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. > Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in > pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world. Interesting, I'd never heard that. But in that case why "eilai"? That implies wanting something from Me. >> Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. > I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source? Yismach Tzadik ki chaza nakam, pe`amav yirchatz bedam harasha. When Chushim knocked Esav's head off, his eyes fell onto Yaakov's feet and Yaakov sat up and smiled. >> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because >> Kel Nekamos Hashem. > I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. Yikkom does *not* mean uphold, it means avenge. There's no such word as "yinkom"; the nun disappears into the kuf and becomes a dagesh. Perhaps you are thinking of yakim. > experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh > apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem > mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 > hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both > numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than > "yikom". For a non-existent word that's pretty good. I'm relieved that it doesn't outnumber the correct word :-) > In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean > it's appropriate for us. It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not something to be ashamed of. >> But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an >> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are >> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want >> revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in >> itself does not come from any Jewish source. > Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo > sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) Es benei amecha. [Email #2. -micha] On 10/06/17 22:04, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: >: >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any >: >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase >: with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different >: objects. > See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. > This doesn't answer the question. Lo sikom has the same subject as lo sitor. It's not even the identical object, it's literally the *same* object. So how can we pry them apart? Beside which, if netira is forbidden against a Jewish non-chaver, then how is nekama against him even possible? Netira would seem to be a necessary prerequisite for nekama (which is why the pasuk lists them as lo zu af zu). [Email #3 -mi] On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" > (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will > avenge". Is yinkom even a valid form? AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that have it in Av Harachamim are in error. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 09:11:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:11:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <83aef0cf-edbb-3ac8-3727-cc086f348ffa@sero.name> References: <83aef0cf-edbb-3ac8-3727-cc086f348ffa@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > >> >> "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" >> (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will >> avenge". >> > > Is yinkom even a valid form? AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that > have it in Av Harachamim are in error. > > It's irregular, but I would hesitate to say it's a mistake: there are a few exceptions to the rule that the initial nun assimilates, e.g. yintor in Yirmiahu 3:5; yinkofu in Yeshayahu 29:1; or tintz'reni in Tehillim 140:2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 11:29:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <2f8fdb3a-11ac-11d2-eea8-d064a7265bda@sero.name> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> <20170611020429.GA20848@aishdas.org> <2f8fdb3a-11ac-11d2-eea8-d064a7265bda@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170611182926.GA20138@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:56:06PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase : >: with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei : >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different : >: objects. : : >See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. : > : : This doesn't answer the question... But you didn't ask the question. You asserted that what I said was "not true". Since the Maharshal and Avodas haMelekh said it, and I don't know of a dissenting interpreter of the Rambam, I would assume it is indeed true. This was a bit of a hasty judgement on your part. But you said a great question, and worth exploring. Doesn't change that the Rambam apparently does hold what I said he did: > The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any > Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 12:32:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 22:32:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> References: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 6/11/2017 8:39 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of >> assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point >> where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were >> Israelite. But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . >> . Not at all. Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were >> people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards >> that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two >> separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been >> disastrous in very many ways. > That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our > exile to have ended successfully? Why harsh? Causes have effects. > The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of > (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them > (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal > with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this > feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, > it doesn't speak well of our history. Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind. And we don't gloat over their downfall. Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, which they were. And what kind of attempts would you have wanted? Jeremiah brought some of them back. I'm sure others joined us in Bavel after we were exiled. But their exile was their own doing. Though it affected us as well. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 16:18:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:18:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170611231815.GA29585@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:32:22PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind. And we don't gloat over : their downfall. Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, : which they were. (Quibbling about the orogin of the word "Jews" and whether or not Malkhus Yisrael and their descendents qualify aside. We all know we mean "Benei Yisrael", right?) Actually, one of the topics raised was whether the descendents of Malkhus Yisrael exist, bdyond the refugees absorbed into Malkhus Yehudah. And if they do, R Chaim Brisker takes the gemara as concluding the descendents are not part of the community of Beris Sinai. Yes, but in either case, as we cited numerous source showing in the past, "binfol" is not only about the fall of fellow Jews... Which I then collected into a blog post : The most common reason we pass around [for spilling wine at the mention of the makkos at the seder], however, is that we're diminishing our joy out of compassion for the suffering of other human beings, even the Egyptians. This reason is relatively new, but it is found in such authoritative locations as the hagaddah of R' SZ Aurbach and appears as a "yeish lomar" (it could be said) in that of R Elyashiv (pg 106, "dam va'eish").... ... The Pesiqta deRav Kahane (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a) gives us a different reason [for chatzi hallel (CH) during the latter days of Pesach]. It tells the story of the angels singing/reciting poetry at the crossing of the Red Sea... ... This is midrash is quoted by the Midrash Harninu and the Yalqut Shim'oni (the Perishah points you to Parashas Emor, remez 566). The Midrash Harninu or the Shibolei haLeqet ... The Beis Yoseif (O"Ch 490:4, "Kol") cited the gemara, then quotes the Shibolei haLeqet as a second reason... Sources from RAZZivitofsky (same blog post): The Taz gives this diminution of joy as the reason for CH on the 7th day (OC 490:3), as does the Chavos Ya'ir (225). The Kaf haChaim (O"Ch 685:29) brings down the Yafeh haLeiv (3:3) use this midrash to establish the idea that we mourn the downfall of our enemy in order to explain why there is no berakhah on Parashas Zakhor (remembering the requirement to destroy Amaleiq). Amaleiq! R' Aharon Kotler (Mishnas R' Aharon vol III pg 3) ... Then I listed others' suddestions here: ... R' Jacob Farkas found the Meshekh Chokhmah ... R' Dov Kay points us to the Netziv's intro to HaEimeq Davar... (Since we're going from Maharat was to ethics wars, might as well play the game to its fullest...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 16:27:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:27:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170611232725.GB29585@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 06:36:45PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" : actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is : often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. : Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is : intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. : Hashem yiqqom damam does indeed refer to revenge. : In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean : it's appropriate for us. Keil neqamos H'. (A little obvious this discussion didn't span a Wed yet.) But the whole point, to my mind, for sayibng HYD is a longing to see Divine Justice in the world. HYD undoes the chilul hasheim of the wicked prospering. Hinasei shofit ha'atzetz... Ad masair recha'im ya'alozu... If we were to take neqamah (qua neqamah; pre-empting a repeat attack is a different thing) we rob most of the possibility of that happening. Even the Six Day War gave people the opportunity to say it was luck or human skill -- "Kol haKavod laTzahal" Implied in HYD is that revenge is G-d's, not ours, to take. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 19:49:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 22:49:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . When I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong. I was wrong, and I thank all the chevreh who pointed out my error. "Yikom" does mean to avenge. Thank you all. But the main question is our attitude towards revenge in general. R' Zev Sero wrote: > It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not > something to be ashamed of. He seems to feel that there's nothing wrong with wanting to take revenge in general, except that we're not allowed to do it if the object of the revenge is a fellow Jew. I suppose he might compare vengeance to eating meat: right and proper in general, but sometimes forbidden. (Pork in the case of meat, and Jews in the case of revenge.) Exactly *why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew? RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct source. But either way... I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be in the "Ribis" category. There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a non-Jew.) Setting Nekama aside for a moment, does anyone know of a source which goes through the various Bein Adam L'chaveiros, and categorizes them in that manner? (I can easily imagine that most people would avoid publishing such a list, to avoid supplying the anti-Semites with ammunition, but I figured I'd ask.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 20:07:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 20:07:35 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists Message-ID: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into hashem's business. And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the future even though they were right. One surmises he would not have been surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land... Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 22:57:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:57:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> References: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9b2f0d53-8794-4b0d-43b7-3bb0ee4d6e3c@zahav.net.il> On 6/6/2017 8:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW. > > Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'" > (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL > Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not! However one defines the Chareidi opposition to Zionism and Zionists, the former wrote book after book justifying it and explaining why Zionism is so awful and why it is so wrong to participate in the Zionist enterprise. It is still going on today. Back in the 20s, people used extremely strong language about Rav Kook, language which was much worse than anything used today, not to mention what the Satmar Rebbe wrote about RK. > There are two possible sources of division here. > > 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were > only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My > predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply > de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators, > and therefore in practice will be a separate community. Here I have a couple of questions. 1) Like my wife always tells me, if someone is triggered by something he has to ask himself why. I know people who would walk out of shul if a woman gave the dvar Torah on Friday night. Yet the same people are perfectly OK having a Rosh Hashana tefilla that incorporates a lot of Sefardi piyuttim. Completely different prayers, tunes, flavor. But in order to have an experience of "b'yachad" we do it. 2) What what exactly would change? Does one see more women in shuls that have a maharat? Do the maharats come to Tuesday afternoon Mincha? If they do they're behind the mechitza, yes? What changes are people talking about? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 03:09:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 06:09:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:49:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" : only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of : morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be : in the "Ribis" category. : : There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even : to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed : against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. : (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a : non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I : admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B : or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, : things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a : non-Jew.) IOW: (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited. (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition when you do them against your sibling. (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito neshekh vesarbit". As for neqamah, I argued from quotes like kol hama'avir al midosav and ne'elavim ve'eino olvin that it's in (B). I would add now that this is implied by the Rambam's inclusion of these two issurim (lo siqom velo sitor) in Hil' Dei'os p' 7 that he is considering the middah bad, not only the act wrong. Interesting to note, the Rambam puts them after LH. Also, I noted that the only commentaries on the Rambam that I could find that discuss his change in terminology between Dei'os 7:7 and 7:8 explain that he is prohibiting neqamah against all chaveirim but netirah "mei'echad meYisrael". Meaning you now need a B' and C' where the category is only observant Jews. (And I still have a nagging recollection that the Rambam's "chaveirim" in general includes geirei toshav and other observant Noachides.) And neqamah is in one of those. So, (B'). How you get such a distinction in two issurim that are written in the pasuq as verbs sharing the same object is a good one. But the Avodas haMelekh says that the Maharshal reaches the same conclusion in his commentary to the Semag, and I see the Semag uses the same difference in nouns. Lav #11 - "[Lo siqom.] Hanoqeim al chaveiro". #12 - "Kol hanoteir le'echad miYisrael". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 03:53:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:53:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> References: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> On 6/13/2017 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > IOW: > > (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited. > > (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition > when you do them against your sibling. > > (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family > nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito > neshekh vesarbit". I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews. Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 04:37:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal > judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C (Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 04:33:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:33:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> References: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170613113340.GA11269@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:53:18PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: ... : >(B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition : >when you do them against your sibling. ... : : I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an : outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly : doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against : non-Jews. Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal : judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. But there are things that are morally wrong and yet not prohibited. "Stretch goals" like the Rambam's take on ego and anger in Dei'os pereq 2, the Ramban's "hatov vehayashar". Here, the gemara talks about (1) a ma'avir al midosav, (2) taking insult and not responding, it even says (3) a tzadiq is one who never takes revenge -- which, if it were about neqamah when assur, would be heaping overly high praise on someone for just keeping the din. So, two or three times that I am aware of, the gemara talks positively of the middos that would avoid ever taking revenge. It seems neqamah in particular is a moral wrong even when the black-letter halakhah allows the act. The Torah does manage to relay to us goals beyond those it prohibit or demand in black-letter halakhah. (Something Chassidus and Mussar were each founded on...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 06:44:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:44:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] restaurants Message-ID: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From the OU: Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example, one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility. Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food. Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based? For example, in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in a treif restaurant, what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % threshold for concern? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 07:16:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 10:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6388500a-9329-9367-9de2-e75ed55d6022@sero.name> On 12/06/17 22:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Exactly*why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew? > RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that > "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct > source. But either way... It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. > There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even > to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed > against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh *re`ehu* basater". > (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a > non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I > admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B > or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, > things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a > non-Jew.) Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 19:11:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shelach Message-ID: " We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." (Numbers 13:32-33). One of the greatest teachers of Torah of our age, Nechama Leibowitz, zt'l, in one of her essays on this parsha, asks an important question: how did the spies know what the "giants" thought of them? If they really were giant beings, then one could understand the feeling that "we seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes," but how did they know if the "giants" even noticed them? Unfortunately, although Nechama Leibowitz posed this great question, she didn't give any hint as to an answer. The following is a Midrash in which God rebukes the spies: "I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11). On the other hand, Rashi says that the spies reported overhearing the giants talking to one another, saying that "there are ants in the vineyard that resemble human beings.? (Rashi is also quoting an ancient midrash from the Talmud). Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities and an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties. Harry S Truman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 09:10:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:10:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/13/2017 2:37 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R"n Lisa Liel wrote: >> Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal >> judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. > My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category > A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C > (Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)? I would have to say that, by definition, if it's permissible to speak LH against non-Jews, it isn't immoral. But of course there are numerous subcategories of LH, and it'd be interesting to see if all of them are mutar against non-Jews, and if so, why? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 10:49:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:49:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shelach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170613174946.GA24674@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 10:11:31PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The following is a Midrash in which God rebukes the spies: : "I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to : ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to : them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? : Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11). ... : Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear : not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies : but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon : His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, : and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). Good -- is the yeitzer hatov, *very* good -- is the yeitzer hara. But in any case, the spies are an imperfect example, because they had G-d's promise that this specific mission would succeed. We don't have such reason to be optimistic. Related: I wonder if the difference between Chassidic or the Alter of Novhardok's view of bitchon is related to history. The AoN said that sufficient bitachon generates success, to the extent that he felt that being a "baal bitachon is an objective reality provable by experience and he signed his name with a B"B without fear of it being bragging. The CI's view is that bitachon is not prognostic, but the attitude that everything is happening according to Hashem's plan. I may fail and suffer, ch"v, but knowing it is all for a purpose makes it easier to cope. The history that I think divides them -- the CI's Emunah uBitachon was written in the shadow of the Holocaust. (It was published in 1954, a year after the CI's passing.) Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:57:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:57:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists In-Reply-To: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> References: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> Or they were part of a self fulling prophecy. Instead of going in confident in themselves and in God's ways, they chose to second guess God. The Bnei Yisrael who had actually seen Yitziat Mitzrayim would have gone into Israel. Instead a weakened Bnei Yisrael went in and almost immediately got trapped in the lure of the local idol worship. Ben On 6/13/2017 5:07 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into hashem's business. And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the future even though they were right. One surmises he would not have been surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:53:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:53:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Does it make a difference that the woman in the hypothetical scenario is - unfortunately - no longer an eishet ish, and presumably at her stage of life also not a niddah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:22:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:22:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. Can one enter a non-kosher establishment to buy a can of soda or use the bathroom? Message-ID: <1497385351309.31544@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. Can one enter a non-kosher establishment to buy a can of soda or use the bathroom? A. Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example, one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility. Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 18:09:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:09:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists In-Reply-To: <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> References: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170614010904.GA6321@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:57:19PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Or they were part of a self fulling prophecy. Instead of going in : confident in themselves and in God's ways, they chose to second : guess God. The Bnei Yisrael who had actually seen Yitziat Mitzrayim : would have gone into Israel... Or not. After all, Hashem didn't pick that generation for a reason. Apparently they didn't just sin, but they sinned in a way that made working with them a bad idea. And even before that Vayehi beshalach Par'oh es ha'am velo nacham E-lokim derekh Eretz Pelishtim ki qarov hu, ki amar E-lokim, "Pen yinacheim ha'am bir'osam milchamah veshavu Mitzrayim" Remember, they were also stuck with a slave mentality. But I agree with your point, about the self-fulfilling prophecy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 18:33:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:33:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special > consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah > of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not > hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend > him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip > about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. I would think that killing and stealing are in this category too. But you would then point to the phrase "special consideration". In other words, there is a particular shiur of consideration. Some actions are below that shiur; they are so basic that they apply even to non-Jews. And other actions are above that shiur; it is "special" consideration that we extend to family, but not to outsiders. I would accept such a response, but it isn't very helpful. Exactly what is that shiur? Where do we put the line? I have always thought that *all* these things are basic menschlichkeit, and apply to everyone, Jewish or not. > Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? > The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh > *re`ehu* basater". That's just two pesukim. Sefer Chofetz Chayim brings a lot more than that - 31 if I remember correctly. Granted that one doesn't violate these particular mitzvos if the object of the Lashon Hara isn't Jewish. But the others aren't so simple. At the very least, you're gambling that the Lashon Hara will remain secret and not result in a Chilul Hashem. > Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. True. I have always thought of ribis in a class of its own, for the simple reason that the entire world considers it to be a generally acceptable business practice. This includes Chazal, who felt it important to find a way to structure certain business activities in ways that would skirt this issur. The point is that ribis is NOT inherently immoral. It *can* be abused and thereby *become* immoral. But if done properly, it is a neutral (or even benevolent) business tool. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 21:17:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:17:28 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Anyone have access to HaRav Sh Goren's Terumas HaGoren? Message-ID: Anyone have access to HaRav Sh Goren's Terumas HaGoren? I am looking for 3 pages to be copied [pictured?] and sent to me - meirabi at gmail.com Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 21:02:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:02:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ac357ec-2fb0-c5c8-e187-ccbd26cd60f9@sero.name> On 13/06/17 21:33, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special >> consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah >> of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not >> hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend >> him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip >> about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. > I would think that killing and stealing are in this category too. No, those are inherently wrong, no matter who is the victim. You don't need to love someone in order not to kill them, hit them, steal from them, damage their property, etc. They have the right not to have these things done to them, so you may not do so even if you actively hate them. They have the right to be treated with common decency. Or, in the lashon of libertarianism, non-aggression, i.e. not to have you initiate force or fraud against them. Whereas they have no right to any favors from you; you have no duty to lift a finger to help them or to give them anything. Doing favors for people is a gift which you naturally give only to those you love; the Torah therefore commands you to give it to those whom it wants you to love. > But > you would then point to the phrase "special consideration". In other > words, there is a particular shiur of consideration. Some actions are > below that shiur; they are so basic that they apply even to non-Jews. > And other actions are above that shiur; it is "special" consideration > that we extend to family, but not to outsiders. No, it's not a matter of degree but of kind. > I would accept such a response, but it isn't very helpful. Exactly > what is that shiur? Where do we put the line? I have always thought > that *all* these things are basic menschlichkeit, and apply to > everyone, Jewish or not. No, they are not. >> Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? >> The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh >> *re`ehu* basater". > That's just two pesukim. Sefer Chofetz Chayim brings a lot more than > that - 31 if I remember correctly. The hakama to CC is mussar, so he piles on pesukim, but it you look at them they all pretty much flow from a very few sources, all of which specify "re'echa" or "amecha", etc. > The point is that ribis is NOT > inherently immoral. It *can* be abused and thereby *become* immoral. > But if done properly, it is a neutral (or even benevolent) business > tool. So are all these other things. They're normal and natural behaviour between people who don't necessarily like each other, but one would never treat someone one genuinely loved like that, so the Torah tells us that we must not treat our fellow yisre'elim like that. [Email #2] Google produced this: http://www.havabooks.co.il/article_ID.asp?id=1046 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 00:50:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 10:50:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 241) explains the prohibition of lo sikom as follows (my rough translation): "A person should understand in his heart that everything that happens to him good or bad is caused by Hashem and between people there is nothing but the will of Hashem. Therefore when someone bothers or hurts you, you should know that your sins caused this and whatever happened is a gezera from Hashem. Therefore, you should not think about taking revenge because the other person is not the cause of your troubles, rather your sins are the cause. " Based on the Chinuch's explanation there should be no difference between taking revenge on a Jew or a Goy. In either case they are not the cause of your suffering they are just the instrument of Hashem and therefore there is no reason for revenge. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 06:44:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:44:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/06/17 03:50, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 241) explains the prohibition of lo sikom > as follows (my rough translation): > > "A person should understand in his heart that everything that happens to > him good or bad is caused by Hashem and between people there is nothing > but the will of Hashem. Therefore when someone bothers or hurts you, you > should know that your sins caused this and whatever happened is a gezera > from Hashem. Therefore, you should not think about taking revenge > because the other person is not the cause of your troubles, rather your > sins are the cause. " > > Based on the Chinuch's explanation there should be no difference between > taking revenge on a Jew or a Goy. In either case they are not the cause > of your suffering they are just the instrument of Hashem and therefore > there is no reason for revenge. That is the basis for Chazal's dictum that "Whoever gets angry [over *anything*] is as if he serves idols", but there is no actual mitzvah against anger. Obviously one who truly believes in and fully accepts what we on Avodah have dubbed "strong HP" has no need for either of these two mitzvos, because it will never occur to him to hold a grudge, let alone to take revenge; but one who *does* gets angry or upset at what a fellow Jew does to him, but doesn't hold a long-term grudge against him over it is not violating a mitzvah. One mitzvah is that even if you *do* feel upset you shouldn't hold it against the person who did it, and another mitzvah is that even if you do hold it against him you shouldn't punish him for it. Therefore despite the Chinuch's relating this mussar idea to these two mitzvos, it cannot be the actual reason. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 09:16:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:16:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Akiva Miller wrote: 'I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be in the "Ribis" category. There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a non-Jew, such as Ribis.' I think this categorisation may need refining. It assumes that the Torah doesn't want us to do unethical things to non Jews either by black letter law or by unlegislated preference. The problem with this is that the Torah assumes that non-Jews are ovdei Avoda Zara and some mitzvos are specifically intended to malign them as such. Take Lo Sechaneim - The gemara learns that we can't even praise a non Jew, never mind be kind in a more concrete way. Gerei Toshav don't have this prohibition but the pshat din of the Torah is that it applies to non-Jews stam. In other words the mitzvos of the Torah treat non-Jews as transgressors and so it's likely that at least some of thing the otherwise unethical things we are allowed to do to them are due to this status. So we need at least to distinguish between what is allowed to any non-Jew and what is prohibited to a Ger Toshav. For example Ribis is clearly allowed even to a Ger Toshav. It's not unethical per se, just prohibited to a family member viz a Jew. So we need possibly, categories of: A) forbidden to everyone B) Forbiden to Jews and Gerei Toshav but totally allowed to Ovdei Avoda Zara C) Technically allowed to non-Jews of whichever category but best avoided as a bad midda D) Forbidden to Jews but totally allowed to all non Jews Re nekama, I think, subject to correction, that it is only ever positive when by Hashem or on his behalf. The nekama on Midian is 'nikmas Hashem m'es HaMidianim'. We needed to be commanded in order to do it. Hashem is 'El nekamos Hashem' in Tehilim. If anyone has a source for it being a positive thing to take personal revenge then let's hear it. Not sure the agadeta of Yaakov waking and smiling fits that bill. Otherwise the Rambam's placing of nekama in De'os as a bad midda should tell us what we need to know about it. That would be consistent with nekama being forbidden against Gerei Toshav, although we haven't found a source for that (yet). Lisa Liel wrote: 'I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews. ' The Torah clearly allows things which it considers morally wrong - Shivya Nochris for example. And the gemara says that's assur to bring one's wife as a Soteh, yet it's a whole parsha in the Torah. And the Ramban's naval birshus haTorah. Seems to me the Torah sets a floor, not a ceiling, and prompts growth through the mitzvos. Isn't that the whole thrust of Hilchos De'os? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 12:45:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:45:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish optimism [was: Shelach] Message-ID: <23c6ce.6a161a0e.4672ec49@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah ... : Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear : not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies : but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon : His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, : and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). [--Cantor Wolberg] RMB wrote: >> ...But in any case, the spies are an imperfect example, because they had G-d's promise that this specific mission would succeed. We don't have such reason to be optimistic.... ....Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? << Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> I once heard a powerful and inspiring talk given by R' Joseph Friedenson a'h. He had survived a number of different concentration camps in hellish circumstances, and had lost all or most of his family. He said in his talk that the last time he ever saw his father, his father said, "I don't know if you and I will survive this war, but no matter what happens, remember this: Klal Yisrael will survive!" R' Friedenson said that he never saw his father again but he went through the war with an unshakeable optimism. That's what he called it, optimism. He underwent horrendous suffering, but nevertheless he had a firm conviction that the Nazis would ultimately fail. He always held onto his father's words, "Klal Yisrael will survive." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 13:25:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:25:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shoah Message-ID: <842320B8-8657-4A22-98E8-76CAA22765DC@cox.net> R? Micha wrote in regard to the Shelach posting: Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? Along the same lines there was a fascinating book written many years ago by a legitimate, authentic, respected orthodox rabbi who wrote that someone who was not a victim in the holocaust has no right to say there is no God. Here is what was really an astonishing and somewhat shocking statement he made: if someone was actually in the Concentration Camp, this person has the right to deny God. I can see many raised eyebrows, but I would greatly appreciate someone remembering this book. Since it was rather revolutionary to be coming from a musmach who is respected by other orthodox rabbis. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 15:39:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:39:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: <20170614223903.GA14026@aishdas.org> In some, more Zionist, circles, the Satmar Rebbe's position that Israel is a maaseh satan is often left not understood. Many of the RZ camp have summarily dismissed it as overly polytheist for their liking. However, it is possible -- even if I or you do not find it plausible -- that Zionism was a challenge to the Jewish People. To see if after the Holocaust we would be so desperate for political relief that we would stop working toward true ge'ulah. As per the title of the SR's response to the mood after the Six Day War -- Al haGe'ulah ve'Al haTemurah (About the Ge'uilah and about the Replacement; perhaps "Decoy"). And, there is a particular mal'akh charged with posing spiritual challenges for us to grow through overcoming -- the satan. Thus, such a temurah would be a maaseh satan. Pretty conventional metaphysics, even for those who find the other religious positions bothersome. I mentioned this because of R' Gidon Rothstein's latest column in TM on the Ramban. "Ramban to Re'eh, Week Two: Avoiding False Prophets, Hearing From Hashem" http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/06/avoiding-false-prophets-hearing-hashem Along the way, RGR writes: It Might Actually Be From Hashem In the last verse in this passage, Moshe warns that this false prophet is a nisayon, a test, from Hashem. Ramban points out that back inBereshit, he had already dealt with the question of why Hashem "tests" us (doesn't Hashem know the future, and therefore know the outcome of the test? There are many answers, this is Ramban's). It's only a test from our perspective, he said. Hashem indeed knows the outcome, and is engaging in it to bring our potential into actuality (that implies that everyone always passes these tests, which works well for figures like Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov. It seems to me less convincing about the nisayon here, since the Jewish people have in fact occasionally followed such false prophets). Still, that's the less surprising part of this Ramban, since it is the face value of the verse, that the wonder did in fact come through the Will of Hashem, Hashem showed him this dream or vision to test our love of Hashem. Ramban doesn't say more, but I think he means--and this is the part that is more surprising and a bit challenging- that all people involved must realize that this is not what Hashem wants. I think he means the prophet him/herself was supposed to refrain from giving this prophecy (the other option is that Hashem was commanding and condemning this person to be a false prophet, to forfeit his/her life in doing so, and that someone we would put to death as a false prophet is actually a hero of Hashem's service. I find that unthinkable, unless the prophet said "I had this vision, but you clearly shouldn't listen to because we're not allowed to ever worship any power other than Hashem." But it's logically possible). The prophet aside, anyone who hears that prophecy, even if it's supported by uncannily accurate predictions, must both refuse to obey and react to this person as a false prophet. That is what true ahavat Hashem would lead us to do, a reminder that acting on our love of Hashem sometimes means doing that which under other circumstances should be distasteful. Putting someone to death for sharing his/her vision is not usually conduct we applaud. Here, it would still be upsetting, but necessary for those whose love of Hashem fills their beings. If the Ramban could say that there could be a navi sheqer who gets his message from Hashem for the sould purpose of challenging us, is it such a far stretch to the SR's anti-Zionism? IMHO, it's easier to understand Satmar or Munkacz anti-Zionism than Agudah's classical position of non-Zionism. The former agrees with the RZ that the Medinah is a huge event of vast import, but disagree about what the import is. The Agudist (at least classically, there were exceptions in the early years of the state, and things seem to be wearing down now) believe that Jews can regain sovereignty over EY for the first time in 2 millenia without it being religiously significant. (I am not talking about those of Neturei Karta who protest with the Palestinians and their supporters, or who visit Iranian gov't officials. They pose a whole different and perhaps even more fundamental set of problems. The SR's anti-Zionism included praying for Tzahal, as these were Jews led to danger through a horrible (in his opinion) error; an error that exists in part for the purpose of putting Jews in danger.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: RGR -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 18 10:59:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:59:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Korach Message-ID: <2943596C-CE9C-488B-B333-D25328C619BD@cox.net> 1) 16:1 "Vayikach Korach...." "And Korach, the son of Yitzhar, the son of Kehoth, the son of Levi took, and Dathan and Aviram, the sons of Eliav,etc.? The question is what did Korach take? The verb has no object. Resh Lakish said: "He took a bad 'taking' for himself" (Sanhedrin). Rashi said: "Korach...separated [lit.,took] himself. Korach placed himself at odds with the rest of the assembly to protest against Aaron's assumption of the priesthood." Ibn Ezra said it meant: "Korach took men..." 2) In the Ethics of the Fathers 5, 17 it states: "Every controversy that is pursued in a heavenly cause, is destined to be perpetuated; and that which is not pursued in a heavenly cause is not destined to be perpetuated. Which can be considered a controversy pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And that not pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Korach and his congregation." An analysis of this by Malbim explains in quite a compelling fashion why the Mishnah was not worded as we would have expected it to be: "A controversy pursued in a heavenly cause...that is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. That not pursued in a heavenly cause is the controversy of Korach and Moses." Instead it reads: "Korach and his congregation." As Malbim explains-- they would be quarreling amongst themselves, as each one strove to attain his selfish ambitions. The controversy therefore was rightly termed "between Korach and his congregation." They would ultimately fight among themselves. And the denouement would be their self-destruction. 3) "Korach quarreled with peace, and he who quarrels with peace quarrels with the Holy Name." (Zohar, Korach 176a [ed.,Soncino], Vol. V, p.238). The bottom line here is "Don't Mess with Hashem." In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves. Buddhal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 18 17:07:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 17:07:22 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: the aguda made a very practical decision-- to not make a halachic decision, but rather to seek support economically and non-military . the only halachic issue was to determine that the State's money is muttar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 01:17:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shalom Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:17:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shoah Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg's reference to the Orthodox Rabbi who wrote about who has the right to disbelieve after the Holocaust is most likely Eliezer Berkovits in his Faith After the Holocaust. Shalom Rabbi Shalom Z. Berger, Ed.D. The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education Bar-Ilan University http://www.lookstein.org https://www.facebook.com/groups/lookjed/ Follow me on Twitter: @szberger NETWORK*LEARN*GROW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 09:40:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:40:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. I am required to attend a business meeting at a non-kosher restaurant. How do I avoid the issue of maris ayin? Message-ID: <1497890418438.2614@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. I am required to attend a business meeting at a non-kosher restaurant. How do I avoid the issue of maris ayin? A. The general rule regarding maris ayin is that one can avoid the prohibition of maris ayin if there is a heker (sign) that indicates that the action is permitted. For example, Rama (YD 87:3) writes that one may not cook meat with almond milk, since this gives the impression that one is violating the prohibition of cooking milk and meat together. This would constitute maris ayin. However, this situation is permitted if one places almonds near the pot, since the almonds will alert a bystander that the milk comes from almonds and not from an animal. Therefore, if one must enter a non-kosher restaurant, one should do so in a manner that makes it clear that one is entering for business and not for pleasure. For example, one should enter carrying a briefcase or a stack of papers. Rav Schachter, shlita said that in such an instance it would be preferable to wear a cap instead of a yarmulke. Rav Schachter also said that once seated, one may order a drink -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 12:56:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:56:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur Message-ID: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> This is a comment on R Yaakov Jaffe's article at http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2017/6/13/get-your-hashkafa-out-of-my-chumash Since the Lehrhaus doesn't take comments, I thought we could discuss it here. (CC-ing RYJ.) He writes: Lehrhaus Get Your Hashkafa Out of My Chumash! [R] Yaakov Jaffe ... It has become commonplace in Modern Orthodox circles to lament the lack of alignment between the beliefs of the movement and some of the editions, translations, and versions of ritual texts that members of the movement use. These critiques are often welcome, such as Deborah Klapper's[13] recent excellent essay about the Haggadah for Pesach, and tend to frame ArtScroll Publishers as the almost villain who has taken the ideologically open, natural, innocent, uncorrupted foundational texts of Judaism and colored them with an Ultra-Orthodox translation, skew, or commentary.... Okay, that's the general topic. Here's the point I wanted to discuss: For me, there is a more grave concern when Modern Orthodox Jews flock to a different ritual text because it aligns more purely with their own ideology, and that is that the ritual text ceases to be important for its own sake (as a Siddur, Humash, or Hagaddah), a vehicle for transmitting sacred texts and values through the generations, but instead becomes a mere bit player in a larger drama about movements and self-identification. ("I use this Siddur because in many ways it demonstrates that I am a proud Modern Orthodox Jew.") This carries the risk that readers will stop reading the text of the Humash or being taken by the poetry of the Siddur and instead become hyper-focused on ideological markers that appear in those ritual texts. And for reasons that we will demonstrate below, the subordination of prayer within the mind of the person at prayer, beneath the selection of outward identifiers of ideology undermines the very purpose and notion of prayer itself. In 1978, Rabbi Soloveitchik authored a[15] short essay entitled "Majesty and Humility" in Tradition, in which he poses a dichotomy critical for Jewish religious experience and prayer. He describes one pole as majestic humanity, striving for victory and sovereignty, as "Man sets himself up as king and tries to triumph over opposition and hostility." The other pole is humble humanity, full of "withdrawal and retreat," which appreciates the smallness of human beings in the scope of the cosmic order. In the essay, prayer is an example of man in the mood of humility, of withdrawal, who finds the Almighty not when humanity triumphs over the forces of nature, or in the scope of the galaxies, but when humanity recognizes its own limitations, and, as a result, causes that "God does descend from infinity to finitude, from boundlessness into the narrowness of the Sanctuary," or: All I could do was to pray. However, I could not pray in the hospital... the moment I returned home I would rush to my room, fall on my knees and pray fervently. God in those moments appeared not as the exalted majestic King, but rather as a humble, close friend. While at prayer, the individual is constantly focused on his or her own inadequacy compared to the Divine Creator and his or her own limitations. The individual cannot be engaged in the battles of denomination supremacy, as he or she is paralyzed by his or her own smallness while attempting to pray. Moreover, prayer is generally a uniquely unsuited vehicle for conveying specific, unique, or modern ideologies and beliefs. It focuses on requests and aspirations, not on statements of creed. The text of the Siddur also serves as a unifying tool for the Jewish people (given the enormous general similarity despite centuries of division and dispersal) and highlights what we have in common and not what we have apart. 13. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-haggadah-without-women-2/ 15. http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2017/No.%202/Majesty%20and%20Humility.pdf 16. http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/?author=5886cfaabebafbcb2d43550f My problem is that tefillah is all about ideology, and the siddur runs from statement of creed to statement of creed -- Yigdal to Ani Maamin. (Not saying AM is mandatory, but it's there...) For example, RYBS's is one approach to prayer. It's different than that of Nefesh haChaim, where the focus of baqashos are what the world needs for G-d's sake, not our own needs for our sake. Curing the sick because His Presence is enhanced when people are healthy. Etc... It's different than RSRH's approach to berakhos, where they are declarations of personal commitment. So that we ask for health so that we can contribute to His Say in the world -- "berakhah" lashon ribui, after all. Etc... (I think I dug up 7 different theological resolutions to how to undertand "barukh Atah H'" given that ribui and HQBH don't mix.) This is taking a specific hashkafah's side in order to argue that tefillah shouldn't be taking a specific hashkafah's side. As for Tanakh... It is true that in one community, maximalist positions that magnify G-d's Greatness -- whether it's a description of qeri'as Yam Suf or Rivqa's age at meeting Yitzchaq -- have a near-exclusive currency. Saying that the sea simply split vehamayim lahem chimah miyminam umismolam is seen as the product if ignorance; of course it split into 13 tunnels, each providing all of our needs, ready to be grabbed out of the walls. Whereas the other prefers more rationalist positions, and in any case there is a broader array of Chazal's statements taken as possibly true. Or, does an MO Jew relate to a chumash in which the only topic of footnotes on the berakhos of Yissachar & Zevulun is their possible precedent for kollel life? (Despite there never having been an entire community where kollel was the norm until the past century.) In a community where wearing hexaplex (the snail formerly known as murex) dyed strings is a significant minority, isn't there more interest in sefunei temunei chol than in a community where it's unheard of? Then there is just different communities having different tastes in what kind of Torah thought they find more appealing / satisfying / moving. People who gravitate to the words of the Rav like the ideas in Mesores haRav for that reason. Just as Chabadnikim are more likely to find things to their taste in the Guttenstein Chumash than in the Stone Edition. Shouldn't, then, all these options exist? And is that any less true when thinking of how to relate to some complex poseq in Tehillim or a line composed by Anshei Keneses haGdolah (or the typical Ashkenazi paytan) to be a palimpsest of meanings? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 03:25:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:25:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: <> R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah poisition basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful but is against the wishes of G-d. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 06:19:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yaakov Jaffe via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:19:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Hi, Regarding the first point that "This is taking a specific hashkafah's side in order to argue that tefillah shouldn't be taking a specific hashkafah's side." I confess that I am guilty as charged. But one approach to tefilah (let's call it the one that resonates with me) is that it is purely a communication between the speaker and his or her Creator, and that consequently, it is not the time and place to be focused on proclaiming our ideologies. Obviously others may argue, and there are numerous siddur options for them. But we shouldn't pretend that this is the only approach to prayer, or that every Jew must use ideology in chosing a siddur. Regarding the second point, which I understand to be saying "each occasion of Torah study involves someone chosing an approach they prefer to understand the text, so they should chose a Chumash that furthers the approach that they prefer" I also tend to agree as well, but here my post focuses on the reductio ad absurdum problem of splitting hairs and hyper-focus on details hashkafa. I did not conduct a comprehensive study of the stone Chumash, but wonder whether the troubling explanations are ubiquitous, occasional, or somewhere in between. The problem with a "Modern" chumash, is that there are many "modern" explanations that could be equally troubling, depending on how modern the chumash and conservative the reader. Did Bilaam's donkey talk or was it a dream (Ramban versus Rambam)? If Artscroll said he spoke, and for example a new chumash says that he did not - then which one most accurately reflects my hashkafa? And if you imagine 100 different texts that can be each read multiple ways, how do we find the chumash that on all 100 provides the perfect match? Hope this makes sense, happy to continue the conversation further, Yaakov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 08:07:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:07:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Shmitta fund Message-ID: <2A3CAC10-A501-4AF5-A666-AB7B0D35E90C@gmail.com> http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2017/06/proposed-law-shmitta-fund.html?m=1. Is that the general psak, that heter mechira is no better than nothing? Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 15:02:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:02:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] restaurants In-Reply-To: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170620220230.GB29839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:44:00PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From the OU: : Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher : restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would : be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness : the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad : (giving the appearance of impropriety)... A question about that "and"... I agree with their parenthetic definition, but I will rephrase to show why I think it's rare-to-impossible for something to simultaneously be both mar'is ayin and cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone who sees the action will assume it's mutar, or at least informally "not so bad". Cheshad is where someone who sees the action is sure it's assur, and therefore think less of the person doing it. How many actions involve two conflicting default umdenos? So, being confused, I looked up the Igeros Moshe. The teshuvah is primarily about a frum minyan in a room in a non-O synagogue. The last paragraph begins "Ubedavar im mutar le'ekhol berestarant..." ("Restaurant" transliterated in Yiddish or hil' gittin style.) The line is "yeis le'esor mishum mar'is ayin vecheshad". But if someone is mitzta'er tuva, so that these gezeiros do not apply, they could eat betzin'ah something that has no actual kashrus problem. Does "ve-" here have to mean both? Or could it mean that between the two, it is assur in all circumstances? Like "lulav hagazul vehayaveish pasul" doesn't refer only to a lulav that is both stolen and dried out. Chazal's "ve-" is more complex than "and". (I am tempted to discuss de Morgan's laws and ve-, but I will just leave in this hint rather than detour into a class in symbolic logic.) If it does have to mean both mar'ish ayin and cheshad, can someone : Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based? I am not clear how they could NOT be. : For example, in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in : a treif restaurant, what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % : threshold for concern? In NYC, if you see two people, only one of which in O uniform, entering a restaurant, it's common to just assume this is a business meeting and accomodations were made. Restaurants in Manhattan routinely take delivery for a kosher meal when catering a group; it's a matter of the minimum size of the group they'll make such accomodation for. (I have been one of three, and got Abigails delivered double-sealed.) In such a climate, I don't think people would assume you're there to eat treif even if it's just two people meeting and no kosher could possibly be brought in from the outside. It's just a known thing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 16:11:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 19:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170620231132.GC29839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:33:00PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. : : True. I have always thought of ribis in a class of its own, for the : simple reason that the entire world considers it to be a generally : acceptable business practice... According to the Rambam, it's a mitzvas asei. The SA (YD 159:1) holds like the Tur, it's mutar de'oraisa, and usually prohibited derabbanan "shema yilmod mima'asav". Bikhdei chayav, tzurba derabbanan and if the profit is only defined derabbanan as ribbis are three exceptions. (Charging ribis from a mumar shekafar be'iqar is also mutar, because we are not obligated lehachayaso; but paying ribis to him is not.) The Levush says "shema yilmod mima'asev" doesn't apply in the current economy. Chazal assumed a primarily Jewish economy where we have a few exceptional deals with non-Jews. So for us, ribis is always mutar lemaaseh. I wonder whether this heter of the Levush would apply to Jews in Israel today. In any case, halakhah pesukah (assuming the reader isn't Teimani) doesn't mention any mitzvah asei. In terms of the taam being because their own economy is based on interest... Would you argue that it's wrong to lend a Muslim or an Amish person money with interest? (Even in the Levush's opinion?) Particularly in a Moslem country. where they have their own parallels to heter isqa , and the person's whole culture (I presume) reviles interest. So is it whether or not ribis is considered immoral by the person being charged, or whether or not kelapei Shemaya galya ribis is moral? I argued the latter, but your wording left me wanting to articulate the chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 13:49:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:49:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting Message-ID: What would you like the first thing that HKB"H says to you at 120 when you report to the beit din shel maaleh(heavenly study hall)? Kt Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 13:50:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban Message-ID: What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:53:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:53:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 11:21:05PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : > I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi : > haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, : > like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" : > in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather : > than knowledge of abstract ideas. : No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these : were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi : haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and : that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? "They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..." :> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. : These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult : to understand them as having been written by the same person... Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position. ... :: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in :: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21... ::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us ::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the ::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers ::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their ::> practice on their upright fathers. :> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. : Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the : pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] : and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk... But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write: : Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the : context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting : up of schools)... Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's derashah. I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with "chadash assur min haTorah".) :> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. : Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas : etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody : define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at : all the experiential aspect... Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect? :> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when :> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an :> example to imitate. : The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is : as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with : Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her : ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." : The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard : to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, : excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of : Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily : in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education. After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior? In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49. : And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they : could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward : etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two : types of TSBP... Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah. : Is not the gemora etc filled with : this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it occuring... So I am toally lost here. Maybe the "this" has been stretched further than I can follow. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 19:00:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Message-ID: The gematria for Rosh Chodesh is 813. In the whole of tanach there is only one verse with the gematria of 813. It is B?reishis, Chapter 1, verse 3. ?Vayomer Elohim ohr, vay?hi ohr? ?And God said: Let there be light and there was light.? Music is moonlight in the gloomy night of life. Jean Paul, Author From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:42:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:42:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170621234200.GF18168@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 09:19:46AM -0400, Yaakov Jaffe via Avodah wrote: : But one approach to tefilah (let's call it the one that resonates with me) : is that it is purely a communication between the speaker and his or her : Creator, and that consequently, it is not the time and place to be focused : on proclaiming our ideologies. Obviously others may argue, and there are : numerous siddur options for them. But we shouldn't pretend that this is : the only approach to prayer, or that every Jew must use ideology in chosing : a siddur. But if a person wants to approach tefilah as a pure communication, then shouldn't they pick a siddur whose ideology is that tefillah is a pure communication? Having a siddur of a given ideology is not necessarily about proclaiming that ideology. (But if you want to rail about the fact that too often this call for an MO siddur /is/ about proclomation, there is room to do so.) It is about having a siddur that aids the kind of prayer you want to do. Which is why I never understood why people assign value to having "their siddur". I have a collection, as I go from more cerebral to more experiential moods, and want different siddurim depending on where my head is just then. For example, the as-yet-unpublished RCA siddur has something in it about shelo asani that would say something that a Mod-O Jew is more likely to be concerned about saying than someone who is less engaged with the more egalitarian west would feel a need to say. ... : I did not conduct a comprehensive study of the stone Chumash, but wonder : whether the troubling explanations are ubiquitous, occasional, or somewhere : in between... In my experience, occasional. But the rationalists are under-represented, given the chareidi tendency toward more maximalist approaches. That's not troubling, but it's promoting one worldview and not allowing the other to reach the market-share it deserves. : or was it a dream (Ramban versus Rambam)? If Artscroll said he spoke, and : for example a new chumash says that he did not - then which one most : accurately reflects my hashkafa? ... My ideal chumash would present both, or if space requires, inform me that both possibilities are discussed without full presentation. If two hashkafic ideas are viable, why should I let an editor choose between them for me? But that's a different story. The problem the MO nay-sayers have with the absence of a vaiable alternative to ArtScroll is less that there is a specific problem with a comment. As I wrote, those are rare. But that without variety, without a survey that includes ideas current and popular outside the Agudist community, those ideas will cease being thought of as normative. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:20:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:20:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170621222015.GB18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:50:41PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? #1 Qedoshim Tihyu -- naval birshus haTorah #2 The end of Bo (although you didn't ask for a runner-up) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:28:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:28:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170621232850.GE18168@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:07:45PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : >I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons : >and sources, and this chapter is a perfect example... In the Bavli "Mai ta'ama?" is a request for a reason. In the Y-mi, it is a request for a pasuq as source. Reasons and sources are different things, and I think the difference helps clears up the question. : Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites : the Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than : in other places. Zev was saying that the Rambam usually opens or close with a reason, a ta'am hamitzvah. (And, as he explains in the Moreh, he only expects these to cover the generalities.) Usually, these are unsourced. But, kedarko, when he can paraphrase a source he does. Which is what he is doing here. : I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he : often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or : "pashat haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a : Midrash? This one stands out. This paragraph addresses the Rambam's not spending much time on sources, not about reasons. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:16:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:16:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170621221634.GA18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:49:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What would you like the first thing that HKB"H says to you at 120 when : you report to the beit din shel maaleh(heavenly study hall)? (After introducing me to my daughter...) "I'm proud of you, son!" "I would help you get used to this, but techiyas hameisim will be underway..." "So THAT'S why I did that..." But according to Rava (Shabbos 31a) I should expect, "Nasata venatata be'emunah?" Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:24:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:24:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170621232402.GD18168@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 08:43:42PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : > How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of : > any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even : > punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of : > the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? : : The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an : extension of the beit din. Perhaps according to the Rambam (Rotzeiach 1:2), who says "mitzvah beyad go'el hadam..." and if the go'el doesn't want to or there is none, "BD memisin es harotzeiach besayif". Rashi al haTorah appears to hold that "ein lo dam" means the go'el is killing an already dead man, and therefore bears no guilt. Not a mitzvah, but a reshus. (But see below.) And if the go'el only has reshus, it's hard to say he is operating as beis din's appointee. Sanhedrin 45b says "mitzvah bego'el hadam", but if there is no go'el, BD appoints one. There is no sayif. BUT, Makos 2:7 has a machloqes: R Yosi haGelili says that if the killer is found outside the techum, it is a mitzvah on the go'el hadam and a reshus for everyone else to kill him. (According to the beraisa on 12a, if there is no go'el, there is reshus...) R' Aqiva disagrees, saying it's a reshus for the go'el and a non-punishable issur for anyone else. (According to the beraisa, they are chayav.) And here's the weird part -- despite what I quoted above from the Yad, the Rambam on the mishnah says halakhah is like R' Aqiva. Rashi on Makkos 12a says about Bamidbar 35:27 "ika leferushei lashon tzivui ve'ika leferushei lashon tzivui. In sum, I think RJR is understating it. It's not "only" the pesuqim that are unclear. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 01:29:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:29:00 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: : No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these : were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi : haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and : that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? And RMB replied: >"They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..." I like "the root principles and the general rules .." - thanks, that is better than my use of source - but I think "osmosis" is not quite right either. I don't think "osmosis" as we understand it would necessarily have been within the Maharil's conception, and that it is not a great translation for "al pi hakabala" - maybe "from tradition" - but osmosis isn't right. The girls in question probably learnt how to speak the local language by osmosis (even if eg Yiddish was spoken in the home), but you would not say that is "al pi hakabbala". There is a big difference. :> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. : These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult : to understand them as having been written by the same person... >Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position. I don't think you can say that. First of all, the second one, ie the one from Maharil HaChadashos, made it into the Shulchan Aruch, - it is quoted by the Rema - and you can't just dismiss that. And the first one was in the possession of the Birchei Yosef, who is very influential in a whole host of ways in terms of psak. I think rather you have to treat them as two different rishonic teshuvot, and give them weight on that basis. It may well be that they were influenced by, or even possibly penned by, the student of the Maharil who collected them (hence my note that they came from two different collections) , and we may never know which one was really the Maharil's opinion and which one was in fact that of his student or some other rishon from around that time and attributed to the Maharil, but they are both rishonic source material, and I don't think we can ignore either of them. ... :: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in :: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21... ::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us ::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the ::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers ::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their ::> practice on their upright fathers. :> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. : Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the : pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] : and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk... But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write: : Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the : context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting : up of schools)... >Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's derashah. Yes, but even in terms of pshat, it seems very difficult to come away from the idea of transmission of tradition from father to children when using this process. "Asking" is not about osmosis - it is about an attempt at formal learning, and answering in response to an ask is exactly the process of formal learning in pretty much all contexts (it is why we still have teachers even in Universities, and not just books). If you have system where you are supposed to "ask" and somebody else is supposed to then answer, you have formal education. This is a step up from where you are expected to learn by watching (but not asking) - but where at least sometimes the educational aspect is clear - eg, I want you to watch and see how I go to place X, so you can find it yourself next time, is a less formal process than asking, but it is still a form of education, which is a step up from osmosis, where nobody on either side necessarily realises that something is being learnt, it just seeps in (language is a classic case, or how about accent - kids pick up their accent from school by osmosis, it is not a conscious process, and maybe the parents would in fact prefer, and maybe even they would prefer, that they talk with the parent's accent, rather than that of their peers, but it doesn't happen that way, you send a kid to school, they start talking like the locals in their school). >I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with "chadash assur min haTorah".) Because the proof text resonates, it does even in the pshat. In the pshat it is clearly linked to "vshinantam l'vanecha" - ie is the flip side of it (which is why the extension into drash makes sense, just as v'shinantam l'vanecha is the basis of the command for Torah study, this is the basis of the need to listen to the master of Torah). And if you know the drash, even when you use it in the pshat form, you will get the resonance. "V'shinantam l'vanecha" is the pasuk from which the obligation for boys to learn is learnt (banecha v'lo banotecha) - with the emphasis then on the father's teaching - the formal school process came later, when the father's obligation was delegated to a school teacher. Ask you father (in the masculine) is similarly in the pshat about a boy's obligation to learn. Applying it to girls is an odd stretch in the first place. What you are saying is that the proof text when applied to girls suddenly doesn't mean what it means when applied to boys, in either pshat or drash, that to me seems odd. :> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. : Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas : etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody : define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at : all the experiential aspect... >Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect? Well the CC is explaining the Rambam. The Rambam says: ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????, ???? ??? ??????, ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????, ???"? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????, ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????, ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man, because she is not commanded and all who do a thing that they are not commanded to do, there reward is not like the reward of one who is commanded and does rather [their reward] is less than these, and even though she gains a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning, and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut. So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav (note that the Rambam himself in Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 Halacha 11 - says a man is required to divide his time into thirds, a third in Torah shebichtav, a third in Torah sheba?al peh, and a third in understanding and weighing - what he calls Gemora, so there he seems to have three categories, but the third requires a knowledge of the other two, and presumably cannot be taught). So, in terms of your question "does anybody force the CC to define the set of TSBP that was classically prohibited as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including the experiential aspect" - it seems to me that the Rambam does. Ie given that the CC is explaining the Rambam, and the Rambam has only two categories of Torah, then either the experiential aspect is Torah shebichtav or it is not Torah at all. But saying that the experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase. I therefore think it very difficult to say that experiential teaching, especially when linked with the formality of "asking", as the CC does, can be defined as not Torah at all. So that leaves Torah shebichtav. I did try and say that was the Tur's point, what you are should not teach are the laws as written down, but to say that the experiential is Torah shebichtav seems to me a very difficult assertion. :> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when :> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an :> example to imitate. : The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is : as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with : Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her : ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." : The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard : to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, : excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of : Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily : in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". >I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education. >After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior? Yes he does, the minute he is "asked", or if he says "watch what I do" (similar to when I take my children somewhere to show them how to get there on their own, eg a new school, including pointing out the landmarks, that is most definitely active teaching, despite the fact that it is experiential, and not done from giving them a map and teaching them to map read). >In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49. And "look, let me show you how ..." is formal teaching, whether it is a maths problem or it is how to bake chala. And if that particular aspect of teaching falls within the definition of Torah, then one is teaching Torah, albeit informally. And the danger with understanding "lelameid" to only mean formal teaching, not informal teaching, is that you then write out of a father's obligation to a son an awful lot, as it is not within the mitzvah. You can't have it both ways, either when a father teaches a son informally (eg shows him how to put on tephillin, as that seems very difficult to learn from a book) he is teaching him Torah or he is not. Which is it? : And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they : could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward : etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two : types of TSBP... >Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah. So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect, showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn?t take the bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid? Isn't that the consequence of what you are saying? That the only Torah that men are obligated to learn as Talmud torah are the formal abstract rules and regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially? : Is not the gemora etc filled with : this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. >The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it occuring... I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules. If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? -Micha Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 06:27:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:27:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> On 22/06/17 04:29, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: >> The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or >> memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it >> occuring... > I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the > formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the > formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules. > > If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of > the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? Indeed, it's an explicit gemara: "*Torah* hi, velilmod ani tzarich". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 09:32:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:32:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170622163247.GA19841@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:27:07AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: :>If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of :> the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? : Indeed, it's an explicit gemara: "*Torah* hi, velilmod ani tzarich". I am excluding informal education from "lelameid bito", not excluding the acquired info from "Torah". When the R' Eliezer (as quoted by the Rambam) talks about learning or teaching, is he thinking about mimetic osmosis and the like or is he referring only to formal education? It is indeed a key way to learn how to practice. In many cases -- eg milah, safrus, mar'os, tereifos, etc... -- it's the /only/ way to learn the necessary Torah. "Mimetic osmosis *or the like*" is my acknowledgement that Chana managed to convince me that my dichotomy is really a spectrum from the informality of unconscious imitation to raw text study. And therefore there will be gray are that is more or less likely to be included by R' Eliezer or the Rambam rather than a yes-or-no. My talk of mimeticism and osmosis overstates where I am going, and created needless problems with the CC's use of "she'al avikha". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 06:26:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:26:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Letter from Europe Message-ID: <84dd8782469149f99c23cf85a031e37b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I seem to remember a letter from a European (German) Jewish community to someone/thing in Eretz Yisrael with the general message that their hometown was where they intended to wait for Moshiach whether moving to Eretz Yisrael was possible or not. Does this sound familiar? If so, do you know the source? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 07:06:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:06:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple Message-ID: <20170623140615.GB17536@aishdas.org> SA EhE 62:11 says that if the benei hachupah have to divide up into chaburos, they all make sheva berakhos. Even if the locations are not open to each other nor is there a common server -- none of the normal things that combine a zimun. The AhS #37 adds that they each make their own 7 berakhos. Does this mean that if a man needs to leave a wedding early, he should really invest the effort to find 9 others and not just 3, not only because zimun requires trying, but also because the 10 of you would be passing up a chance to bentch the chasan & kallah! To add more weight to the idea, earlier in the siman the AhS discusses the function of panim chadashos at 7 berakhos. In #23-24 he says that the Rambam (Berakhos pereq 2) implies that the reason why we need panim chadashos for 7 berakhos is that the whole thing is to fulfill *their* chiyuv to bentch the chasan & kallah. As guests of the couple, they have a chiyuv to give them a berakhah, which is fulfilled at the minimum by their amein. Whereas if everyone there already fulfilled that obligation, the berakhos are levatalah. Then in #35 he gives besheim "rov raboseinu" the usually quoted reason (at least in my circles) that it's their addition to the simchah that legitimizes the berakhah. Which is why the neshamah yeseirah and Shabbos meal can serve in the same role. (However, he warns, this only works for a real se'udah shelishis. A yotzei-zain shaleshudis lacks that requisite simchah.) So, it could be that according to the Rambam, walking out of the se'udah without 7 berakhos is neglecting one's chiyuv to give the couple a berakhah! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 10:46:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:46:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> <20170621234200.GF18168@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170623174657.GA20760@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:00:14PM -0400, Yaakov Jaffe wrote: : Thank you for your perspective. I understand your argument - rather than : my three-options (hashkafa a, hashkafa b and hashkafa c), you suggest a : fourth with a & b side by side, for the reader to chose. I hadn't : considered it - but it does have a lot to offer! We need to distinguish between a specific commentary -- R' Hirsch's Pentateuch, Mesoret haRav works, Divrei Moshe -- and an anonymous collector of footnotes as in the Stone Chumush, the ArtStroll or RCA siddurim, etc... And I want to acknowledge the gray areas. R/Lord Sack's siddur can be either, depending upon whether someone bought it out of esteem for R' Sacks and wanting to know his position, or it's as just Koren's contender in that market. I am only talking about the latter category, the anonymous shul chumash or siddur. Chareidism is founded on the need to protect ourselves from the modern. And only after dealing with the thread, one considers the opportunities. And part of that defense mechanism is deffering decisions to those more knowledgable. In contrast, Mod-O embraces the West's admiration of autonomy. Thus leaving a gap between the communities about when one turns to gedolim for answers, and when not. A side-effect of how "daas Torah" is formulated is that it has little tolerance for plurality. "The gedolim hold" is an oft-repeated idiom, in my hometown of Passaic, even by people who -- if you made them stop and consider the question -- know "the gedolim" often disagree. Because if we need to choose between valid answers, we could run the risk of choosing wrongly, a dangerous variant of one, the other, or in combination. A comparative unknown yeshivish rav or collection of avreikhem providing such commentary, choosing a consistent style of comment over others is perceived from that mindset. As promoting one position as the sole truly normative approach. The same often happens with Rashi. We think of Rashi's position as the default, because it's girsa diyenuqa, and another rishon is seen as the machadesh. Did the brothers sell Yoseif or did they find the pit empty after the Moavim got there first and selling him? There is a machloqes tannaim about Rivqa's age when married, but Rashi quotes one, and that becomes the default in some circles. In other circles, peshat is more likely to trump medrashic stories. With the position of numerous rishonim and acharonim (are there cholqim?) that medrashic stories are repeated for their nimshalim, not the story itself. Which brings me to a second effect of daas Torah... The more one takes pride in deferring to authority the more likely one is to embrace the maximalist position, to accept that which is further from rationalist, from what the autonomous decision would have been. A second reason why Rivqa must have been 3 when married, not 15. Yes, many people know both, but isn't there a clear emotional attitude about one position being normative rather than the other? I therefore think that giving a survey of opinions is itself an inherently MO way of doing this kind of text. It allows someone to choose autonomously between rationalism, mysticism, maximalism, etc... without the relatively-unknown rabbi -- or anyone but my own rav, his rav, his rav's rav... ("my gadol" is a much more MO view than "the gedolim) -- setting himself to tell large numbers of the observant community what to view as the mainstream, and what is an acceptable but avant-gard alternative, even if they ever learn of the other options. If we want RYBS's position to be viewed as part of the mainstream, or R' Herschel Schachter's (which is far closer to yeshivish but still not something ArtScroll would quote too often) or R' Aharon Soloveitchik or RALichtenstein, R' Amital, R CY Goldvicht or any other rosh yeshivas hesder, R' Kook, etc... there has to be chumashim that put these ideas in the hands of the common people, the ones who aren't spending spare time hanging out in the sefarim store or following e-zines, blogs, email lists or even FB groups that discuss (usually: argue) such things. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 15:56:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:56:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d2ec73$fba1e110$f2e5a330$@gmail.com> R' Joel Rich: What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? ------------------------ The one about being a naval b'rshus haTorah. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 14:04:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 23:04:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: <2a88576c-335d-3d30-a014-301f177029c1@zahav.net.il> References: <2a88576c-335d-3d30-a014-301f177029c1@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <297327dc-ba39-c064-1bd4-0a61c750d11f@zahav.net.il> Mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisrael, including conquering it. Ben On 6/21/2017 10:50 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? > KT > Joel Rich > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 06:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 16:10:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple Message-ID: "Does this mean that if a man needs to leave a wedding early, he should really invest the effort to find 9 others and not just 3, not only because zimun requires trying, but also because the 10 of you would be passing up a chance to bentch the chasan & kallah!" Actually, even without regard for Sheva B'rochos, the din of zimmun requires that one not who has eaten with a minyan not bentsch with less than a minyan. There is mention on OC 193:1 that only where there would be difficulty in a minyan hearing, thus necessitating the bentsching calling attention to itself and thus offending the host, that it can be done in groups of three; it would seem to be a kal vachomer that gathering ten and saying Sheva B'rochos would be even more noticeable, and thus more hurtful. It would also seem that if one person has to leave, he should not request two others to join him in zimmun unless they, too, must leave early, since otherwise they should not violate their obligation of proper zimmun so that the one leaving have an incomplete fulfillment of his obligation. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:01:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 01:01:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: . R' Eli Turkel wrote: > R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He > understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah position > basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a > state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful > but is against the wishes of G-d. Could you please explain to me what the Agudah position is, and *how* it denies that G-d affects history? Personally, I do not know what the Agudah position is about the Medinah. I'm not convinced that they even *have* a position. Over the years, I have gotten the impression that they have deliberately avoided publicizing their views, because at this point in history it is so difficult to be sure of such things. You yourself concede that the state "APPEARS" to be successful. Who knows? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:21:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:21:57 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] perhaps not such a well-known RaMBaM, but ... Message-ID: in his intro to Sefer Shemos Matan Torah was just a device employed to re-attain the standards that had already been accomplished by the Avos when they came to Mount Sinai - made the Mishkan and HaShem returned His Shechinah amongst them, that is when they restored their status to be like their Avos .... and that is when they were deemed to be redeemed [from the servitude in Egypt] Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:42:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:42:05 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] redemption - The GoEl HaDam Message-ID: the family can come to terms with the killer. when circumstances are such that the killer is deemed too negligent, he can not seek refuge in the Ir Miklat and they MUST come to terms, of the aggressor lives his life in constant fear of being executed. Lo SikChu Kofer LeNefesh RoTzeach Hu - is a warning [to BDin] NOT to take redemption money, NOT to avert the death penalty, NOT to come to terms; but in other circumstances it seems we ought to seek strategies to come to terms. That may include but is not limited to offering money - it probably has more to do with Teshuvah, which is the need to persuade the victims that the regret is sincere, which is why BDin cannot provide a ruling, it can only be negotiated through direct communications, and finding friends of the victims and persuading them of the sincerity and getting THEM to intercede - this is the Shurah that is described in Halacha and RaMBaM. Why are they defined as the GoEl the redeemer? It is a redemption for the society - an evil [negligence of this magnitude, especially when Chazal indicate it is a reflection of other misdeeds, is an evil] of this magnitude leaves an impression on the collective mind of the community, the Eidah, those whose lives is a testimony to HKBH, and if it goes unpunished, the community is tainted. So the community requires redemption. This too feeds into the coming to terms with the aggressor - it is not only the friends of the victim who are impressing upon their traumatised consciousness the need to forgive to accept that the aggressor truly regrets [and that the victim is also as Chazal say, a contributor to his untimely own end] but the community is a sort of spectator to these negotiations and the aggressors feel a need to be accepted by the community and not be seen as being too harsh and vengeful or rapacious in their demands for compensation. This is a very redeeming experience for everyone Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 10:10:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:10:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] most famous ramban Message-ID: <000b01d2edd5$f855df80$e9019e80$@actcom.net.il> First Ramban in Yayera-polemic with the Moreh Nevukhim. After that, 'Kedoshim tihiyu', (which many people are horrified by or completely misunderstand and yes, the Ramban was an ascetic and makes a brilliant case for asceticism) but we could probably have a whole lot of fun on this list making a list of Rambans that everyone should know. In fact, we may actually have done this already. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 10:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:05:14 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting from God Message-ID: <000601d2edd5$3d08f5a0$b71ae0e0$@actcom.net.il> I'd be thrilled to hear: "It's okay-don't worry about it" but I'm not counting on it. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 07:06:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:06:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170626140643.GD29431@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 04:10:45PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : hurtful. It would also seem that if one person has to leave, he should not : request two others to join him in zimmun unless they, too, must leave : early, since otherwise they should not violate their obligation of proper : zimmun so that the one leaving have an incomplete fulfillment of his : obligation. OTOH, if they have an obligation to bless the chasan and kalah, perhaps the threshold for "must leave early" has to be raised. After all, there are cases of need where we do break a zimmun, but we would never (e.g.) walk out on a beris milah over the same motivation. "Need" is a relative term. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 09:15:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 12:15:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> On this thread, did any of us mention birkhas ge'ulah? "Ufdeih khin'umekha Yehudah veYisrael" expresses our expectation that Hashem will redeem both malkhios. Or is there another way to talk separately about Yehudah and Yisrael. So I would think the siddur pasqens, and this is in all traditional nusachos, that the 1- tribes are not permanently lost. I am assuming since this is a birkhas shevakh rather than baqashah, this is an expectation "you will surely redeem", and not a request. Requesting the impossible is a tefillas shav. So... As a baqashah, the berakhah would only prove they could be redeemed; as shevakh (which is, I believe, the correct category), the berakhah is expressing our faith they will be redeemed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 14:51:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:51:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Talmud Torah vs Mitzvah Maasis Message-ID: <20170626215120.GA8220@aishdas.org> Another data point... AhS EhE 65:4 says "mevatlin talmud Torah lehakhnasas kalah lechupah", even toraso umenaso. But limited to someone who sees them going to the chupah. If you just know of a wedding in town, you aren't obligated to stop learning to go. For sources, the end of the se'if cites 1- Semachos 11[:7], which RYME summarizes as "dema'aseh qodem leTT". The mishnah itselces cites both Aba Sha'ul and Rabbi Yehudah, that "hama'aseh qodem letalmud". (Rabbi Yehudah would enjoin his talmidim to participate as well.) 2- Qiddushin 40b which discusses whether talmud gadol or ma'aseh gadol. R' Tarfon: ma'aseh R' Aqiva: talmud "Ne'enu kulam ve'amru: talmud gadol" because talmud leads to ma'aseh. (And so on, discussion elided.) This gemara concludes that talmud is greater. 3- And for exaplanation of how to resolve Semachos vs Qiddushin, he points you to Tosafos BQ 17[a] "veha'amar". The gemara there says "gadol limud Torah shemeivi liydei ma'adeh", much like Qiddushim. Rashi says "alma ma'aseh adif". R' Tam asks on Rashi, from the gemara in Qiddushin. Tosafos then explains the gemara's distinction between learning and teaching in two opposite ways: 1- It's teaching which has priority, because it brings the masses to action. Whereas one's own learning or acting are one person either way. 2- It's learning, which tells one how to act, that has priority. But since teaching doesn't inform the teacher how to fulfilll a mitzvah, it does not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 08:22:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:22:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chukas Message-ID: <9B3AD7FA-3712-4F5A-B2FC-BAC8F688CD87@cox.net> Rashi picks up on the juxtaposition of the consecutive sentences where we first read of Miriam?s death and immediately following ? of the lack of water. This would indicate some connection which Rashi points out that the existence of the water was on the z?chus of Miriam. Nonetheless, the question of the Sifse Chakhamim is also quite valid. Weren?t Aaron and Moses worthy enough to warrant the existence of the water on their z?chus? As a chok has no rational explanation, so, too, there is no logical explanation as to why as long as Miriam was there, offering her inspired leadership, the waters of the be?er, the wells of Torah, flowed ceaselessly and with her death, the waters stopped; whereas, the greatness of Aaron and Moses paled in comparison. This shows the error of those who downplay the role of women in Judaism. Remember, it?s the mother who determines the child?s religion and it?s the mother who plays a major role in her children?s development. The dedication and devotion of the exemplary Jewish mother are a shining example to all who would seek idealism in a Jewish woman. "The Lord gave more wit to women than to men." Talmud - Niddah ??And the Lord God built the rib which teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, endowed the woman with more understanding than the man.? Niddah 45b ?A beautiful wife enlarges a man?s spirit.? [adapted from] Talmud, Berakhot 57b -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 15:15:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:15:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <78965e20-72ab-5232-fd11-bfbe6b3a4ee2@sero.name> On 26/06/17 12:15, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On this thread, did any of us mention birkhas ge'ulah? "Ufdeih > khin'umekha Yehudah veYisrael" expresses our expectation that Hashem > will redeem both malkhios. Or is there another way to talk separately > about Yehudah and Yisrael. > > So I would think the siddur pasqens, and this is in all traditional > nusachos, that the 1- tribes are not permanently lost. It is not in all traditional nuschaos. TTBOMK it's found only in Nusach Ashkenaz. Sefarad substitutes the pasuk "Goaleinu", Italians substitute "Biglal avot...", I don't know what other traditional nuschaot do. (Modern Nusach Ashkenaz and some versions of the Chassidic "Sfard" combine the old Ashkenaz and Sefarad endings; this was originally Nusach Tzorfat, back when that was distinct from Ashkenaz.) (The reason for the Sefaradi ending with the pasuk rather than the other two versions is that the bracha is about Geulat Mitzrayim, not the future Geulah, hence the chatima "Ga'al Yisrael" as distinct from "Go'el Yisrael" in the 7th of the 18, so ending with a prayer for the future Geulah is off topic. I don't know how the other two nuschaot would respond, but maybe that's why NA ended up adopting the Tzorfati combination.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 22:08:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:08:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Agudah [was: Support for Maaseh Satan] Message-ID: <15180d.31f3d54b.4685e552@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <> [--I don't know who is being quoted here] R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah poisition basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful but is against the wishes of G-d. -- Eli Turkel >>>>>> All through Tanach there are examples of reshaim who succeed (if only for a while). Obviously it is Hashem's wish that they succeed, even if it is not His wish that they sin. What is remarkable and miraculous about the last century of history in Eretz Yisrael is how Eretz Yisrael has been built up, the growth of agriculture, cities, the economy, the Jewish population, and most of all the amazing growth of Torah living and learning -- despite secular socialist Zionism. The Medinah gets some credit but what is most remarkable is that so much good has happened despite the Medinah or even very much against the will of the secular government. There is so much ohr vechoshech mishtamshim be'irbuvya. Nevertheless it is impossible /not/ to see the Yad Hashem in the overall course of events over the past century. How many prophecies are coming true before our very eyes! A thriving economy grew up under the very feet of the socialists! Is that not a miracle?! Has such a thing ever happened in any other country?! :- ) So what is the Agudah's position? In November 1947, when the UN voted for the establishment of the Jewish State, the Agudah made the following declaration: --begin quote-- The World Agudas Yisroel sees as an historic event the decision of the nations of the world to return to us, after 2000 years, a portion of the Holy Land, there to establish a Jewish state and to encompass within its borders the banished and scattered members of our people. This historic event must bring home to every Jew the realization that ***the Almighty has brought this about in an act of Divine Providence*** [my emphasis] which presents us with a great task and a grave test. We must face up to this test and establish our life as a people, upon the basis of Torah. While we are sorely grieved that the Land has been divided and sections of the holy Land have been torn asunder, especially Yerushalayim, the holy city, while we still yearn for the aid of Mashiach tzidkeinu, who will bring us total redemption, we nevertheless see the hand of Providence offering us the opportunity to prepare for the geula shelaima if we will walk into the future as G-d's people. --end quote-- [quoted in __To Dwell in the Palace: Perspectives on Eretz Yisrael__ edited by Tzvia Ehrlich-Klein, 1991] The above is still fairly representative of the hashkafa of broad swaths of Klal Yisrael who are charedi or charedi-leaning, yeshivish or chassidish, neither Satmar nor Dati Leumi. That is, the majority of all frum Jews in America and Eretz Yisrael. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 22:31:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:31:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? Message-ID: <151979.a3a1c08.4685eabc@aol.com> From: Chana Luntz via Avodah I Well the CC is explaining the Rambam. The Rambam says: --quote-- A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man, ...and even though she gains a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning, and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. --end quote-- That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut. So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav ... ....But saying that the experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase.... .....So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect, showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn't take the bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid? Isn't that the consequence of what you are saying? That the only Torah that men are obligated to learn as Talmud Torah are the formal abstract rules and regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially? Regards Chana >>>>> I think that different uses of the word "Torah" are being confused here. The very word "Torah" has many meanings, depending on context. It can refer to just the Chumash -- the Torah shebichsav -- about which the Rambam says "but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." Some chassidishe schools to this day do not teach girls Chumash. The word Torah can mean both Chumash and Gemara. "The Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut." There is universal agreement that "Torah" in this context means Gemara. NO ONE thinks that teaching halacha to girls is tantamount to teaching tiflus. The word "Torah" can refer to the vast corpus of everything that has ever been written by or about the Tanaim and Amoraim, Rishonim and Achronim. The word can refer to halacha, to hashkafa, to everything that makes up Jewish life and thought. "Torah" can also refer to that which is taught and learned by example, or by osmosis, or by a mother's tears when she bentshes lecht and davens for her children. "Al titosh Toras imecha." Every language has words like that, words whose precise meaning depends on context. Certainly in the Gemara itself there are many such words. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 29 06:18:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:18:11 +0000 Subject: What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem’s name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? Message-ID: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem's name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, HY"D the Av Bais Din of Shomloy in Hungary, once wrote a letter on this subject. It reads in part, "We have a tradition in our hands from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty, that the reading of the honored and awesome name of Hashem is AH -- DOY -- NOY (AH-DOE -- NOY or AH-DOW-NOY) using the vowelization of Chataf Patach for the Aleph, a Cholam for the Daled and a Kamatz for the Nun..." "Our master the Chasam Sofer and the author of the Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah, zt"l and a whole group of Geonim and Kedoshim have already warned us that unfortunately there are many mistakes concerning this. One needs to be very careful about this matter for a common mistake has spread among the masses and even among those with fear of Hashem. Through a lack of concentration, the Daled (of Hashem's pronounced name) is said with a Sheva as "AHD-ENOY." It is certain that whoever pronounces Hashem's name this way has not said Hashem's name at all and must repeat the bracha again, and so did the Chasam Sofer rule." Rav Shimon Schwab, zt"l in his classic work on Siddur, Iyun Tefilla (p. 25), adds that one should also be careful not to say AH -- DEE -- NOY. He writes: "One must pronounce the Daled with a Cholam (DOY, DOE or DOW) and the Nun with a Kamatz, and not use a Chirik under the Daled (DEE) as is the custom of some who are mistaken and think that they are pronouncing the Name properly... This is a disgrace of the honored and awesome Name. One who pronounces Hashem's name with a Chirik even a hundred times a day is not transgressing the prohibition of saying Hashem's name in vain." Rav Pinchas Scheinberg, zt"l was once asked if Ahd-enoy or Ahdeenoy are acceptable be'dieved, after the fact. His response was a resounding "No!" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 29 06:30:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zalman Alpert via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:30:39 -0400 Subject: What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem’s name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? In-Reply-To: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> References: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 29, 2017 10:18 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > From today's OU Halacha Yomis > > *Q. What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem?s name in Shmoneh Esrei > and other brachos?* There are different ways in Ashkenazi hebrew to pronounce many vowels like cholom zeira segol etc so this answer isof little meaning Galicianer Lithuanian German Ukrainian Hungarian and Central Polish jews each have their own pronunciation See Michtvei Torah by Gerer rebbe Imre Emes where opines different than what is written here Rabbi Heschel of Hamodia several yrs ago discussed this issue in a very cogent manner Although many American college educated frum Jews believe there is only 1way of halachic practice that is absurd,there are many authentic practices to the chagrin of a group of yedhivashe people seeking to impose uniform practicr namely their own Nehare nehare upishteh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 30 06:56:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:56:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Forgotten Fast Days Message-ID: <650c141a32674be8bd8ee65a52bc1d83@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see the article at https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5929 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 30 09:04:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:04:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Authority of Cherem deRabbeinu Gershom Message-ID: <20170630160442.GA20546@aishdas.org> AhS EhE 1:23,25 etc... refers to taqanos or gezeiros passed by Rabbein Gershon meOr haGolah and his contemporaries. Not the idiom I heard in the past, "cheirem deR' Gershom" -- not even the same last letter on the name. Since this was well after the last beis din hagadol / Sanhedrin (so far), we have discussed in the past where the authority to pass such laws came from. My own suggestion revolved around them being charamim for anyone who... rather than direct issurim. But the AhS would be more medayeiq to call them charamim if he thought that was a critical part of the mechanism. But here is something that had me wondering all over again. AhS EhE 119:17... The question is how a gett given without the wife's agreement would be valid if one holds "i avid lo mahani" (like Rava). And yet the Rama says "avar vegirshah ba"k" he is an avaryan (and thus in nidui) until she remarries. One it can't be fixed, because he cannot remarry his gerushah anymore, the nidui is removed. But the AhS writes, if this is true for a derabbanan (Kesuvor 81b) *kol shekein* dChdR"G hu kemo qarov le'isur Torah. Without explaining why. And I can't even figure out how it has the authority to be more than minhag altogether... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 13:45:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:45:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Aruch HaShulchan was not happy with the minhag that the baal haseder has his wine poured by someone else. He writes that it's a bit haughty to order his wife to pour for him and that in his city it was not the minhag. Aside from the interestingly contemporary sound of his concern, it seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for everyone to pour for everyone else, which would avoid the concern of the ArHaSh. 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? 2. If so is it a) based on the poskim, b) an old practice without formal endorsement, or c) a new-fangled sop to modernity? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 17:49:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzav: "As Long As The Soul Is Within Me, I Will Give Thanks Unto Thee, O Lord, My God And God Of My Fathers" Berakhot, 60b Message-ID: <476D9522-69B8-43D1-9E77-D0491911541D@cox.net> Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the korban todah, Thanksgiving Offering. The Medrash (Lev. R., 9.7) tells us that in the future all the sacrifices will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering. Rashi (Leviticus 7:12) states (paraphrased): A man offers a thanksgiving offering (in the Temple) when he is saved from potential danger. There are four types: sea travelers, desert travelers, those released from prison and a seriously ill patient who has recovered. As the verse says in Psalms (107:21), "They should give thanks to God for His kindness, and for His wonders to mankind.? Interestingly and providentially, the mnemonic for this group of four is Chayyim, which stands for [Chavush (jail), Yisurim (illness), Yam (sea), Midbar (desert)], (Shulchan Aruch 219:1). In our times, we fulfill this concept with the recitation of the blessing, HaGomel ("He who grants favors..."). There is a beautiful insight in the Avudraham on laws and commentary on prayers. The author was student of Ba'al HaTurim (R. Yaakov ben Asher) and was a rabbi in Seville. When the hazzan says Modim, the congregation recites the "Modim d'Rabbanan" (The Rabbis' Modim). Why is that? The Avudraham says that for all blessings in the Sh?moneh Esrei we can have an agent. For 'Heal Us', for 'Bless Us with a Good Year' and so forth we can have the sheliach tzibbur say the blessing for us. However, there is one thing that no one else can say for us. We must say it for ourselves. That one thing is "Thank You". Hoda'ah has to come from the individual. No one can be our agent to say 'Thank You.' (This is similar to asking for forgiveness. You must obtain it from the individual wronged. Not even the Almighty can forgive you for wronging a fellow human being). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 20:28:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:28:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: <5101c.42bfc52f.460fb895@aol.com> References: <5101c.42bfc52f.460fb895@aol.com> Message-ID: > "The Halachic Adventures of the Potato" ? by R' Yitzchak Spitz > https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5184 > [...] > In fact, and this is not widely known, the Chayei Adam does actually > rule this way, Sigh. This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location, but do *not* cheat by copying a citation from some secondary source; I will not accept it, because I know very well that there are many secondary sources who claim this, but none of them give a *valid* reference to where he wrote it. What I *have* seen in the Nishmas Adam is an aside, in the course of writing something different, that by the way in Germany they treat potatoes as kitniyos. In fact I'll go further: I don't believe that there has ever been a posek of any stature who forbade potatoes as kitniyos, nor any community that ever accepted such a practice. I have seen many sources claiming that someone else, somewhere else forbade it, or that some other community far away treats it as kitinyos, but never any first hand acccount. When the Rosh writes that in Provence they said Tal Umatar from Marcheshvan 7th I believe it, because he was there and saw it with his own eyes. But I have never seen anyone report having seen with his own eyes a community that forbids potatoes, or a psak din to that effect. It's always someone else somewhere else. Until I see a first hand account I don't believe it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 20:30:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:30:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked about guests in a shul where the guest's practices differ from the shul's. I am bothered by the question, and even more so by the responses. What has happened Porush Min Hatzibur? What has happened to Derech Eretz and simple good manners? (Previous discussions here on Avodah have claimed that some poskim actually hold that a visitor who davens Nusach Sfard should use that text even if he is in the tzibur of a Nusach Ashkenaz shul. Ditto for responding to Kedusha, so I will not discuss those particular examples.) But: > Would your shul allow a guest to say 13 middot aloud > by Tachanun (if local practice is not to)? We're not talking about a few words here, but approximately a whole page worth, that the tzibur would be forced to say. It's not clear from the question whether this guest is the shliach tzibur or not, but I think it is safe to say that in my shul, a shliach tzibur who tries this would be quickly informed of his error, and if it came from someone in the seats he'd simply be ignored. > Would your shul allow a guest to read his own Aliya? >From your use of the word "guest", I am presuming that this was not arranged in advance. If the guest had approached the gabbai a few days in advance to make this request, I don't know what the answer would be. But it sounds like the guest was called up, and at that point he asked the koreh, "May I read it myself?", as in the story that R' Josh Meisner told. I am horrified by the lack of consideration that this guest has toward the time and effort that the baal koreh put into preparing the laining. In RJM's story this happened on Rosh Chodesh, and I do concede that RC is by far the most frequently read parsha of all. But the question as posed was more general, applicable to any laining whether weekday or Shabbos. I am particularly surprised by the reaction of RJM's rav, who <<< insisted ... that the next two olim also read their own aliyos so as not to directly draw a distinction between those who read their own aliyah and those who do not. >>> While I appreciate the sensitivity involved, I am really surprised that this shul has such a large pool of people who can be called upon to lain properly, even for Rosh Chodesh - literally at a moment's notice. How common is this? Are there shuls where any randomly chosen person is able to lain? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 03:40:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:40:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chazkah that changed Message-ID: <> I would venture that according to everyone chazakot in financial matters can change. The famous case is a borrower who denies everything (kofer ba-kol) according to the Torah he doesn't pay anything and is not required to swear since no borrower would be brazen to completely deny a lie. The gemara says that "today" people are brazen and so we require a "shevua". I would guess that other financial chazakot for example that someone doesnt repay a loan ahead of time would depend on the current situation. If today there would be some reason for people to pay back a loan early that I would guess that the halacha indeed would change. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 04:01:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:01:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Visiting a Shul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJRich asked: > Visiting a shul questions-actual practices and sources appreciated: > * Would your shul allow a guest to read his own Aliya? > * Would your shul allow a guest to say his own nussach of kaddish (not as shatz)? > * Would your shul (in galut) allow the shatz not to say baruch hashem l'olam in maariv? > * Would your shul allow a guest to say 13 middot aloud by Tachanun(if local practice is not to)? > * Would the answers be different if requested before prayer (vs. gabbai intervention at time of event)? Me: In all those cases, in our shul, local minhag trumps the wishes of the guest, though we won't jump at anyone for adding vekooraiv mesheechay or werewa'h weassalah. Sometimes the reading of one's own aliya may be tolerated. When I was an avel, I mostly davvened in shuls that did not adhere to my minhag (though I layer "converted" to one of those other minhaggim), and as shaliach tzibbur, always followed their respective minhaggim. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 06:15:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:15:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked about guests in a shul where the guest's practices differ from the shul's. I am bothered by the question, and even more so by the responses. What has happened Porush Min Hatzibur? What has happened to Derech Eretz and simple good manners? ----------------------------- I have seen them all occur. What triggered the question was a shiur on yutorah where a pulpit rabbi mentioned that a visiting guest sfardi scholar asked in advance and was granted the right to read his own aliya. I was surprised and then thought of other situations that I had a similar reaction to. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 19:16:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 22:16:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Poisoning in Halacha Message-ID: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> Tonight my chevrusa and I learned the sugya in Bava Kamma 47b of one who puts poison in front of his friend's animal. A brief synopsis and application of the sugya is at http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/infected: ?A person put some poisoned food in front of his neighbor?s animal,? Rabbi Dayan said. ?The animal ate the food and died. The owner sued the neighbor for killing his animal. What do you say about this case?? ?I would say he?s liable,? said Mr. Wolf. ?He poisoned the animal.? ?I?m not so sure,? objected Mr. Mann. ?The neighbor didn?t actually kill the animal. Although he put out the poison, the animal chose to eat the food.? ?Animals don?t exactly have choice,? reasoned Mr. Wolf. ?If they see food, they eat! Anyway, even if the neighbor didn?t directly kill the animal, he certainly brought about the animal?s death.? ?But is that enough to hold him liable?? argued Mr. Mann. He turned to Rabbi Dayan.?The Gemara (B.K. 47b; 56a) teaches that placing poison before an animal is considered grama,? answered Rabbi Dayan. ?The animal did not have to eat the poisoned food. Therefore, the neighbor is not legally liable in beis din, but he is responsible b?dinei Shamayim. This means that he has a strong moral liability to pay, albeit not enforceable in beis din (Shach 386:23; 32:2).? It struck us that it follows that if one poisons another human being by, say, placing cyanide in his tea, which the victim then drinks and dies, the poisoner is exempt from capitol punishment. It would seem that such a manner of murder falls into the category of the Rambam's ruling in Hilchos Rotze'ach u'Shemiras Nefesh 3:10: Different rules apply, however, in the following instances: A person binds a colleague and leaves him to starve to death; he binds him and leaves him in a place that will ultimately cause him to be subjected to cold or heat, and these influences indeed come and kill the victim; he covers him with a barrel; he uncovers the roof of the building where he was staying; or he causes a snake to bite him. Needless to say, a distinction is made if a colleague dispatches a dog or a snake at a colleague. In all the above instances, the person is not executed. He is, nevertheless, considered to be a murderer, and "the One who seeks vengeance for bloodshed" will seek vengeance for the blood he shed. (translation from http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1088919/jewish/Rotzeach-uShmirat-Nefesh-Chapter-Three.htm) Perhaps this was a davar pashut to everyone else, but for me, tonight, it was a mind-boggling revelation! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 06:05:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:05:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hilchos Chol HaMoed Message-ID: <1491224727245.62311@stevens.edu> >From the article at http://tinyurl.com/l8ll4lf The following is meant as a convenient review of Halachos pertaining to Chol-Hamoed. The Piskei Din for the most part are based purely on the Sugyos, Shulchan Aruch and Rama, and the Mishna Berurah, unless stated otherwise. They are based on my understanding of the aforementioned texts through the teachings of my Rebbeim. As individual circumstances are often important in determining the psak in specific cases, and as there may be different approaches to some of the issues, one should always check with one's Rov first. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 12:50:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:50:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> > RZS: > In fact I'll go further: I don't believe that there has ever been a > posek of any stature who forbade potatoes as kitniyos, nor any community > that ever accepted such a practice. I have seen many sources claiming > that someone else, somewhere else forbade it, or that some other > community far away treats it as kitinyos, but never any first hand > acccount. When the Rosh writes that in Provence they said Tal Umatar > from Marcheshvan 7th I believe it, because he was there and saw it with > his own eyes. But I have never seen anyone report having seen with his > own eyes a community that forbids potatoes, or a psak din to that > effect. It's always someone else somewhere else. Until I see a first > hand account I don't believe it. > This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade potatoes. David Riceman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 09:15:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 12:15:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: <7f1aa7e091a1468c8cc6c5df61f610ac@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <7f1aa7e091a1468c8cc6c5df61f610ac@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <29.EA.10233.B3572E85@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 11:57 AM 4/3/2017, Ben Bradley wrote: >The Aruch HaShulchan was not happy with the minhag that the baal >haseder has his wine poured by someone else. He writes that it's a >bit haughty to order his wife to pour for him and that in his city >it was not the minhag. > >Aside from the interestingly contemporary sound of his concern, it >seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for everyone to >pour for everyone else, which would avoid the concern of the ArHaSh. > > >1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? In my home the children poured my wine once they were big enough and now my older grandchildren do this. And they pour for my wife also. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 10:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:10:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bourbon no Longer an Automatic, Faces Kashrus Issues Message-ID: <1491239439011.48127@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/kh92xxv "Companies that once distilled just a few barrels of bourbon every year are now churning out dozens of other drinks-Sherries, brandies, flavored vodkas-which might not be kosher. They can contaminate the bourbon, Rabbi Litvin said, if the liquors are run through the same pipes or tanks." The Litvins, a family that lives in Louisville, "have taken it upon themselves to keep bourbon kosher." Despite the fact that Jews are proportionately poor Bourbon consumers (it is an $8.5 billion industry), there has been a dramatic increase in demand in recent years, particularly by younger kosher consumers. "Alcohol consumption has definitely increased manifold," said one kosher wine and spirits expert. Heaven Hill, one of the largest liquor companies in the world, is owned by a Jewish family, but only a few of the bourbons-Evan Williams, the company's largest brand, and the high-end single-barrel whiskeys-are still guaranteed to be kosher. The others are run through the same pipes and storage tanks as other products, including untold flavors of vodka, spiced rum and mint whiskey. ______________________________________________________________ I guess that I have been ahead of the trends, because I have been drinking bourbon for decades and never liked Scotch. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 12:21:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:21:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Good manners will open doors that the best education cannot. Clarence Thomas Message-ID: <708AB73F-9427-468E-AAEE-C0DD97D63B94@cox.net> One of my doors recently broke and I?m having a new one installed Wednesday. It brought to mind a MIdrash I once learned telling of the basic distinctiveness of the Jewish door and the secret of its architectural design, which served as a protection against annihilation. ?And strike the upper doorpost through the merit of Abraham, and the two side-posts, in the merit of Isaac and Jacob. It was for their merit that HE saw the blood and would not suffer the destroyer? (Midrash Rabbah XVII - 3 Exodus). It set me to thinking. Aren?t the doors to a home indicative of the nature and character of those who live beyond them? I began to think of doors with various emblems displayed upon them. Some say: ?We have given.? ?No Beggars or Peddlers Allowed.? ?Nobody lives here,? etc. But next Monday evening, the Jewish emblem on the entrance door will say: "Let all who are hungry, come and eat." On this Festival of Pesach, let not Judaism pass over our doors. When we open our doors to welcome Eliyahu Hanavi, let us keep it open wide, to welcome all that is positive, invigorating and creative in Jewish life. Let our doors be indicative of proud Jewish occupants. Let us display our Mezuzot not as mere adornments but as emblems which proudly proclaim for all to see: ?We are proud to be the sons and daughters of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and we are determined to carry on in their tradition. Grief is a room without doors but Passover?s power not only changes that situation but it sends Eliyahu Hanavi right through. Truncated clich?, rw From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:11:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> References: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> Message-ID: On 03/04/17 15:50, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: >> > This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a > friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly > gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one > ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. > Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras > kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade > potatoes. That comes close, but not close enough. If the name of the town were given, so that one could track down other families from that town and verify it, then I'd accept it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:17:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:17:00 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach Message-ID: *<<*This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location >> *Nishmas* *Adam*, *Hilchos* *Pesach*, Question 20 (from the article on Potatos) mentions retzke that are called tatarka which are used to make flour are kitniyot My yiddish is very limited I saw one place that translated this as corn while another used buckwheat later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called erdeffel which I saw a translation as potatos. If this translation is accurate then the Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that allowed potatos on Pesach in case of a major famine. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:43:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:43:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170403204335.GC6792@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:17:00PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not : true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or : whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location >> : : Nishmas Adam, Hilchos Pesach, Question 20 (from the article on : Potatos) mentions : retzke that are called tatarka which are used to make flour are kitniyot It's Kelal 119, Q 20. : later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called erdeffel which : I saw a translation as potatos. If this translation is accurate then the : Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that allowed potatos on Pesach : in case of a major famine. And so, as Zev pointed out, it is untrue that the CA advocated this position. Which is what is commonly retold. (At least, in my experience.) The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:47:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:47:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 01:15:37PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What triggered the question was a shiur on yutorah where a pulpit : rabbi mentioned that a visiting guest sfardi scholar asked in advance : and was granted the right to read his own aliya. I was surprised and : then thought of other situations that I had a similar reaction to. Isn't there a problem that the second you let those who are able to lein for themselves, you destroyed the minhag of leveling the playing field with a baal qeri'ah? Along thse lines, my father -- who certainly doesn't have to -- reads the berachos from the card on the bimah. The whole procedure is built around avoiding embarassing those less educated Jewishly. And today, where so many who get aliyos may be newer baalei teshuvah who don't know the berakhos by heart, shouldn't everyone read the berakhos, just the way everyone has a shaliach do the reading? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 14:34:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:34:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> References: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 03/04/17 16:47, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Along thse lines, my father -- who certainly doesn't have to -- reads > the berachos from the card on the bimah. The whole procedure is built > around avoiding embarassing those less educated Jewishly. As I understand it, the purpose of reading the brachos from a card is to make it clear that one is not reading them from the Torah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 14:30:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:30:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> On 03/04/17 16:17, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not >> true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or >> Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the >> location > Nishmas/ /Adam/, /Hilchos/ /Pesach/, Question 20 (from the article > on Potatos) Yes, I'm obviously aware of this reference, which *does not say* what so many people cite it as saying, because they saw it cited to that effect somewhere else, and have not bothered looking it up. This is frankly getting up my nose, which is why I specified that I am not interested in citations that the poster has not looked up himself and verified that they actually say what they are represented as saying. > mentions retzke that are called tatarka which are used to > make flour are kitniyot My yiddish is very limited I saw one place > that translated this as corn while another used buckwheat Retchke, or Gretchke, means normal buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum). Tatarke means Tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum). > later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called > erdeffel which I saw a translation as potatos. Yes, bulbes are potatoes. as in the famous song "Zuntik bulbes, Montik bulbes". > If this translation is > accurate then the Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that > allowed potatos on Pesach in case of a major famine. He reports having heard that in 1771-72 there was a famine and the community of Frth convened a beis din which permitted potatoes and kitniyos, but not buckwheat. His purpose in citing this is simply to demonstrate that buckwheat is worse than kitniyos, since even in this extreme case they refused to permit it. Of course this immediately causes the reader to wonder why they'd need a heter for potatoes, so he throws in the explanation that in Germany they don't eat them on Pesach. Of course anyone who sees this can see immediately that (a) he reports this practise neutrally, without expressing any support for it, and (b) he doesn't claim first hand knowledge that it even exists, but merely repeat a rumour he'd heard about some other place. Somehow, in the hands of irresponsible people, this seems to have transformed into the received wisdom that he forbade potatoes, or wanted to forbid them, or thought they ought to be forbidden, etc, none of which has the slightest tinge of truth, and it's perpetuated by lazy and dishonest people who repeat it as fact, complete with a fake citation which they have not bothered to verify. This, in turn, by exaggerating the extent of gezeras kitniyos, is used to make it seem ridiculous, onerous, impractical, and ripe for reform. On 03/04/17 16:43, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. and did so merely as a rumour. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 20:11:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:11:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder Message-ID: R' Ben Bradley wrote: > it seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for > everyone to pour for everyone else, which would avoid the > concern of the ArHaSh. > > 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? The ArtScroll Haggadah says (in the instructions for Kiddush), "The participants fill each others' cups", without mentioning any minhagim to the contrary. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat, in Halachos of Pesach, on pg 468, cites Haggada Kol Dodi (Rav Dovid Feinstein) 7:2, writing: > The Ramoh (473;1) specifies that the leader of the Seder > should not fill his own cup, but should allow others to pour > for him, as this displays cheirus (freedom). > > Although the wording of the Ramoh seems to imply that this > requirement only applies to the host and leader of the Seder, > the general custom is to do this for all the participants. > Most people therefore pour the wine for each other at each > juncture of the Four Cups. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 03:40:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 06:40:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> References: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170404104004.GA3715@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 05:30:34PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. : and did so merely as a rumour. What he repeated was a story about someone making an exception to their minhag. The explanation as to why the minhag was needed isn't given as part of the story. And if the CA puts the story into writing and uses in halachic argument, he obviously thought it was more than mere rumor. Still, not his own position, not even something he advised in theory, even before ein hatzibur yakhol laamod bah considerations. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 05:52:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 12:52:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman Message-ID: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> There is a shiur about this at http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 19:29:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 22:29:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Isn't there a problem that the second you let those who > are able to lein for themselves, you destroyed the minhag > of leveling the playing field with a baal qeri'ah? Yes, that's what MB 141:8 says. Actually, that MB goes a bit farther, and points out that "harbeh" such people *don't* know the laining so well, and the result is that the tzibur isn't yotzay. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 06:42:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:42:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato Message-ID: "This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade potatoes." This has nothing to do with potatoes but I was talking to the wife of a Moroccan this morning and she said that he told her (third-hand again) that many Moroccan towns had their own minhagim. For example, in one town they didn't use sugar because it was stored in bags near grain. So it's certainly possibly true about potatoes as well. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 06:23:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:23:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: from an OU bulletin My grandparents, may they rest in peace, would be startled to discover that I can purchase OUP kosher for Passover items such as breakfast cereals, pizza, bread sticks, rolls, blintzes, waffles, pierogis and farfel. OTOH the OU has many chumrot on what is kitniyot I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily be mixed up with chametz. It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 08:58:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:58:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> On 04/04/17 09:23, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer > makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as > kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. > > To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and > bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our predecessors made. Thus the machlokes acharonim about newly discovered legumes and pseudo-grains: was the original gezera only on certain species, or was it on the entire class? Most acharonim seem to say it was on the entire class, but then argue about how to define that class, and thus how to decide what it includes. But very few if any say zil basar ta`ma to include new things that definitely don't fall in the original definition of the banned class. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 09:45:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 19:45:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> References: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> Message-ID: <6bd3ddad-9fb6-b9ae-d7e5-edded0b2f267@starways.net> On 4/4/2017 6:58 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 04/04/17 09:23, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> >> It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer >> makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as >> kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. >> >> To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and >> bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. > > It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no > authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our > predecessors made. I was under the impression that gezeirot weren't something that could be instituted after the Sanhedrin. Even Rabbenu Gershom only instituted his rules as chramim, rather than gezeirot. And the minhag (not gezeira by any stretch of the imagination) was made by local rabbis for local conditions and local situations. Conditions and situations change. I realize that the reason we differentiate between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan law is because there's a meforash commandment of bal tosif. But we can learn out from that on some level that we shouldn't be jumbling up gezeirot and takkanot and cheramim and minhagim and siyagim and treating them like they're all the same. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:43:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 20:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58ee56f4-ffb7-2f3d-6cf8-93f18c2d7746@zahav.net.il> See my post a week ago in which I cited Rav Yoel Ben Nun and Rav Yosef Rimon as both taking the position that we need to ban flour substitutes and relax on kitniyot. Ben On 4/4/2017 3:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals > and bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:13:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:23:37PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer : makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as : kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. : : To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and : bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. In this era of packaged foods and heksheirim, the whole minhag makes no sense. People aren't deciding on their own whether quinoa is qitniyos. Or whether some sack contains pure peas with no wheat from the bottom of the silo. Or would eat a porridge based on a guess about whether it was pea or oatmeal. (The fact that I get my *unflavored* gourmet whole-leaf teas without a KLP symbol -- something little different than buying any [other] vegetable -- makes my wife nervous.) The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:58:06AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no : authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our : predecessors made... Well, they lacked that authority too. This is minhag, not gezeira. And the notion that we should be bery mimetic and work with what our ancestors actually did rather than what their rationale would imply in our context works even better with minhagim than with gezeiros. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:01:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman In-Reply-To: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> References: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170404180132.GB8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : There is a shiur about this at : http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz So, I am listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on YUTorah at this link. He opens by saying that the afiqoman (epikomion) must be before chatzos, and very likely the 4th cup too. So, kol hamarbeh means adding to the END of the seder, not having a longer Maggid that will push past chatzos. (Eg tzeis is 8:12pm in NY, as MyZmanim computes it -- 36 min as degrees, and chatzos is 12:56. So, we're talking Qadeish to the end of Hallel in 4 hr 44 min. Unhitting pause...) The Avnei Neizer (R Avrohom Bornsztain, the first Sochatchover Rebbe, descendant of both the Ramah and the Shach) argues that if you are finishing by chatzos to fulfil R Gamliel's shitah, then you could eat other foods after chatzos. And if you are not eating the rest of the night, that's because you're worried that if the mitzvah is indeed alkl night (unlike RG), ein maftirin achar hapesach would also be all night. So, the AN suggests that a moment before chatzos, eat a piece of matzah al tenai that if the halakhah is like Rabban Gamliel, it will be your afiqoman. Then, don't eat the minute or two until chatzos -- for R' Gamliel's en maftirin. Then, go back to eating (as long as you finish before alos), concluding with another afiqoman, also al tenai -- thus fulfilling the other ein maftirin. (BTW, note that the seder in the hagadah that went until zeman qeri'as Shema didn't include Rabban Gamliel.) R Meir Arik in Kol Torah uses this to answer a problematic Rashbam (Pesachim 121). The Rashbam says you're allowed to bring qorbanos todah or nedavah on erev Pesach. But you're not allowed to bring a qorban where you are mema'et the zeman akhilah, and the zeman akhilah for these qorbanos is until the morning. So how could you bring them on a day where ein maftirin achar hapesach will limit the time in which they could be eaten? But according to the Avnei Neizer, you can fulfill ein maftirin for both shitos and only limit eating for a moment before chatzos, by eating that 2nd afiqoman at the last possible time. However, there is a lot of opposition to the AN's chiddush. RALebowitz says there are 6 questions, but he's running out of time. 1- The Baal haMaor and the Ran's explanation for why ein maftirin would work with the AN. But the Ramban says the problem was that having so many people needing to eat their kezayis qorban pesach bein hachomos before chatzos, there was a worry that people would eat early, when still famished. (Which is assur derabbanan, gezeirah maybe they'll break bones. The question of why ein maftirin wouldn't then be a gezeira al hagezeira was not raised in the shiur.) Which means that even if the zeman for the qorban is until chatzos, if people could still plan a late dinner, they could rely on that and still eat their pesach while very hungry. 2- RMF (IM OC vol 5, pg 123) brings several objections. One basic one: even the AN says he never saw anyone do this before. RMF found it tamuha to rely on a sevara be'alma to change so many generations of mimeticism. (An argument that touches on some hot topics today.) 3- RMF adds that one needs to prove that the zman akhilah and the zeman ta'am are the same. Maybe the chiyuv of having the taste in your mouth happens to run longer? 4- The Chasam Sofer writes against doing a mitzvah mitoras safeiq. Similar to Rabbeinu Yonah's (on Berakhos) explanation for why an asham talui is more expensive than a chatas. Because we need to correct the "I probably didn't do anything wrong" attitude. If you never know when you're fulfilling the mitzvah, kavah will be lacking. RALebowitz then gives eidus from R Wolf that R Willig finishes his 4th kos right before chatzos. And timing then becomes a central theme during the seder. R' Avraham Pam said on many occations that we have to be aware of those who spent all that time making the seder. (Typically the wives and mothers.) Sometimes we spend so much time on Magid, that we then rush through the beautiful se'udah they made to get to the last kos on time. RAP thought that this bein adam lachaveiro issue is sufficient to justify relying on the Avnei Neizer. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 12:21:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 21:21:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <496ab467-1c33-a721-97d2-48512539e648@zahav.net.il> Rav Rimon's Hagaddah specifies that the minhag is to pour the wine/grape juice of the ba'al habayit alone. He also notes that there are those who don't follow the custom. In the footnotes, he cites that when people put water in their wine, it wasn't derech cheirut for the home owner to do it himself. Today, that isn't the case and it is common for everyone to pour his own wine/grape juice. He also cites the AHS' opposition. Ben On 4/4/2017 5:11 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? > > The ArtScroll Haggadah says (in the instructions for Kiddush), "The > participants fill each others' cups", without mentioning any minhagim > to the contrary. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:21:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:21:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Fungibility of Mitzvos Message-ID: <20170404182125.GD8762@aishdas.org> As y'all know, I'm obsessed with this topic. The notion of metaphysical causality that interferes with "you get what you deserve / need" bothers me. So I appreciated RNSlifkin finding these sources. http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2017/04/can-you-do-mitzvos-to-benefit-others.html Tir'u baTov! -Micha Can You Do Mitzvos To Benefit Others? April 03, 2017 Can you do mitzvos in such a way that the merit for them will benefit other people? Can you designate them to receive the reward for your mitzvah in their mitzvah bank account, such that they receive more Divine favor? A friend of mine recently forwarded to me a request on behalf of someone who is tragically unwell. The community was requested to pray for his recovery, which is certainly a time-honored Jewish response. But there was also a request to do mitzvos on his behalf, as a merit for God to heal him. My friend wanted to know if there was any classical Jewish basis for this. In my essay "What Can One Do For Someone Who Has Passed Away?" I noted that classically, one's mitzvos are only a credit to those people who had a formative influence on you. One's mitzvos cannot help the souls of other people. Rashba cites a responsum from Rav Sherira Gaon on this: "A person cannot merit someone else with reward; his elevation and greatness and pleasure from the radiance of the Divine Presence is only in accordance with his deeds." (Rashba, Responsa, Vol. 7 #539) Maharam Alashkar cites Rav Hai Gaon who firmly rejects the notion that one can transfer the reward of a mitzvah to another person and explains why this is impossible: "These concepts are nonsense and one should not rely upon them. How can one entertain the notion that the reward of good deeds performed by one person should go to another person? Surely the verse states, 'The righteousness of a righteous person is on him,' (Ezek. 18:20) and likewise it states, 'And the wickedness of a wicked person is upon him.' Just as nobody can be punished on account of somebody else's sin, so too nobody can merit the reward of someone else. How could one think that the reward for mitzvos is something that a person can carry around with him, such that he can transfer it to another person?" (Maharam Alashkar, Responsa #101) The same view is found explicitly and implicitly in other sources, as I noted in my essay. There is simply no mechanism to transfer the reward for one's own mitzvos to other people. It seems that only very recent mystical-based sources claim otherwise. Now, I don't see any reason why there should be any difference if the person that one is trying to help is deceased or alive. Nor do I know of any source in classical rabbinic literature that one can do a mitzvah as a merit to help someone that is sick. Prayer, yes. And Tehillim are also a form of prayer (though it may depend upon which Tehillim are being recited). But I know of no classical source that one can honor one's parents or learn Torah or send away a mother bird as a merit for somebody else. (The most common example of people attempting to do this may be the custom of women to separate challah on behalf of a sick person. Here too, though, it appears that the classical basis of this is not that the mitzvah of separating challah is crediting the sick person, but rather that the person separating the challah thereby has a special time of power/inspiration, which makes their prayer more powerful.) If I'm wrong in any of the above, I'll be glad to see sources showing otherwise. But so far, I have found that while people are shocked when one challenges the notion that you can learn Torah on behalf of someone who is sick, nobody has yet actually come up with any classical sources demonstrating otherwise. Furthermore, if this indeed was a part of classical Judaism, we would certainly expect it to have prominent mention in the writings of Chazal and the Rishonim. We appear to have another situation of something widespread that is believed to be an integral and classical part of Judaism, and yet is actually a modern innovation that has no basis in classical Judaism whatsoever. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:33:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:33:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> References: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we > start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system > will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. > > Mehila, but aren't you being rather Chicken Little (or is your tongue somewhere in the direction of your cheek?) We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other minhagim that people are so set against any change? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 12:22:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 19:22:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot Message-ID: > The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we > start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system will > collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and many modern oils RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and cottonseed oil and this is being expanded by many I don't see this as destroying a Mimetic tradition the reason to include canola oil is that it is similar to Kitniyot even though it or even corn oil did not exist at the time of the generation So the question is why extend the minhagim to canola oil when the problem of the confusion doesn't exist but we don't extend it to non chametz cereal or breadstick where the possibility of mistakes is greater As previously mentioned rsza was against these chametz look a like products as are several contemporary rabbis OTOH the outside is nachman in lecithin in candies where there are many reasons to be making and they are making in chametz looking and tasting products where many are machmir From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 13:15:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170404201511.GI8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:33:22PM +0300, Simon Montagu wrote: : We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha : hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other : minhagim that people are so set against any change? Sorry if this will sound like circular reasoning, but it isn't because of the time lag: Minhagim that are *currently* treated very seriously can't be broken *going forward* as readliy simply because of the psychological / experiential impact of bending or breaking something that is so vehemently held. Since my argument is about mimetics, halakhah-as-culture, you can't necessarily get a textual / theory-based answer. On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 07:22:32PM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote: : We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them : My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and : many modern oils RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and : cottonseed oil and this is being expanded by many .. Well, RMF didn't actively permit peanut oil as much as report that back in Litta, peanuts were commonly consumed on Pesach. According to R/Dr Bannet, within my lifetime peanut oil was THE go-to oil for Pesach. But that's Litta. Minhag Litta didn't expand qitniyos to legumes found in the New World, after the original minhag formed. (Although they did take on avoiding New World grain -- maize / corn.) Minhag Litta was also lenient on mei qitniyos, and a far broader range of the northern half of Eastern Europe (I don't know what Yekkes hold) were lenient on shemes qitniyos in particular. Yes, by my minhagim, there are two reasons not to need a special formula for KLP Coke. If we could get anyone to give a hekhsher to certify there is nothing "worse" than mei New World qitniyos in it. But other parts of Europe went by reasoning, and did have stringencies including liquids and oils. That's their minhag, and it always was their minhag. Which gets me to my point: It's not really that any rav is expanding minhagim. It's that the heksher industry is going to be cost efficient. Heksheirim that say something is okay for 2/3 of their audience don't survive. Causing a lest-common-denominator approach to the spread of minhagim. Like trying to find reliable non-glatt meat in the US; the larger hekhsheirim don't even try. And so, as more move into the area whose minhagim exclude using peanut oil on Pesach, it becomes harder to find KLP certified peanut oil, and all too quickly people forget what was once the norm. I think that framing it as pesaqim and machloqes is imprecise. It's more like watching the evolution of new minhagim as our new communities from mixtures of the old ones. Not necessarily in directions we would like, but at least that's the framework in question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:11:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:11:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/17 15:22, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them We have no more authority to limit them than to eliminate them altogether. > My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and > many modern oils What people do has no relation to what they have the right to do. > RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and cottonseed oil RMF (almost alone) holds that the original gezera was on particular species, and peanuts were never included. The machlokes about cottonseed oil is precisely about whether it is a kind of kitnis or not. > the reason to include canola oil is that it is similar to Kitniyot > even though it or even corn oil did not exist at the time of the > generation Whether the oil existed then is lechol hade'os irrelevant. If the species is included in the ban then all forms are included. RMF however would presumably say that since rapeseed was not an edible species at the time, it was not included. Most acharonim, who hold that the ban was on the whole category, would presumably include it. > So the question is why extend the minhagim to canola oil when the problem > of the confusion doesn't exist but we don't extend it to non chametz cereal > or breadstick where the possibility of mistakes is greater Once again, because no individual rav or group of rabbanim have the authority to permit what is already forbidden, or to forbid for the entire people what is currently permitted. > As previously mentioned rsza was against these chametz look a like products That he was against something doesn't make it assur. > as are several contemporary rabbis OTOH the outside is nachman in lecithin > in candies where there are many reasons to be making and they are making in > chametz looking and tasting products where many are machmir But what authority do they have for this? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:33:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 17:33:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman In-Reply-To: References: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <0A.54.10233.A4114E85@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:01 PM 4/4/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via >Avodah wrote: >: There is a shiur about this at >: http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz > >So, I am listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on YUTorah at this link. >R' Avraham Pam said on many occations that we have to be aware of >those who spent all that time making the seder. (Typically the wives >and mothers.) Sometimes we spend so much time on Magid, that we then >rush through the beautiful se'udah they made to get to the last kos on >time. RAP thought that this bein adam lachaveiro issue is sufficient to >justify relying on the Avnei Neizer. Rav Schwab in his shiur on the seder (to be found in Rav Schwab on Prayer) suggests eating very little during the Seder besides the required amounts of Matzah and Moror, so that one will have room and appetite for the Afikoman and not have to "force" oneself to eat it. I do not know what Rebbetzen Schwab prepared for the Seder meal, but I assume it was not an elaborate meal based on what she knew Rav Schwab would eat. I know that R. Miller would not allow his children or grandchildren to read from the sheets that they came home with from Yeshiva. He told them to save it for later, probably the next day. And since I mentioned all of the material that the kids come home with from school, let me say that IMO the schools "spoil" the seder. To me it is clear from the Gemara in Pesachim that the children are not supposed to be "primed" with all sorts of knowledge about the Seder. The things we do are supposed to be new to them so that they will ask questions. My children when they were young and my younger grandchildren now know enough to conduct the Seder themselves! There is nothing new for them. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:59:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:59:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah Message-ID: I understand that one cannot use Egg Matza for the mitzva of Achilas Matza, but I'm not sure exactly why. I'm aware of two different reasons, and they seem mutually exclusive. 1) The Torah requires that this mitzva be done with "lechem oni" - poor bread, plain and lacking the richness that it would have if it were made with eggs, juice, oil, or the like. 2) Matza must be something that could have become chometz, but was baked before chimutz could occur. According to those who hold that flour and pure mei peiros will not ever become chometz, "matza ashira" isn't really halachic matza at all. I suspect that I am conflating various shitos, and that according to any individual shita, one reason or the other will apply, but not both. Can someone help me out? Thanks! Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:27:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:27:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I understand it, the purpose of reading the brachos from a card is to make it clear that one is not reading them from the Torah. I believe that's the reason for turning one's head to the side, haven't seen that as the reason for using a card. And that's only according to the opinion that the oleh leaves the Sefer Torah open while making the brachos. The opinion that the Sefer Torah should be closed is for the same reason if memory serves, and then of course no card would be needed at all. So I presume the reason for the card is simply for people who need it. Given that the whole reason for having a designated baal koreh in the first place was to save the embarassment of those who can't read their own aliya, I'm bemused by the permission for someone to decide they'd like to read their own aliya. Unless you say that a well known talmid chacham, or a guest of honour, would not embarrass the other olim by reading his aliya since he's known as a scholar. It does seem that avoiding the chashash of embarrassment was more important to chazal than to many contemporary kehillos. Maybe it needs some chizuk. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 23:41:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 06:41:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot Message-ID: And so, as more move into the area whose minhagim exclude using peanut oil on Pesach, it becomes harder to find KLP certified peanut oil, and all too quickly people forget what was once the norm. Which is a difference between Israel and USA Israel with a large sefardi community has top level hasgacha on kiniyot products also many candies now list that they contain lecithin so that the consumer can decide rather than the hasgacha deciding -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 20:45:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 23:45:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/17 17:27, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > Given that the whole reason for having a designated baal koreh in the > first place was to save the embarassment of those who can't read their > own aliya, I'm bemused by the permission for someone to decide they'd > like to read their own aliya. Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone wants to do his own, why not? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 21:53:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:53:50 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Are Mitzvos Fungible Message-ID: Obviously, and in spite of all the stories of people selling their Olam Haba it is a nonsense - good and evil deeds cannot be redeemed or transferred by a financial transaction or any agreement HOWEVER if anyone is inspired to do a good [or evil] deed or desist doing an evil [or good] deed because of another persons influence clearly that influencing person is rewarded accordingly and so when we learn Torah or do any other other Mitzvah and we are inspired to do it because of an institution or a person be they in Olam HaEmes or in this world a Zechis accrues for that person Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 21:18:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:18:03 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru - We have no authority to decree new gezeros Message-ID: Although it has been said on these hallowed pages Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru - We have no authority to decree new gezeros yet many felt that the new stainless steel Shechitah knives were forbidden machicne Matza was forbidden Ben PeKuAh is forbidden they're even arguing that soft Matza is forbidden for Ashkenazim etc. But it is Kula Chada Gezeira Thus newly discovered foods are Kitniyos And whatever the truth is we are V lucky that potato was not included and not reversed remember when peanuts were KLP? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 03:01:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:01:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pate de Foie Gras Message-ID: <20170405100107.GA16249@aishdas.org> Daf Yomi learners just learned BB 73b. It looks to me like the gemara is condemning, although on an aggadic level, the preparation of pate de foi gras. Since I can't quote the gemara, here's R' Steinzaltz's commentary (from : And Rabba bar bar Hana said: Once we were traveling in the desert and we saw these geese whose wings were sloping because they were so fat, and streams of oil flowed beneath them. I said to them: Shall we have a portion of you in the World-to-Come? One raised a wing, and one raised a leg, [signaling an affirmative response]. When I came before Rabbi Elazar, he said to me: The Jewish people will [eventually] be held accountable for [the suffering] of [the geese. Since the Jews do not repent, the geese are forced to continue to grow fat as they wait to be given to the Jewish people as a reward.] Rashbam ("litein aleihem es hadin"): For in their sins, they delay mashiach. They, those geese, have tza'ar ba'alei chaim because of their fat. Apparently even the messianic se'udah is insufficient grounds to justify torturing geese for their fat. Also implied is that the sin of making the geese suffer in their obesity is not a sin so great at to itself holding up the mashiach's arrival. Otherwise, R' Elazar would be describing a vicious cycle. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 03:51:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:51:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on > kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU > gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be > prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily > be mixed up with chametz. > > It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if > no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the > same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. I am both surprised and confused, by this post and almost all the ones that followed. It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and gebroks. Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right? So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate gebroks. I am not surprised that amei haaretz like myself have trouble understanding the definitions of kitniyos. But one thing is for sure: That our rabanim ought to understand that kitniyos and gebroks are two different things. Some might respond that today's "farfel, bread sticks etc" are being made not of matza meal but of potato and tapioca. I don't see that as relevant. *ANY* definition of kitniyos has to be one that doesn't include matza meal. And if matza meal is excluded, then you can't include potatoes merely because they are so useful. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 05:20:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:20:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <50BEA150-B533-4159-AFEB-ADE8B18EB7E1@sibson.com> > Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone wants to do his own, why not? > > -- Synagogue practices in particular are a very sensitive area, at least according to rabbi Soloveutchik. THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 08:56:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:56:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170405155630.GA29273@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:45:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any : given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, : it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone : wants to do his own, why not? Since when does logic have to do with emotions? Your line of reasoning would work for robots, not people. If everyone else is leining their own aliyah that day, someone who can't may still be embarassed and decline taking an aliyah with the ba'al qeri'ah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 05:57:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 08:57:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Tefillin on Chol Moed Message-ID: R Samuel Svarc wrote on Areivim >This, as it turns out, is a minority view. Not all Ashkenazim hold >that way, nor do Sefardim, nor a nice junk of the Litvishe wing. From http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/tefillinONmoed.htm The Aruch Hashulchan notes that "recently" a practice among some Ashkenazic Jews has developed to refrain from wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. He is referring to the practice of Chassidim, which was also the practice at the famed Volozhiner Yeshiva (as recorded by the Rav, Shiurim L'zeicher Aba Mori Zal p.119) And from http://dinonline.org/2014/04/07/tefillin-on-chol-hamoed-pesach/ The Rema adds that the Ashkenaz custom is to wear Tefillin and recite a berachah, but because of the sensitivity of the topic the berachah should be recited quietly. Later authorities espouse the compromise noted by the Tur, meaning that Tefillin are worn but the berachah is not recited (see Taz 31:2; Mishnah Berurah 31:8). YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 09:29:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:29:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170405162920.GB19562@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 06:51:14AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and : gebroks. I think the conversation works better as is. Gebrochts is a minhag to avoid the possible manufacture of real chameitz from any flour that happened to stay dry when the matzah was made. Qitniyos is a minhag or multiple minhagim to avoid things that either: 1- are stored in the same silos as with chameitz, in which case it's much like gebrochts in function. Or 2- are used in a manner similar to chameitz, and people might eat chameitz thinking it's pea porridge or mustard seed or whatnot. And these could indeed be divergant minhagim, where different explanations became primary drivers in different areas, leading to difference in how practice evolved. But explanation #2 does open the door for the original question. Pretzels made from oatmeal make it possible for someone to accidentally eat real chameitz pretzels. And if your ancestral version of qitniyos includes growing it to include new items that make the same mistake possible, eg corn, then why not all these gebrochts or potato / potato starch products -- not because they're gebrochts (if they are), but because reason #2 applies. : So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever : arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they : were rejected by communities that ate gebroks. No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) This really is a recent development. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 07:48:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:48:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Fungibility of Mitzvos In-Reply-To: References: <002801d2ae0d$a752e040$f5f8a0c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: R? Micha Berger quoted R? Natan Slifkin: <<< I have found that while people are shocked when one challenges the notion that you can learn Torah on behalf of someone who is sick, nobody has yet actually come up with any classical sources demonstrating otherwise. >>> I?d like to suggest a very slight difference between two scenarios: Suppose I say, ?Hashem, I am going to learn some Torah now, and I?d like the s?char for this mitzvah to go to Ploni, instead of to me.? That seems to be the situation that RNS is talking about. But suppose I say, ?Hashem, I am going to learn some Torah now, and I?d like *MY* s?char for this mitzvah to be that You heal Ploni, who is currently ill?, or ?? that You elevate Ploni to a higher level in Gan Eden?, or something similar. My point is that if there is no mechanism to transfer s?char from one person to another, perhaps we can still request that the s?char should take a particular form, and it would result in the same effect. I?m pretty sure that there *are* sources for requesting that the s?char should take a certain form. More accurately, I recall cases where one requests that his *onesh* should take a particular form, such as if it has been decreed that one should lose a certain amount of money, it should occur in tiny amounts over a long time, or some other similar request. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 08:52:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:52:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos HaGadol Message-ID: It is not easy to explain the origin of the Hagadol which is applied to this coming Shabbos. In the Haftorah, the prophet Malachi speaks of a Yom Hashem Hagadol which according to various customs is to be read when the Sabbath before Pesach happens to be Erev Pesach. And yet the term Hagadol as applied to the Sabbath before Passover has been accepted by all whether or not it falls on Erev Pesach. The Midrash offers additional insight as to why this Shabbos is termed Hagadol and tells us something most of us have learned that on the Shabbos preceding the 14th of Nissan (when the Pascal lamb was to be brought as an offering), the Egyptian masters entered into the homes of the Jews and noticed that each family had a sheep tied to its bedposts. The Egyptians asked: ?What are you doing with our sheep?!? The Jews replied: ?We are going to slaughter it as an offering to our God.? The Egyptian masters gritted their teeth in exasperation and walked out. This is another basis for the Shabbos preceding Pesach to be called the ?Great Shabbos.? It is the Shabbos that the Jewish people experienced a miracle ? they were not killed by their masters because of their subordination to the Will of the Almighty and they were not deterred by concern for their personal safety. THAT was ?greatness? and they were, indeed, truly ?great.? It is also interesting that every Shabbos symbolizes complete freedom ? freedom from technology and the mundane. Pesach typifies freedom and redemption. The parallel to Shabbos is profound. May this Shabbos be the ?GREATEST!? "The price of greatness is responsibility.? Winston Churchill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 14:25:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:25:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a5b4365-260b-ab41-7882-0043d896073e@zahav.net.il> On 4/5/2017 12:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone > who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from > gebroks, right? Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can get today which is no different than cake flour? [Email #2. -micha] On 4/4/2017 8:33 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and > halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all > other minhagim that people are so set against any change? If this one is different it is because people have set out to take down this minhag. Whereas something like changing from an Ashkenazi white with black stripes tallit to a more Sefardi all white one wouldn't be such a big deal because no one is making an issue out of it. In my community there is a back lash against the kitni-chumrot so I see it changing, somewhat. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 01:32:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:32:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Food in the desert questions Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: "In the mishkan, a mincha offering was brought. other offerings too. Some : required flour and oil. Where did they come from? " I just saw a Tosafos in Menachos 45b that discusses the question of flour in the midbar. Tosafos quotes Rashi as saying that they did not make the shtei halechem in the midbar because all they had was man (so they had no flour). Tosafos disagrees and says that they bought flour from merchants (based on the Gemara Yoma 75b). I would assume that Tosafos would say the same thing about oil. The Rambam in the Peirush Hamishnayos (Menachos 4:4) agrees with Rashi that they had no flour in the midbar. So to answer your question according to Rashi and the Rambam they had no flour and therefore did not bring anything flour based. According to Tpsafos they bought flour from merchants in the midbar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 22:03:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Meisner via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 01:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > I understand that one cannot use Egg Matza for the mitzva of Achilas > Matza, but I'm not sure exactly why. I'm aware of two different reasons, > and they seem mutually exclusive. > > 1) The Torah requires that this mitzva be done with "lechem oni"... > 2) Matza must be something that could have become chometz, but was baked > before chimutz could occur. According to those who hold that flour and pure > mei peiros will not ever become chometz, "matza ashira" isn't really > halachic matza at all. If matzah is baked with mei peiros and a kol she-hu of water, it would not be lechem oni but would be halachically matzah. Josh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 04:16:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:16:49 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller asked: "It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and gebroks. Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right? So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate gebroks." There is no question that this is a new problem, even 50 years ago no one made things out of matzo meal or potato starch that looked almost exactly like the equivalent chometz item. There has been an explosion of "imitation" chometz products over the last 20 years that look and even taste like chometz. This is more a spirit of the law issue. One of the reasons given for not eating kitniyos is that since kitniyos look like and/or can make things that look like chometz we are afraid that people will confuse them with chometz and come to eat chometz. This concern certainly applies much more to these modern products. If I can get kosher l'pesach cereal that looks exactly like chometz cereal there is certainly a risk of confusion. No one is saying that these things are kitniyos, what they are saying that in the spirit of kitniyos these should be prohibited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 05:06:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those measures should be. I wrote: : So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? : Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 : years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate : gebroks. and R' Micha Berger responded: > No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks > that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) > This really is a recent development. Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my mother made at home? I'm sorry, but I can't buy that. It is true that today's factory kitchens allow an amazing variety of technologies and abilities, including products that are almost indistinguishable from regular bread. But I maintain that this does NOT translate to an increased chance that someone will mix flour and water in their home kitchen, precisely because the factory and home are so far apart - both geographically and sociologically. If someone is enticed by the quality of a store-bought breadstick or pizza slice, I cannot imagine that they would attempt to duplicate it at home nowadays without a recipe. Seeing a breaded chicken cutlet at one's neighbor's home *IS* something that you might duplicate in your own home, and there is great danger there. But I just don't see that happening with factory-made goods. Anyone who is awed by the quality will read the box to figure out how they managed such a feat, and they will immediately see the potato and tapioca listed. (But I am willing to listen to other arguments.) My suspicion is that the anti-potato sentiments may have originated in the non-gebroks sectors. Pesach pizza and pancakes are very new to them, and I suppose I can understand their concern. But among those who have been eating gebroks for generations, I just don't understand why these new products bother them. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 03:35:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:35:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah Message-ID: R' Joshua Meisner wrote: > If matzah is baked with mei peiros and a kol she-hu of water, > it would not be lechem oni but would be halachically matzah. That's true. Theoretically, if one would bake it fast enough, before it becomes chometz, it would be real matza. But because of the mei peiros, it isn't plain matza, but it is "rich" matza - matza ashira, and thus disqualified from Mitzvas Achilas Matza. But as far as I know, no one makes such matza, because (there is a fear that) the combination of both water and mei peiros will allow the dough to become chometz much faster than usual. That's not the case with the stuff on the shelves that's labeled "Egg Matza" or "Matza Ashira" - This has no water at all, and its dough can never become chometz. If so, then it seems to me that the term "Matza Ashira" is a misnomer. It isn't matza at all, because it was incapable of becoming chometz. A better term for it might be "Matza-style squares" (which is the term that the industry has chosen for the potato and tapioca stuff). I suspect that at some point in history, some educator felt that the logic of "the fruit juice makes it rich bread" was more easily accepted by the masses, and the logic of "it can't be chometz and therefore it isn't matza" was too difficult for them. And from that point onwards, it was the go-to explanation, despite the technical shortcomings. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 05:28:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat Message-ID: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I've been thinking (pun intended) about staam daat" . (I have in mind "whatever HKB"H wants me to have in mind without actually knowing what that is [e.g., to be yotzeih the chazan's bracha]). Firstly what is the source of the concept. Secondly, Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal says works, that's what I want to think/occur). [relatrd to daat makneh and koneh issues] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:07:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:07:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru Message-ID: We all assume we can't have new gezerot. Is this really true? At least according to some opinions bicycles and umbrellas are allowed on shabbat. According to RSZA electricity (without a heat or fire) is really allowed on shabbat and certainly yomtov. Years ago many held that electricity was allowed on yomtov. Today we have things like fitbit watches which many feel are allowed on shabbat. Yet in practice the poskim prohibit all these things. Other things are prohbited in davening because it is a slippery slope etc. In essence these are all new gezerot perhaps without the nomenclature -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:21:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:21:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:06:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos : understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect : people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is : acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those : measures should be. Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change a minhag. And if we were talking about gezeiros, then we'd need a Sanhedrin or universal consensus to create one. ("Universal consensus", eg RSZA on electricity.) But we would also need that level authority to modify or repeal one. So there too there is a high barrier to change. So in either case, while I could appreciate R' Aviner's reasoning, I don't know if I would be comfortable applying it lemaaseh. :> No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks :> that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) :> This really is a recent development. : Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in : the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my : mother made at home? While, really I'm suggesting that an environment where -- even a bagel or a loaf of bread -- could be a gebrochts or potato starch replacement poses bigger problems than we faced 50 years ago. Because a person can pick up anything and mistake it for a KLP alternative. Much like one of the reasons given for qitniyos. The same was not true when the only KLP pancakes were rare and homemade. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:41:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:41:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Working on Chol Moed Message-ID: <1491493270335.3143@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If I don't work on Chol Hamoed my paycheck will be much smaller. Is this a davar behaved (irreparable loss)? Am I permitted to go to work on Chol Hamoed? A. A loss of profit is generally not considered a davar ha'avud. As such one cannot automatically assume that it is permissible to work on Chol Hamoed. Nonetheless there are situations where davar ha'avud would apply. For example, if a person will use up vacation days by not working during Chol Hamoed, and there is a preference to take vacation at a more convenient time, this may be considered a davar ha'avud. (See Shmiras Shabbos Kihilchoso, vol. 2, chapter 67, footnote 47.) Furthermore, if a person is struggling financially, and not earning a salary on Chol Hamoed would be stressful, this may be treated as a davar ha'avud. Nonetheless these leniencies are not ideal, and Rav Belsky, zt"l stressed that it is preferable to not work on Chol Hamoed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 09:44:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:44:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat In-Reply-To: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <958e2160-18d0-985e-70d4-9c571dea3a3f@sero.name> On 06/04/17 08:28, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Secondly, Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., > I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal says > works, that?s what I want to think/occur). Isn't that *exactly* what we do when we write in a shtar that we stipulate to having made whichever kind of kinyan is most effective ("be'ofan hayoser mo`il")? We don't know which of the various kinyanim we should be doing so we stipulate that whichever one it is, we did it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 10:01:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 20:01:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/6/2017 6:07 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We all assume we can't have new gezerot. Is this really true? ... > In essence these are all new gezerot perhaps without the nomenclature The nomenclature is vital. As I said in my previous email, we don't blur the distinctions between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan, and we don't blur the distinctions between gezeirot, takkanot, chramim, siyagim, minhagim, etc. Yes, it's forbidden to eat chicken parmesan. And it's forbidden to eat a pork chop. There's no wiggle room. Both are forbidden. So to someone on the outside, those prohibitions might look like the same thing, "perhaps without the nomenclature". But the nomenclature matters, because there are different rules for the two. Just as there are different rules for the various "add-ons". Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:49:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:49:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7c4f2947-d6c6-62b2-40fd-a9b977d026f4@starways.net> > Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy > in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes > that my mother made at home? Matza meal pancakes, which I grew up with as well, are nothing at all like regular pancakes. The difference is clear and obvious. Ditto for cakes. We used to have sponge cake at Pesach. And we thought of it as a Pesach cake. It wasn't something we had all year. I don't have a problem with fake treyf. So I don't really have a huge problem with fake chametz. But to pretend that there's no difference between what we used to have in the 60s, 70s, etc, and today is just silly. The difference is enormous. And while I don't have a huge problem with fake chametz, I see another distinction between fake chametz and fake treyf. You can't ever eat bacon. So making fake bacon is reasonable. But fake chametz? Really? We can't make it a week without waffles and pizza and pretzels? [Email #2. -micha] On 4/6/2017 6:21 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be > mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very > overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change > a minhag. WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be determinative. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 10:54:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:54:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:03:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept : of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be : determinative. Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei For that matter, the topic here is qitniyos -- which is itself a minhag avos, not halakhah. It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the accepted ruling in practice. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 13:59:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:59:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> I am confused by the term mimetic. I understand it in the sense of tradition, We are discussing various situations that didn't exist years ago, My parents didnt use Canola oil because it was not available but they did use cottonseed oil. What is my mimetic custom for lechitin? When I grew up we had mainly macaroon cookies. Any cakes even with matza meal tasted and looked different than chametz items. No one I knew used CI shiurim. In EY on the radio I still hear about the necessity of using CI shiurim at least lechatchila. I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. I recently heard a shiur from R. Aviner attacking much of these chumrot and R. Lior also has many kulot and these are considered right wing DL rabbis. As I stated before one difference between EY and the US is the existence of a large charedi sefardi community, This gives rise to kitniyot products with top level hasgachot. The easy availability of soft matzaot etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 12:10:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:10:26 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder Message-ID: is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a korban pesach? i think we all agree that the matzot to make a korech were soft matzot [and presumably mashiach will rule that's the way we should all be making them ]. if the zaytim were like larger then , would the sandwich have been the size of a big mac? or half a pizza? kiddush would have started the meal . then some form of maggid [ 3 hrs long? would the korban be edible that many hours later?] . so people washed and then what? hamotzi on 3 matzos? but the mitzva matza was to eat the korech no? so the rest of the meal was not matza followed by marror, but rather that of korech. so then the chiyuv-matza was the afikoman matza? or people would have chazon ish'ed it up twice---at the matza they washed on and again on korech? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 07:46:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:46:29 +0000 (WET DST) Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Apr 6, 2017 11:03:15 am Message-ID: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> > > ... This is another basis for the Shabbos preceding Pesach to be > called the "Great Shabbos." > No, it is not. Haggadol is not an adjective modifying Shabbath, because Shabbath is feminine. No one who speaks Hebrew uses masculine adjectives to modify Shabbath, ever (pedantic footnote: except in the fixed expression "Shabbath shalom umvorakh", which is said by people who do speak Hebrew, but which for other reasons is clearly an idiomatic expression that does not follow the rules of grammar, unless you want to call it a mistake, which is also fine with me). It is the same reason why we know that Lshon Hara` and `Eyn Hara` are not nouns modified by adjectives, because lashon and `ayin are feminine nouns. No one who speaks Hebrew would ever use the masculine adjective ra` to modify the feminine nouns lashon or `ayin. They are nouns modified by other nouns, and so is Shabbath Haggadol. (Whether lshon hara` and `eyn hara` are the correct pronunciation turns on whether the smikhuth forms in Rabbinic Hebrew are the same as the smikhuth forms in Biblical and modern Hebrew, a question that is irrelevant to the current discussion. They are unquestionably smikhuth forms, however they should be pronounced.) This alone is not sufficient reason to reject your translation "The Great Shabbos", because languages do not have to be translated literally and word-for-word. I do not reject the translation "the holy tongue" for "lshon haqqodesh", even though "lshon haqqodesh" literally means "the tongue of holiness", because languages do not have to be translated literally. If you want to translate "lshon haqqodesh" as "the holy tongue", fine. But you cannot do that with "Shabbath Haggadol", because we do not say Shabbath Haggodel, or Shabbath Haggdula, we say "Shabbath Haggadol", and gadol is an adjective, albeit a masculine one. As for what it does mean, well, if you want to say that Hagadol is a kinuy for God ("the Great One"), I think that is far-fetched, but I won't post an article publicly saying that you are wrong. It is clear to me that we say Shabbath Hagadol for the same reason that we say Shabbath Xazon or Shabbath Naxamu or Shabbath Shuva. You may disagree. But what you cannot plausibly say is that it means "the great Shabbath". Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:24:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:24:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matzah Meat (was Kitnios In-Reply-To: <728a7944561447f0984b79952cedf5a5@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <728a7944561447f0984b79952cedf5a5@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <86.ED.07959.212B6E85@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:03 PM 4/6/2017, Ben Waxman wrote: >On 4/5/2017 12:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone > > who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from > > gebroks, right? > >Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for >matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can >get today which is no different than cake flour? I must admit that I have no idea what you are referring to when you write about "roughly ground matza meal." Is this what is called cake meal? If so, it is good for making many things. See for example http://tinyurl.com/n6yo95b Also, do a google search for cake meal recipes, and you will see how many recipes come up I use "regular" matza meal to make matzah balls and they come out fine. See http://tinyurl.com/kl5tljs for a recipe for matza balls that calls for matza meal. I have never seen shmura cake meal. Has anyone? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 13:30:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:30:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 4/6/2017 8:54 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:03:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: >: WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept >: of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be >: determinative. > Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel > Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei > > It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering > cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the > accepted ruling in practice. I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:48:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:48:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170406214806.GH26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:30:40PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : >It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering : >cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the : >accepted ruling in practice. : : I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi : is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that : we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea : that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible. You are only discussing the absolutes, the case where the halakhah isn't known, and that where it is, but common practice differs. But in the part I left above, I described the gray area. There are cases where the logic for one position is more compelling than the other, but not muchrach. In fact, this is more common than a case where two rishonim or noted acharonim disagree and one opinion is found to be outright wrong. Between the brilliance of the people involved and the "peer review" as to which ideas reach us, it is very rare for us to find a true incontrovertable mistake, and even harder to know if we really did, or if it is our own assessment that's in error. In that situation, where we have to choose between multiple viable shitos, there are a number of things a poseiq would weigh. Different schools of pesaq may give each different weights. This kind of comparison of apples and oranges requires real shiqul hadaas, and is why pesaq is an art, not an algorithm. This is my usual list of categories of factors that go into pesaq. 1- Textualiam 1a- Logicalness of the rationale 1b- Authority of those who back each postion: majority, expertise (eg the Rambam and Rosh carry more weight than some other rishonim) 2- Mimeticism 3- Aggadic concerns -- whether it's chassidim not wearing tefillin on ch"m or some of RSRH's innovations. My point in #2 is that there are many times that we continue following what we do because it has a sound textual basis -- even though some other shitah may have a stronger such basis. And again, this is minhag, not halakhah. The whole topic of qitniyos rests on mimeticism, not formal halachic reasoning. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] P.O.P. Paradox Of Pesach Message-ID: <5204F12E-00B5-47B0-92DD-2D93AB3E7C87@cox.net> A great ambivalence is to be found in the symbolism of the Seder. On one hand, the white kitel is a manifestation of joy and purity, and on the other hand, it is also the shroud of death. An egg is a token of mourning, but at the Seder it recalls the korban chagigah, the additional sacrifice brought to assure joy on Pesach. The matzah is the bread of affliction as well as the food of freedom baked in haste as our forefathers rushed out of Egypt. The very word individual which refers to a single person ends with DUAL. Pesach brings out the duality of man but through the unity of the family, we are able to live with cognitive dissonance, paradox and conflict. ?We may have different points of arguments from perspectives of belief, faith and religion. But we must not hate each other. We are one human family.? ? Lailah Gifty Akita, (Think Great: Be Great!) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:04:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:04:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406220429.GK26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:59:51PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be :> mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very :> overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change :> a minhag. : I am confused by the term mimetic. I understand it in the sense of : tradition, Mimetic is from the shoresh mime, to copy. (Like a mimeograph.) Mimeticism is Judaism as culture. Things like absorbing that "Shabbos is coming" feeling of the erev Shabbos Jew. The pious Jew of today may be able to work himself up emotionally on Yom Kippur, the mimetic Jew of 100 years ago was simply terrified, without such work. (Both kinds of religiosity have their pros and cons.) Mimeticism evolves because culture evolves. Textualism is also tradition. But it's the formal tradition passed off from rebbe to talmid. RYBS's dialog down the ages that he watched gather around his father's table, or later, in his own shiur room. So the mimetic-textualist axis is not quite the same as the tradition-ideology one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:07:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:07:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> References: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> Message-ID: <20170406220711.GL26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 02:46:29PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote: : Haggadol is not an adjective modifying Shabbath, because Shabbath is : feminine. No one who speaks Hebrew uses masculine adjectives to : modify Shabbath, ever (pedantic footnote: except in the fixed : expression "Shabbath shalom umvorakh", which is said by people who : do speak Hebrew, but which for other reasons is clearly an idiomatic : expression that does not follow the rules of grammar, unless you want : to call it a mistake, which is also fine with me). What about Shabbos morning, and "veyanuchu vo"? The previous night it was "vahh". I agree with your thesis, I am more trying to get from you what the masculine noun "vo" refers to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:27:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav Message-ID: Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik heh under my understanding and also be milera. Is my understanding of the word incorrect? Kol tuv and Chag Kasher v'Sameach to all, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 00:29:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:29:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot Message-ID: from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) BTW the sefer contains 3 sections ; main, dvar halacha and orchot halacha. I am assuming that all 3 are from RSZA or notes of students. I will do my best in the translation but have added some of the notes in Hebrew RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who determines this minhag?) He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat. He adda that PERHAPS there is a reason to prohibit potato flour (serach kitniyot - based on chiddishin of RSZA to Pesachim). Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be prohibited (ie even according to those that eat gebrochs) (yesh ladun behem - Pesachim 40b - Rashi that when people are "mezalzel one should be machmir) In the notes that this was what RSZA said in shiurim and when asked a question responded that one should follow the family minhag. Nevetheless he remarked several times that cakes with matzah flour that look like chametz cakes that he didn't understand the heter when we go to lengths to avoid things that might be confused with chametz -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 23:27:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 06:27:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Afikoman_-_=93Stealing=93_and_Other_Rel?= =?windows-1252?q?ated_Minhagim?= Message-ID: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> Please the article at http://seforim.blogspot.com/2017/04/afikoman-stealing-and-other-related.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 20:28:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:28:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: > ... Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., > I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal > says works, that?s what I want to think/occur). [related to daat > makneh and koneh issues] I think Mishne Berura 649:15 might be exactly what you're looking for. I am paraphrasing him, and he was paraphrasing the Magen Avraham and Pri Megadim. But basically, the point is: >>> Suppose it is the first day of Sukkos, and you want to use someone else's lulav, but you can't, because on the first day you need to own it yourself. So l'chatchila, the best option is make it explicit that you want to acquire his lulav in a "matana al m'nas l'hachzir" (gift on condition of returning) manner. >>> But b'dieved, if you borrowed it in a "stam" manner so that you could be yotzay with it, then we presume that he gave it to you intending to do it in whatever manner would allow you to be yotzay, namely, "matana al m'nas l'hachzir". >>> However, if you explicitly used the word "borrow" rather than "gift", then you would not be yotzay. Also, if the lulav's owner is unaware that a borrowed lulav is pasul, it would not work then either. (End of Mishne Brura.) Here's my commentary: There are two requirements for "stam daas" to help us here. The first is that the conversation must be vague, because if it were explicit we would not be able to assign a meaning to the words. But the second requirement is very relevant to RJR's question: The lulav's owner has to be aware that a borrowed lulav is pasul. If the owner does have that awareness, then we say that his stam daas was to grant ownership to you. But if the lulav's owner is not aware of this halacha, then his stam daas is to *lend* the lulav, which would not be valid. We see from this that "stam daas" is not a magic wand that can be applied conveniently to any vague comment. Rather, it is applied with a lot of care and understand of what the person's likely intention really was. Please read the MB yourself and see what he means. Even better, check out the MA and PM that the MB was summarizing (because I did not go into that much depth. Maybe over Shabbos.) [Press Pause button... Okay, continue...] I have now reread RJR's post, and I noticed that while the MB ruled how the halacha views these two people and the lulav, RJR's post is much more "me"-oriented. He asks about the case where > I have in mind ?whatever HKB?H wants me to have in mind > without actually knowing what that is ..." It seems to me that this is an explicit vagueness. If "stam daas" works where outsiders are trying to figure out what Ploni probably meant, it should certainly work where Ploni himself is being deliberately vague. I never studied Logic to the depth that R' Micha and other have, but even I can see a serious flaw in the above paragraph. In the MB's case of the lulav, the owner had *something* in mind, and we are presuming to know what it was. But in RJR's case, the individual made an effort have nothing in mind at all, and I can easily understand someone who says that this simply won't work. I would suggest this as a practical solution: One should never say simply, "I have in mind whatever Hashem wants me to have in mind," because that is essentially admitting that he really has nothing in mind. Rather, one should use an explicit tenai: "If Hashem wants me to have A in mind, then I do have A in mind; but if He wants me to have B in mind, then I do have B in mind." Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#m_3151624698786785420_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:24:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav Message-ID: > Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH > translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". > Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik > heh under my understanding and also be milera. Upon reviewing the pshat in the word "bushala", it is possible that my understanding was incorrect and the structure would be similar to "yochLUha" where the translation of the suffix in both cases is "it" as opposed to "its" and thus not requiring a mapik heh. Shabbat Shalom, HT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:25:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:25:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67447a90-4764-0dce-4f82-b0f11d5c55af@sero.name> On 06/04/17 18:27, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: > Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH > translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". > > Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik > heh under my understanding and also be milera. It's a verb, not a noun. If it were written as you would have it it would be a noun, presumably meaning "its cooking", but then it would be "bishulah". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 08:46:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:46:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170407154652.GD32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:27:30PM -0400, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: : Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH : translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". : : Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik : heh under my understanding and also be milera. That would make it a posessed noun, "if its cooking was in a copper vessel". RSRH is treating is as a verb. In more contemporary American English, "if it had been cooked in a copper vessel". :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:47:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Afikoman_-_=E2=80=9CStealing=E2=80=9C_and_Othe?= =?utf-8?q?r_Related_Minhagim?= In-Reply-To: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> References: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <0a933758-f6de-9e33-4fd0-33f89b9dc517@sero.name> > http://seforim.blogspot.com/2017/04/afikoman-stealing-and-other-related.html My father gives presents to all those children who *don't* steal. He also explains that if the hidden matzah is stolen he will not pay any ransom for it but will simply use a different matzah. Thus the purpose of the minhag is preserved but the bad chinuch is avoided. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 08:44:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:44:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:10:26PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a korban : pesach? I assume koreikh was the norm. Not that Hillel argued they were necessary and no one else made wraps, but that everyone made a wrap, which is why a machloqes could arise as to whether one is yotzei if not. : i think we all agree that the matzot to make a korech were soft matzot [and : presumably mashiach will rule that's the way we should all be making them ]. One could be yotzei koreikh just putting a tiny lump of meat on a cracker. Not difficult. OTOH, we seem to have proven in numerous years that until the acharonic period, softa matzos were the norm in every community. (Ashkenazim too; see the Rama.) : if the zaytim were like larger then, would the sandwich have been the size : of a big mac? or half a pizza? But they were smaller, so no problem. Another perrennial is whether the growth of the kezayis is halachically binding even after archeology proved the historical assumptions wrong. : kiddush would have started the meal... And Ha Lachma Anya would have been 4 days before, as you can only invite people to join the chaburah BEFORE the sheep is set aside. For that matter, I'm convinced Ha Lachma Anya is not part of Maggid. Maggid ought to begin with questions, so let's assume it does. HLA is an explanation of Yachatz. And then, once we fact out qwhat it's like to have to ration our lachma anya, we express empathy for the dirtzrikh and dichpin. So perhaps Yachatz too would be before picking the sheep. . then some form of maggid [ 3 hrs : long? would the korban be edible that many hours later?]. Sure! How quickly does meat go bad where you live? It looks like there is a fundamental machloqes about the seider. Notice that Rabban Gamliel wasn't present at R' Aqiva's seider in Benei Beraq. OTOH, in the Tosefta at the end of Pesachim Rabban Gamliel hosts big seider in Lod, where they spent the whole night "osqin behilkhos haPesach". (This Tosefta goes with "ein maftirin achar haPesach afiqoman". A whole answer-to-the-chakham vibe here.) Notice that at R' Aqiva's seider "vehayu mesaperim beytzi'as mitzrayim". R' Aqiva held that a seider is all about the story. R' Gamliel -- the mitzvos. Most of Maggid we do R' Aqiva style: 1- We follow R' Yehudah, and tell the story of physical redemption. Avadim Hayinu. 2- Then (after an intermission in which we explain why we're doing multiple versions -- 4 banim, etc...) we follow Rav, and tell the story of spiritual redemption. Betechilah ovedei AZ. 3- And we tell the story using Vidui Biqurim and other texts. 4- Then, at the very end, we make sure to do the least necessary to be yotzei according to Rabban Gamliel. So it would seem we basically hold like R' Aqiva, that the main role of the foods is as aids to the story-telling. But Rabban Gamliel would have Maggid as /during/ the other mitzvos of the seider. We discuss the foods. : washed and then what? hamotzi on 3 matzos? but the mitzva matza was to : eat the korech no? so the rest of the meal was not matza followed by : marror, but rather that of korech. so then the chiyuv-matza was the : afikoman matza? or people would have chazon ish'ed it up twice---at the : matza they washed on and again on korech? The afiqoman was the sheep, all matzos umorerim. Before that was the chagiga, re'iyah and shulchan oreikh. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:48:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Meisner via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:48:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:10 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a > korban pesach? The Rambam in Ch. 8 of Hil. Chametz uMatzah provides a step-by-step description of the seder that includes the eating of the Korban Pesach, which is probably a good start. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 09:32:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:32:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4167b94e-52b7-16a4-0069-0697990750d6@sero.name> On 07/04/17 11:44, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And Ha Lachma Anya would have been 4 days before, as you can only invite > people to join the chaburah BEFORE the sheep is set aside. Not true. One can join or leave a chavurah right up to the moment of shechitah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 09:58:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 17:58:36 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Surely either we'd pasken like Hillel, and eat the full portion of Pesach, Matza and Maror in one sandwich, or else we wouldn't, and there'd be no Korech at all? On 7 April 2017 at 16:44, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > One could be yotzei koreikh just putting a tiny lump of meat on a > cracker. Not difficult. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 10:15:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:15:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170407171523.GI32239@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 05:58:36PM +0100, Allan Engel wrote: : Surely either we'd pasken like Hillel, and eat the full portion of Pesach, : Matza and Maror in one sandwich, or else we wouldn't, and there'd be no : Korech at all? I assume everyone ate koreikh. It's most reasonable to assume that a machloqes over an annual practice kept by everyone is theoretical, not pragmatic. Not that one person is saying what a significant number of people are doing is pasul / assur. For similar reasons, I assume that until the rishonim, people considered both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam tefillin to be kosher. Otherwise, how were both styles in existence and common use since the days of the Chashmonaim until some 1,300 years later when rishonim started voicing preferences? Note my use of the phrase, "I assume". Li mistaber, I have no strong arguments for it. Back to our topic... I figure everyone ate the matzah, marror and lamb in a wrap. Otherwise, how did Hillel come around and argue that what everyone was doing was pasul? And why would it stay with Hillel, wouldn't he have the Sanhedrin vote on it? Rather, the machloqes was whether one was yotzei if they did the weird thing and eat them separately. If this was a rare event, multiple opinions could persist without resolutions. Now when it came time to commemorate, rather than fulfill the mitzvah.... Matzah we have to eat separately from maror, because without the pesach, there may be a problem with our fulfilling the mitzvah of eating matzah without it being the only tast in the mouth. And then there's the question of what are we commemorating -- eating all three in one meal, and the wrap aspect was not a critical facet that needs commemoration, or are we commemorating a wrap? So, we do both. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 10:28:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel In-Reply-To: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> References: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:05:30PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : My son who lives in EY told me that Ashkenazim have to very careful : about the products that they purchase for Pesach, since many products : that are certified for Pesach contain kitnios. The item below reinforces : this. ... : Eretz Yisrael: Strauss Cottage Cheese Contains Kitnios : : April 3, 2017- from the Arutz 7 : : : "Badatz Mehadrin, the hashgacha of Rabbi Avraham Rubin Shlita, alerts... I was wondering about this. Qitniyos is batel berov. Ah, you may say: but they're intentionally mixing in the qitniyos, there is no bitul! So here's my question: If a Sepharadi makes cottage cheese containing qitniyos, he isn't really having Ashkenazim in particular in mind. And for him the qitniyos are mutar. By parallel, a non-Jew mixing 1:61 basar bechalav for his own use or for a primarily non-Jewish customer base isn't bitul lkhat-chilah, as a permitted person's intent doesn't qualify as lekhat-chilah. So, does this Sepharadi man mixing qitniyos in run afowl of the problem of bitul lekhat-chilah? Why can't one argue that as long as the qitniyos is a mi'ut of the cottage cheese, and as long as it's not against the mixer's own minhag or that of the main bulk of people for whom he is mixing, the food is permissible for Ashkenazim too? And does it have to be both the mixer's own minhag AND that of most of the people the cottage cheese if for? After all, this is minhag, not pesaq. It's not like an Ashkenazi holds a Saphradi ought to be holding like us too. What if an Ashkenazi was doing the mixing on a product where most of the target customer base is Sepharadi? (Now, add to that mei qitniyos, and whether corn should have been added to the minhag, the observation that it is primarily NOT made for Ashkenazi Jews, and ask the same thing about Coca Cola.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 15:48:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: <<< I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. >>> Is this only in the DL community? If so, can anyone suggest why this would be so? I can this of two very different possibilities: One is negative, that there is some sort of jealousy to the sefardim, or taavah for the many products that are available. The other is positive, that this is simply a natural development of how minhagim change over the centuries when communities mix. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 13:42:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 22:42:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel In-Reply-To: <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> References: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <43acd44d-c45c-b481-7dfb-2671547565a7@zahav.net.il> This is part of the backlash. People want the labels to read "contains kitniyot", not "for ochlei kitniyot only". Ben On 4/7/2017 7:28 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Qitniyos is batel berov. > > Ah, you may say: but they're intentionally mixing in the qitniyos, there > is no bitul! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 10:44:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:44:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58E92189.9030803@zahav.net.il> [Part 2, a mid-post detour. -mb] And as long as I am writing, a comment on the next posting in the Digest 48. Matza meal is the coarse version and is used for making latkes and kneidlach. Cake meal is the fine ground version for making cakes. Both were on the market and used by my mother in the US some 70- 80 years ago. And R' Micha mentioned a week or so ago that R/Dr Bannet pointed out that in my youth, peanut oil had the most machmir heksher of all Pesach oils. Three comments: It is true that chasidim used only peanut oil made by a Shomer mitzvot Jew. I am neither a R nor a Dr, and my family name ends with two t's. PKvS. David Bannett From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 10:44:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:44:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58E92189.9030803@zahav.net.il> [RCD tried to sneak multiple topics into the same email. For the sake of threading, I split it and fixed the subject lines. -micha] Without commenting on the meaning of Shabbat Hagadol, I'd like to comment on the "fact" that Shabbat is feminine and one would have to say Shabbat Hag'dola. The Rambam in Hilkhot Shabbat 30:2 says Shhabat Hagadol. I then looked in the Bar Ilan Shu"t and found that there are a dozen other sources for a male Shabbat. [End of part 1. Now, part 3. -mb] And then R' Micha on the vayanuchu va, vo and vam in the tefila: There were three nuschaot. One said Shabbat and va, Another said yom haShabbat and vo and the third said Shabbatot and vam. PKvS. David Bannett From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 20:22:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2017 05:22:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If the issue was jealousy of sefardim, people would want to drop the minhag entirely. There is that, but only on the fringe. These chumrot seem like a false imposition, something someone invented. You can only hear "when I was a kid, we ate X, Y, Z" or "I went to a shiur and the rav said X, Y, Z are muttar" so many times before asking yourself "so why don't we eat X, Y, Z"? And yes, intermarriage is a huge factor. On 4/8/2017 12:48 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I can this of two very different possibilities: One is negative, that > there is some sort of jealousy to the sefardim, or taavah for the many > products that are available. The other is positive, that this is > simply a natural development of how minhagim change over the centuries > when communities mix. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:00:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:00:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) > ... > He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak > was never accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat. > He adds that PERHAPS there is a reason to prohibit potato flour > (serach kitniyot - based on chiddishin of RSZA to Pesachim). > Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be > prohibited (ie even according to those that eat gebrochs) ... To me, it seems contradictory to allow gebroks yet forbid matza meal cake. Yet it certainly seems that this is how RSZA held. I think I'm going to have to retract most of my recent posts. Or add least append a big "tzorech iyun" to them. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:22:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimetics [was:kitnoyot] Message-ID: > Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be > mimetically defined, by definition, .... [--RMB] WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be determinative. Lisa >>>>> "Shema beni mussar avicha, VE'AL TITOSH TORAS IMECHA." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:19:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <23551cea-98c2-5446-2323-d0fb7e82cc09@starways.net> On 4/8/2017 1:48 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Eli Turkel wrote: > > <<< I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been > a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. >>> > > Is this only in the DL community? If so, can anyone suggest why this > would be so? I think it's because the DL community is the community that is (a) committed to the Torah and (b) not stuck in fear mode. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 01:16:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 11:16:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller asked why in the dati leumi community there is a backlash against kitniyos? I think there are a number of reasons for this: 1. Theological - The Dati Leumi community views the establishment of the State of Israel as a significant theological event, the beginning of the Geula. They view the state as having significance. Therefore, they view the Jewish people as much more of an organic whole and want to eliminate things that separate the Jewish people into groups. Kitniyos very much does that. There is no question that whan Moshiach comes the division between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no machlokes. The Charedi world on the other hand believes that we are still fully in Galus and nothing has changed. 2. The Dati Leumi community isw much less segragated between sefardim and Ashkenazim. There are no ashkenazi or sefardi yeshivas and there is quite a bit of "intermarriage". If your daughter marries a Sefardi do you suddently not go to her for Pesach because she eats kitniyos? 3. People realize the hypocrisy of not eating kitniyos while eating kosgher l'pesach pretzels. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:31:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:31:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Why can't one argue that as long as the qitniyos is a mi'ut of > the cottage cheese, and as long as it's not against the mixer's > own minhag or that of the main bulk of people for whom he is > mixing, the food is permissible for Ashkenazim too? > > ... What if an Ashkenazi was doing the mixing on a product where > most of the target customer base is Sepharadi? I would like to focus on the words "target customer base". We have to distinguish the manufacturer's customer base from the hashgacha's customer base. The two might be identical for a small brand that markets only to frum neighborhoods, but not for an industry giant like Strauss. We can presume that the manufacturer and their target customer base is mostly not makpid about kitniyos. Therefore, the manufacturer is doing nothing wrong by putting kitniyos into the product, and once they have done so, it is acceptable even for Ashkenazim, exactly as RMB suggests. But the hashgacha cannot put their certification on it. The target customer base of this hashgacha seems to be people who *are* makpid on kitniyos. (If they're not the majority of the hashgacha's clientele, they are at least a very significant minority.) And as such, the hashgacha has accepted the responsibility to act in place of their clientele at the factory. This turns it into a "bittul lechatchila" situation, and the hashgacha cannot grant an official okay to such products without an accompanying warning, which is exactly what they seem to have done. > (Now, add to that mei qitniyos, and whether corn should have > been added to the minhag, the observation that it is primarily > NOT made for Ashkenazi Jews, and ask the same thing about Coca > Cola.) Not just Coca Cola. Weren't we discussing chocolate bars a few weeks ago? Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 23:42:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 02:42:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman Message-ID: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> I tend to agree with the negative aspect of stealing the Afikoman. Very similarly, I feel the minhag to get so drunk on Purim so that you can?t distinguish between blessed be Mordecai and cursed be Haman is a very bad minhag and more offensive than stealing the afikoman. You are encouraging people to get drunk and that also has caused many problems in recent times. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:02:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:02:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman In-Reply-To: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> References: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 02:42:40AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : I tend to agree with the negative aspect of stealing the Afikoman. : Very similarly, I feel the minhag to get so drunk on Purim so that : you can?t distinguish between blessed be Mordecai and cursed be Haman : is a very bad minhag and more offensive than stealing the afikoman. Yeah, I don't see how teaching kids to steal the afiqoman is going to weaken their knowledge that it's wrong to steal. Should kids playing baseball not steal home? Just because the rule of the game is called "stealing"? But there is backlash against the drunk-on-Purim minhag too. The OU and RCA each put out something like annually. Hatzola puts out warnings. There are black-n-white wearing yeshivos that clamped down on their kids getting drunk when doing their Purim fundraising. And there has been backlash to the backlash, by people who value minhag. Really, the treatment of the two has been pretty parallel. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:19:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman In-Reply-To: <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> References: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <621677e8-92b7-ca89-7197-201a3af3f7e6@sero.name> On 09/04/17 09:02, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Yeah, I don't see how teaching kids to steal the afiqoman is going > to weaken their knowledge that it's wrong to steal. Should kids > playing baseball not steal home? Just because the rule of the game > is called "stealing"? That's a different sense of the word: "4. to move or convey stealthily". As in "with cat-like tread upon our prey we steal". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:48:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:48:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > There is no question that when Moshiach comes the division > between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The > Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no > machlokes. This is news to me. There is no machlokes here to be paskened. Everyone agrees that the halacha allows even rice to Ashkenazim. It is all minhag. Even if the Sanhendrin would want to, I don't know where they'd get the authority to do away with minhagim. On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim! > The Dati Leumi community is much less segregated between > sefardim and Ashkenazim. There are no ashkenazi or sefardi > yeshivas and there is quite a bit of "intermarriage". If your > daughter marries a Sefardi do you suddently not go to her for > Pesach because she eats kitniyos? That depends on your posek. By my memory, many poskim, including among the DL, hold that one can eat from the keilim, but to avoid actual kitniyos. And many other shitos in both directions. > People realize the hypocrisy of not eating kitniyos while > eating kosher l'pesach pretzels. I was arguing strenuously against this until a few hours ago, when I was reminded that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach held this way too. Perhaps I have overdosed on inoculations of matza meal cake and matza meal pancakes, and I cannot see myself ever sharing this view. But having seen RSZA's words, I cannot claim that it is only the little people who say this - it's the big guns too. And I would be indebted to any listmembers who would quote other gedolim on this topic. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 15:47:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 08:47:40 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyos - Why do today's Poskim argue with the Mishneh Berurah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can anyone show some Halachic source that argues with the Mishneh Berurah who Paskens that Foods containing LESS THAN 50% Kitniyos that is at the same time not visually discernible Although its taste is certainly discernible, is Muttar during Pesach? Is a Rov permitted to refuse to identify a Kosher product as Kosher (or worse, declare a product not Kosher) because of other considerations? See this article http://www.kosherveyosher.com/chocolate-pesach-lecithin-1001.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 01:45:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:45:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] order of the seder Message-ID: < See "leil haPesach be-taludum shel chachamim" (Hebrew) by David Henshkr who has a detailed discussion -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 01:47:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:47:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Matzah meal Message-ID: <> In Israel it is readily available in many supermarkets -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 02:04:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:04:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism Message-ID: <> Doesn't answer my question of how mimeticism deals with new situations. Sticking to kitniyot by patents used cottenseed oil but knew nothing about Canola oil or Lecitisthin <> Let me use this to sound off. I have a major problem with textualiism. In some circles it means studying a sugya and coming to a conclusion without any regard to the outside world. In regard to shiurim the Noda Yehuda has a question. One doesn't suddenly change minhagim because of a question. In recent years this doubling of shiurim has become popular because of CI. First there is evidence that CI himself did not use his own shiur. It is well known that some descendants of the CC don't use his kiddush cup because it is not shiur CI. However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. Even a slightly smaller shiur would hit various walls making it impossible to walk around while various testimonies make it smaller. There is now a new exhibition of a virtual 3D reality of walking around the bet hamikdash. It is based on aerial photographs of the current Temple mount and supplemented by details in the Mishna and archaeology using the topography of the land. Theis construction places the holy har habayit on the currently raised portion of the Temple mount. This yields an amah of about 38cm (CI=57, CN=44-48) Other proofs included the length of the Siloam tunnel which is documents in amot and can be measured. One of the strongest proofs is based on the meitzah of the cohen gadol which could not possibly hold the shiur of CI (note that if his hands were bigger this would redefine the amah). As to changes over the generations olive pits from the Bar Chocba era are the same size as today. In spite of a preponderous evidence that the shiur of CI is way too large almost all seforim in Israel give the amount of matzah to eat and wine to drink based on CI (at least lechatchila). This is textualism at the extreme in contrast to common sense -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 03:15:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "I have an opportunity to kill the terrorist..." Message-ID: <20170410101557.GA14700@aishdas.org> Anyone want to try this one, with meqoros? RSE raises two issues: killing a neutralized terrorist, and (I guess) dina demalkhusa on the topic. Chag Kasher veSameaich (belashon "lo zu af zu"), -micha The Jewish Press Tzfat Chief Rabbi Was Asked in Real Time whether to Kill Ramming Terrorist By David Israel -- 11 Nisan 5777 -- April 7, 2017 http://www.jewishpress.com/news/jewish-news/tzfat-chief-rabbi-was-asked-in-real-time-whether-to-kill-ramming-terrorist/2017/04/07/ Chief Rabbi of Tzfat Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, who is not known for particularly leftwing sympathies (he encourages his flock to refuse Arab renters, for instance), on Thursday night told a class he was teaching that one of his students had phoned him from the scene of the ramming attack that killed an IDF soldier. The student posed a halachic inquiry: "He told me, I see my buddy here lying down dead," Rabbi Eliyahu recalled, adding that his student had asked, "I have an opportunity to kill the terrorist - should I kill him or not?" Advertisement Around 10 AM, Thursday, an Arab terrorist rammed his vehicle into two IDF soldiers waiting at a hitchhiking post on Rt. 60, outside Ofra in Judea and Samaria. Sgt. Elhai Teharlev HY"D, 20, was killed, and the other soldier was injured. The terrorist was arrested by security forces. Rabbi Eliyahu said that his response was that "this terrorist deserves to die. However, unfortunately, the laws in this country are not well constructed, and so there is no legal way to do to him what needs to be done." "I told him that had he been able to do it while the attack was on it would have been possible, but we were after the event, unfortunately." Advertisement From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 03:39:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed Message-ID: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ > Let me run an idea by you guys... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha > 2. Melacha is forbidden on chol hamoed > 3. One of the permits for doing melacha is for tzorech hamoed, but in this > case, if possible you should do the melacha before the chag > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. > 5. If you find yourself on chol hamoed without pre-torn toilet paper, you > can tear it, however preferably not on the lines. > Am I crazy? :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 04:54:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:54:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> References: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2017 1:40 PM, "Micha Berger via Avodah" wrote... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha > 2. Melacha is forbidden on chol hamoed > 3. One of the permits for doing melacha is for tzorech hamoed, but in this > case, if possible you should do the melacha before the chag > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. > 5. If you find yourself on chol hamoed without pre-torn toilet paper, you > can tear it, however preferably not on the lines. > Am I crazy? Not at all. Please see Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa perek 66 footnote 78. RSZA was machmir for himself, though the author suggests that nowdays it would be unnecessary. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 06:39:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:39:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12e4046f8d104931a3a60fafe99b3947@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > There is no question that when Moshiach comes the division > between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The > Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no > machlokes. This is news to me. There is no machlokes here to be paskened. Everyone agrees that the halacha allows even rice to Ashkenazim. It is all minhag. Even if the Sanhendrin would want to, I don't know where they'd get the authority to do away with minhagim. On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim! --------------------------------------- Aiui there is some debate as to how much practice was/will be standardized-some believe (IIRC R'HS) that the shevet Sanhedrin set local practice and few issues went to great sanhedrin for standardization. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 06:41:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:41:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170410134127.GB29583@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:04:31PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> Mimeticism evolves because culture evolves. : Doesn't answer my question of how mimeticism deals with new situations. It answers your question by implying there is no answer. There is no rule for how common practice will evolve. Rules are textual. But the truth is, halakhah requires both. Not every evolution of a minhag is valid. That way lies Catholic Israel. It has to pass muster against the sources and sevara. :-)|,|ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 07:54:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Misc interesting Halacha questions from R Shlomo Miller shlitah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <035201d2b20a$5ef3d1a0$1cdb74e0$@com> Misc interesting Halacha questions from R Shlomo Miller shlitah http://baisdovyosef.com/rabbi-past-questions/ Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlitah for a printout of all the Q&As (100 pgs) https://www.dropbox.com/s/70y971r0ct2l7x8/RS%20miller%20bartfeld%20questions .doc?dl=0 or email me offline mcohen at touchlogic.com GYT, mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 12 12:45:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:45:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz Message-ID: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy A rav gave over some quick halachot and cited the Shulhan Aruch that if one finds chameitz in one's home, you cover it (if you find it on shabbat/yom tov) and later burn it, or burn it right away (cholo moed). I asked, if one sold one's chameitz, how can you burn it? It now belongs to the non-jew. This rav (and second rav) said that the sale only includes the chameitz that you specify. If you don't have a piece of chameitz in mind, you didn't sell it. OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz, everything in all of his properties. It makes no mention of what you have in mind. If a contract say "ALL" it means all, n'est pas? So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 12 21:09:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:09:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taanis Bechoros - Women? Message-ID: My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros. So I read her Mishne Berurah 470:4, which gives the reason as because there are no halachos in which female firstborns have any such kedusha. That seemed to satisfy her, but it didn't satisfy me. After all, if a boy is his father's first but not his mother's first, then he has no kedusha which would require Pidyon Haben. Aruch Hashulchan 470:2 gives that same logic, but explains that although the father's first doesn't get a Pidyon Haben, he *does* have special halachos about inheritance, and Aruch Hashulchan 470:3 says the same thing regarding a boy who was born after a miscarriage, or a firstborn Kohen, or a firstborn Levi. My question is: So what? Why is the special status of "firstborn for inheritance" more relevant than "would've been killed in Mitzrayim"? (Please note that there is another case that I'm *not* asking about, namely, where none of the people at home was a technical bechor, then whoever was oldest was subject to Makas Bechoros. Since that could vary depending on who was home in any particular year, I can easily understand why it never got included in the minhag.) Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 13 13:24:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 23:24:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefirot Ha`omer Message-ID: Every year I would like to get deeper into the combinations of sefirot (or middot) that appear in siddurim with the counting of the Omer, and every year I get lost and confused. For example, what is the difference between hesed shebigevura and gevura shebehesed? If tiferet is a synthesis of hesed and gevura, how does it differ from either of the above? And so on and so on. There seem to be a thousand books and websites that explain the sefirot and their combinations in modern terms, but I haven't found any that quote or even cite primary sources. Where might one look for such sources? Mo`adim lesimha! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 13 22:56:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:56:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim!" Given the illogic of the minhag of kitniyos I think not. Why would they impose a din that makes no sense in today's world. With regards to visiting children R' AKiva Miler wrote: "That depends on your posek. By my memory, many poskim, including among the DL, hold that one can eat from the keilim, but to avoid actual kitniyos. And many other shitos in both directions." I was saying that facetiously. WADR you missed the forest for the trees. Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child and can't eat all the food. You are looking at this from a pure halachic perspceticve but in truth, there is a non-halachic sociologcal perspective here that needs to be addressed as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 14 01:12:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 11:12:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefirot Ha`omer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71537556-72e6-e4ec-3ea1-61c0f913fb9b@starways.net> Lama li kra? It seems pretty clear on the face of it. Hesed she'b'Gevura means that you're doing Hesed by means of Gevura. Your intended result is Hesed. The way you're achieving that Hesed is by an act of Gevura. So let's take R' Aryeh Kaplan's understanding of the two Middot, where Hesed means going above and beyond what is required, and Gevura is restraining yourself, and here are a couple of examples. You're at the grocery store, and there's one box of Wacky Macs left on the shelf. You see a mother with a bunch of her kids coming down the aisle, and the kids are beginning for Wacky Macs. So you don't take it. You're limiting yourself in order to do something nice (but not required) for the mother. That's Hesed she'b'Gevura. You're at the grocery store, and you've taken the last box of Wacky Macs. You know you shouldn't eat it, because it's all starch and fat, but you can't help it. You're standing at the checkout line, and there's a mother behind you whose kids are giving her a hard time because they wanted Wacky Macs, but the store is out. So you decide that this will help you keep your diet, and you offer the mother the box of Wacky Macs. You're doing something nice (but not required) for the mother in order to limit yourself. That's Gevura she'b'Hesed. It's a thin line, sometimes. Figuring out what the actual action (or inaction) is and what the purpose is. Means and ends. As far as Tiferet, while you can see it as a synthesis of Hesed and Gevura, which is nice if you like the thesis-antithesis-synthesis paradigm, it's really the point of balance between them. Where you aren't refraining and you aren't overdoing. Another term for Tiferet is Tzedek. Meaning doing what you're supposed to do, or what you're allowed to do: no more and no less. I think that one of the reasons there aren't books that cite primary sources about this is simply because there aren't any. There are primary sources about what the meaning of each of the Sefirot mean, but the combination should be fairly clear. That said, I know it isn't. When I was a camper as a kid, we had discussion groups about whether we were "Jewish Americans" or "American Jews". I was 12 the first time we did it, and it was a mess. The next time, I think I was 14 or 15, and I already realized what the problem was, although the counselor leading the discussion didn't. It's a matter of definitions. If you look at it in terms of language, one of those words is the noun, and the other is the adjective. The noun is what you *are*. The adjective just modifies it. So "American Jew" is putting being Jewish first, and "Jewish American" is putting being American first. But a lot of the other kids (and the counselor) were looking at it from the point of view of which *word* came first in the phrase. And theoretically, I suppose, you could interpret X she'b'Y in the opposite way from what I've described above, but I'm not sure there's a real nafka mina, because we cover all the combinations. It just seems to me that the first week, we deal with the concept of *doing* Hesed, with all 7 possible intents, since these 7 Sefirot are fundamentally Sefirot of action (and interaction), as opposed to the first three, which are Sefirot of mind. But can you say that the first week, we talk about the concept of *intending* Hesed, with all 7 possible methods? I suppose. It's not the way I look at it, but absent primary sources to determine which way is right, I suppose it's possible. Shabbat Shalom and Moadim L'Simcha, Lisa On 4/13/2017 11:24 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > Every year I would like to get deeper into the combinations of sefirot > (or middot) that appear in siddurim with the counting of the Omer, and > every year I get lost and confused. For example, what is the > difference between hesed shebigevura and gevura shebehesed? If tiferet > is a synthesis of hesed and gevura, how does it differ from either of > the above? And so on and so on. > > There seem to be a thousand books and websites that explain the > sefirot and their combinations in modern terms, but I haven't found > any that quote or even cite primary sources. Where might one look for > such sources? > > Mo`adim lesimha! > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 14 06:40:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:40:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <491b0760-73a4-cf76-550a-2c2dfb57aeb3@sero.name> On 14/04/17 01:56, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > I was saying that facetiously. WADR you missed the forest for the trees. > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child and > can't eat all the food. If you think that's a problem now, wait till Moshiach comes and you have parents visiting their daughter who married a Cohen. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 11:52:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 20:52:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8fe0a1db-6349-9011-e2d4-ea78a89684eb@zahav.net.il> I've said this before but it bares repeating. I was married to someone with multiple food allergies. Cooking even at home was always a challenge. Going out to eat at someone else's house and giving them the list of what yes, what no made that it even harder. Whenever we had guests, we always asked about food allergies, kashrut requirements, and preferences. Compared to allergies, kashrut stuff was kid's play. More than that, I learned that it is perfectly OK to have food on the table that not everyone can eat. Any vegetarian who came over expecting to be able to eat everything was disappointed. Not being able to eat rice and having to settle for the five other dishes doesn't even make it on my radar. Thinking that one should be able to eat everything is a sense of entitlement that I don't accept. Ben On 4/14/2017 7:56 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child > and can't eat all the food. > > You are looking at this from a pure halachic perspceticve but in > truth, there is a non-halachic sociologcal perspective here that needs > to be addressed as well. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 18:36:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:36:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > Given the illogic of the minhag of kitniyos ... ... > Why would they impose a din that makes no sense in today's world. I could easily argue that avoidance of poultry and milk "makes no sense in today's world." I'd like to hear whether other people think that din to be logical or illogical. (One is a minhag, and the other is d'rabbanan, but that's a side issue. My question is whether one is less logical than the other.) Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 18:22:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:22:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini Message-ID: One of the main areas this portion deals with is kashruth. There is an overriding concept in the laws of kashruth that the characteristics of what we eat somehow have a great influence on the way we behave. We do not want to associate ourselves with cruelty, therefore we are forbidden to eat cruel animals, and in this case certain fowl. Among the fowl that are listed as being non kosher is the chasidah, the white stork. You may ask what cruel character trait does the stork possess. Rashi mentions that the reason it is called a "chasidah" is because it does chesed with its friends regarding the food it finds. On the surface this seems strange. If the stork acts kindly with its food, why is it disqualified as being kosher? A beautiful explanation to this difficulty has been given by the Chidushei Harim, a Chassidic 19th century Talmudic scholar, in which he explains the nature of the stork. He says that the fact the stork only shows its kindness with its friends defines its cruelty. A fowl who is not in the circle of the stork's good buddies is excluded from getting any help from the stork in finding food. In other words, the stork is very selective in its kindness. This type of kindness is misleading. We, as Jews, are commanded to help our foes. If we come across someone we dislike intensely who needs help, we are commanded to help. The stork, on the other hand, helps only his friends. It is this character trait of differentiating between close friends and others when it comes to providing food that makes the stork non-kosher. Chesed means reaching out altruistically, with love and generosity to all. The process of maturing involves developing our sense of caring for others. This is crucial for spiritual health. The Talmud likens someone who doesn't give to others as the "walking dead.? A non-giving soul is malnourished and withered. It is only through unconditional love that our successful future will be built. In the words of King David (Psalm 89:3): Olam chesed yibaneh - "the world is built on kindness.? May we live to see this kindness and care infused in all our lives. Kindness is the language the deaf can hear and the blind can see. Mark Twain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 12:40:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:40:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: <042313fe1c2b495fbe8f8efad437f69d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <042313fe1c2b495fbe8f8efad437f69d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: I was reminded of this question this evening. Our shul is nominally nusach Sefard. However if someone (like moi) does daven Ashkenaz, the gabbi is OK, but insists on things like: Saying Shir Ha'ma'lot in Maariv Saying Keter during Mussaf Ben On 3/30/2017 2:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Visiting a shul questions-actual practices and sources appreciated: > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:45:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:45:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ff40b88-0f88-fb08-9c92-10e44bbdfc3d@zahav.net.il> A bit of perspective here: this is the Orthodox version of a first world problem. 100 years ago how many Ashkenazim and Sefardim even met, much less intermarried or lived in the same neighborhoods? At most, this is a bit of growing pain. Ben On 4/14/2017 7:56 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child > and can't eat all the food. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:34:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:34:27 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: How do we determine when the dough is baked to the point where it can no longer become Chamets? when there are no Chutim NimShaChim When the Matza is torn apart there are no doughy threads stretching between the two pieces. These days this test is not available because so little water is added to the flour that there is no opportunity for the chemical reaction that activates the gluten and even when the Matza, or the batch of dough is torn BEFORE it is put into the oven there are NO Chutim NimShaChim [this is noted by the Chazon Ish] So if one suggests that there is a possibility that some flour within [but not on the surface of] the Matza which is protected from the heat of the oven and does not become baked [as once it is baked, flour can not become Chamets] then the Chashash that this flour might become Chamets if it becomes wet pales into insignificance and is completely eclipsed by the much greater risk that the middle part of the Matza which may not have been baked may actually be Chamets [Gamur] The fact that it is now now dry means nothing that is simply dehydrated dough AKA Chamets, maybe Chamets Nukshe Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:40:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:40:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed Message-ID: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ > Let me run an idea by you guys... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha....... > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. >>>>> It seems to me you are no more obligated to tear toilet paper for the whole week than you are to do all your cooking for the whole week before the yom tov. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:49:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:49:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taanis Bechoros - Women? Message-ID: <63e57.57f1ef36.46246de8@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros. << Akiva Miller >>>>> That's a pretty obscure medrash. It is seemingly contradicted by the Torah itself, which specifies that a pidyon haben is required for a firstborn boy because the firstborn boys were spared makas bechoros in Egypt. Nothing about a pidyon habas. On the other hand, according to Sefer HaToda'ah (Book of Our Heritage), "There are different customs associated with this fast. Some say that every firstborn, male or female, whether from the father or from the mother, must fast on that day. If there is no firstborn, then the oldest in the house must fast.....However others say that only firstborn males need to fast and this is the generally accepted custom." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 21:50:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Martin Brody via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:50:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Fast of the First Born. Message-ID: Akiva Miller posted "My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros etc." Maybe because the fast has nothing to do with the 10th plague at all? They should be celebrating, not fasting! Fasting is for repentance. More likely the Sin of the Golden Calf, when the firstborn lost their priestly status. On the 14th the first born have to watch the Aaronite priests slaughtering the Pascal offering instead of them. Cheers Martin Brody From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 20:55:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:55:38 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen son in law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: when Moshiach comes parents will seek a cohen for a son in law because it's a great investment, they can feed their son in law and his family with their tithes. It's like having the Bechor reinstated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 06:28:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:28:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is > impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har > habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. > ... > This construction places the holy har habayit on the currently > raised portion of the Temple mount. This yields an amah of about > 38cm (CI=57, CN=44-48) > Other proofs included the length of the Siloam tunnel which is > documents in amot and can be measured. ... I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction as well. The minimum shiur for a mikveh is 3 cubic amos, as this is the size that a typical person could fit into. Who among us could fit into a space 38x38x114 cm? (15x15x45 inches)? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 06:41:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:41:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > If you think that's a problem now, wait till Moshiach comes and > you have parents visiting their daughter who married a Cohen. Indeed! And I think an even more common case will be a husband (regardless of shevet) who wants (or needs) to eat taharos, but his wife is nidah. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:28:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:28:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170416212823.GC13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 09:28:13AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Eli Turkel wrote: : > However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is : > impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har : > habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. I pointed out that we know length of the water tunnel in meters and rounded to two digits precision amos. In contrast, the current Har haBayis platform post-dates Hadrian y"sh lobbing off the top of the mountain and dumping it into the valley between the kotel and the current Moslem and Jewish Quarters. So we really only have part of one wall to go on. The floor can't possibly date back to either BHMQ. But that doesn't mean the shiur is impossible. The shiur may indeed be at odds with historical interpretations of the halakhah. Even perhaps by accident. But would that necessarily mean it's not binding? In either case, the CI's ammah is textual. RCNaeh's ammah is a textualist's attempt to formalize a precise number that is basicallhy consistent with the praactice of the Yishuv haYashan. Mimeticism-driven. RAM himself replied: : I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction as well. : The minimum shiur for a mikveh is 3 cubic amos, as this is the size : that a typical person could fit into. Who among us could fit into a : space 38x38x114 cm? (15x15x45 inches)? According to http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13993-stature , in 1906, the average Jewish man was about 162cm high. Let's make his miqvah 165 x 31 x 31 cm. Same volume of water. A maximum belt size of something like 97 cm (39") would fit. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:49:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 10:29:56AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) ... : RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who : determines this minhag?) Well, if it's mimetic, you just watch what people do. And if so, RSZA's statement is descriptive, not descriptive. As in: Lemaaseh, people are nohagim not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach. : He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never : accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason than the one given. ... : Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be prohibited (ie : even according to those that eat gebrochs) (yesh ladun behem - Pesachim 40b : - Rashi that when people are "mezalzel one should be machmir) Who is being mezalzel on chameitz? If he saying that because some people are questioning qitniyos, we should strengthen qitniyos, then what does that have to do with foods not already under that umbrella? And even among those who question the minhag's sanity, is there really a major zilzul going on among Ashkenazim doing less and less to avoid qitniyios? On the contrary, as your translation opens, avoiding shemen qitniyos has spread well beyond the communities that originally had that minhag, to the extent that it's being applied to foods that in the past weren't on the list of qitniyos! The questioning is a counter-reaction to the growth of the minhag. Who is being mezalzel? : In the notes that this was what RSZA said in shiurim and when asked a : question responded that one should follow the family minhag... Ascerting mimeticism over his own textualism. Sevara aside, minhag is whatever is the accepted practice. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:30:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:30:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach - Lecithin does not render chocolate non-KLP for Ashkenasim In-Reply-To: References: <0b78331e-194b-c586-6de0-fc623959e4e3@sero.name> <32449da1-df34-d5e8-7170-a2c8676adf0e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170416213032.GD13509@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 07:25:10AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 2) The prohibition of being m'vateil an issur applies to the super : corporations that run the milk industry? This is a case where buying Chalav Yisrael, which is de rigeur in Zev's Chabad community, would be more problematic. After all, something done for CY milk is being done for Jews. Something done for stam OUD milk would not be. :-)||ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:38:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Poisoning in Halacha In-Reply-To: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> References: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170416213850.GE13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 10:16:10PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: : Tonight my chevrusa and I learned the sugya in Bava Kamma 47b of one who : puts poison in front of his friend's animal. A brief synopsis and : application of the sugya is at : http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/infected: ... : It struck us that it follows that if one poisons another human being by, : say, placing cyanide in his tea, which the victim then drinks and dies, : the poisoner is exempt from capitol punishment. It would seem that such : a manner of murder falls into the category of the Rambam's ruling in : Hilchos Rotze'ach u'Shemiras Nefesh 3:10: It might be similarly true, but I don't know if "it follows". After all, gerama in Choshein Mishpat has a more limited definition than in hilkhos Shabbos. So, it didn't have to be true that the same definitions of gerama and garmi apply in dinei mamunus as in dinei nefashos. Lemaaseh, they are consistent. I would ask the Y-mi-style question: How is retzichah more similar to mamon than it is to Shabbos? :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:10:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:10:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> References: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> Message-ID: <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 2:40am EDT, RnTK wrote: :> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook :> https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ :> Let me run an idea by you guys... :> 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha....... :> 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the :> beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. : It seems to me you are no more obligated to tear toilet paper for the whole : week than you are to do all your cooking for the whole week before the yom : tov. Actually, the heter is that the food tastes better when made closer to eating time. But if one is talking about food that would taste as good if made days ahead (including the logistical limitations of storage), one is actually supposed to be cooking it before YT. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 15:44:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:44:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> References: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> On 16/04/17 17:49, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never > : accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... > > But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod > bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason > than the one given. again, no he doesn't. We just went through this last week. He never proposed it, even as a hava amina, and never gives a reason against it. He merely reports, as a matter of fact and completely without comment for or against it, that he heard that in Germany they forbid potatoes because over there they make flour from them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 15:36:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:36:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> References: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8d50d8fe-f514-fdbf-c460-9971ad347ed9@sero.name> On 16/04/17 17:10, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Actually, the heter is that the food tastes better when made closer to > eating time. But if one is talking about food that would taste as good > if made days ahead (including the logistical limitations of storage), > one is actually supposed to be cooking it before YT. But not before chol hamoed. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 20:00:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:00:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> References: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170419030020.GA29092@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 06:44:54PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 16/04/17 17:49, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >: He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never : >: accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... : >But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod : >bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason : >than the one given. : : again, no he doesn't. We just went through this last week... And given the relatice abilities of RSZA and you to read the Chayei Adam, you're obviously mistaken. : never proposed it, even as a hava amina... He reports the existence of such a minhag, and recommends against its adoption. Close enough. You're setting yourself up as a baal pelugta of RSZA by splitting hairs to crration a distinction without a difference? Really? -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 19:56:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:56:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Isru Chag Message-ID: <68F6CB3B-3D32-4BF0-A68E-3AD77FD7EE69@cox.net> The gematria for Isru Chag is 278, the same gematria for l'machar found in Bamidbar, Ch.11, vs.18. This is in the Sidra, Beha?a'lotcha, where God has Moshe establish a Sanhedrin because Moshe complained that he could not carry on alone. God says to Moshe: "To the people you shall say, 'Prepare yourselves for tomorrow and you shall eat meat..." There is an interesting tie here. The day after a festival is the "morrow" and even though the holiday is over, we must always be preparing ourselves. (Also, in counting the omer, we are preparing ourselves for the climax of our faith in 50 days). A good Isru chag to all. ri ?By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.? Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 21:06:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:06:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: R' Meir G. Rabi explained his logic: > if one suggests that > there is a possibility that > some flour > within [but not on the surface of] the Matza > which is protected from the heat of the oven > and does not become baked > [as once it is baked, flour can not become Chamets] > then the Chashash that this flour > might become Chamets if it becomes wet > pales into insignificance > and is completely eclipsed by the much greater risk > that the middle part of the Matza > which may not have been baked > may actually be Chamets [Gamur] I do not follow this logic. He is comparing two distinctly different risks. For simplicity, I'd like to call one risk "insufficiently kneaded" and the other one "insufficiently baked". "Insufficiently kneaded" means that there might be some flour in the middle of the matza that never got wet and is still plain raw flour, and that if it gets wet it will become chometz. "Insufficiently baked" means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not get baked, and it is already chometz. And RMGR feels that the second of these is a "much greater risk". I don't know where he gets the statistics to say that "insufficiently kneaded" is a small risk (his words are "pales into insignificance"), and that "insufficiently baked" is a "much greater risk". Personally, my opinion is that *IF* one checks his matzos to be sure that they are uniformly thin, *AND* checks to be sure that they have none of the kefulos or other problems that halacha warns us about, then he can be confident that no part of the matza was insufficiently baked, and they are NOT chometz. Thus, there are steps that the consumer can take to minimize the risk that his matzos were insufficiently baked. In contrast, I don't know of any way that the consumer can check the matzos to verify that they were kneaded well enough; who knows if there might be a few particles of flour that never got wet? I guess the consumer has to rely on the manufacturer and hechsher to insure that they are doing a good enough job of kneading the dough. Anyway, my main point is that these two risks are distinct from each other. I don't see any logical connection between them. From the way he worded the subject line, it sounds like RMGR is making a "kal vachomer", that if one is worried about one of the risks, then he must certainly worry about the other one, but I don't see that. (In fact, I can't even figure out which risk he feels leads to the other.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 13:17:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:17:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: I am moving this to Avodah. >From: Ben Waxman via Areivim >To: Simon Montagu via Areivim , areivim > >Why is this even an issue? Meaning, why is it such an issue that people >with a different minhag are davening together*? Or is the issue that >both sides feel that the other is doing an aveira**? > >*Sefardim and Ashkenazim wrap their teffilin differently. That factoid >doesn't stop anyone from praying together. >** Which brings up other issues. >Ben My understanding is that people who wear Tefillen during Cho Moed are not supposed to wear them in a minyan where the custom is that no one wears Tefillen. I know that in a couple of shuls near me they are makpid that those who wear Tefillen and those who do not do wear them do not daven together until after the kedusha of shachris when Tefillen are taken off. In the Kivasikin minyan that I normally daven with, those who were Tefillen are upstairs in what is normally the ladies section. After Kedusha of Shachris, those upstairs join those downstairs for a Hallel. I have been told that in the Agudah in Baltimore those who wear Tefillen are on one side of the mechitza and those who don't are on the other side until after kedusha of shachris. So, apparently there is a problem with having a mix of Tefillen wearers and non-wearers during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 14:17:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:17:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:17:21PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : So, apparently there is a problem with having a mix of Tefillen : wearers and non-wearers during Chol Moed. Lo sisgodedu. The pasuq behind the whole notion of minhag hamaqom altogether. Eg see MB 31 s"q 8. The AhS OC 31:4 is okay with minyanim that are mixed between wearers and non-wearers. Nowadays, when the concept of minhag hamaqom is so weak and has so little to do with our sence of belonging, I think the psychology is the opposite as that assumed by those who apply lo sisgodedu. Having two minyanim is more divided, and certainly if it ends up an argument about which part of the minyan is behind the mechitzah. Look how in Israel, many minyanim ignore the halakhos of having a set nusach for the beis kenesses and just let each chazan use his own minhag avos! And this enables a single minyan to function in spite of diversity; a variety of Jews from different cultures able to daven together! Tir'u baTov! -Micha (PS: "wfb" summarized a nice list of sources about whether they should be worn from R Jacob Katz's article in Halakhah veQabbalah at .) -- Micha Berger Today is the 8th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed for another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 14:41:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:41:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Why would tefillin be any different to the various different practises about who does and doesn't wear a tallis? I have never heard of a non-tallis-wearing post-bar-mitzva boy being banished behind the mechitza at a yekkishe shul, or vice versa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 01:20:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:20:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> I didn't understand the question. My daughter married a sefardi and they eat kitniyot. I was by them for seder and everything served was without kiniyot. BTW I not aware of any shitah that there is a problem with keilim used for kitniyot. BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given modern communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a problem but there might be technological answers to that also. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 01:38:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:38:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kiniyot Message-ID: <<: RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who : determines this minhag?) Well, if it's mimetic, you just watch what people do. And if so, RSZA's statement is descriptive, not descriptive. As in: Lemaaseh, people are nohagim not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach. ... Sevara aside, minhag is whatever is the accepted practice. >> The question is "whose minhag". RSZA is stating what he saw. In my area of New York everyone used cottenseed oil. I recently saw a discussion of women saying kaddish. After a lengthy discussion the author concludes that the minhag is for women not to say kaddish. Well in almost all the shuls in my town women do say kaddish. I understand that even the Rama in SA in quoting minhag means Polish (Krakow) minhag and many other existing minhagim in Russia, or Italy were ignored. Similar things in the Sefardi communities. There are several cases that ROY opposes Morrocan customs as being against (sefardi) halacha but are heatedly defended by Moroccan rabbis. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 05:15:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:15:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Look how in Israel, many minyanim ignore the halakhos of having a set nusach for the beis kenesses and just let each chazan use his own minhag avos! And this enables a single minyan to function in spite of diversity; a variety of Jews from different cultures able to daven together! ---------------------------------- Which gets to the heart of the matter - some see diversity of Minhag as lchatchila (all the shvatim had their own Sanhedrin/practice) while others see it as a result of galut. IMHO this debate will continue ad biat hagoel (may it be very soon) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 05:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41e2d260-e360-8e8e-4d15-6f524b655121@sero.name> On 20/04/17 04:20, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make > sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given > modern communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush > hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a problem but there might be > technological answers to that also. The simplest method of getting word of kiddush hachodesh to the whole world on Shabbos/Yomtov is to have a goy send a tweet, which every Jewish house or shul could be set up beforehand to receive. Amira lenochri is of course midrabbanan, so the Sanhedrin can authorise an exception. But there's an even better solution: Kidush hachodesh (as opposed to notifying people about it) is docheh Shabbos/Yomtov. Eidim can be positioned in advance in places guaranteed to have no cloud cover and a good view of the moon (perhaps Ramon Crater?), and they can then drive to Yerushalayim, arriving in plenty of time to testify as soon as the beit din opens in the morning. They could even be positioned on desert mountaintops in chu"l, and fly in. Thus we could guarantee in advance that Elul will never again have a 30th day, and everyone could rely on that without actually being notified on the day. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 09:38:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:38:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:20:04AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make sense I : vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given modern : communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush : hachodesh instantaneously.... I would like to suggest a different angle on YT Sheini. It's not so much that Chazal were afraid of the same problems might arise in bayis shelishi. After all, the language in the gemara isn't the usual that we find with (eg) chadash on Nisan 16 or other taqanos to avoid that kind of problem. I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh ought to be al pi re'iyah. It is that important to remember that the progression is "meqadesh Yisrael vehazmanim", that people sanctify time, rather than the times imposing themselves on people. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 10:13:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:13:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> On 21/04/17 12:38, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I would like to suggest a different angle on YT Sheini. > > It's not so much that Chazal were afraid of the same problems might > arise in bayis shelishi. After all, the language in the gemara isn't > the usual that we find with (eg) chadash on Nisan 16 or other taqanos > to avoid that kind of problem. The language is "sometimes the kingdom will decree a decree"; therefore in an era when -- according to all opinions -- we will never again be subject to hostile kingdoms, it would seem no longer relevant. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 10:45:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:45:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:13:27PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The language is "sometimes the kingdom will decree a decree"; : therefore in an era when -- according to all opinions -- we will : never again be subject to hostile kingdoms, it would seem no longer : relevant. The language of the azhara to keep the minhag talks about zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah. Rashi ad loc says that the said gezeira would be against studying Torah, the community would lose the sod ha'ibbur and mess up their version of the calculation. But that's not the cause for keeping the minhag going. Because that rationale has nothing to do with where the messengers could arrive on time back when we needed them. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 11:23:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:23:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:58:36PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: :> The language of the azhara to keep the minhag talks about zimnin degazru :> hamalkhus gezeirah. :> Rashi ad loc says that the said gezeira would be against studying Torah, :> the community would lose the sod ha'ibbur and mess up their version of :> the calculation. :> But that's not the cause for keeping the minhag going. : The letter explicitly says that *was* the reason. You don't address my claim, just deny it. What the gemara says the letter read was: Hizharu beminhag avoseikhem! Zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah, ve'asi le'ilqalqulei. This is a motive given for "hizharu". (The letter expliticly says so.) Yes, it could mean that it's the motive for the minhag, which is so strong that that justifies not only keeping it going, but being warned But, given that the potential oppression does not justify the format of the minhag, this explanation must be for the caution alone. :> Because that :> rationale has nothing to do with where the messengers could arrive on :> time back when we needed them. : Those places never had a minhag of two days, so Chazal weren't going : to institute one now. Why not? If the problem is the unreliability of a computed calendar that is done once for centuries ahead without a Sanhedrin, this is new to those in Israel too! I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. Then they add, that one shouldn't say it's not /that/ important, because there is a pragmatic benefit as well. (In any case, Chazal were instituting a derabbanan based on a pre-existing minhag. I don't think you intended to imply that the "one" being instituted now was a minhag.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 11:42:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> On 21/04/17 14:23, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > What the gemara says the letter read was: > Hizharu beminhag avoseikhem! > Zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah, ve'asi le'ilqalqulei. > > This is a motive given for "hizharu". (The letter expliticly says > so.) > > Yes, it could mean that it's the motive for the minhag, which is so > strong that that justifies not only keeping it going, but being warned > But, given that the potential oppression does not justify the format > of the minhag, this explanation must be for the caution alone. No, it's not the reason for the minhag in the first place; we know what that was, and it no longer applies. That's why they wrote to the Sanhedrin asking whether they should abandon it. Hizharu means don't abandon it, keep it going anyway, and the reason for doing so is Zimnin degazru. > : Those places never had a minhag of two days, so Chazal weren't going > : to institute one now. > > Why not? Because that would be an innovation and Zimnin degazru is not enough reason to do so. But it *is* enough reason to continue an already existing practise that has just become obsolete. It takes a lot more to justify changing existing practise than it does to continue it. > I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that > qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices > from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. But there's no hint of this, and the letter explicitly says otherwise. > (In any case, Chazal were instituting a derabbanan based on a pre-existing > minhag. Yes, exactly. It's a din derabanan that behaves *as if* it were a mere minhag, because that's what the rabbanan said it should do. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 12:26:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:26:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421192640.GA20001@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 02:42:49PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : No, it's not the reason for the minhag in the first place; we know : what that was, and it no longer applies. That's why they wrote to : the Sanhedrin asking whether they should abandon it. Hizharu means : don't abandon it, keep it going anyway, and the reason for doing so : is Zimnin degazru. No, hizharu means "be careful", not "keep it going anyway". This is NOT "kevar qiblu avoseikhem aleihem. Shene'emar 'Shemi beni musar avikha, ve'al titosh toras imekha.'" (Pesachim 50b) ... : >I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that : >qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices : >from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. : : But there's no hint of this, and the letter explicitly says otherwise. Again, only once you mistranslate what it means lehazhir. This "explicitly" is not only far from explicit, it's not even there! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 13:37:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:37:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer > make sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside > Israel. Given modern communications, the whole world would know > the time of kiddush hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a > problem but there might be technological answers to that also. Shavuos mochiach. Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. If you can discover all of them, and explain all of them, and explain how Shavuos fits, *then* we can discuss "gezerot that no longer make sense". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 14:21:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:21:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> On 4/21/2017 7:38 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole > taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh > ought to be al pi re'iyah. That's a real possibility. In addition, I suggest that halakha is intended to be feasible without any technology. Just imagine changing something this fundamental to rely on an electronic network that will inevitably be subject to attack by EMPs at some point. I don't think it would be responsible. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 10:35:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 20:35:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole > taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh > ought to be al pi re'iyah. > It is that important to remember that the progression is "meqadesh > Yisrael vehazmanim", that people sanctify time, rather than the times > imposing themselves on people. Even more so once a Sanhredin is reconstituted and there is qiddush hachodesh ougal pi re'iyah.there is no use for YT sheni From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 19:18:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:18:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170423021813.GC19870@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:21:23AM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : That's a real possibility. In addition, I suggest that halakha is : intended to be feasible without any technology. Just imagine : changing something this fundamental to rely on an electronic network : that will inevitably be subject to attack by EMPs at some point. I : don't think it would be responsible. While I get your basic point... What EMPs? Even by Shemu'el's rather prosaic version of the messianic era, ein bein olam hazeh liyamos hamoshiach ela shib'ud malkhius bilvad. Gut Voch! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 00:03:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 03:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: <59924.64874017.462dabd2@aol.com> [1] From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" >> My understanding is that people who wear Tefillen during Cho Moed are not supposed to wear them in a minyan where the custom is that no one wears Tefillen. I know that in a couple of shuls near me they are makpid that those who wear Tefillen and those who do not do wear them do not daven together until after the kedusha of shachris when Tefillen are taken off. << YL [2] From: Allan Engel via Avodah >> Why would tefillin be any different to the various different practises about who does and doesn't wear a tallis? I have never heard of a non-tallis-wearing post-bar-mitzva boy being banished behind the mechitza at a yekkishe shul, or vice versa. << >>>> The difference between the tallis-or-not issue and the tefillin-or-not issue is that the former is in the realm of minhag while the latter is in the realm of halacha. People are not so makpid about differing minhagim in the same shul, but differing piskei halacha in the same shul -- that is much more serious. When you have some men wearing tefillin and others not wearing tefillin in the same minyan on chol hamoed, the presence of each subset implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 00:14:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 10:14:12 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> Hard to imagine that all communication would be lost for 15 days. It certainly is less likely than some problem with lighting fires between mountains. Remember that originally the "entire" galut knew the correct date of Pesach and Succot and so there was only one day of yomtov. Only when there was a deliberate attempt to mislead was the system changed. Also interesting is that there is no discussion of communities beyond Bavel. What was done in Alexandria and Rome? In any case even if locally they kept 2 days it was widespread. BTW I assume it took months to reach Rome. If there was a community in Spain (sefarad) it was even longer. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 12:34:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:34:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tazria Message-ID: <60DB8D20-7368-440D-830C-67A3C69835DD@cox.net> Rabbi Zelig Pliskin, in his book ?Love Your Neighbor,? quotes a hilarious true story about Lashon Hora. Someone asked a cerain woman if she wished to borrow a copy of ?Guard Your Tongue? to study the laws of lashon hora. Her response was: ?I don?t need it. I never speak lashon hora. But my husband really needs it. He always speaks lashon hora." We all know about lashon hora and how speaking ill of others is rather a poor reflection of ourselves. However, taken to another level, it was the S?fat Emes who said that it also can refer to having failed to speak lashon tov. This brings to mind the poignant story of a man weeping uncontrollably at the grave of his young wife. When the rabbi tried to console him by saying how good he was to her, he replied: ?Oh, rabbi, how I loved her so much and once I almost told her.? We have friends who take the time and effort to say nice things, and it would even be nicer if more of us did that. You never know the ripple effect a good word can have. ri After receiving another notice from school about bad behavior, a frustrated father sat to explain to his child the source of each one of the gray hairs in his once black beard. ?This one is from the last time the principal called about your misbehavior. This one is from the time you were mean to your sister. This one is from the time you broke our neighbor?s window,? etc., etc. The father looked at his child for a response to his appeal for better behavior, to which the child calmly replied: ?Oh, now it makes sense why Zaide has such a white beard!? Speech is the mirror of the soul Publilius Syrus, Latin Writer 85BCE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 11:47:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 18:47:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 256 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 25 15:03:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 22:03:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> "When you have some men wearing tefillin and others not wearing tefillin in the same minyan on chol hamoed, the presence of each subset implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment." Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people conscientiously following their family customs and davening together nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. Just a thought from a different perspective. Joseph Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 05:02:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:02:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "Shavuos mochiach. Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. If you can discover all of them, and explain all of them, and explain how Shavuos fits, *then* we can discuss "gezerot that no longer make sense"." The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 04:52:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:52:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Metzorah "LEPERS DO CHANGE THEIR SPOTS" Message-ID: On this, the Shabbos preceding Yom Haatzmaut, we read the Haftarah containing the following verse referring to the four lepers: ?And they said to one another: ?We are not doing the right thing; today is a day of good tidings and yet, we remain silent! If we wait until the light of dawn (until it?s too late), we will be adjudged as sinners; now come, let us go and report to the king?s palace.? Second Kings 7:9 It is fascinating that in our own times, this verse contains a challenging message. It is remarkable how the events of modern Israel ran parallel to the the story told in this Biblical chapter. The Arab armies besieging the Jewish community in Israel, their panic and sudden flight, the great deliverance which followed, and the birth of the State of Israel ? do we not see the hand of Providence in all these events? In one respect we are deeply worried. The lepers of the Haftarah possessed the moral obligation to proclaim the miracle. ?We are not doing the right thing. This is a day of good tidings and it is not proper that we should be quiet about it.? Many of us today (outcasts of yesterday) have still not risen to the moral height of recognizing that a miracle has transpired before our very eyes and therefore our duty to proclaim the greatness of the day! Let us, therefore, proclaim it to our children and to the world. Let us, with a firm belief in the future of Israel, do everything possible to assure its existence, strengthen its foundations, and thus look forward to the day of good tidings, the day of Israel?s total and quintessential Independence! rw John Adams: "I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations? They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews.? John F. Kennedy: "Israel was not created in order to disappear ? Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 13:29:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:03:43PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: :> implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This :> makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look :> bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. : Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly : perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people : conscientiously following their family customs and davening together : nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out : of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that : anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. I think we've lost sight of the original topic. Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. When I was a kid, we tefillin-wearers davened Shacharis in the basement, joining the rest of the shteibl only for the latter part of davening. We are therefore starting with data, the pesaq, and trying to figure out what that means aggadically. Not just blindly guessing about how things look in heaven. If things are as you portray it, the original question is stronger -- what you said doesn't resolve anything. BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos as self-identifications. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 15th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in Fax: (270) 514-1507 harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 14:42:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 21:42:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com>, <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> Lost sight of original topic? If that were a valid criticism we'd hear it at least once if not more in every issue. As to substance. I've been davening in shuls on chol haMoed for more than 50 years and every shul I've davened in, all Modern Orthodox led by rabbis who were well respected talmedei chachamim, had men with and without teffilin davening in one minyan together, sitting next to each other without problems or, I'm pretty sure, thinking of transgressors. That's MY data which I would hope is as valid as shteibl data. And that's what my response to my good friend Toby was trying to deal with. I wasn't the one to raise the perspective of Heaven but I found Toby's thoughtful comment refreshingly interesting and, as always, articulate, so I thought about it a bit and responded. I thought that what we do here on A/A. Joseph Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 26, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:03:43PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: > :> implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This > :> makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look > :> bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. > > : Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly > : perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people > : conscientiously following their family customs and davening together > : nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out > : of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that > : anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. > > I think we've lost sight of the original topic. > > Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in > a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises > evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. > > When I was a kid, we tefillin-wearers davened Shacharis in the basement, > joining the rest of the shteibl only for the latter part of davening. > > We are therefore starting with data, the pesaq, and trying to figure > out what that means aggadically. > > Not just blindly guessing about how things look in heaven. If things > are as you portray it, the original question is stronger -- what you > said doesn't resolve anything. > > BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are indeed > motivated by a consciencous following of family customs and the > perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. And how much > is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification with Litvaks or > Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than identification with the > Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos as self-identifications. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Today is the 15th day, which is > micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. > http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in > Fax: (270) 514-1507 harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 16:11:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:11:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:42:41PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : As to substance. I've been davening in shuls on chol haMoed for more : than 50 years and every shul I've davened in, all Modern Orthodox led : by rabbis who were well respected talmedei chachamim, had men with and : without teffilin davening in one minyan together, sitting next to each : other without problems or, I'm pretty sure, thinking of transgressors. : : That's MY data which I would hope is as valid as shteibl data. And : that's what my response to my good friend Toby was trying to deal with. Those are both anecdotes. (BTW, it was a pretty MO shteibl. We had more professors and other PhDs than you can shake a stick at. R/Dr SZ Leiman, R/Dr David Berger, Rs/Drs Steiner, Rs/Drs Sachat, progessors of Asronomy, Physics (R/Dr Herbert Goldstein, likely author of you physics textbook), Topology...) What is data is that the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed between tefillin wearers and not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 18:24:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:24:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com>, <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB wrote: "What is data is that the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed between tefillin wearers and not." Here's some "data" from R. Chaim (Howard) Jachter: "Nevertheless, in many North American congregations on Chol Hamoed, some wear Tefillin and others do not wear Tefillin in one Minyan. Are all these congregations disregarding the Mishna Berura and the Aruch Hashulchan? One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent authorities. The Gemara (ibid.) states that the coexistence of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad ? two distinct communities maintaining disparate practices in one community ? does not violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 1:158 and 159) notes that in this country Jews have gathered from the various sections of Europe and continue the Halachic practices of their former communities. Subsequent generations continue the practices of their parents. Rav Moshe asserts that American Jewry constitutes ?a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad? and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. The Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan addressed a situation in Europe, which radically differs from the situation in North America, as explained by Rav Moshe. However, it appears that one violates Lo Titgodedu if he wears Tefillin in public in Israel on Chol Hamoed." Joseph Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 22:54:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 01:24:46AM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent : authorities. ... Rav Moshe asserts : that American Jewry constitutes "a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad" : and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) : writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single : community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does : not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of : Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. : The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed... So, that answers the OP. Next question.. How long are we /supposed/ to continue being 2 BD be'ir echad, following the minhagim of our ancestral communities, rather than invoking lo sisgodedu and combining into communal minhagim in our current communities? EY is nearly there WRT tefillin on ch"m, with only a few holdouts like KAJ. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 04:29:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> , <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <36AE5716-00CB-4838-A9CE-5321370B72B4@tenzerlunin.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 27, 2017, at 1:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > > Next question.. How long are we /supposed/ to continue being 2 BD be'ir > echad, following the minhagim of our ancestral communities, rather > than invoking lo sisgodedu and combining into communal minhagim in our > current communities? Considering modern mobility, the world has been made so much smaller that I think the idea of strong communal minhagim imposed on all members of the community may be a thing of the past but not of the future. Joseph From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 16:48:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:48:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. ...<< Akiva Miller >>>>> I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 11:15:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent Message-ID: <20B9894A-31AD-494D-8049-66C38175C660@cox.net> It has been taught that a man must recite 100 b?rachot daily. There are different explanations why 100 and the following are a few: Rabbi Mayer said: a person is obligated to recite 100 Brachos each day. In the Jerusalem Talmud we learned: it was taught in the name of Rabbi Mayer; there is no Jew who does not fulfill one hundred Mitzvos each day, as it was written: Now Israel, what does G-d your G-d ask of you? Do not read the verse as providing for the word: ?what? (Mah); instead read it as including the word: ?one hundred? (Mai?Eh). King David established the practice of reciting one hundred Brachos each day. When the residents of Jerusalem informed him that one hundred Jews were dying everyday, he established this requirement. It appears that the practice was forgotten until our Sages at the time of the Mishna and at the time of the Gemara re-established it. There is an additional hint to the need to recite 100 blessings each day from the Prophets as it is written, Micah, Chapter 6, Verse 8: What does G-d ask of you (Hebrew: mimcha). Mimcha in Gematria is 100. There is also a hint to the need to recite 100 blessings from Scriptures as it is written in Psalms, Chapter 128 Verse 4: Behold, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the Lord (the Hebrew words: Ki Kain appear in the verse. The letters in those words total 100 in Gematria). I?d like to proffer another explanation. In most tests you take in school, a perfect score is 100 or an A+. Hence, when reciting a hundred brachot a day, we come as close to perfection as possible. ?If sin becomes an abomination to you, you will have a hundred percent victory over it.? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 17:35:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:35:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> References: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> Message-ID: <1210e77c-beca-a075-ee6d-2fb9df2cafe8@sero.name> On 27/04/17 19:48, via Avodah wrote: > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the > mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman matan toraseinu. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 18:13:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:13:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> On Areivim we were discussing how some activity could be labeled yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. Along the way I wrote that it couldn't be because the enviroment includes gender mixing. I concluded: : Arayos isn't yeihareig ve'al ya'avor until it's : actual relations. I'm not even sure that yeihareig ve'al ya'avor would : apply to bi'ah with a willing penuyah (who is not a niddah). Two people asked me off list to look at Sanhedrin 75a. In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he could speak to her; at least through a fence. According to either R' Yaaqov bar Idi or R Shemu'el bar Nachmeini, she was even a penuyah. (Peligi bah... chad amar...) But one could learn from that gemara that it would NOT be yeihareig ve'al ya'avor: Bishloma according to the man da'amar she was an eishes ish, shapir. But according to the MdA she was penuyah -- mah kulei hai? Two answers: R' Papa says because it's a pegam mishpachah, R' Acha berei deR' Iqa says "kedei shelo yehu benos Yisrael perutzos ba'arayos". So what's the exchange saying? That it is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor because of the consequent peritzus? Or that bishloma an eishes ish would be YvAY, but a penyah, who isn't, why wouldn't the guy be allowed to speak to her? As I said on Areivim "I am not even sure" which, because the gemara could be taken either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:03:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:03:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: R' Micha Berger concluded: > BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are > indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs > and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. > And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification > with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than > identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos > as self-identifications. That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the MB and AhS were on. By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? Do we really want to accuse the MB and AhS of that? I think there is another way we can look at this whole topic. Let's ask what makes Chol Hamoed Tefillin so unusual. Why is this case different than so many others? Someone else asked why there isn't any enforced uniformity regarding unmarried men wearing a tallis in shul. Why is that different? How about the differing ways of avoiding simcha during sefira? One person will make a wedding during the last week of Nisan, and another person FROM THE SAME SHUL will make a wedding after Lag Baomer. Not only is this tolerated, but the entire shul is allowed to attend both weddings! Why don't we insist that the whole town should go one way or the other, like with the tefillin? Sometimes I feel that our perspective on these issues is so very different than what prevailed in the unified kehilos of yesteryear, that we cannot ever hope to understand it. I think the confusion comes from try to impose one perspective on a differing situation. Perhaps we ought to "agree to disagree". Specifically: *WE* get strength from our diversity; *THEY* got strength from their uniformity. I personally worry about the misfits in those cultures, and the losses they suffered. But perhaps their leaders accepted that as an acceptable price for the chizuk that came to the larger group. We have been trained to be unwilling to accept such a price, and we fight for every single individual. But that too has a price, and we are often unable or unwilling to admit it. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:12:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:12:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement > in the mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. Yes, there is a disagreement over whether the Torah was given on 6 Sivan or on 7 Sivan. And there are lots of cute vertlach about whether Shavuos is about *Matan* Torah, or *Kabalas* HaTorah (and whether or not they happened on the same day). But the bottom line is the the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after Pesach. If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty about Shavuos. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:52:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:52:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025454.YQWS32620.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in >a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises >evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. There's something about this that I've never understood. Suppose a person is having a stomach problem -- isn't he supposed to refrain from wearing tefillin? So, in a shul, a guy is not wearing tefillin -- how do we even know what his reason is? (In fact, I think I recall hearing that R Moshe himself didn't wear tefillin many times towards the end of his life for this reason). So, of all the things regarding lo sisgadedu -- why tefillin? Why not all the other things that daveners wear differently? (E.g., different minhagim via-a-vis wearing a tallis before marriage?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:54:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:54:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Rabbi Mayer said: a person is obligated to recite 100 Brachos each >day. In the Jerusalem Talmud we >learned: it was taught in the name of Rabbi Mayer; there is no Jew >who does not fulfill one hundred >Mitzvos each day, as it was written: Now Israel, what does G-d your >G-d ask of you? Do not read the >verse as providing for the word: ?what? (Mah); instead read it as >including the word: ?one hundred? >(Mai?Eh). IIRC, there's a fun Ba'al HaTurim on this pasek: If you add the alef into the pasuk -- not only does it turn the word into "100" -- but the pasuk will then have 100 letters in it. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:58:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:58:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> > > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the > > mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. Indeed. Machlokes over whether it was Sivan 6 or 7. OTOH, the 50th day could also have fallen on Sivan 5, no? >The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed >calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman >matan toraseinu. Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? (I'm not being snarky -- it's a genuine question) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 21:45:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:45:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170428044535.GC2155@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:58:07PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" : when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? The explanation I like (eg from Maadanei Yom Tov) is that "zeman matan Toraseinu" is not a date in Sivan, but a number of days after Yetzias Mitzrayim or of the omer. Your question is based on the idea that "zeman" is a time on the calendar, not a point in a process (be it redemption or of omer). The MYT I mentioned earlier explains why Matan Torah was on the 7th whereas our Zeman Matan Toraseinu is on the 6th: He (the Tosafos Yom Tov?) notes that omer is both tisperu 50 yom and sheva shabasos temimos. It is 50 days or 7 x 7 = 49 days? So, uusually we think 49 days of omer, Shavuos is the 50th. The MYT says that 49 days of omer and the first day of Pesach is the 0th. Zeman Matan Toraseinu is thus after 50 days of process. For our Pesach, that's day 1 of Pesach + 49 omer, yeilding Sivan 6th. The first Pesach, though, Yetzi'as Mitzrayim was at midnight. So the first full day, usable as day 0, was the 16th of Nissan. Shifting everying off one day, so that process from physical ge'ulah to matan Torah ended on 7 Sivan. But whether you like that vertl or not, the idea that would answer your question is just that "zeman" is not necessarily a date; just as Shabbos is a time based on interval, not date. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:33:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:33:49 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <40e6067e-a5cf-689b-619a-908d5249a8a8@zahav.net.il> When was that prayer written, before or after the calendar was set? Ben On 4/28/2017 4:58 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" > when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 02:33:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:33:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the Exodus. Lisa On 4/28/2017 5:58 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed >> calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman >> matan toraseinu. > > Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" > when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:18:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:18:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428061804.GA19887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : "Insufficiently kneaded" means that there might be some flour in the : middle of the matza that never got wet and is still plain raw flour, : and that if it gets wet it will become chometz. "Insufficiently baked" : means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not : get baked, and it is already chometz. And RMGR feels that the second : of these is a "much greater risk". But... If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently kneeded, would any of the dry flour that went through the oven be still capable of becoming chaneitz if wet? If the dough is now too baked to rise any further, wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be to toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5, which discvusses things not to do because "shelma lo qulhu yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is that possible? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:22:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. Lo zakhisi lehavin. All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty. Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays being of the form of an uncertainty. But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain about the date. What am I missing in the CS's sevara? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 22:03:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:03:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite Message-ID: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> I signed up for something called Carbonite, which uploads everything on your computer to the Cloud where it might be possible to retrieve it all if your computer dies or is stolen. The thing is, either I have way too much on my computer or my computer is way too old and slow, but anyway, Carbonite started uploading on Sunday afternoon and now, Thursday night, it is STILL uploading. It continuously shows what progress it has made, and it is showing me that it has uploaded 43% of my computer. I am no math whiz but I can figure out that if it took from Sunday to Thursday to upload 43% it is not going to reach 100% before Shabbos. I asked the Carbonite tech person what happens if you turn off your computer in the middle, and he said Carbonite will just continue where it left off when you turn your computer back on. Interestingly we had a test case on Monday when my neighborhood lost power for six hours. When the power came back on, Carbonite did NOT resume where it had left off. Instead, I had to call Carbonite and ended up being on the phone for an hour while they told me to do this and that and then they did whatever and finally got Carbonite to resume its weary work. So here is my question for the learned chevra here on Avodah: Can I just leave my computer on all Shabbos, in another room with the door closed where I won't see it and it won't fashtair my Shabbos, and let Carbonite keep running and running? (It looks like it will take a whole nother week to finish.) Or should I sell my laptop to a goy and buy it back after Shabbos? (That was a joke, for those of you in Rio Linda.) Should I turn it off and resign myself to talking to tech support again for another hour to get it working again after Shabbos? Oy, siz shver tsu zein a Yid! Is leaving a laptop on all Shabbos with Carbonite uploading more like [A] leaving your lights, fridge and air conditioning on all Shabbos or [B] leaving a TV or radio on -- dubiously muttar, definitely not Shabbosdik or [C] making your eved Canaani work for you all day Shabbos -- a no-no or [D] giving your clothes to the Greek dressmaker to fix and telling her you need them some time next week, and if she for her own convenience decides to do the work on Shabbos, that's copacetic? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 06:44:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:44:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite In-Reply-To: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> References: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:03 AM, [Rn Toby Katz] wrote: > I signed up for something called Carbonite... > Can I just leave my computer on all Shabbos, in another room with the door > closed where I won't see it and it won't fashtair my Shabbos, and let > Carbonite keep running and running? (It looks like it will take a whole > nother week to finish.) ... What tzurus. I use crash plan. They each have their share of grief. I leave my computer on 24x7 except 2 day yomtov. I turn off the monitor and make sure the keyboard and mouse are secure before Shabbat. Why is it any different than leaving on the A/C? Back in the day, people would set the vcr to record a show over shabbat. That was a bit more dubious but was done. Good Shabbos From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 04:02:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:02:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org>, <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From: Micha Berger Sent: 27 April 2017 13:13 ... > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he > could speak to her; at least through a fence... > Bishloma according to the man da'amar she was an eishes ish, > shapir. > But according to the MdA she was penuyah -- mah kulei hai? ... > So what's the exchange saying? That it is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor > because of the consequent peritzus? Or that bishloma an eishes ish > would be YvAY, but a penyah, who isn't, why wouldn't the guy be > allowed to speak to her? Of note, that gemara is brought in Rambam Yesodei HaTorah in the context of acheiving cure for illness through hana'as issur. Meaning that it's not a halacha of gilui arayos per se, rather hana'as issur. He paskens it's assur even with a pnuya so that bnos yisrael won't be hefker. No mention of pgam mishpacha. (Parenthetically this seems to be an din of yeihareig v'al ya'avor midrabannon (so that bnos yisrael etc..). Any other such cases? I'd assumed YvAY is always d'oirasa, almost by definition) The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought. There is no suggestion that conversation in any normal situation is an issur hana'a per se, so therefore is not assur, certainly not Yeihareig V'al Yaavor. Therefore can't see how this gemara would be relevant to the army issue any more than the familiar dinim of r'eiyas einayim, kirva l'arayos etc which are no less relevant in the workplace and on the street. [Email #2. -micha] On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua. Nonetheless the whole gemara is still only relevant to a case of clear hana'as issur. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 07:57:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:57:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite In-Reply-To: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> References: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> Message-ID: <247ffd82-32aa-3bf1-c6ef-36c008a1a4a3@sero.name> On 28/04/17 01:03, via Avodah wrote: > Is leaving a laptop on all Shabbos with Carbonite uploading more like > [A] leaving your lights, fridge and air conditioning on all Shabbos > or [B] leaving a TV or radio on -- dubiously muttar, definitely not > Shabbosdik or [C] making your eved Canaani work for you all day Shabbos > -- a no-no or [D] giving your clothes to the Greek dressmaker to fix and > telling her you need them some time next week, and if she for her own > convenience decides to do the work on Shabbos, that's copacetic? It's A, shevisas keilim, which is a machlokes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. The halacha of course follows Beis Hillel, that we are not commanded on shevisas keiliim, so it's completely OK. The problem with B is hashma`as kol, which is a species of mar'is ho`ayin; passersby will hear the sound of work being done in your home and will suspect you, if not of actual chilul shabbos, then at least of amira lenochri. It is muttar if there are no Jews within a techum shabbos. C is of course completely out, mid'oraisa, even if the eved sets his own schedule. Avadim are obligated to keep Shabbos. D is amira lenochri, which is completely muttar mid'oraisa, but the chachamim forbade it lest you come to do melacha yourself. Thus it's muttar if the decision to do the work on Shabbos rather than during the week is completely up to the nochri. BTW you don't need to leave it to sometime next week; you can ask to have it ready when the shop opens on Sunday morning, and it's up to the cleaner whether to do it on Shabbos or to stay up all night motzei shabbos to get it done. It's only assur if there are literally not enough weekday hours between now and when you want it, so that the nochri *must* do some of it on Shabbos. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 07:27:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:27:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:14 PM 4/27/2017, R. Micha Berger wrote: >EY is nearly there WRT tefillin on ch"m, with only a few holdouts >like KAJ. This statement does not seem to be correct. See http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x Note the following from there. Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau?er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. and (I do not know what all of the ? stand for.) Here are a few names, a sampling of some past gedolim who wore tefillin on chol hamoed IN ERETZ YISROEL (either betzinoh or otherwise) ? Moreinu HaRav Schach, Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, Rav Michel Feinstein (eidem of the Brisker Rav), Pressburger Rav, and Rav Duschinsky, ????. The ???? ????? was in Eretz Yisroel. In his siddur Shaarei Shomayim, he has tefillin on chol hamoed. Rav Moshe Feinstein ???? writes in a teshuvoh that he knows of thousands of bnei Torah who put on tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel. ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????, ????? of Edah Charedis was heard also taking the position that someone whose minhog is to put on tefillin on chol hamoed cannot just suddenly drop it totally in Eretz Yisroel. The above and previous post is based on what I heard about this inyan ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????, ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????. I think there is an Oberlander minyan in Yerushlayim where they wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed as well, if I recall correctly. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 08:03:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:03:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7af7f734-f777-e833-2997-5d8daf3057af@sero.name> On 28/04/17 02:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos > : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not > : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day > : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a > : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most > : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But > : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the > : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. > Lo zakhisi lehavin. > > All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a > taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty. > > Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the > uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays > being of the form of an uncertainty. > > But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was > like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain > about the date. I think what he means is that even in their days, when most YT Sheni were safek d'oraisa, the 2nd day of Shavuos was a vadai d'rabanan pretending to be a safek d'oraisa. Nowadays that describes *all* YT Sheni (except the 2nd day of RH, which is a vadai d'rabanan not pretending to be anything else, because even in their days this was occasionally the case). So his explanation is merely historical, that what we have is not a new situation, because they had it on Shavuos. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 08:27:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:27:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is > the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the > case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which > we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the > Exodus. Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th day but on the 51st. So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the pseudo-Julian anniversary. Therefore I assume they did *not* say ZMT. In fact I assume they didn't say it even when it *did* fall on the 6th, since that was just a coincidence. Only when it was set to fall on the 6th every year did it take on a new nature as ZMT. This is all, however, on the assumption that we hold like the opinion that yetzias mitzrayim was on a Thursday. This is the basis of the entire sugya in Perek R Akiva Omer that we all know. But right at the end of that sugya, at the top of 88a a new source is suddenly cited, the Seder Olam, that YM was on a Friday, and the gemara seems to say "Aha! Forget everything we said till now, trying to reconcile the Rabbanan's opinion, now everything is simple: the Seder Olam follows the Rabbanan, YM was on a Friday, and MT was 50 days later on the 6th of Sivan, and the sources we've been working with, that say YM was on a Thursday, follow R Yossi, who says MT was on the 7th. So for years I've wondered why it is that we seem to ignore this source and continue to maintain that YM was on Thursday, even though it means accepting the strained explanations the gemara comes up with to reconcile them before it found the Seder Olam. If the SO was enough for the gemara to overthrow its earlier discussion, why isn't it enough for us? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 11:16:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:16:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: <24769a.1d3ee4d4.4634e11b@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> But the bottom line is the the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after Pesach. If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty about Shavuos. << Akiva Miller >>>> In the days when they kept two days Pesach because they didn't know when Rosh Chodesh had been, perhaps you can say that by the time Shavuos rolled around, the messengers had arrived to tell them when Rosh Chodesh Nissan (and therefore when Pesach) had been so by then they knew for sure when Shavuos was. But of course we still keep two days of Pesach until now, as we've been discussing, despite the fact that we no longer have a safeik about the date. So your statement, "If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty" is not really true or maybe is true but not relevant. After all, didn't you start counting Sefira on your [second] Seder Night? Was that not a stira -- counting sefira at the seder? After all, we're supposed to start counting "mimacharas haShabbos" -- the day AFTER yom tov, i.e., the first day of chol hamo'ed. So "fifty days after Pesach" turns out itself to be a slightly slippery concept. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 12:07:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:07:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent In-Reply-To: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> References: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Message-ID: I heard this from the late R Hershel Fogelman, of Worcester MA: The passuk says "ha'elef lecha Shelomo, umasayim lenotrim es piryo". What does this mean? The Gemara (Chulin 87a) says that the opportunity to say a bracha is worth ten golden coins. So we owe You, Melech Shehashalom Shelo, 1000 coins. But on Shabbos we are short 200. Who makes up these 200? Those who keep it with fruit. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 03:17:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 20:17:11 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: "Insufficiently baked" means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not get baked and it is already chometz. RMGR feels that this is a "much greater risk" than the risk of Gebrochts. I hope the following clarifies my argument that G is an utterly fake concern IF one is Choshesh that the baking has NOT reached the central part of the Matza as are Choshesh all those who do not eat G [bcs if it is properly baked then even if some flour remains bcs the dough was insufficiently kneaded that flour which has been baked CANNOT become Chamets] The problem is once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash that the central part of the Matza is not fully baked then never mind the problem of flour which will BECOME Chamets when it gets wet and given time WE HAVE A MUCH GREATER PROBLEM according to the Gebrochts-nicks argument we ALREADY HAVE CHAMETS in the Matza since the dough that is insufficiently baked is ALREADY Chamets -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 19:44:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:44:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently > kneaded, would any of the dry flour that went through > the oven be still capable of becoming chameitz if wet? > If the dough is now too baked to rise any further, > wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be > too toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5, > which discusses things not to do because "shema lo qulhu > yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is > that possible? What's the shiur of "qulhu yafeh"? Maybe roasting flour is more time-consuming than baking matzah? You want to say they're the same, but who knows? If we had a better handle on these things, our Pesach breakfasts could be farina or oatmeal made with chalita, but we have forgotten how to do that correctly. I have a friend who has been a Home Economics teacher at the local public high school for about 40 years. She likes to point out how different baking is from cooking. Cooking, she says, is about flavors, and you can put just about anything you like into a pot, cook it for a while, and it will be okay. "But baking is all about chemistry." You have to get the right ingredients in the right proportions at the right temperatures for the right time, or it will be a disaster. This distinction doesn't show up in Hilchos Shabbos, but it certainly does in Chometz UMatzah. Timing is key. I have no idea what the poskim say about varied situations of "shema lo qulhu yafeh", but it is very easy for me to imagine that if there is some dry flour inside the matza dough, the matza could be adequately baked while that flour is still not yet roasted enough to prevent later chimutz. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 04:10:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 21:10:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe Message-ID: R Micha points out RaMBaM does record the Halacha that we may not cook in water during Pesach toasted grains nor the flour ground from them because Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe perhaps they were not fully toasted and they may become Chamets one assumes this is because over-toasting the Camel grains ruins the taste and it was therefore far more likely that they were under-toasted than over-toasted Furthermore there is no test to apply to toasted grains as there is to baked Matza Matza is tested for being baked by tearing it apart and ensuring there are no doughy threads stretching between the torn pieces -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 19:17:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Acharei Mot Message-ID: Acharei Mot is the only Torah portion with the word ?death? in its title. The two words together are captivating: ACHAREI mot. In other words, we should be focusing on ?Acharei,? AFTER death. As depressing, difficult and mysterious as death is, we must not dwell on it. We must go on with our lives ?Acharei" AFTER. Life is eternal, and love is immortal, and death is only a horizon; and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight. Rossiter Worthington Raymond (April 27, 1840 in Cincinnati, Ohio ? December 31, 1918 in Brooklyn, New York) He was an American mining engineer, legal scholar and author. At his memorial, the President of Lehigh University described him as "one of the most remarkable cases of versatility that our country has ever seen?sailor, soldier, engineer, lawyer, orator, editor, poet, novelist, story-teller, biblical critic, theologian, teacher, chess-player?he was superior in each capacity. What he did, he always did well." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 20:58:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 05:58:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <77074713-e49c-4af3-1f69-39b611caa0e0@zahav.net.il> Read further down on the page: Your exceptions prove the rule. Sorry you are unfamiliar with minhagei eretz yisrael. They are esentially minhagei Hagra, brought here by the famous ?prushim? clan, and these minhagim have been accepted throughout Israel, with some exceptions.In Yerushalayim , they are accepted almost uniformly. The Tukotchinsky Luach for minhagim of the davening is a reflection of this and it is accepted by almost all. True, here and there, as your friend noted, there is a minyan that puts on tefillin. To each his own. But there are thousands of minyanim that don?t, and many of them do not hesitate to unceremoniously throw anyone out that dares put them on, even in the corner or in another room. I have seen this myself. Rav Schach?s custom, and certainly the Erlauer Rebbe indicate that the general custom is not to put on tefillin. None of the yeshivas, including Rav Schach?s yeshiva, adopted his minhag.None of the chassidim here do either except the relatively small numbered Erlauer. Ben On 4/28/2017 4:27 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > This statement does not seem to be correct. See http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x > > Note the following from there. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 20:53:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:53:56 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I had asked whether people had a view on the halachic propriety or otherwise of using a sous-vide machine over Shabbos and received no response. The sous-vide is a method of cooking which one might call very slow cooking. Bags with the food (e.g. meat) are places in a bucket or the like, and the machine is placed inside the bucket together with water which covers the plastic bag(s). It can take a really cheap cut of meat and make it tender and delicious. It?s buttons can be covered if someone is worried about Shehiya, I think the issue is Harmono. It can?t be both. One thing I noticed is that nobody seems to fiddle or touch the bags until the ?given time period?, and then one just pulls the plastic bags out. One can pre-program to turn the machine off, or it can continue keeping the water at the set temperature. There are various scenarios. Where the food is ready on Friday night. Where another bag of the food has a different texture is left till lunchtime on shabbos Where the meat is Mamash Raw (let alone not Maachol Ben Drusoi) on Erev Shabbos but will be good on Shabbos Where the concept of Mitztamek Veyofe Lo has nothing to do with Mitztamek, but rather a quantitative improvement that is still possible without it shrivelling The final issue is whether you say that since it might have had another 12 hours cooking and the temperature does not rise, that the meat is of a different VARIETY as opposed to quality. For example cooked versus roasted steak. Either way, here is a link to the only Tshuva I know of on this issue. I?m interested in reactions. There is a touch of Choddosh Ossur Min HaTorah from Rav Asher Weiss, but in the main, I can?t think of a reason why it?s not Hatmono. Disclaimer: I have not reviewed Hatmono for many years, and started to in dribs and drabs with the Aruch HaShulchan. This is the link to the Tshuva http://preview.tinyurl.com/kvxswnp or http://tinyurl.com/kvxswnp I spoke to Mori V?Rabbi Rav Schachter about it, and interchanged with his son Rabbi Shay, but they haven?t managed to show him the device and he won?t pasken until he has seen it (of course). "It is only the anticipation of redemption that preserves Judaism in Exile, while Judaism in the Land of Israel is the redemption itself." ______________________ Rabbi A.I. Hacohen Kook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 06:34:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:34:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >: The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos >: Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not >: differentiate between holidays... > All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaint[y]... > But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was > like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain > about the date. The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about second day of Yom Tov apply. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 09:48:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:48:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170430164805.GA11800@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 04:34:17PM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: : The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made : b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about second day of : Yom Tov apply. I know. That's my question. He says YT sheini of Shavuos was mishum lo pelug. So, if it's really lo pelug, then how/why would it be different in form than YT Sheini Sukkos, Shemini Atzeres or Pesach (x 2)? If it's lo pelug, then the usual qulos of pretending we're dealing with the old-time safeiq should apply -- or else, there is a pelug. No? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 09:57:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:57:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:02:29AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he : > could speak to her; at least through a fence... ... : The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone : who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as : issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought. ... : [Email #2. -micha] : : On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar : pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned : with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as : arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua. Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy for letting his taavos get so worked up. I see a slight conflict in your answers. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 11:05:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:05:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From AudioRoundup at Torah Musings: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/864540/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-sous-vide-cooking-for-shabbos-(and-through-shabbos)/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-From The Rabbi?s Desk ? Sous Vide Cooking For Shabbos (and Through Shabbos) Sous vide cooking (another thing we?ve lived without but now sounds like it will be the next sushi). If you do it for, or over Shabbat, is there an issue of hatmana or shehiya? FWIW the hashkafa at the end of R?Asher Weiss?s tshuva is well worth thinking about ? we seem to live in an age where any sacrifice is difficult. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 13:50:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> , <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I didn't think I was giving two answers, just clarifying further. So, let's work through it again. I must admit I have looked at neither Rishonim (except Rambam) nor achronim. But here goes: The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of YaVY. The gemara then says that this works fine for an eishes ish, The first question should be why that's obvious? Since when is conversation with an eishes ish YvAY? We answered that by saying, al pi Rambam, that the point of the gemara is to clarify how far we apply YvAY to hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation carries the din YvAY. That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. However, the bottom line for our original reason for analysing this gemara remains that it's not part of the cheshbon governing any standard interactions in which any ben Torah might participate, as it only applies to someone sick enough to have inevitable sexual hana'a from a conversation. R Micha's two correspondents can feel free to challange that whether off or on list. BW Ben Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy for letting his taavos get so worked up. I see a slight conflict in your answers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:22:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:45:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy : ... : OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the : rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very : clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz.... : : So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? I think the "out" is the clause "sheyeish lanu ba'alus alava". So, chameitz that you didn't have baalus on, but was delivered on Pesach wouldn't be included. (And would be a davar shelo ba le'olam, even if you did try to include it.) No, that doesn't cover things you owned since before Pesach and were unware "delo chazisei" that you only found on Pesach. OTOH, wasn't that stuff already mevutal anyway? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:30:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430173012.GB27111@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are :> indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs :> and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. :> And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification :> with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than :> identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos :> as self-identifications. : That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the : MB and AhS were on. : By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they : putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, : ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on : identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? ... I don't see how they are. If someone says there should be a single pesaq for a location and the shul could be consistent is talking about unity. Not about whether our community's minhagim are better or worse than those of another community -- they aren't present to suggest we're comparing. I was contrasting two different motives for breaking that unity: The first archetype is the one who does so because he takes more self-identity from his Litvisher (eg) ancestry than in being in part of the observant community, or Jewish community in general. The second is the one who is motivated by the logic of the pesaq or the hashkafah payoff. Such as someone who is "into" qabbalah for whom "qotzeitz bintiyos" means something and motivates not feeling happy in tefillin on ch"m. I was suggesting that lo sisgodedu only rules out the first motivation, not the second. But the acharon who promotes everyone following one practice isn't a question of whether their motivation is more important than lo sisgodedu to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:30:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430173012.GB27111@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are :> indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs :> and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. :> And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification :> with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than :> identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos :> as self-identifications. : That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the : MB and AhS were on. : By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they : putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, : ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on : identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? ... I don't see how they are. If someone says there should be a single pesaq for a location and the shul could be consistent is talking about unity. Not about whether our community's minhagim are better or worse than those of another community -- they aren't present to suggest we're comparing. I was contrasting two different motives for breaking that unity: The first archetype is the one who does so because he takes more self-identity from his Litvisher (eg) ancestry than in being in part of the observant community, or Jewish community in general. The second is the one who is motivated by the logic of the pesaq or the hashkafah payoff. Such as someone who is "into" qabbalah for whom "qotzeitz bintiyos" means something and motivates not feeling happy in tefillin on ch"m. I was suggesting that lo sisgodedu only rules out the first motivation, not the second. But the acharon who promotes everyone following one practice isn't a question of whether their motivation is more important than lo sisgodedu to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:08:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:08:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430170851.GD19139@aishdas.org> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 08:17:11PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The problem is : once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash : that the central part of the Matza : is not fully baked : then never mind the problem of flour : which will BECOME Chamets : when it gets wet ... Again, if gebrochts were about the middle not being baked, it would be worries about chameitz whether or not the matzah later gets in contact with water. It's about flour that didn't become kneaded. As the SA haRav states, the Besht ate gebrochts because in his day the 1 mil timer was stopped for kneading. We came up with this chumerah of trying to fit everything, including the kneading in the time limit. Which caused us to start rushing the kneading. (Yet, the Alter Rebbe of Lub lauded this new chumerah, despite it coming with new risks.) And so he justified chassidim of his generation following a new hanhagah that the Besht did not. (We discuss this teshuvah annually.) The question I asked is based on the fact that toasted flour doesn't become chameitz. And by simple physics, we expect that if dough, a huge lump, can bake through, then of course we would have completed the toasting of the same chemicals present in fine powder form, like any dry unkneaded flour within the dough. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 17:49:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 10:49:28 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <384BCE1C-0255-4CD6-9547-033963F2DA9C@gmail.com> Rich, Joel wrote: > > > From AudioRoundup at Torah Musings: > http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/864540/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-sous-vide-cooking-for-shabbos-(and-through-shabbos)/ > Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-From The Rabbi?s Desk ? Sous Vide Cooking For Shabbos (and Through Shabbos) > Sous vide cooking (another thing we?ve lived without but now sounds like it will be the next sushi). If you do it for, or over Shabbat, is there an issue of hatmana or shehiya? > > > FWIW the hashkafa at the end of R?Asher Weiss?s tshuva is well worth thinking about ? we seem to live in an age where any sacrifice is difficult. > > KT > Joel Rich R Joel, yes indeed. I got the Tshuva from R Aryeh :-) The other question is why does Halacha entail sacrifice. IF it's halachically sound it may be a hiddur! I know we have it on Tuesdays and everyone loves it. It is a superior form of cooking. If it's NOT Hatmono then why (if one has the implement) would one not use it. I find that a Hungarian Posek approach in general. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 17:34:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:34:13 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on Monday besides Hallel on tues Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 08:39:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 08:39:29 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> References: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <138374BA-01AB-4BF3-8554-304B33684B81@gmail.com> Young Israel century city holds both kulot. No tachanun Monday. Hallel Tues. Curious how most chul shuls do it. .I expect most follow israel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 09:51:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 18:51:40 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/1/2017 2:34 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on > Monday besides Hallel on tues Mine didn't and that was my experience in other shuls as well. The Tfilion app doesn't have Tachanun (but does have an added chapter of Tehillim for the fallen). Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 06:15:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:15:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> On Monday, May 1, 2017 6:02 AM, saul newman wrote: > Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on > Monday besides Hallel on tues Rav Ahron considered Hey Iyar to be Yom Ha'atzmaut and the day that Hallel (without a Bracha) is said and Tachanun is not said -- regardless of when Israel celebrates it (for whatever reason it may be delayed). I (and Yeshivas Brisk) did not say Tachanun at Mincha yesterday (Erev Yom Tov) nor today at Shacharis... nor will I say it at Mincha. I will say it tomorrow. HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 10:23:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:23:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Last year, in http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n055.shtml#10 , RHM gave R' Aharon Soloveitchik's shitah. Much like this year, although last iteration he added: One can review the Halachic sources RAS used in his book 'Logic of the heart, Logic of the Mind'. I responded in the post right below it, quoting RGS, http://www.torahmusings.com/technology-halakhic-change-yom-ha-atzmaut , who in turn was commenting on R/Dr Aaron Levin of Flatbush's evolving practice: In America, where the celebrations can be more easily controlled to avoid the desecration of Shabbos, many authorities did not recognize the change of date, among them Rav Ahron Soloveichik and Rav Hershel Schachter. They insisted that people recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar -- the day of the miracle of the declaration of the State of Israel -- regardless of when Israelis celebrate the day. Rav Aaron Levine's son, Rav Efraim Levine, told me that his father had to change his position on this question over time. Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a community to determine its own date to celebrate. To which I added: RAS might have decided similarly or not had he lived to see the day when the primary intercontinental communication was the telephone, not the aerogram. We can't know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 11:59:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 20:59:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: For Hebrew readers, Rav Yoni Rosensweig sums up Rav Rabinovitch's position on the matter: https://www.facebook.com/yonirosensweig/posts/1761639697197955 Bottom line: Moving Yom Aztmaout doesn't entirely remove the uniqueness of the day. While he does state that the rabbinate holds that one skips Tachanun only on the day Yom Aztmaout is celebrated, RYR doesn't accept that psak. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 12:35:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 15:35:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> On a lighter, more aggadic note, my father suggested that the existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to minimize chilul Shabbos is the very thing a Religious Zionist would be celebrating on Yom haAtzmaaut. Which reminds me of something Rav Dovid Lifshitz said about Yom haAtzma'ut. Rebbe said that Atzma'ut is something special, and certainly worth celebrating. But for now YhA is only half a holiday. We established the atzma'ut of Yisrael, but are still missing its etzem. To rephrase into my father's words: It is worthwhile to celebrate the existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to minimize chilul Shabbos, but what we pray for is the existence of a country that wouldn't have to! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 14:42:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 23:42:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the reading is pushed off until Sunday. Ben On 5/1/2017 9:35 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > It is worthwhile to celebrate the > existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to > minimize chilul Shabbos, but what we pray for is the existence of a > country that wouldn't have to! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 17:38:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 20:38:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:42:18PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the : reading is pushed off until Sunday. Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 22:29:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 07:29:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> Message-ID: 1) It is part of a package deal, the first part of which can fall on Shabbat. 2) When we go back to setting the month based on witnesses, it could fall on Shabbat. Ben On 5/2/2017 2:38 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. > > -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 23:12:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 09:12:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:42:18PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: > : It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the > : reading is pushed off until Sunday. > > Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. > 5 Iyyar certainly can fall out on Shabbat, and as it happens it doe so in exactly the same years when there is Shushan Purim Meshulash: Adar has 29 days and Nisan 30, so from 15 Adar to 5 Iyyar is 29 + 30 - 10 = 49 days or exactly 7 weeks. In other words, Shushan Purim and Yom Ha`Atzmaut (when not postponed or advanced) are always on the same day of the week. This last happened nine years ago in 5768 and will happen again in 5781 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 21:39:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 14:39:34 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Looking Jewish Message-ID: Gemara AZara 58a - R Yochanan b Arza and R Yosiy b Nehuroi, were drinking wine - they requested someone nearby to fix their drinks. After he fulfilled their request they realised he was not Jewish. May they drink the wine, is the Gemara's Q. But how could they make such a mistake? And how might the wine be permitted? the Gemarah 58b explains it was clear to the G that the Sages were Jewish, it was also clear that he thought that they knew he was not Jewish, and it was also clear that he as a non-J knew that if he handled the wine, they wold not be permitted to drink it So he thought - they MUST be drinking mead [which he may handle and mix for them] so even though he was actually handling wine, thinking it was mead, he would not make his usual pagan worship and so it did not become disqualified. So here is the tough part HE was CERTAIN they knew he was not J [that's why he was certain that they were drinking mead and not wine] however the truth was they DID IN FACT THINK he was J [and that is why they did invite him to fix their wine drinks] could this happen today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 04:48:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 07:48:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Ha'atzmaut Message-ID: <3866CC37-90C9-4337-8257-616B6EB01940@cox.net> The story is told of the Chafetz Chayim, zt"l, that he asked one of his visitors who had come from a great distance, "How are you?? which in Yiddish is, "Vos makhst du," literally, "What do you do?" So in answer to this inquiry, the visitor replied, "Thank God, I have a thriving business, I have no financial problems, I have a beautiful home with a swimming pool,? etc. etc. The Chafetz Chayim repeated, "Vos makhst du?" and the visitor, a bit confused as to why the question was repeated, gave the same reply. So for the third time, the same question was asked of the visitor, at which point the visitor looked at the saint and he said: ?I don?t understand why you asked me three times 'How I am.? I told you that thank God, I have a thriving business, a lot of money, a beautiful home, etc.? The Chafetz Chayim replied: ?You don?t understand. You told me what GOD is doing for YOU, but I asked, 'What are YOU doing?' I therefore repeat: 'Vos makhst du?'" How does this apply to Israel Independence Day? We know what Israel has done for US. The question remains: What are we doing for Israel, and what are we doing for each other? May we become ?Independent" enough to help others who "depend" on us. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 11:50:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Avram Sacks via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 13:50:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Cong Or Torah in Skokie said tachanun at shacharit, but not at mincha on erev Yom Ha-Atzmaut. On YhA, at ma'ariv we added additional tehillim at the end of davening, as found in the Koren siddur for Yom HaAtzmaut. At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. Kol tuv, Avi Avram Sacks From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 13:16:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 16:16:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Looking Jewish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170502201609.GB17585@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:39:34PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Gemara AZara 58a ... : the Gemarah 58b explains ... : So he thought - they MUST be drinking mead : [which he may handle and mix for them] : so even though he was actually handling wine, : thinking it was mead, he would not make his usual pagan worship : and so it did not become disqualified. ... : could this happen today? Their wine was this thick syrup that required dilution (mezigas hakos) to be drinkable. They also often had to add spices and/or honey to make it palatable. Inomlin / yinomlin (spelled with a leading alef or yud, depending on girsa; Shabbos 20:2, AZ 30a) was wine mixed with honey and pepper (Shabbos 140a). So, if the grapes were particularly sour, and more honey was added, perhaps it wasn't that easy to determine that it was wine (enomlin) and not meade. A problem 2 millenia of vintners eliminated through breeding better grapes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 14:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 17:20:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5908F811.8040504@aishdas.org> Beautiful sentiments, to be sure, but 100% emotional and 0% halachic. Was there live music on 6 Iyar? KT, YGB On 5/2/2017 2:50 PM, Avram Sacks via Avodah wrote: > Cong Or Torah in Skokie said tachanun at shacharit, but not at mincha > on erev Yom Ha-Atzmaut. On YhA, at ma'ariv we added additional > tehillim at the end of davening, as found in the Koren siddur for Yom > HaAtzmaut. At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel > (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and > ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it > is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet > observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in > Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added > that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about > those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA > on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 15:17:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 18:17:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akrasia and Ritual Message-ID: <20170502221754.GA25834@aishdas.org> Akrasia is a classical Greek term for why we so often don't do what we believe. In more mesoretic terms -- the problem of akrasia is the question of "what is the yeitzer hara?" In http://www.thebookoflife.org/akrasia-or-why-we-dont-do-what-we-believe there is an interesting piece on how ritual helps solve akrasia. It might help one's qabbalas ol mitzvos: ... There are two central solutions to akrasia, located in two unexpected quarters: in art and in ritual. The real purpose of art... (Fans of RAYK or Dr Nathan Birnbaum might want to read the part I'm skipping here.) Ritual is the second defence we have against akrasia. By ritual, one means the structured, often highly seductive or aesthetic, repetition of a thought or an action, with a view to making it at once convincing and habitual. Ritual rejects the notion that it can ever be sufficient to teach anything important once - an optimistic delusion which the modern education system has been fatefully marked by. Once might be enough to get us to admit an idea is right, but it won't be anything like enough to convince us it should be acted upon. Our brains are leaky, and under-pressure of any kind, they will readily revert to customary patterns of thought and feeling. Ritual trains our cognitive muscles, it makes a sequence of appointments in our diaries to refresh our acquaintance with our most important ideas. Our current culture tends to see ritual mainly as an antiquated infringement of individual freedom, a bossy command to turn our thoughts in particular directions at specific times. But the defenders of ritual would see it another way: we aren't being told to think of something we don't agree with, we are being returned with grace to what we always believed in at heart. We are being tugged by a collective force back to a more loyal and authentic version of ourselves. The greatest human institutions to have tried to address the problem of akrasia have been religions. Religions have wanted to do something much more serious than simply promote abstract ideas, they have wanted to get people to behave in line with those ideas, a very different thing. They didn't just want people to think kindness or forgiveness were nice (which generally we do already); they wanted us to be kind or forgiving most days of the year. That meant inventing a host of ingenious mechanisms for mobilising the will, which is why across much of the world, the finest art and buildings, the most seductive music, the most impressive and moving rituals have all been religious. Religion is a vast machine for addressing the problem of akrasia. This has presented a big conundrum for a more secular era. Bad secularisation has lumped religious superstition and religion's anti-akrasia strategies together. It has rejected both the supernatural ideas of the faiths and their wiser attitudes to the motivational roles of art and ritual. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 21:48:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 06:48:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0a07acaa-4c79-5eb5-b387-1887573b3cd1@zahav.net.il> There is an oversimplification here, that the issue is the secular. Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed off even if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash. Getting the country ready for these days means hundreds, thousands of people have to be in place. This includes soldiers, policemen, etc who are 100% dati. Holding these events on a date that would force these people to work on Shabbat is simply a non-starter and everyone understands that point. I have to add the following: My dream is that people will come to understand how wrong it is to make people (including dati'im) work on Shabbat when Lag B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate steps. Ben On 5/2/2017 8:50 PM, Avram Sacks wrote: > He added that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 21:30:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 21:30:06 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] nidche Message-ID: since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on thurs, does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded this way already in the 50's? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 06:38:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 16:38:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:30 AM, saul newman via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on thurs, > does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded this way > already in the 50's? > To be precise, they are only nidche if Pesah starts on Tuesday, like this year. If it starts on Shabbat or Sunday they are brought forward to Wednesday & Thursday. If my memory is accurate, the bringing forward has always been in practice, but the postponement from Sunday-Monday to Monday-Tuesday was introduced later, within the last 10 or 20 years. When I was first in Israel in the 1980s, YHA was still sometimes observed on a Monday. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 06:06:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 09:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> On 5/3/2017 12:30 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on > thurs, does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded > this way already in the 50's? It was instituted during the tenure of Rabbis Amar and Metzger. [Email #2. -micha] On 5/3/2017 12:48 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > There is an oversimplification here, that the issue is the secular. > Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed off even > if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash... > I have to add the following: My dream is that people will come to > understand how wrong it is to make people (including dati'im) work on > Shabbat when Lag B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate > steps. That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to 5 Iyar. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 14:34:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 17:34:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5a7c4dde-aeda-0d6e-0a6f-3824d06a66da@sero.name> On 03/05/17 09:06, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is > no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- > certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically > viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to > 5 Iyar. Why can't a religious holiday be defined by the day of the week, like Shabbos Hagodol and Behab? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 16:28:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 19:28:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: R' Micha Berger reposted from elsewhere: > Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this > subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on > the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his > position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, > Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut > celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with > perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a > community to determine its own date to celebrate. Why should telecommunications affect the day that my community says Hallel? Should we all start reading Megilas Esther on 15 Adar? R' Ben Waxman wrote: > Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed > off even if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash. Maybe not as unique as it seems. Isn't there a gezera against Motzaei Shabbos weddings for exactly this same reason - because of the likelihood that the preparations would begin on Shabbos? RBW also wrote: > My dream is that people will come to understand how wrong it > is to make people (including dati'im) work on Shabbat when Lag > B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate steps. Amen!! Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 20:43:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 05:43:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: Someone pointed out to me off line that the reading is on Friday, Al HaNissim on Shabbat, and Seuda/Matanot is on Sunday. Ben On 5/1/2017 11:42 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the reading > is pushed off until Sunday. > > Ben > > \ > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 21:26:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 14:26:20 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: <26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com> Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can never fall on a Thursday. Under the current arrangements, it cannot fall on a Monday, so those who fast on BeHaB and also wish to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzma?ut no longer need to be concerned. In Hilchot Yom Ha-Atzma?ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim (ed Nahum Rakover, 1973), there is an article by Rabbi Meir Kaplan which discusses what to do when the two did coincide. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 21:29:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 07:29:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Avram Sacks via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel > (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and > ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it > is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet > observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in > Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added > that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about > those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA > on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. ?Since the issue here is tachanun, hallel and suspending sefira restrictions, I fail to follow his logic. We are being asked to not say tachanun on the same day as the not-yet-observant?, on 6th Iyar. But why the 6th any more than the 5th. We should say hallel on the 6th, the same day as the not-yet-observant. Hardly. Sefira restrictions are suspended on the 6th like the not-yet-observant? If the entire sentiment is when we should have ceremonies to mark the significance of the State, you could that any day, or every day, as often as you like. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 22:11:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:11:39 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Nidche In-Reply-To: 26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com References: 26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: <8ff4cb3fb9929c8cf4af49714131daf8@mail.gmail.com> I wrote in haste. Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can fall on a Friday (as it does next year), in which case it is brought forward a day. David Havin *From:* David Havin [mailto:djhavin at djhavin.com] *Sent:* Thursday, 4 May 2017 2:26 PM *To:* Avodah *Subject:* Nidche Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can never fall on a Thursday. Under the current arrangements, it cannot fall on a Monday, so those who fast on BeHaB and also wish to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzma?ut no longer need to be concerned. In Hilchot Yom Ha-Atzma?ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim (ed Nahum Rakover, 1973), there is an article by Rabbi Meir Kaplan which discusses what to do when the two did coincide. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 07:53:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 10:53:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [From an Areivim discussion of how to be safe from house fires on Friday night.... -micha] On 03/05/17 18:26, Akiva Miller via Areivim wrote: > When eating the evening seudah elsewhere than where you're sleeping, > consider lighting at the seudah location, so that they won't be > unattended. My mitzvah is to light my own home, not someone else's. I know women have the custom of saying a bracha when lighting in someone else's home, but I'm not sure on what basis they do so. It seems to me they're not fulfilling their own mitzvah but rather helping their hostess with her mitzvah, just like helping someone else with his bedikas chametz. In that case (as opposed to doing the whole thing as his agent) one is supposed to hear his bracha, not make ones own, so why is this different? Thus it seems to me that this falls into the category of minhagei nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked, but the women have their own traditions and are not asking. But I don't see a basis for men, who don't have those traditions, to follow them. Yes, we are required to follow "toras imecha", but it seems to me that this means those things that women have traditionally taught their sons, not those that they have traditionally only taught their daughters. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 08:52:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:52:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <54B1C0DF-2CD4-49B5-92A0-AC29B878E3F2@sibson.com> The psak I receive many years ago is that you light where you sleep. One concern was to make sure the candles would run long enough so they were still burning when you came home so you could get benefit from them Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 13:50:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 20:50:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Tatoo Taboo and Permanent Make-Up Too Message-ID: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/ken8l8y There is a widespread myth, especially among secular American Jews, that a Jew with a tattoo may not be buried in a Jewish cemetery[1]. This prevalent belief, whose origin possibly lies with Jewish Bubbies wanting to ensure that their grandchildren did not stray too far from the proper path, is truly nothing more than a common misconception with absolutely no basis in Jewish law. Jewish burial is not dependent on whether or not one violated Torah law, and tattooing is no different in this matter than any other Biblical prohibition. Please see the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 15:13:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 18:13:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Tatoo Taboo and Permanent Make-Up Too In-Reply-To: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> References: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <72ddedb9-4172-c476-3fe6-acbb37a1e577@sero.name> > Jewish burial is not dependent on whether or not one violated Torah law, There are cemeteries, or sections within them, where only observant Jews can be buried, in line with the halacha that one may not bury a rasha next to a tzadik. But a person who qualified for burial there would not be rejected for having a tattoo, since it would be assumed that he had long ago repented. (The sin is *getting* the tattoo, not *having* it; once it's been done there's no obligation to remove it.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 20:54:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 21:54:36 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> On May 3, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is > no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- > certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically > viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to > 5 Iyar. My gut is with you on this. But then we do need to at least address the precedent of Purim. We don?t say Hallel, but we say a bracha on the Megillah. And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid chillul Shabbos. Now there are some important differences. For one thing, Purim seemed to be a concern of ignorance, not secularity. But it does seem to establish the precedent that it can be done. Whether it should be done is a different question. Following the precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off until Sunday, but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. Yom HaZikaron could be pushed earlier. ? Daniel Israel Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center of Santa Fe, President daniel at kolberamah.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 21:00:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 22:00:22 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> On Apr 30, 2017, at 11:22 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:45:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy > : OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the > : rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very > : clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz.... > : > : So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? > > I think the "out" is the clause "sheyeish lanu ba'alus alava". So, > chameitz that you didn't have baalus on, but was delivered on Pesach > wouldn't be included. (And would be a davar shelo ba le'olam, even if > you did try to include it.) I have been bothered by this same question for many years, and mentioned to my Rav over Pesach. It was his impression that contracts in EY more commonly did not use loshen including unmarked/unknown chametz. I think that is common in the US. I suggested that it is motivated by a desire to protect against the case of accidentally consuming chometz sh?evar alav haPesach where the person completely lost track and by the time he ate it, he didn?t remember he sold it. But it does seem that burning it would depend on how the contract was written. And I would take it a step further and point out that if it was sold, there is a serious geneivah issue. > No, that doesn't cover things you owned since before Pesach and were > unware "delo chazisei" that you only found on Pesach. > > OTOH, wasn't that stuff already mevutal anyway? Can I burn something that was hefker without acquiring it? If I declare something hefker (I?m not sure the legal implication of batel), and then I burn it, wouldn?t that imply I?m koneh it? Which makes things much worse. ? Daniel Israel Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center of Santa Fe, President daniel at kolberamah.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:08:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:08:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: On 04/05/17 23:54, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > . And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid chillul > Shabbos. The megillah only goes back, never forward. > Following the precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off > until Sunday, but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. The precedent of Purim is to pull it back to Friday *or Thursday*. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:40:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:40:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: 5 Iyar can also be on Shabbos (as it will in 2021), and its commemoration is pushed back two days, to Thursday. Nonetheless, that Thursday can never be a part of BeHaB, since the fasts begin on the Monday after the first Shabbos following Rosh Chodesh Iyar, and the preceding Shabbos is either the 28th or 29th of Nissan. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 6 12:32:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 21:32:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <04a24079-f3e7-a7e9-d195-3dac00552ebe@zahav.net.il> Yom HaZikaron and Yom Azmaut are an inseparable pair. There have been call to break the connection (to make it easier for the bereaved families to celebrate YA) but so far no one is willing to do so. Ben On 5/5/2017 5:54 AM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > Yom HaZikaron could be pushed earlier. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 21:20:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 00:20:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> On 5/4/2017 11:54 PM, Daniel Israel wrote: > On May 3, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: >> That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is >> no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- >> certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically >> viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to >> 5 Iyar. > My gut is with you on this. But then we do need to at least address > the precedent of Purim. We don?t say Hallel, but we say a bracha on > the Megillah. And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid > chillul Shabbos.... > Whether it should be done is a different question. Following the > precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off until Sunday, > but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. Yom HaZikaron could > be pushed earlier. On Purim Meshulash, the Al HaNisim remains on Shabbos, and the Megillah with the bracha is relocated to the day everyone else is celebrating. Moreover, there is no clash between simcha on 16 Adar and some pre-existing minhag to diminish simcha. Those are some of the differences. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:01:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 18:01:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: Discussion of chametz ?received? during Pesach can be listened to here: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/877269/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-girls-scout-cookies/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -From The Rabbi's Desk - Girls Scout Cookies KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 6 22:53:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 07 May 2017 07:53:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives today, certainly not in any practical manner. More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber). Ben On 5/5/2017 6:20 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > On Purim Meshulash, the Al HaNisim remains on Shabbos, and the Megillah > with the bracha is relocated to the day everyone else is celebrating. > Moreover, there is no clash between simcha on 16 Adar and some > pre-existing minhag to diminish simcha. Those are some of the differences. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 07:26:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 10:26:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Haircuts when Lag Baomer is on Sunday Message-ID: Rama 493:2 writes: "When [Lag Baomer] falls on Sunday, the practice is [nohagin] to get haircuts on Friday l'kavod Shabbos." What makes this Friday different from all other Fridays of sefira? If Kavod Shabbos is ample justification to get a haircut on Omer 31 (which is in the aveilus days by all reckonings), then it ought to justify a haircut on Omer 24 (the previous Friday) also, shouldn't it? But I have never heard of anyone allowing a haircut on Omer 24 simply because it is Erev Shabbos, so there must be an additional factor at work. For many years, I presumed the logic to be as follows: If a person would need a haircut on Friday Omer 31, or on Friday Omer 24, and fail to get that haircut, then he has failed to do Kavod Shabbos, but he did it by inaction. He did it in a "shev v'al taaseh" manner, and it is quite common for halacha to suspend an Aseh with a Shev V'Al Taaseh. (Compare skipping this haircut to skipping Shofar on Shabbos.) HOWEVER - If a person would go out of his way ("kum v'aseh") and actually get a haircut on Sunday, that is intolerable. To have been disheveled on Shabbos (even if justifiably), and then suddenly be all fancied up the very next day, that is an insult to Shabbos, and we cannot allow Shabbos to be insulted in that manner. So when the Rama writes that we allow the haircuts "for kavod Shabbos", what he actually means is that we allow the haircuts "to avoid insulting Shabbos." And this is what makes this weekend of Sefiras Haomer different from all the others: On the other Sundays of Sefira, no one is getting a haircut anyway, so the whole question doesn't exist. But in this year, on this particular weekend, we do have this problem. The Rabbis *could* have chosen to protect the kavod of Shabbos by forbidding us to get haircuts when Lag Baomer is on Sunday, but instead they chose to protect the kavod of Shabbos by allowing us to get haircuts when Omer 31 is on Friday. Or so I thought for many years. But I have questions on this logic. According to what I have written, getting a haircut on Sunday is a bad idea - no matter what time of year it is. Yet I don't recall ever hearing anyone advise against it. In particular, when this situation of a Sunday Lag Baomer occurs, I have often hear people cite this Rama as granting permission to get their haircut on Friday. But in actuality, shouldn't it be less of a permission, and more of a *recommendation*? When a person asks the question, shouldn't the answer be, "Yes, you can get the haircut on Friday, and that's even better than waiting for Sunday." But I have not heard anyone suggest this. That's about as far as I was going to write, but then I went to the seforim to make sure I understood the Rama correctly. Indeed, his phrasing, "nohagin to get haircuts on Friday l'kavod Shabbos", could easily be understood to mean DAVKA on Friday rather than Sunday. But although it *could* be understood that way, I don't remember anyone actually doing do. And then I came across Kaf Hachayim 493:33, who writes that the Levush held differently than the Rama in this situation: > The Levush writes that if the 33rd is on a Sunday when the > non-Jews are not barbering because of their holiday, *that's* > when you can get a haircut on Friday. Meaning that in a place > where you *can* get a haircut on Sunday, then you should *not* > get the haircut on Friday. But from the words of the Rama, who > writes "l'kavod Shabbos", he means to allow it in any case. > And Elya Raba #9 writes the same thing about this Levush, that > the Rama allows it l'kavod Shabbos in either case. To rephrase: If one has a choice between getting his haircut on Friday or Sunday, then the Levush gives precedence to the minhagim of aveilus during Sefira, and requires us to wait until Sunday for the haircut, and *not* get the haircut on Friday Omer 31. The idea of suddenly showing up with a haircut on Sunday does not (seem to) bother the Levush, and this is totally consistent with the lack of anyone ever being told to avoid Sunday haircuts the rest of the year. But the Kaf Hachayim (with support from Elya Raba) rejects the approach of the Levush. He seems to accept the word of the Rama, plain and simple, that we can get haircuts on Friday Omer 31 because it is l'kavod Shabbos. And, according to Rama, this applies whether the barbershops are open on Sunday or not. Even if one has the option of waiting until Lag Baomer, he can "violate" the aveilus of Sefira on Omer 31, because the haircut is l'kavod Shabbos. This leaves me stuck with my original question: If Kavod Shabbos is ample justification to get a haircut on Omer 31, then it ought to justify a haircut on Omer 24 also, shouldn't it? Obviously no, but why? with many thanks in advance for your thoughts, Akiva Miller PS: The Levush is not totally machmir; he does allow leniency, but only in the case of where Lag Baomer is on Sunday, AND the barbers are closed on that day. Only in such a case does he allow a haircut on Omer 31. I have to wonder why he would allow that exception, rather than disallowing it entirely. Here's my guess: The Levush was aware of poskim who allowed haircuts on Friday Omer 31, but he felt this to be an improper violation of the aveilus, and paskened that people should wait for Sunday Lag Baomer. But if the barbers would be closed, that means people would have to wait another two weeks for their haircuts, in which case he allowed the leniency. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 03:46:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 13:46:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: No, I'm pretty sure it was the 50th day. The first day after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the first day of the Omer. The 49th day after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the 49th day of the Omer. Shavuot is thus the 50th day after our leaving Egypt. On 4/28/2017 6:27 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >> I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is >> the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the >> case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which >> we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the >> Exodus. > > Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th > day but on the 51st. So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th > of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the > pseudo-Julian anniversary. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 06:38:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 09:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: On 07/05/17 06:46, Lisa Liel wrote: > No, I'm pretty sure it was the 50th day. The first day after our > leaving Egypt corresponds to the first day of the Omer. The 49th day > after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the 49th day of the Omer. > Shavuot is thus the 50th day after our leaving Egypt. Everyone seems to assume we left on a Thursday. The first day after we left was a Friday, so the 49th day was a Thursday. Mattan Torah was definitely on a Shabbat, thus the 51st day. There's no way out of that, unless we adopt the Seder Olam's view that the gemara suddenly springs on us at the end of the sugya that we left on a Friday. Then it all works perfectly, and as I read the gemara that seems to be the conclusion, but I've never seen any later source even deal with this view; everyone who mentions the day of the week on which we left Egypt takes for granted (as the gemara did for most of the sugya) that it was a Thursday. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 03:51:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 06:51:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minhagei Nashim Message-ID: In a thread about Ner Shabbos, R' Zev Sero wrote: > Thus it seems to me that this falls into the category of minhagei > nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked, > but the women have their own traditions and are not asking. But I > don't see a basis for men, who don't have those traditions, to > follow them. Yes, we are required to follow "toras imecha", but > it seems to me that this means those things that women have > traditionally taught their sons, not those that they have > traditionally only taught their daughters. That's an interesting way to classify things. I suppose it makes sense in the context of Ner Shabbos, which a mother would certainly teach to her daughters, but probably not to her sons. In this system, I suppose she would also teach Kitchen Kashrus only to her daughters, but Brachos to all her kids equally. Please consider the following scenario. I suppose it could happen even today, but it might be easier to imagine if you place it during the many centuries when there was no schooling for girls... A wife is preparing some food for dinner. She notices something unusual. Maybe it has something to do with meat and dairy, or maybe it has something to do with the just-shechted chicken she's kashering. Anyway, she concludes - based on what her mother (and both grandmothers and all her aunts) taught her - it's not a problem. Her husband happens to walk in, sees the same thing, and points out that it is a very clear black-and-white halacha that this food is assur. One could say that this sort of thing happens very rarely, because the men tend to stay out of the kitchen. But if you ask me, that only proves that the couple is unaware of the problem. It probably happened quite often, but no one noticed because the husband wasn't around. How could this *not* be a frequent occurrence? The men are busy learning, and the information never reaches the women. I concede that if a woman is unsure, she will ask, and some halachos will filter over to her side. But if she is *not* unsure, she could be blissfully unaware that her imahos have had a tradition for many generations, and it differs from the tradition that her husband got from generations of avos and teachers. And if this sort of thing can happen in Hilchos Kashrus, how much more often might it occur in Hilchos Nida? You may notice that I am taking pains to tell this story without prejudice as to which side is the truer halacha. Just because the women weren't in yeshiva, that does not prove them to be in error. All it proves is that there's been no opportunity for shakla v'tarya. Neither side can be discredited until they've carefully debated the issues. So who is right? As I wrote, these questions have been bothering me for years. But someone said that "Emunah is not when you have the answers; it's being able to live with the questions. " I got that chizuk from R' Haym Soloveitchik in his now-classic "Rupture and Reconstruction", which is all about these opposing chains of tradition, the mimetic and the textual. (The full text is on-line at www.lookstein.org. Just google the title.) He writes in footnote 18 there: > The traditional kitchen provides the best example of the > neutralizing effect of tradition, especially since the mimetic > tradition continued there long after it was lost in most other > areas of Jewish life. Were the average housewife (bale-boste) > informed that her manner of running the kitchen was contrary to > the Shulhan Arukh, her reaction would have been a dismissive > "Nonsense!" She would have been confronted with the alternative, > either that she, her mother and grandmother had, for decades, > been feeding their families non-kosher food [treifes] or that the > Code was wrong or, put more delicately, someone's understanding > of that text was wrong. As the former was inconceivable, the > latter was clearly the case. This, of course, might pose problems > for scholars, however, that was their problem not hers. Neither > could she be prevailed on to alter her ways, nor would an > experienced rabbi even try. There is an old saying among scholars > "A yidishe bale-boste takes instruction from her mother only". Somehow, these chains do find a way to work together. But I must be clear: I am NOT talking about a machlokes haposkim, where the wife was taught one thing and the husband was taught something else. In that case, there is much common ground, and they (or their rav) can go to the sources to figure out what the couple should do. I'm talking about a much more fundamental problem, where generations have passed on different traditions, without anyone ever realizing that there was a mismatch. (I'd like to close by pointing out that I am neither asking anything new in this post, nor am I trying to answer anything. But RZS mentioned a "category of minhagei nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked", and I simply wanted to expound on that category.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 09:43:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 12:43:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: In Avodah Digest 35:53 on Apr 19, R' Micha Berger wrote: > The AhS OC 31:4 is okay with minyanim that are mixed between > wearers and non-wearers. That's not what I see in the last line there: "In a single beis medrash, don't have some doing this and some doing that, because of Lo Tisgodedu." In Avodah Digest 35:55 on Apr 26, he seems to have corrected that: > ... the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed > between tefillin wearers and not. [You seem to have missed http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol35/v35n055.shtml#07 I didn't correct myself; I was forced to reread the AhS by RHK's post. -micha] This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. IF I understand that AhS correctly, he says that if there is only one Beis Din in town, then everyone must follow it, so Lo Tisgodedu doesn't apply. And if there is more than one Beis Din in town, then everyone can follow their own beis din, so again, Lo Tisgodedu does not apply. So when DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be factionalized like that. That is the AhS's explanation of why each town should be united and follow one set of days for the aveilus of Sefira: The question is totally minhag, and not under the jurisdiction of the local posek. It is a minhag of the people, and the people should get together and be united in one practice. The AhS doesn't mention it in that siman, but this explanation does help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 consistent with 493:8? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 8 05:32:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 15:32:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The relevance of the middle perakim of Bava Basra today Message-ID: Perakim 4-7 of Bava Basra (which Daf Yomi has been learning) deal with the sale of various things, what is included and what is not. The common denominator seems to be that these are seemingly solely based on the accepted business practice during the time of Chazal and what people expect to get when they consumate a deal. There are few to no Torah based sources for any of these. Here is a general outline of the perakim. Perek 4 - Hamocher es habayis discusses what is sold when you sell real property (houses, bathhouses, courtyards, fields, etc.) and what is not, for example when you sell a house the Mishna states that you include teh door but not the key Perek 5 - Hamocher es hasefina discusses the sale of movable objects, again detailing what is included in the sale and what is not (boats, wagons, animals, etc.) Perek 6 - Hamocher peiros lachaveiro discusses the sale of agricultural products. It details how much spoilage/wastage there can be in grain and wine etc. It also discusses selling land to build things on it like a house, graves, how much land is given, what access etc. Perek 7 - Deals with sales of real property how exact do the dimensions need to be. Given the above, are these at all relevant today? A house buyer in 2017 clearly has very different expectations as to what he is buying in comparison to the times of Chazal as does someone buying wine, a field, a boat, etc. The same goes for all of these categories. Since the mishnayos seem to be based solely on accepted business practice and have are not based on pesukim can we simply ignore these today? Am I missing something here? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 8 10:47:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 13:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The relevance of the middle perakim of Bava Basra today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170508174705.GA2335@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:32:57PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Perakim 4-7 of Bava Basra (which Daf Yomi has been learning) deal with the : sale of various things, what is included and what is not. The common : denominator seems to be that these are seemingly solely based on the : accepted business practice during the time of Chazal and what people expect : to get when they consumate a deal... : Given the above, are these at all relevant today? ... First reaction: They would be relevant to a poseiq trying to learn how to determine which of today's expectations have halachic import. It would require doing the saqme kind of mapping of market norms to law that chazal did, so the poseiq could learn from example. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 9 05:44:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 08:44:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor Message-ID: <4667BA80-CCF4-42D3-833D-99611C34F822@cox.net> ?And you shall count unto you from the morrow after the day of rest from the day that you bring the omer of the wave-offering; seven complete weeks shall there be.? (Vayikra 23:15) The Rambam included the counting of the Omer as Mitzvah 161 in his Sefer Hamitzvot. Those Rishonim who disagree, do count it as a mitzvah d?rabbanan and therefore, when we conclude the counting each night we pray: ?May the merciful One bring back to us the Temple service to its place speedily in our days, Amen, selah.? So the question has been asked why we do not say a ?sheheheyanu? when we first count the Omer on the second night of Pesach. The Rashba answers that according to most Rishonim who disagree with the Rambam, the counting is connected intricately with ktzirat ha?omer, harvesting the omer, ha?va-at ha?omer, the bringing of the omer and hakravat ha?omer, the offering of the omer as a sacrifice (Vayikra 23:10&16). So since these mitzvot are obviously inapplicable today it pains us to remember what we are missing when we count the omer. Therefore, the rabbis say, we pronounce no sheheheyanu which is said only when we experience joy. When I started counting my blessings, my whole life turned around. Willie Nelson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 06:33:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 09:33:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kedoshim Message-ID: It was brought to my attention that I hadn?t sent out a commentary on Parashas Kedoshim. Here is a belated d?var. ?In the presence of an old person you shall rise and you shall honor the presence of a sage and you shall revere your God ? I am Hashem.? (Vayikra 19:32) This verse is so rich with interpretation. According to Rashi, following one view in Kidudushin 32b, the two halves of the pasuk explain each other, i.e., the mitzvah is to rise and honor a sage who is both elderly and learned. Others hold that these are two separate mitzvot: to rise for anyone over the age of 70 and to rise for a learned righteous man, even if he is below the age of 70. The halacha follows the latter view, the rationale being that anyone can reach the age of 70 but it takes blood, sweat and tears to achieve scholarship and righteousness. I recall as a youngster being in awe when everyone in the beis medrash would stop what they were doing and a hush fell over the crowd as everyone rose immediately as soon as the Rosh Yeshiva entered the hall. There comes to mind the famous saying in Makkoth 22b: ?How foolish are those people who stand up when the Torah is carried by, but do not stand up when a scholar walks by,? indicating that greater than a piece of parchment upon which the Torah is written, is a human being who has put his whole life into learning and struggling in order to acquire a knowledge of Torah, and who in his personal life is a living embodiment of what the Torah teaches and represents. Along similar lines is the custom in some hassidic circles to kiss the hand of a talmid chochom upon first seeing him in the same manner as kissing the Torah when it passes by. The one thing we must never forget is the basic issue involved. It is not the mere person that is the center of the commandment; it is the ?v?yorayso mey-Elohechoh, Ani HaShem that is here involved. In rising before and granting honor to the talmid chochom, we affirm our profound belief in the Torah of God. Who sows virtue reaps honor. Leonardo da Vinci -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 13:24:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 16:24:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety Message-ID: In Avodah V35n60, RJR responded to RZS, who had responded to RAMiller: >>> When eating the evening seudah elsewhere than where you're sleeping, consider lighting at the seudah location, so that they won't be unattended. <<< >> My mitzvah is to light my own home, not someone else's. << > The psak I receive many years ago is that you light where you sleep. One concern was to make sure the candles would run long enough so they were still burning when you came home so you could get benefit from them < As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*); and as I learned as a kid every Pesach that my family was at a hotel (because my parents didn't have Pesach cooking utensils, dishes, etc. in their apartment), everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 14:55:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 21:55:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As RJR implies, I thought the key component of neiros Shabbos was enjoying their light (in contradistinction to neiros Chanukah); and as I learned as a kid every Pesach that my family was at a hotel (because my parents didn't have Pesach cooking utensils, dishes, etc. in their apartment), everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... All the best from Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA _______________________________________________ Except if they were incandescent bulbs in the individual hotel rooms. In that case I was taught that the women make a bracha on the bulbs in their room Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 04:54:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:54:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Lo Taamod Message-ID: Rav Asher Weiss discusses in parshat Vayeitzeih on lo taamod al dam reiacha that one would have to give up all his assets to save a single life if he is the only one who can do it. However, "it's pashut" that if others can also do it, that he doesn't have to give up all his assets. Why is it so pashut if others refuse? (i.e. why isn't it a joint and several liability?) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 04:55:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:55:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Local Government Message-ID: Anyone have any sources on how local government, if any, functioned in times of Tanach? Was there any besides the court system? What was the role of the nesiim of the shvatim? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 12:02:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:02:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App Message-ID: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Someone mentioned tahorapp.com on-line, so I took a look at their web site. To quote: > Keeping Tradition & > Keeping Your Privacy > Rabbinically Approved! Anonymously send pictures of your Taharas > Hamishpacha questions to a Rav right from your own home. Receive answers > quickly and privately. Download Tahor App For Free! I then thought of "The Dress" , a picture of a black-and-blue dress that floated around the internet that many of us perceived as white-and-gold. So, given that people guess at the background lighting when they see a picture and then subconsciously correct for it (see explanation on wikipedia page), how could a rav rely on a Tahor App image? So, I filled out their contact form with something to that effect, and a short discussion followed. They replied: : Color Precision: : Thank you for your inquiry, : To clarify (as this seems not to be clear): : "Tahor" is meant to serve as a halachically approved "filter" for a : majority of Shailos (many of which are straightforward and simple to : determine). It is meant to allow those who may not have access to a rov, or : who may not feel comfortable going to a rov, to have an option, when : halachically viable, to send in their sample anonymously. : What this app is not: : This app IS NOT meant to be an umbrella replacement for the process of : showing questionable bedikah cloths to Rabbonim. Rabbonim were all able to : pasken correctly because of our advanced white balance technology and : Rabbinic measurement capabilities. The cloths which are borderline or : questionable, will be told to show the actual cloth to a Rabbi. : It is obviously preferable to take the cloth directly to the Rabbi when : possible, but many many women are not doing it! This will allow them to : keep Taharat Hamishpachah and get accurate answers. I felt I was getting a barely touched form letter, so I paraphrased my original question: } But given that the human eye will misinterpret colors when the lighting } differs between the camera and the person looking at the picture, how } can you know the results are accurate? After all, the differences in } perception of the colors of The Dress is far far greater han that between } a tamei brown and a tahor one. And their reply: : Shalom, : Yes, this is true. : This is why the Rabbis will only answer questions through the app which are : clearly one or the other. : An example of this would be if a stain on underwear is less than a gris. : The Rabbi can with complete accurately declare this Pure/Impure. : If the Rabbi feels that it is not so clear, he will tell the user to go to : a Rav. I am letting it drop there, because I am not going to argue anyone into wondering whether or not his pet project works. But I myself am still wondering.... Given how pronounced optical illusions can be when it comes to color and how subtle many determinations are, can a rav even know when the question is "clearly one way or the other" rather than only seeming obvious? I saw the dress in a catalog, so I know I am getting it wrong when I look at the infamous picture. And yet, it's suprising. If it weren't for people reporting a different color set, I would have considered white-and-gold "clearly" right. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 30th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation Fax: (270) 514-1507 result in holding back from others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 12:57:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: See the following timeline: http://crownheights.info/jewish-news/575460 http://crownheights.info/chabad-news/575513 http://crownheights.info/communal-matters/575546 http://crownheights.info/chabad-news/575559 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 07:33:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 10:33:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> There is a definite dearth of rabbis on the site. I am somewhat conflicted on this. OTOH, the nuances of coloring will be distorted by many displays - perhaps all displays. OTOH, perhaps women who otherwise would not ask she'eilos would use this service. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 08:37:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:37:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App Message-ID: <11c7f4.7c2a7fc4.464730a1@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org Someone mentioned tahorapp.com on-line, so I took a look at their web site. To quote: > Keeping Tradition & > Keeping Your Privacy > Rabbinically Approved! Anonymously send pictures of your Taharas > Hamishpacha questions to a Rav right from your own home. Receive answers > quickly and privately. Download Tahor App For Free! I then thought of "The Dress" , a picture of a black-and-blue dress that floated around the internet that many of us perceived as white-and-gold...... .....So, given that people guess at the background lighting when they see a picture and then subconsciously correct for it (see explanation on wikipedia page), how could a rav rely on a Tahor App image? -- Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>>> According to wiki the human eye can distinguish about ten million different colors. Other sources say "only" seven million. (Not relevant here but interesting: Some birds, some fish, some reptiles, even some insects, like bees, can see colors we can't see.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision A computer screen can display about 33,000 different colors -- only a small fraction of the number of shades in nature that the human eye can see. http://www.rit-mcsl.org/fairchild/WhyIsColor/Questions/4-6.html The takeaway -- to my mind -- is that the tahor app probably can't be relied on. The rav needs to see the actual color, not on a screen. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 08:36:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:36:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:33am EDT, R Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: : I am somewhat conflicted on this. OTOH, the nuances of coloring will : be distorted by many displays - perhaps all displays. OTOH, perhaps : women who otherwise would not ask she'eilos would use this service. Because of "The Dress" I am worried that "perhaps all displays" really understates the possibility of getting a color wrong. While the problem you raise is real. I would still recommend yoatzos as a better solution. Still, there are women who still wouldn't go to antoher woman, or who live in an area with no one to ask. RnTK wrote: : According to wiki the human eye can distinguish about ten million different : colors. Other sources say "only" seven million. ... : A computer screen can display about 33,000 different colors... : small fraction of the number of shades in nature that the human eye can see. ... : The takeaway -- to my mind -- is that the tahor app probably can't be : relied on. The rav needs to see the actual color, not on a screen. I think the problem I raised can lead to more profound misassessments. The precision of color displays will blur the edges. And the rabbis behind Tahor App say that it's only for more clear cases. What had me concerned is that that perception is based on more context colors and lighting specifics than the phone's camera may capture. Thus "the dress", which is explained, amongst other startling optical illusions involving color perception here . It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in different lighting than it was taken. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 09:33:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 12:33:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 517 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 11:53:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 14:53:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:33:14PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote: : The 33rd day of the Omer is a minor holiday commemorating a break in : the plague. The common translation of askaria is some kind of lung disease. However, the only explanation of the gemara that predates the late acharonim is R' Achai Gaon's -- that the word is sicarii. Meaning, they were killed by Roman dagger- or shortsword-men. Tying the deaths of the omer to the Bar Kokhva rebellion. (The sicarii of the events of Tish'ah beAv were Jewish dagger bearers. Same word, different people.) If I may add, which emphasizes the connection to shelo nahagu kavod zeh lazeh. The galus was started by sin'as chinam; it couldn't be ended by people who still hadn't mastered showing another kavod. (A scary thought about our own hopes...) : This day is observed as a day of rejoicing because on this day, the : students of Rabbi Akiva did not die. Actually, it's not a day of mourning because they didn't die. It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. Or perhaps it's the day Rashbi left the cave the 2nd time, or.... For Litvaks, Yekkes, and other communities, Lag baOmer as a holiday is a new thing. Also, as per other iterations, Lag baOmer at Meron appears to have originally been Shemu'el haNavi's yahrzeit (Mag beOmer? Yom Y-m) at Nabi Samwel, and only moved when Arabs going to Nabi Samwel (from Tzefat) dangerous. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 12:42:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 15:42:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/05/17 11:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while > convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in > different lighting than it was taken. But isn't that explicitly taken care of by the instruction to the user to take the photo only in direct sunlight, and by the instruction to the rav to look at it only on a specific monitor at a specific brightness? However reliable or unreliable the technology is, at least *that* concern has been addressed, hasn't it? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 13:01:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 16:01:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> References: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/05/17 14:53, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined > communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- > find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) > writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then > a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping > the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. No typo is necessary. What could "yom simchas Rashbi" mean if not his yortzeit, which he explicitly instructed his talmidim to celebrate as if it were his yom hillula? That's where the whole concept of celebrating yortzeits rather than mourning on them comes from, as well as the concept of referring to them as "wedding days". > Also, as per other iterations, Lag baOmer at Meron appears to have > originally been Shemu'el haNavi's yahrzeit (Mag beOmer? Yom Y-m) at Nabi > Samwel, and only moved when Arabs going to Nabi Samwel (from Tzefat) > dangerous. This paragraph got garbled enough that if I didn't already know what you meant I could not have figured it out. But it's my understanding that it wasn't danger from Arab marauders that put an end to the pilgrimages to Shmuel Hanavi (from all over EY) but rather a government decree barring Jews from the site. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 14:49:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:49:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: References: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512214922.GB4067@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 04:01:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined :> communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- :> find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) :> writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then :> a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping :> the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. : No typo is necessary. It happened. Necessity isn't at issue. We know what the older version was, and there used to be a ches there. "Shemeis" is simply not what RCV wrote. : What could "yom simchas Rashbi" mean if not : his yortzeit, which he explicitly instructed his talmidim to : celebrate as if it were his yom hillula? Well, isb't that what I said in the last sentence quoted? But it's only the most likely (in my opinion) possibility, and not -- as you are taking for granterd -- the only one. To continue from where you chopped off that text: > Or perhaps it's the day Rashbi left the cave the 2nd time, or.... Simcha, in the sence that seeing the man carry two hadasim for besamim -- zekhor veshamor -- yasiv da'ataihu. His simchah learning with his son-in-law, R' Pinchas b Ya'ir. "Ashrekha shera'isi bekakh..." Shabbos 33b-34a give you plenty of reason to believe he was joyous, and wanted to share that joy with the qehillah. Or maybe R Aqiva started teaching his 5 new students in earnest the very day the massacre or plague stopped. And therefore Lag baOmer is the day Rashbi started learning qabbalah. Or maybe... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 18:04:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 11:04:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The rabbi is shocked He realises After pesach is concluded That one of the contracts he's supposed to sell to the G Was not sold to the G If ownership According to Halacha Is determined by believing one is in control And when that control Is lost There's YiUsh Then this Chamets Had no owner During Pesach This Chamets For all intents and purposes During Pesach Has no owner. And Chamets can be Muttar Even if owned by a Y If it's abandoned For the duration of Pesach That's the Halacha Re the Mapoles The shed collapse On a crate of whiskey It's buried under at least 3 Tefachim It's Muttar after Pesach And it seems Even without Bittul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 14:33:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:33:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512213304.GA4067@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 03:42:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 12/05/17 11:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while : >convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in : >different lighting than it was taken. : : But isn't that explicitly taken care of by the instruction to the : user to take the photo only in direct sunlight, and by the : instruction to the rav to look at it only on a specific monitor at a : specific brightness? ... My wife and I saw The Dress for the first time together, and reported different results. in that picture it is obvious it was taken on a sunny day. And we both saw it in the same lighting. So, I don't think it sufficiently takes care of the problem. Maybe if the distributed a color sheet that must be included in the picture in proximity to the kesem, and the rabbinic side of the software corrects the colors displayed based on knowing what the sheet should look like. If the woman prints the color chart herself, you widen the uncertainty. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 14:23:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 23:23:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I have also been in touch with them (the programmer and one of the rabbis). I haven't come to a final conclusion, but my impression so far is: (1) The people on this project are y'rei Shamayim who take what they are doing seriously and have worked very hard for a long time on developing something that will be reliable (2) It is definitely not as good as seeing a mareh in real life (3) It is not good enough for borderline or difficult-to-pasken cases, and when difficult marot are submitted the rabbis will tell them that they need to be evaluated in person (4) They have had quite good results testing this app with easier cases (and most marot that women ask about are easier cases), which is why they have the confidence to release it (5) There are clear instructions on photographing the mareh in sunlight (6) This is only available for iphone - and deliberately so. They have the camera and white balance technology to give a good enough image, and because everyone is using the same type of phone and operating system, there is more control. Developing an android version will be significantly more challenging. If asked, I think I would cautiously tell women that IF they have no way to get the mareh evaluated in person (they do not live near any qualified Rav or yoetzet, or they are traveling), and they have an iphone and carefully follow the instructions, this seems to be reliable. I have worked online with Rav Auman for a long time, and while I haven't actually met him in person, I do trust him to know what he is doing. I'm still checking into it. If any of you have iphones (like most Israelis, I have an android) and have installed the app, I would be very interested in hearing feedback. Thank you! Shavua tov, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 19:10:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 22:10:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Music on the night of Lag B'Omer Message-ID: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> It seems quite common that people have bonfires with music on the evening of Lag B'Omer. I haven't found a compelling reason for this custom - even those who are meikil like the Rama to lift the Aveilus on Lag B'Omer don't do so until the day, I thought, as miktzas hayom k'kulo. Does anyone have an explanation for this? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 21:20:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 00:20:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Music on the night of Lag B'Omer In-Reply-To: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> References: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <112dafa9-5b8f-9e78-8b3e-2c0fcd51e25b@sero.name> On 13/05/17 22:10, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > It seems quite common that people have bonfires with music on the > evening of Lag B?Omer. I haven?t found a compelling reason for this > custom ? even those who are meikil like the Rama to lift the Aveilus on > Lag B?Omer don?t do so until the day, I thought, as miktzas hayom > k?kulo. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Yes. If one is merely noting the end of aveilus, then it starts in the morning, tachanun (or Tzidkas'cha) is said at the previous mincha, and bichlal it's not a celebration, any more than one celebrates when getting up from shiva. I've never heard of people singing and dancing and playing music on such an occasion, even if it's permitted. But if one is celebrating Rashbi's yom hillula then it's a full holiday, an occasion for song and dance and music, and of course it starts at night, with no tachanun at the previous mincha. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 12:11:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:11:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin Message-ID: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 12:27:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:27:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin In-Reply-To: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> References: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170515192700.GA20468@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:11:29PM -0400, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? MB 40:3 says that's the universal minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 14:49:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 17:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped Tefillin Message-ID: <5F399CEB-B043-4AB8-A067-A8E1495829DF@cox.net> Saul Newman wrote: Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? To the best of my knowledge, YES. However, I also recall that one could give extra tzedaka in lieu of fasting. rw From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 16 19:26:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 22:26:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World" Message-ID: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> This Torah portion sets forth the blessings that are seen in this world in response to our deeds. It then continues with the Tochacha, words of admonition, "If you will not listen to Me and will not perform all of these commandments?" Interestingly, there are seven series of seven punishments each. God warns us throughout the portion that He will punish us in "seven ways for your seven sins. We are now counting seven days a week for seven weeks; the Torah has just recently given the laws for Shemita ? seventh year the land lies fallow and seven periods of seven years, we celebrate the Jubilee year. What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the diatonic scale, seven continents, etc. We wind the T'fillin straps around our forearm seven times. We sit shiva for seven days. At the wedding we chant 7 blessings (sheva b'rachos) and the wedding is followed by seven days of celebration. Even the Torah begins with seven -- the First verse has seven words also containing a total of twenty-eight letters which is seven times four. Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion. When we say "Baruch Hashem" we are praising God for something that is hopefully whole and complete. The acronym for Baruch Hashem (Beis, Hay) also equals 7. Finally, the patriarchs and matriarchs total seven: Avraham, Yitzchok, Ya?akov, Sarah, Rivka, Rochel, Leah. (Please don?t write me to say your phone number has seven digits or the rainbow has 7 colors or that there are seven letters in the Roman numeral system or that nitrogen has the atomic number of 7 or that there were 7 dwarfs with Snow White). :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 05:31:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 12:31:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality, Message-ID: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> See below concerning a frequently discussed issue: Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today, especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:30:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:30:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World" In-Reply-To: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> References: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170518143027.GB13698@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:26:19PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven : represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the : diatonic scale, seven continents... Although the diatonic scale and the division of the colors in the spectrum to fit the numbers 7 are human inventions. They say more about what 7 means to humans -- even without revalation -- than anything inherent. ... : Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion... As does the word. Without niqud, the letters /sb`/ could be read as "seven" or "satiated". (Or swear... go figure that out.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:18:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:18:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170518171844.GD26698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh : Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on : Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives : today, certainly not in any practical manner. A tighter comparison... The minhag as recorded in the SA clearly ran into Lag baOmer -- and ending mourning with the usual miqtzas hayom kekulo. Then the hilula deRashbi turned Lag baOmer into a holiday, and this new holiday overrode the older minhagim of aveilus. What's good for one new holiday ought to be good for another (YhA, where this conversation began), no? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:24:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:24:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:24:41PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was : enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*)... As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel YT") but it's "neir Chanukah". Their kids wouldn't forget. : everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get : enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel : dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... Fire hazard is safeiq piquach nefesh, and ein danin es ha'efshar mishe'i efshar. However, wouldn't the alternative been lighting in the dinig hall, near one's table? The point is to eat by neir shel YT, not to sleep by them! And in this case (combining the above with what RJR wrote), shouldn't they have provided incandescent lamps for each table? (Not that there were small bulbs of other sorts when we were growing up.) Wouldn't it be easier to justify making a berakhah on turning the light on than on lighting in a third room or a table off to the side of the dining room dozens of yards from where you are eating? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:35:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:35:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality, In-Reply-To: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170518143502.GC13698@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:31:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why : there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters : of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the : masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as : all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak : halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would : contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today, : especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.] Not sure what this means. There are halakhos about triage. About how much tzedaqah to give and how to prioritize them. There are a lot of halakhos about morality. I fail to see how this isn't circular. The open moral questions RYBS is referring to are those too situational for every possible situation to be addressed with its own pesaq. Ar the Ramban puts it on "ve'asisa hayashar vehatov". If "morality" is being used in a sense to limit it to those quetions that did not get halachic resolution, isn't he just saying the interpersonal questions that didn't get a pesaq didn't get a pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:46:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:46:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170518144626.GD13698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei : Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events : of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber). It seems (but is not muchrach) from the AhS 394:1-3 . As I wrote (in part) in 2010 . The AhS distinguishes between a global minhag from the Geonic period not to marry and a later minhag bemedinos ha'eilu. He attaches the minhag of 1-33 (and including miqtzas yayom kekulo) to when the talmidei R' Aqiva died (s' 4-5) and the minhag of the last days to "minhag shelanu" (s' 5), localizing the last days to the descendent of those who fled the Crusaders east. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:14:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 11:04:32AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : If ownership : According to Halacha : Is determined by believing one is in control : And when that control : Is lost : There's YiUsh : Then this Chamets : Had no owner : During Pesach But if this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as -- it would be open and shut. I think ba'alus (as opposed to ownership) is defined by having the legal responsibility for something, and only as a consequence about having control or a right to use it. Which would explain why qinyan, a mechanism for eatablishing shelichus or shibud, is more thought of as a means of establishing baalus. Because baalus is also primarily on the hischayvus side. And so, it has as a consequence actual legal right of control, rather than depending on belief that one is in control. Which is why a ganav needs yi'ush plus shinui. Yi'ush, loss of belief of having control, is NOT enough to end ba'alus. But that's ba'alus. We don't have ba'alus over chameitz on Pesach. For example, an avaryan who dies on Pesach while violating bal yeira'eh bal yeimatzeih (BYBY) does not leave that chameitz to his sons. BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs from choshein mishpat, and is not baalus. ... : And Chamets can be Muttar : Even if owned by a Y : If it's abandoned : For the duration of Pesach ... : And it seems : Even without Bittul. ... The mishnah on Pesachim 31b says that if it's buried so deep a dog cannot dig it up, it is a form of bi'ur. R' Chisda in the opening gemara says it needs bitul. But in any case, the question is whether this is destruction. The gemara likens it to bi'ur. Not about a loss of ownership. Which would create a whole different question, as Tosafos (Pesachim 4b "mideOraisa") understand relinquishing ownership to be the very definition of bitul. (The majority opinion -- Rashi "bibitul be'alma", Ritva, Ran, and the Rambam 2:2 -- say it's a form of bi'ur.) Rashi and the Ran say the need for bitul after a mapolah fell on one's chameitz is derabbnan, a gezeira in case it gets unburied. But while buried, it's kebi'ur. The Samaq (#98) says the need for bitul is de'oraisa. And the MA holds that the Semaq would require buried chameitz not was not batul to be dug up and burnt on Pesach. The Mekhilta (on Shemos 12:19, see #2 ) says that chameitz owned by a nakhri which is in a Jew's reshus or a Jew's chameitz are excluded from BYBY by the pasuq's extra word "beveteikhem". "Af al pi shehu birshuso". The Mekhilta is making a split between reshus and BYBY. And it could be we are discussing three different concepts of "ownership", with reshus and baalu being different from each other as well. There is also a whole sugya about buried issurei han'ah on Temurah 33b-34a (starting at the mishnah) that I would need to understand better with rishonim and posqim to really comment in full. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:38:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:38:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> References: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 18/05/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel > YT") but it's "neir Chanukah" In L's case, "neir shel shabbos kodesh", but "neir chanukah". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 13:53:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 21:53:30 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? Message-ID: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> A thought just struck me, and I wondered if this chimed with anybody. The Rambam says (Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 halacha 13): ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????. Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. The Tur says the same except that he has Torah shebichtav and Torah sheba'al peh around the other way (Tur Yoreh Deah Hilchot Talmud Torah siman 246): ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??"? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???"? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? The Sages said all who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking with Torah shebichtav but with Torah shebaal peh he should not teach her ab initio, but if he taught her it is not as though he taught her Tiflut The Beis Yosef says it is a scribal error in the Tur, and should be the same way as the Rambam, and that is how he has the statement in the Shulchan Aruch, and the Taz agrees, pointing to Hakel. The Prisha notes that the Beis Yosef says that it is a scribal error but adds: ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??"? In any event there is to give a small reason for this version in the books of the Tur, since with all of them it is written and published so, because there is a greater loss when Torah shebichtav is brought out as words of nonsense than with Torah shebal peh. However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil Siman 199, the Maharil writes: ?????? ????? ???"? ??????' ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?"? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ? - ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?????' ???? ???? ?? ??? ????' ?? ???????, ??? ??' ??"?? ?"?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????, ??"? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????, ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??'? ???? ???? ??????, ??? ??? ????? ????? ... ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???, ???? ?"? ????? ?????, And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut as it says in perek notlev and we learn it from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, when wisdom enters so does cunning since when wisdom enters the heart of a person there also enters into it cunning and according to the explanation of Rashi because of this she will do things privately, and if so we are concerned that she will come to damage since their knowledge is light and even though it is considered a mitzvah eit l?asot lashem so that one should not drown out the reward by loss and all the more so where there is not a mitzvah ... And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by way of tradition from outside, And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous generations: ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like it says ?ask your father and he shall tell you? and in this it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their upright fathers. But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in the form of the Mishna? That the Torah sheba'al peh was passed from father to son by oral transmission (albeit that at one point schools were instated for those lacking fathers who could teach them)? And on the other hand doesn't the Rosh (ie father of the Tur) famously say that today one fulfils the mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah by writing other seforim in Hilkhot Sefer Torah, chap. 1 as is brought by the Tur and Shulhan Arukh in Yoreh De'ah 270:2? So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al peh - as the vast majority of the details are sourced in Torah sheba'al peh, and if they were only to be taught what is in Torah shebichtav, they would all turn into Karaites! And indeed that women were, as the Chofetz Chaim suggests, taught in the home with the tradition handed over by their fathers in the same way as Torah sheba'al peh has always been learnt all the way back to Moshe Rabbanu. While if you understand Torah shebichtav as including mishna and gemora and rishonim, all so long as they have been written down, then one could indeed understand that as being a possible practical distinction - ie not to teach women to read and write and understand what is in the written seforim? Now perhaps one might say that if the Rambam had poskened like Rav Elazar in Gitten 60b as understood by Rashi, that Torahshebichtav is the majority and Torah sheba'al peh is the minority, because he includes in Torah shebichtav anything that is learnt out of the Torah by way of midrash or gezera shava etc, then it might be possible to understand that by and large women could both learn to do the mitzvot incumbent on them and simultaneously avoid Torah sheba'al peh, but he doesn't, as in his introduction the Mishna he categorises Torah Sheba'al peh into five categories, and is clearly in this poskening like Rav Yochanan. So how, according to the Rambam, did women know what to do if they were never taught Torah sheba'al peh, even ba'al peh, remembering that it is the Rema's addition to the Shulchan Aruch in the name of the Smag (actually Smak) via the Agur that adds in the halacha that women need to learn all the mitzvot that are relevant to them? Is not the Tur's version actually the one that makes more logical sense - especially if you explain Hakel as per the gemora in Chagiga that the women came to listen (ie hear it orally, without looking at the text)? Not that this would seem to explain Rabi Eliezer himself, as Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna in Sotah 21a - objected to women learning that sometimes drinking the Sotah water would not result in immediate death, and in the Yerushalmi, Sotah perek 3 daf 19 column 1 halacha 4 he objected to telling a woman why there are three different types of deaths listed vis a vis the chet haegel when there was only one sin - both of which pieces of learning were, at least in his day, definitely Torah sheba'al peh. So given that the Rambam poskened like Rabbi Eliezer, he would have needed, if a distinction was to be made, have to phrase it the way he did. But maybe what the Tur was saying is that, Rabbi Eliezer or no, the Rambam's solution is not workable, and given the way the gemora explains Rabbi Eliezer's limud from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, and that already in his day that kind of learning was found in Torah shebichtav, the whole thing can be made workable by turning it the other way around? Has anybody seen this suggested anywhere? Any thoughts? Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 15:56:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 08:56:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> References: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 19 May 2017 3:15 am, "Micha Berger" wrote: >: If ownership >: According to Halacha >: Is determined by believing one is in control >: And when that control >: Is lost >: There's YiUsh >: Then this Chamets >: Had no owner >: During Pesach > If this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as I don't understand. Please explain. One who is unaware of the loss of his wallet, believes he is still in control. We Pasken that he remains the owner. Famous story, woman lost her money at a trade fair, was found and taken to the Rov. Although there was no question that it was the money she had lost, there was no way to Pasken that it had to be returned to her. YiUsh. Until Reb Y ? explained that she was never the owner and her state of mind was not relevant. It was her husband's money and he, being unaware it was lost, still firmly believed he was in control. YSheLoMiDaAs suggesting that since he'd be in a different state of mind, if he knew the facts, in other words YSheLoMiDaAs, is still a Sevara that recognises and circulates around the principle that ownership depends upon ones state of mind. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 09:16:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 12:16:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts Message-ID: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Two Faces of Love Twice a day the Jew gives expression to one of the most potent forces in social life ? LOVE. In the morning we plead for ahavah rabbah, abundance of love, for in the morning we want love to expand and grow throughout the day. In the evening, however, when darkness descends upon us, we pray again for love, but not in quantitative terms. Instead we plead for ahavat olam ? enduring and eternal love. In the dark night love does not grow; it deepens. Two Philosophies of LIfe Sarah advised her husband to cast out Ishmael, when she saw he was ?Miitzachaik? and she feared he would be an evil influence on his brother ?Yitzchok.? Interestingly, both ?Miitzachaik? and ?Yitzchok? have a common root, meaning to laugh or to play. What is the disparity? The difference is compelling: ?Mitzachaik? is in the present tense and ?Yitzchok? is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael?s philosophy of life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future. Conversely, she saw that Yitzchok?s philosophy of life was to live life spiritually, delaying immediate gratification and living his life in a way that would provide genuine happiness and enjoyment in the future. The future depends on what we do in the present. Mahatma Gandhi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 11:14:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 14:14:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes Message-ID: <20170519181429.GA31873@aishdas.org> >From this week's emailing from The Halachah Center / Beis haVaad leInyanei Mishpat . There are a number of halachic discussions about e-cig use -- whether kashrus concerns apply, health issues, but then they close with this interesting (to me) more aggadic point. Note found interesting was that R' Yosef Greenwald assumes that venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem isn't about preserving life, but preserving one's ability to pull the ol mitzvos. (That sounds weird, but an animal "pulls a yoke", no?) Which includes preserving life. And thus includes intoxication and other mind- or mood-altering chemicals that could hamper one's ability to function. I could have seen argiong for each as separate values, but... Holy Smokes! A Halachic Discussion Regarding E-Cigarettes Are e-cigarettes problematic from a halachic standpoint? By: Rav Yosef Greenwald ... The Health Concerns of E-cigarettes ... 1. Are E-Cigarettes Any Better than Cigarettes? ... 2. Derech Eretz and a Life of Meaning Let us conclude with one more point about the general imperative to protect our health and its relevance to this case. Although as mentioned there is an injunction to safeguard our health based on v'nishmartem, we also have an assurance of shomer pesaim Hashem, that Hashem will protect those who engage in normal activities, as Rav Moshe explained, which is based on the Gemara (Yevamos 12b and elsewhere).[10] Consequently, eating greasy french fries, doughnuts, and the like, may not be the healthiest thing to do. However, doing so would not violate a halachic prohibition, as eating these foods is considered in the realm of normal behavior (like smoking used to be), and we can apply shomer pesa'im Hashem. There have recently been some questions asked about the kashrus on medical marijuana, due to the possibility that the recreational use of marijuana may be normalized soon. However, before discussing the kashrus questions, one must ask whether it is acceptable to consume marijuana. It would seem to be in the same category as significant alcohol consumption. Leaving aside any possible physical damage caused from overdosing, there is no specific halacha that forbids one from getting drunk, aside from being careful not to miss the proper time for Tefilla, and not issuing halachic rulings while in an inebriated state.[11] Nevertheless, it should be obvious that this is wrong, based on what could be called the "fifth section of the Shulchan Aruch," using common sense in living one's life. Clearly, Hashem does not want a person to waste away their life in a state in which one cannot serve Hashem properly. Rather, one should live life as an intelligent, sober person. One who overdoses on alcohol, or engages in mind-altering or mood- altering by ingesting marijuana, is taking away the ability to function as a normal person. This falls under the category of derech eretz, proper conduct, which precedes the observance of halacha. In other words, even if one does not directly violate the Shulchan Aruch, one must live in a manner in which the Torah and halacha can be fulfilled. To return to e-cigarettes, this notion of living healthy is an important reason why, even if it is concluded that they are 100% kosher even without certification, a non-smoker should not start using such a product. In the merit of being able to curb one's physical temptations, hopefully we as a people can merit to reaching great spiritual heights, and achieve the closeness to Hashem that He, and we, so desire. ... [11] Both of these issues are discussed in the Gemara (Eiruvin 64a) and are cited in the Shulchan Aruch. ... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 12:08:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:08:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Does Orthodox Commitment Provide What is Needed for Good Character? Message-ID: <20170519190815.GA24683@aishdas.org> From http://jewishethicalwisdom.com/does-orthodox-commitment-provide-what-is-needed-for-good-character Critical reading for anyone interested in what AishDas stands for. Jewish Ethical Wisdom Blog Does Orthodox Commitment Provide What is Needed for Good Character? Posted on April 6, 2017 Posted By: Anthony Knopf Does Orthodox commitment provide what is needed for good character? Not yet, I answer in this article. ... Rashei peraqim: Introduction Feeling and Thinking Ethically - Not Always a Matter of Halakha Exclusive Focus on Halakha Distracts from and Attenuates Moral Sensitivity More is Required :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 12:19:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:19:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts In-Reply-To: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> References: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170519191925.GA30260@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:16:28PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The difference is compelling: "Mitzachaik" is in the present tense and : "Yitzchok" is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael's philosophy of : life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as : much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future. However, "Yishmael", the name, is also in future tense, and later in his life, "Yitzchaq metzacheiq es Rivqah ishto" (26:8) -- in the present tense. And while "Yishmael's" name is about listening, not tzechoq, is not listening MORE fundamental to a healthy relationship? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 02:14:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 19:14:00 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah at the Age of 12 Message-ID: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> My maternal grandfather, who lived in Lithuania until his late teens, told me on a number of occasions that he celebrated his bar mitzvah when he was 12 years old, as his father had died and he was considered to be an orphan. Some years ago I recalled this and decided to learn more about the custom, but each of the rabbis I asked had never heard of it. Recently, however, I was re-reading A Tzadik in Our Time: The Life of Reb Aryeh Levin and, at page 95, he recounts that he attended a bar mitzvah of an orphan in Jerusalem on his 12th birthday. Does anyone know anything of this custom? David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 13:39:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:39:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs > from choshein mishpat, and is not baalus. We can see a connection between BYBY and "responsibility" by the situation of a shomer. Even in a situation where a shomer is absolutely not the owner or baal in any sense of the term, he will still violate BYBY if he is responsible for the chometz that he is watching. (I don't know which side of the discussion this supports, but it seems very relevant to *some* side, so I figured I'd mention it.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 19:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'midbar Message-ID: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> Israel?s brithplace was b?midbar ? in the wilderness. It has been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced the monotheistic faith. Man is always in need of fulfillment and his promised land is far away. He is always on the road to the actualization of his dreams, seeking better things and yearning for a fuller, fulfilling life. The wilderness is the symbol of man searching for his destination. It is told that a Chassidic Rebbe, impatient at the sad, mad state of the world (sound familiar?) and overcome with longing for the happiness of mankind, prayed to God: ?If Thou cannot redeem Thy people Israel, then at least redeem mankind!? May we reach the promised land in our lifetime! rw ?Ay me! sad hours seem long.? William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 19:00:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:00:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "Krias Moshe Leynen"? Message-ID: <7c27ddbf-5df2-526c-c8bd-dbfd5a94b96e@sero.name> Has anyone heard of such a thing? I came across it in a Munkatcher publication. If it were buried in a block of text I'd take it for a typo for "Krias Sh'ma Leynen", referring to the children who come on the vach nacht to say Krias Sh'ma for the baby. But it's in a prominent position where I think surely someone would have noticed such a blatant typo and corrected it before it went to print, so my current working theory is that it's some minhag that neither I nor anyone I've asked so far have heard of. So I'm throwing it to the wider Avodah community; does anyone know what this is? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 23:08:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 02:08:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah at the Age of 12 In-Reply-To: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> References: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 20/05/17 05:14, David Havin via Avodah wrote: > My maternal grandfather, who lived in Lithuania until his late teens, > told me on a number of occasions that he celebrated his bar mitzvah when > he was 12 years old, as his father had died and he was considered to be > an orphan. > > Some years ago I recalled this and decided to learn more about the > custom, but each of the rabbis I asked had never heard of it. Recently, > however, I was re-reading A Tzadik in Our Time: The Life of Reb Aryeh > Levin and, at page 95, he recounts that he attended a bar mitzvah of an > orphan in Jerusalem on his 12^th birthday. > > Does anyone know anything of this custom? There is, of course, no such custom of becoming a bar mitzvah early. But it was a common custom that a child with no father would begin putting on tefillin a full year before his bar mitzvah, rather than a few weeks or months as is the usual custom. See Aruch Hashulchan 37:4, who says this is "murgal befi hahamon", but he knows of no reason for it, and disapproves of it. See: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=374&pgnum=295 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 14:40:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 17:40:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts In-Reply-To: References: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Message-ID: <2B3DC5BF-D4C8-4C0D-A9B0-01AE8A89E41E@cox.net> > "Yishmael", the name, is also in future tense ...which means "he WILL hear or listen" which fits in with his personality and character. Presently he doesn't listen and does what he pleases. When he gets old, he will then listen. > And while "Yishmael's" name is about listening, not tzechoq, is not > listening MORE fundamental to a healthy relationship? A healthy relationship is fundamental with many elements: one of which is certainly listening NOW, not in the future. Can you imagine telling your child to do something and he says I'll do it in the future. He isn't even listening because as you point out "He WILL listen -- a lot of good that does for the present. And psychologists will tell you that a healthy relationship must have laughter and humor which can only increase the health of a relationship. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 22 07:47:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 10:47:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag Baomer in pre WWII Mir Yeshiva in Europe In-Reply-To: <1494871334409.64146@stevens.edu> References: <1494871334409.64146@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170522144737.GB29499@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:02:36PM +0000, Prof Yitzchak Levine posted on Areivim: : Please see http://mrlitvak.blogspot.com/ I can understand a desire to reaffirm the authentic Litvisher derkeh. But meanwhile, we have more learning than at any time in Litta's history, and kids are still uninspiring and fleeing in horrendous numbers. How often do people mention the RBSO? How much do we discuss or base decisions on the kelalim gedolim baTorah (cf RBW's recent review of RJB's The Great Principle of the Torah -- ve'ahvta lerei'akha kamokha, de'alakh sani, eileh toledos ha'adam, shema Yisrael, tzadiq be'emunaso yichyeh, etc...)? So, Lag baOmer may not be more than cheap sentimentality. But even if I were to agree this was true, I would still argue that we are in desperate need of sentimentality -- and will settle for the cheap kind rather than letting the pursuit of perfection become excuses for less emotional expression. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 10:54:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:54:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? Message-ID: We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that are on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv is al pi din. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 12:38:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:38:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Added textual mar'eh meqomos alongside the links. -micha] On 23/05/17 13:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would > like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. > Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that > are on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv > is al pi din. These would seem to be dispositive: [Rambam, Hilkhos Shekheinim 10:11:] http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/c310.htm#11 [SA CM 155:26:] https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9F_%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9A_%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9F_%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98_%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%9B%D7%95 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 13:35:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 16:35:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170523203556.GC10104@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 08:54:41PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would : like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. : Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that are : on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv is al pi : din. Related question, really came up last week. Someone had a tree that neighbors were complaining about, that it looked like it was dying and might fall on the neighbor's roof. On a windy day recently it actually snapped -- but not falling on the roof, instead the tree brought down the power lines. A number of people on the block lost food before power was restored and other expenses were incurred. Is the owner of the tree liable al pi din? What if the neighbor hadn't warned him, so that we cannot know if the owner was aware of an issue or not? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 42nd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliability crucial for universal brotherhood? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 13:37:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:37:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'Note found interesting was that R' Yosef Greenwald assumes that venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem isn't about preserving life, but preserving one's ability to pull the ol mitzvos. (That sounds weird, but an animal "pulls a yoke", no?) Which includes preserving life. And thus includes intoxication and other mind- or mood-altering chemicals that could hamper one's ability to function.' The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it either as far as I recall. So that leaves us fairly free to guess what it means, I suppose. I'd assumed it means preserving health, inasmuch as nefesh usually refers to life force, and we wouldn't need it to refer to preserving life itself, since that's covered by a) prohibition of suicide and b) al taamod al dam reyecha. And preserving health would presumably be in order to keep mitzvos the better, no? And I think an animal bears a yoke and pulls a plough. Lashon Hakodesh is always 'nosei ol'. Which corresponds better to bear than pull. So we carry/bear the ol mitzvos I think. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 14:25:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 07:25:01 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away - Mashkon Pikadon Message-ID: In Siman 440 chametz foods owned by a G in the care of a Yid (a ?shomer? / guardian) Siman 441 chametz foods owned by a G left in the care of a Yid as a ?mashkon? (lit. collateral) for guarantee of a loan from the Yid Pesachim 5b Two pesukim Shmos 13:7 ?Chametz shall not be seen to you and leaven shall not be seen to you in all your borders.? You may not see your own (i.e. keep in your possession), but you may see that of others (i.e. non-Jews)? Shmos 12:19 ?For a seven-day period leaven shall not be found in your homes.? a Yid may not accept Chamets deposits from non-Jews.? there appears to be an inconsistency Gemara Pesachim 5b If a Yid may see Chamets of non-Jews why does the Beraisa prohibit the chametz deposit of a non-Jew? It depends upon whether the Y has (monetary) responsibility for the Chametz, When a Y accepts monetary responsibility for the chametz he is considered to be owner to the extent that he is Over BYBY Mishnah Berura discusses whether the Y can sell the ?pikadon?. concludes yes If the Y has no monetary responsibility (i.e. for loss, theft or negligence) it may be kept in his house during Pesach but to ensure it is not mistakenly eaten must close it in a room The ?shomer? who assumes monetary liability becomes a part-owner therefore, a Jew's chametz with a non-Jewish ?shomer? does not absolve the Y he is Over BYBY A visiting non-Jew who brings his own chametz into the home of a Jew need not ask the non-Jew to remove the chametz and may even invite him into his home and eat the chametz right at his table provided the Y does not eat together with the G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 13:42:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:42:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim Message-ID: > > > > I am not expressing an opinion here on the permissibility of maharats, or > of women's ordination. I merely wish to express my respect for those on > both sides of this important question, and my hope that the dispute will > remain on the level of a machloket l'shem shamayim and that ultimately all > of us will benefit from this challenging and passionate conversation. > > ---------------------- Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilana. I have found that discussions about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven ... and of not having a recognized posek to support their halachic position. The discussions rarely focus on the relevant halachic issues. It's nice to hear someone who is willing to respect the other side...and recognize that the discussion is a machlokes l'sheim shamayim. -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 17:37:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 20:37:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170525003710.GA22308@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:42pm EDT, R Michael Feldstein wrote: : Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilana. I have found that discussions : about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because : those who support : shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven ... and : of not having : a recognized posek to support their halachic position. The discussions : rarely focus on : the relevant halachic issues. A discussion on Avodah can focus exclusively on the relevant halachic issues. A decision of what to do in practice has to include deferring to the position that actually is backed by recognized posqim. And one side's unwillingness to ask the question on this level itself becomes a relevant halachic issue. However, the following is true anyway: : It's nice to hear someone who is willing to respect the other side...and : recognize that : the discussion is a machlokes l'sheim shamayim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 20:03:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 05:03:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly accused of being agenda driven. Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. Ben On 5/24/2017 10:42 PM, Michael Feldstein via Areivim wrote: > I have found that discussions > about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support > shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 04:57:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 11:57:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> On 5/24/2017 10:42 PM, Michael Feldstein via Areivim wrote: > I have found that discussions > about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support > shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven _______________________________________________ Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:28:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:28:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? Message-ID: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:30:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:30:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shoftim-Mesorah Chain Message-ID: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&st=&pgnum=484 Fascinating article on the mesorah chain-were the shoftim really part of it ?(doesn't deal with broader question of why we don't see Sanhedrin in Nach). KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:46:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 10:46:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shoftim-Mesorah Chain In-Reply-To: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170525144620.GA16912@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:30:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&st=&pgnum=484 : Fascinating article on the mesorah chain-were the shoftim really part of it ?(doesn't deal with broader question of why we don't see Sanhedrin in Nach). Is this the right link? The article appears to be about the revalation of Tanakh "Dargot haNevu'ah baTorah, Nevi'im uKhtuvim", starting with Devarim vs the other 4 chumashim, then Navi vs Kesuvim. By R Moshe Menachem haKohein Shapira. I think you mean an earlier article, MEsoret haTSBP beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah Neustadt. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252pgnum=474 Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:26:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:26:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minhagei Nashim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526012654.GA29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 06:51:56AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I am NOT talking about a machlokes haposkim, where the wife was taught one : thing and the husband was taught something else. In that case, there is : much common ground, and they (or their rav) can go to the sources to figure : out what the couple should do. I'm talking about a much more fundamental : problem, where generations have passed on different traditions, without : anyone ever realizing that there was a mismatch. Is this really a problem? I highly recommend learning AhS. One of the things you get to watch is how much this conflict drives the dialectic of halakhah. Unlike the clean-room approach to halachic theory one gets from lomdus. You get a sense of how much acceptance of a practice in the field drives how much willingness to accept or draft a dachuq theory to explain how it could be justified in theory. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:43:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:43:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'midbar In-Reply-To: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> References: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170526014307.GC29809@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:37:34PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has : been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced : the monotheistic faith... But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged during the Exodus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:39:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526013946.GB29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, : and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying : observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes : when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ... : [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is : outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be : factionalized like that. .... : help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, : despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it : is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to : the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply : to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. : I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 : consistent with 493:8? Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag, as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin on ch"m either. It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the local court(s) or inherited. Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag side of the AhS's chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 20:53:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 23:53:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes Message-ID: R' Ben Bradley wrote: > The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is > that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui > which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in > fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha > nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it > either as far as I recall. This surprised me so much that I looked it up. Here's what I found: These words are from Devarim 4:15. The only comment of the Torah Temimah is: "This is brought and explained above, in the pasuk Ushmor Nafsh'cha (#9)." So I look at Devarim 4:9, and the Torah Temimah quotes a lengthy story from Brachos 32b, which references both pesukim (4:9 and 4:15). The comments of the Torah Temimah that I found particularly relevant to RBB's comment are found in the second and third paragraphs in Torah Temimah #16, and I will quote them here: > The Maharsha writes here, "This pasuk is about forgetting > the Torah, and these pesukim have nothing at all to do with > a person protecting his own nefesh from danger." According > to him, the tzadik of that story said what he said to the > government official merely to get out of the situation, > because the pasuk is really not about Shmiras Haguf. Further, > the fact that it is a common saying, for people to quote the > pasuk V'nishmartem Me'od L'nafshoseichem for any physical > danger - according to the Maharsha that's a mistake. > > But isn't it the explicit opinion of the Rambam, who wrote > in Rotzeach 11:4, "It is a Mitzvas Aseh to remove any > michshol which could be a Sakanas Nefashos, and to be very > very careful about it, as it is said, 'Hishamer L'cha, > Ushmor Nafsh'cha Me'od.'" So it is explicit that the language > of these pesukim *is* about protecting one's body. At first glance, this seems to go against what RBB wrote. BUT: Even according to the Rambam as cited by the Torah Temimah, it seems to me that the most one can say is that Ushmor Nafsh'cha (Devarim 4:9) talks about physical danger; we don't necessarily know that about V'nishmartem (Devarim 4:15), and it is not clear to me why the Torah Temimah closes that paragraph referring to "THESE pesukim" (hapesukim ha-ayleh). Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 03:18:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 13:18:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Bmidbar Message-ID: Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has : been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced : the monotheistic faith... But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged during the Exodus >> However, the avot were shepherds and it has been suggested that being alone with the flock and nature helped them perceive monotheism. BTW I am now reading The exodus you almost passed over by Rabbi Fohrman who demonstrates that the debate between Moshe and Pharoh and the 10 plagues all revolve about monotheism versus polytheism -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:39:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526013946.GB29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, : and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying : observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes : when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ... : [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is : outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be : factionalized like that. .... : help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, : despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it : is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to : the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply : to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. : I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 : consistent with 493:8? Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag, as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin on ch"m either. It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the local court(s) or inherited. Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag side of the AhS's chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 19:22:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 22:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government Message-ID: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> There is a popular theory that the positive description of the gov't found repeatedly found in the AhS is self-censorship and an attempt to make sure his works make it through the government censorship and approval process. But there are times he goes far beyond this, complimenting them in ways no censor would have expected, never mind demanded. For example EhE 42:51, the discussion of marrying in front of witnesses \who are pesulei eidus deOraisa -- eg converts away from Judaism. Rashi has a case of an anoos who got married with other anoosim, and they all returned. Rashi ruled that she needs a gett, because maybe they had hirhurei teshuvah and at that moment were valid eidim. Then he adds Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed. They would never force someone to convert. Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah, we don't have to be chosheish for it. So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus? In terms of timing, the first booklets of EhE started coming out in 1905. (After YD, which came out 1897-1905.) He stopped sometime during or before 1908, his petirah; but he could have written this well before 1905 -- I only know the publishing date. 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other things. Which then led to a new Russioan Constitution, a multi-party system, the Imperial Duma... and 11 years later, the Soviets. So, it's hard to believe he meant it, but it's hard to believe he would risk empty flattery with those stakes! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 04:50:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 07:50:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> On 25/05/17 22:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Then he adds > Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu > shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed. > They would never force someone to convert. He goes on far longer than that. So long that no reader could possibly miss his meaning. > Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he > continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's > converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah, > we don't have to be chosheish for it. > > So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he > suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO > obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up > to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus? This was a period when some publishers of siddurim felt it necessary to print "avinu malkeinu ein lanu melech bashamayim ela ata". He may very well have feared that including a practical psak about anoosim would arouse the censor's ire, especially since the censors were themselves mostly meshumodim. > 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which > was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other > things. Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would have been obvious to him too. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 07:57:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other :> things. : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would : have been obvious to him too. I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation audience. Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his contemporary readers. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 08:33:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 11:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2dc5d4d3-0686-0f3a-9692-24d0aa39595b@sero.name> On 26/05/17 10:57, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which > :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other > :> things. > > : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see > : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which > : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would > : have been obvious to him too. > > I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in > his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation > audience. candlesticks? I think you meant gelecther. But there's no false psak, just a false description of the metzius, which is so over the top that nobody could miss it. > Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining > qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting > them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his > contemporary readers. How could he possibly know what future conditions might be? Any reference in any sefer to "our times" has to be understood as about the author's times, not the reader's. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 07:53:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:53:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly : accused of being agenda driven. : : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response. Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality. Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a non-halachic agenda by making it look holy. (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:57:32AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post : modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all : agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid) But there are limits to eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. When in a halachic debate, one should be limiting oneself to the various answers that are objectively right. Thus presuming there is an objectively right, while still not being absolutist about it. And if we assimilated too much postmodernism to be able to see where eilu va'eilu ends (tapers off), we should be leaning on posqim who can. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 09:54:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 12:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Tvunah] St. Petersberg White Night Zmanim Message-ID: <20170526165420.GA22041@aishdas.org> >From the web site of R' Asher Weiss's pesaqim . I was told that they had a similar problem in the summer in Telzh. Motza"sh was havdalah, melaveh malkah, night seder, shacharis kevasikin, sleep. Tvunah in English Beit Midrash for Birurei Halachah Binyan Zion Under the Leadership of Maran HaRav Asher Weiss Shlita White Night Zmanim Questions: 1. During White Nights here in St. Petersburg we end Shabbat at midnight (2:00). This is also the time of alot ashahar. Accordingly, there is no opportunity to say a blessing on the candle and eat Seudat melawe malka. Question: Is it possible to rely on the opinion of rabbi Ovadiya Yoseph that alot ashahar is 72 dakot zmaniet before dawn, and accordingly there is a certain night after Chatzot for Bracha on the candle and melawe malka? 2. Can we finish fasts of 17 of Tamuz and the 9th of Av after tzet kahovim according Gaon (0:03 and 23:03)? Answers: 1. Since it is already the beginning of the light of the new day and hence Alot Hashachar, the bracha on the candle for havdala should not be said. However since it is still a few hours before Netz Hachama [sunrise] one could be lenient to eat Melave Malka. In fact, with regards to Melave Malka one could be lenient and eat before Chatzos, as long as 72 minutes have passed since shkiya [even though with regards to Melacha one should be machmir until Chatzos]. 2. With regards to ending Rabbinic Fasts, one could rely on the zman of Tzais Hakochavim according to Rabeinu Tam [according to the Pri Megadim that it is a set time in all places], waiting 72 minutes after shkiya. [Hebrew meqoros ubi'urim elided.] :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 45th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Malchus: What is the beauty of Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity (on all levels of relationship)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 27 12:11:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 22:11:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> On 5/26/2017 5:53 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly > : accused of being agenda driven. > : > : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. > > I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat > believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their > halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response. > > Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda > to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have > a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality. People keep using that word, "feminist". I don't think that's what feminism means. This is egalitarianism, which may overlap with feminism in some areas, but is a different ideology. And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to reality. That would imply that halakha comes first and responds to reality. I think that in the vast majority of cases, and if you want, I'll give you ample examples from the writings of JOFA/YCT people, it is a sense that egalitarianism is a moral imperative. That the egalitarian worldview is quite simply the *only* moral worldview, and that to the extent that halakha comforms to that worldview, it is a moral system, and to the extent that it does not, it is not. > Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means > of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a > non-halachic agenda by making it look holy. It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality that predates this entire debate. When the egalitarians want to try and read their ideology back into Jewish history, they often do so with things like Rashi's daughters laying tefillin, a fiction which is accepted as fact by Conservative and Reform Jews, but has absolutely no historical basis. There is a legitimate argument to be made that those on the side of tradition are afraid of change. But not that they are *only* afraid of change. Casual change of halakhic norms has caused enormous damage in recent history, and wariness or even fear of such things is both rational and reasonable. Again, there may even be something admirable about trying to equalize the two sides the way you're doing here, but it doesn't match the reality. One has only to listen to the types of arguments that are used by the two sides to see that they are operating on the basis of vastly different paradigms, where one *starts* with the Torah and one *starts* with egalitarianism. > (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about > fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" > a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos > that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, > etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or > resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and > general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha. The words of the Ramchal and Rabbenu Bachya are not as rigorously chosen as those in the halakhic areas of the Torah, and are far more easily "adapted" to foreign ideologies. I don't say that they are unimportant, but let's not let the tail wag the dog here. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 27 20:44:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 23:44:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: To quickly review an old question: If Rus and Orpah converted at the *beginning* of the story, then how could Naami send Orpah back to her people? But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews? Some answer this question suggesting that there was a sort of "conditional" conversion at the beginning, and while Rus later affirmed her conversion to be sincere, it was revealed that Orpah's was never valid to begin with. I have never understood this answer, because of the ten years that elapsed from the supposed conversion until it was retroactively nullified. (By analogy, suppose (chalila) that Jared and Ivanka would split up, and Ivanka would claim that she was only putting on a show all along. Who would believe her? Those who currently accept her geirus as valid, would anyone accept such a bitul of it?) Today I came across a different approach to the question. Like any other area of halacha, hilchos geirus has its share of halachic disputes. For example, which parts of the process require a beis din; perhaps a beis din is needed only l'chatchila, or is it me'akev? Or: If the conversion candidate admits that he/she has mixed motivations (such as being interested in a Jewish spouse, but also sincerely l'shem Shamayim), is this acceptable or is it posul even b'dieved? Pick either of those questions, or make up another one of your own. Let's say that both Orpah and Rus converted at the beginning of the story. Let's also say that everyone was up-front and sincere about whatever they claimed their motivations to be, such that no one was surprised ten years later. In other words, there was no disagreement about the facts of the situation. But there WAS a machlokes among the poskim of the time, about the halacha to apply to that situation. Machlon, Kilyon, Rus and Boaz all held like the poskim who said that the conversion was a valid one, at least b'dieved. But Naami held like the poskim who ruled it to be invalid, even b'dieved. Thus, Machlon and Kilyon were able to marry these women in good conscience. For ten years Naami held Orpah and Rus to be non-Jewish, but there wasn't much she could do about it, because their husbands held that they *were* Jewish. When the husbands died, Naami finally had the opportunity to express the view of her poskim. Orpah accepted Naami's advice (for whatever reason), but Rus was committed to continuing her new religion (for whatever reason). At this point, perhaps Rus had a second geirus to keep her mother-in-law happy, or maybe not. Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to speak of. A possible hole in my suggestion appears in pasuk 2:20, where Naami explicitly admits that Boaz is one of "OUR" relatives, and one of "OUR" redeemers. This would not make sense if Naami rejected the validity of the original conversion. However, this occurs AFTER pasuk 2:11, in which Boaz tells Rus (I am paraphrasing): "I know your whole story. Don't worry. I hold your geirus to be valid, and I hold you you be a relative." In the final analysis, Naami goes along. Maybe she decides to accept Boaz's shitah l'halacha, or maybe she merely goes along as a practical matter, given the fait accompli that both Boaz and Rus hold that way. Have I left any loose ends here? Previous approaches have focused on uncertainties of intention. This approach says that everything that happened in Moav was clear, and the only gray part was a machlokes haposkim, but we know which shitah was followed by each character of the story. I invite all comments. advTHANKSance Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 09:16:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 12:16:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0789e301-2374-0dd3-0f9e-8befc1c1052c@sero.name> On 27/05/17 23:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was > valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to > speak of. There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. What is the point of this mitzvah? It's to pay off his obligations and redeem his good name; Ruth -- whether Jewish or not -- was also his obligation, and had to be redeemed. Thus Boaz need not have believed that the initial conversion -- if there was one -- had been valid. But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:51:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:51:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Rut converted when Naomi tried to send her back, while Oprah chose not to convert. Ben On 5/28/2017 5:44 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without > Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 10:50:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 17:50:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> >From last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should always follow the local custom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:16:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:16:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mezonos After Kiddush Message-ID: <1495995457275.89387@stevens.edu> >From Friday's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. Must Kiddush be followed by a meal with bread, or is it sufficient to make Kiddush and then eat mezonos? A. There is a halacha that Kiddush may only be recited at the place of one's meal. This requirement is known as Kiddush b'makom se'udah (Pesachim 101a). If one does not eat a se'udah after Kiddush or recites Kiddush in a location other than where he eats the meal, he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of Kiddush and must make Kiddush again when and where he eats. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch (OC 273:5) quote the Ge'onim who hold that one can fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush without actually eating a full meal at the time and place that he makes Kiddush. Rather, a person can consume a mere ke'zayis of bread or even drink an additional revi'is of wine as his Kiddush-time "meal" to fulfill the requirement of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. The Magen Avraham (273:11) and Aruch Ha-Shulchan (273:8) explain that, according to the Ge'onim, one can eat Mezonos food (e.g. cookies, pastry, or cake), after Kiddush to satisfy the rule of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. This view has become widely accepted, and many poskim permit partaking of Mezonos foods after Kiddush but ideally advise against satisfying the mitzvah by merely drinking an additional revi'is of wine (see MB 273:25). Some halachic authorities, including the Chasam Sofer, as quoted by Rav Moshe Shternbuch, shlita (Teshuvos V'Hanhogos 5:80), have ruled that if one makes Kiddush and then eats Mezonos foods, he must make Kiddush again later at his actual se'udah. This was also the opinion of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l. In the next Halacha Yomis we will discuss whether cheesecake is a proper pastry for one to fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. For more on this topic please read Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer's excellent article "Eating Dairy on Shavuos" featured in the 5777 - 2017 Shavuos Consumer Daf HaKashrus. After eating pungent, strong-tasting cheese one should wait before eating meat, the same amount of time that one waits between meat and milk, regardless of the cheese's age. The following chart shows which cheeses require waiting: Aged Cheese List - Kosher -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:59:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:59:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros Message-ID: <1495998054786.63765@stevens.edu> I received the following response to my earlier email about this topic Sadly, you will always find 1 or 2 people in every shul who "sit" while the entire tzibbur stands. This strikes me as downright arrogant, and IMHO is done more to make a "statement" than to follow a minhag that might be prevalent in some communities. C'mon; if 100 or 200 people are standing, should someone stick out and sit because that's the way he was taught.....? To this I replied Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. And in light of this, may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed. I bet this never occurred to you. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:15:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:15:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> References: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> Message-ID: Some people look at this as purely a matter of minhag, and so criticize those who do not follow the local minhag, calling them arrogant. Well, the Rambam thought this was an issue of an incorrect hashqafa, and worth ignoring any minhag started in ignorance. Part of the problem with modern Jews is that everything to them is an issue of minhag. They do not understand that sometimes there are really important hashqafa issues from teh Torah involved. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels at ou.org ________________________________ From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 1:50 PM To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? >From last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should always follow the local custom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:34:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:34:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to : reality... It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem. ... : It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as : being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality : that predates this entire debate... True, as I wrote : >(My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about : >fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" : >a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos : >that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, : >etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or : >resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and : >general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) >From this perspective, those who are in favor of change are advocating a definition of Torah that includes only black-letter law. ... : It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of : Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha... Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that halakhah must conform to and the law itself. Not "primacy over halakhah", but a voice in resolving between two positions when black-letter law could be drafted to support either. It may only get a quieter voice, it still must have its say. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:16:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 16:16:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the rituals above the menshlichkeit. There's a story I've heard many times. This version comes from Rav Frand at https://torah.org/torah-portion/ravfrand-5755-naso/ > At the eulogy of R. Yaakov Kaminetzsky, zt"l, one speaker > related the following: There was a nun in Monsey, New York > who complained about the way the Jewish population related > to her: Everyone used to walk right past her... The "correct" > people ignored her, and the "super correct" people spat. This > nun then related that there was, however, one old Jew with a > white beard that used to say "Good Morning" every single day. > (That Jew was R. Yaakov.) That?s Kiddush Hashem and "looking > the other way" is Chillul Hashem. Such stories are NOT hard to find. The "frum" newspapers and magazines and parsha sheets are full of them. I don't know why so few people greeted that nun pleasantly. I hope that it changed when that story started to get around. If I write any more, I'll get even more depressed than currently. Suffice it so say that the only reason I'm posting this at all, is to clarify the point that I think RMB was trying to make, and to agree with it. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:52:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:52:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as kedoshim tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in the sense of being like aggadeta. Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos would be incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give the value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan pesukim and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos. Most often that's implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the gemara of value based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the expense of what looks otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular dracheha darchei noam is cited. I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic. Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not operate in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how the value system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We ignore meta-halachic pesukim at our peril. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:18:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:18:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Ben Waxman wrote: > I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their > very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, pages 48-52. R' Zev Sero wrote: > There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the > mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. > But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than > being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why > put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether > it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only > applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk > literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging > such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves. Good question, especially since my post explicitly allowed for "an unknown machlokes". The problem is that the machlokes would have to be one where Machlon, Kilyon, Ruth, and Boaz all held that Ruth's marriage was valid, with only Naami holding it to be not valid. My understanding is that Avoda Zara 36b allows for the *possibility* that it is muttar *d'Oraisa* to marry an Avoda Zara woman who is not from The Seven Nations. And Ruth, being from Moav, was *not* from those seven. But at the very most, that gemara would allow (on a d'Oraisa level) sexual relations, and even doing so "derech chasnus" - as a marriage. It does NOT go so far as to consider Ruth as part of the extended family such that Boaz would have any responsibility to her. I would want a source for that. Granted that there might be some "unknown machlokes" which would consider Ruth to be part of Boaz's family, even if she did not convert at the beginning of the story. But I think such a suggestion would be venturing into fantasyland. Here's why: Even if it is mutar d'Oraisa for a Jewish man to publicly marry an Avoda Zara woman (who isn't from the Seven Nations), the children from such a marriage would not be Jewish, and that's d'Oraisa. In other words, even if the marriage is legitimate, the children are not part of the man's family. And if the children are not part of his family, then kal vachomer, Boaz is certainly not part of his family. So unless you can show a valid source that Boaz held (or even *might* have held) by patrilineal descent, then I can't see RZS's suggestion as reasonable. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 15:07:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:07:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: "And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying, 'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them: May HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers 6:22-26] The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins between man and his fellow man. Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his or her face towards the offender. So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is equally important. Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 15:27:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: <4EECF03B-E505-4324-B37E-96A99F67F0A9@cox.net> "And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying, 'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them: May HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers 6:22-26] The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins between man and his fellow man. Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his or her face towards the offender. So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is equally important. Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 16:14:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 19:14:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170528231426.GD6467@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:16:38PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : : > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of : > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without : > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot : > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... : : I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and : more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly : does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But : for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the : rituals above the menshlichkeit. : This is why I wrote that the hashkafah is necessary in order to observe halakhos like qedoshim tihyu. But I realized the language problem, which is why when I replied to Lisa I used the idiom "black-letter halakhah", to refer to the kind of laws that can be codified in the SA. Which isn't only ritual. Eg the limits of ona'as mamon is black-letter halakhah. One of the saddest things about the writings of the CC (other than the MB) is that they represent the realization that shemiras halashon and ahavad chessed were going to continue to get short shrift unless someone made black-letter halakhah out of them. When in reality, HQBH would be "Happier" -- I am guessing, of course -- if we would do things things simply because ve'ahavta lerei'akha kamokha. At the Alter of Slabodka put it: I don't love mtself because there is a mitzvah to do so. So too, the mitzvah is to develop of love of others, and therefore all these things would come naturally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:31:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 14:31:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: It seems to me that the opponents of ordination of women are hiding behind conflation of terms. What is first needed is an understanding of what ordination is in this day and age. The plain meaning of the Shulchan Aruch YD 242:14 is that it is permission from a teacher to a student to instruct in issur v'heter. it is perhaps more instructive to go through the process step by step and see where those who object have a problem. 1. women learn the subject matter 2. the teacher thinks they are capable 3. if the teacher dies, according to SA YD 242:14, nothing further is needed 4. the teacher gives the student permission(to avoid transgressing on the prohibition of moreh l'fnei rabo) So, if there is a problem, which step is the problem and why? is it that a teacher cant give a women permission to be mora l'fnei raba? what is the source for that? Essentially what we use the term semicha today is a teacher giving the student immunity from transgressing a particular prohibition. If the issue is that of a woman giving hora'ah, then it is necessary to establish exactly what that is in this day and age. Is it just 'mareh mekomot'? is it more formal hora'ah? we should keep in mind that R. Schachter, in defining terms for converts, writes that hora'ah in issur v'heter is NOT serarah, and that according to some opinions, judging dinei mamanot is not serarah. Furthermore, he writes of a difference of opinion whether semicha is a din in dayanus, or a din in hora'ah. So, if semicha is a din in dayanus, and not hora'ah, then there is no reason to bring the restrictions from dayanus over to hora'ah. and, if semicha is a din in hora'ah, then the restrictions on dayyanus don't apply to semicha. I would add that the entire basis for the claim that women cant get semicha starts with the restriction on women being witnesses, then that being extended to judges, and then being extended again to semicha. It is not necessarily a given that these extensions should be made. We should note that there are a number of others who are prohibited from being witnesses- those who lend with interest, deaf, blind, etc. The internet reports that there are those who were deaf that recieved orthodox semicha. I dont have any information on semicha for the blind. However, it does not appear that the OU has taken a position on these, nor has anyone accused the deaf and the blind who are seeking semicha of being heretics nor have they been threatened with being kicked out of Orthodoxy. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 17:00:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:00:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529000002.GA17436@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:01:37AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Areivim wrote: : 'that a pesaq is by definition someone eligable to be a dayan,' : Which surely most community rabbis are not, since most have yoreh yoreh but not yadin yadin. 1- Eligable, not qualified. 2- Who said one has to have Yadin Yadin to serve as a dayan? Yes, to judge fiscal matters, we need someone who knows CM, but for someone to decide questions of YD? On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:21:20PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Areivim wrote: : I was thinking along very similar lines. In which case, the main : (only?) difference between the yoetzet and the community rabbi is that : the rabbi's job also includes "masculine" roles like leadership, while : teaching and paskening are neutral and shared. As I wrote in every other iteratrion of this question, there is a difference between teaching halakhah pesuqah and applying shiqul hada'as. Someone who follows a rav's pesaq is obeying lo sasur, and therefore did the right thing even if the rabbi's shiqul hada'as was faulty. Any hypothetical qorban chatos would be the rabbi's. If the person is not among those covered by mikol asher yorukha, then the qorban chatas is yours for listening to her, not the Maharat's. On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 02:31:52PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that the opponents of ordination of women are hiding : behind conflation of terms. What is first needed is an understanding of : what ordination is in this day and age. The plain meaning of the Shulchan : Aruch YD 242:14 is that it is permission from a teacher to a student to : instruct in issur v'heter... I cwould use the word "hora'ah" rather than the misleading "instruct". One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in the same town as one's rebbe. ... : 3. if the teacher dies, according to SA YD 242:14, nothing further : is needed : 4. the teacher gives the student permission(to avoid transgressing on : the prohibition of moreh l'fnei rabo) I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. IOW, we have no indication that when the Rama says that if the rebbe was niftar, nothing else is needed that he is talking about anything more than needed to satisfy kavod harav ONLY. IOW, one of these two criteria is necessary, but -- even assuming competency is a given -- are they sufficient? Semchiah could well be hetero hora'ah plus. Both R/Prof Saul Lieberman and RHS argued they are not. And so it appears from Taosafos. And since we have no indication that the Rama is disagreeing with Torafos... For that matter, since the form "yoreh yoreh" is peeled off of the formula for ordaining a member of sanhderin -- "Yoreh? Yoreh! Yadin? Yadin! Yatir bekhoros? Yatir bechoros!" -- there is sme connection to dayanus as per Tosafos implied in the traditional ordination text itself. ... : I would add that the entire basis for the claim that women cant get : semicha starts with the restriction on women being witnesses, then that : being extended to judges, and then being extended again to semicha. : It is not necessarily a given that these extensions should be made. We : should note that there are a number of others who are prohibited : from being witnesses- those who lend with interest, deaf, blind, etc. : The internet reports that there are those who were deaf that recieved : orthodox semicha... Deaf? To you mean cheireish, a caegory we rule refers to the uneducable and thus does not mean today's deaf mutes? Blind? Chalitzah has a special gezeiras hakasuv, "l'einei", specifically because a blind man is allowed to serve as a dayan. (And as RHS points out, geirim can be dayanim for other geirim, so we see their disqualification to serve in most courts is not athat they are outside of lo sosuru, but another issue.) But I do not think those who lend with interest are kosher rabbanim. Refardless of social ills which may cause that din to be largely ignored in practice. Our discussion here should not be about whether you or I agree with the OU's priorities, but whether the shitah they are supporting in the particular question at hand is well-founded in principle. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 16:53:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 19:53:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg cited a story with an apparent contradiction, and resolved the contradiction this way: > Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between > man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can > show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But > when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His > face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his > or her face towards the offender. > > So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the > Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately > towards other human beings is equally important. It seems to me that although religious or ritual behavior is important, Rebbe Yossi HaKohen is teaching us that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is EVEN MORE important. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 17:18:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:18:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 07:53:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that although religious or ritual behavior is : important, Rebbe Yossi HaKohen is teaching us that behaving : appropriately towards other human beings is EVEN MORE important. Look at the list of holidays in parashas Emor. 23:21-22 describe Shavuos. Look which mitzvos are associated with Shavuos. Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which mitzvos are listed specifically? Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice of Shavu'os reading. To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani. We really need a flavor of O that takes Hillel's "de'ealh sani", or R' Ariva's or Ben Azzai's kelalim gedolim, or for that matter the oft-quoted medrash "derekh eretz qodma ... leTorah" as one's actual first principle for life. And not just a platitude for the early grades, a truism repeated unthinkingly to get nods during the rabbi's sermon. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:11:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:11:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Someone who follows a rav's pesaq is obeying lo sasur, and > therefore did the right thing even if the rabbi's shiqul > hada'as was faulty. Any hypothetical qorban chatos would be > the rabbi's. If the person is not among those covered by > mikol asher yorukha, then the qorban chatas is yours for > listening to her, not the Maharat's. L'halacha, I totally agree. L'maaseh, it is critical to determine who is a "rav" and who isn't. That is, who is "covered by mikol asher yorukha" and who isn't. It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these teachers, because, after all, *Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! > I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. > IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that > anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. I agree that YD 242 is about kavod harav. And if the rav is niftar, then that permission is no longer necessary, but that's not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about who is covered by mikol asher yorukha. So why wouldn't the semicha place a musmach into that category? In other words: Suppose a certain person *is* in that category, and then gives semicha "yoreh yoreh" to another individual. Doesn't the semicha announce to the world that the second individual is now covered by mikol asher yorukha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:15:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 05:15:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> If "black letter law" is the criteria, then issues like womens Megila readings and women dancing with a Sefer Torah disappear. All the opposition because these practices are not "Torat Sabba" doesn't even begin if all we do is ask "Muttar? Yes? Fine". Ben On 5/28/2017 9:34 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of > : Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha... > > Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black > letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that > halakhah must conform to and the law itself. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:20:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 05:15:03AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : If "black letter law" is the criteria, then issues like womens : Megila readings and women dancing with a Sefer Torah disappear. All : the opposition because these practices are not "Torat Sabba" doesn't : even begin if all we do is ask "Muttar? Yes? Fine". I am totally at lost as to your intent. Megillah reading or dancing with a sefer Torah are reducible to black-letter law. In contrast to, for example, deciding how to triage my tzedaqah donations. Wehther that reduction can be done within vanilla halachic process or by appeal to metahalakhah, or by appeal to the general "feel" of halakhah -- like the Rambam's "li nir'eh" -- is a different question. But either way, the question exists. So, what do you mean? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:06:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:06:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat/R. Micha Message-ID: R. Micha, thanks for the response. so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah. And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't necessarily apply to anything else. But the OU authors claim that some of YD 242 is based on classic semicha, and therefore all the restrictions of classic semicha should apply. But that makes no sense of you are claiming that YD 242 ONLY applies to the teacher/student relationship. So your own argument works against your claim. There is not a single hint that anything else about classic semicha applies to what we currently call semicha. (Incidentally I wonder when the first claim of more extensive connections were made, and why, if there is such a close connection, we dont mandate that semicha be done only in Israel, and all the other attributes of classic semicha, it seems that the ONLY aspect of classic semicha that is being brought forward is the prohibition on women). You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much against that possibility. It states: ??????? ???????????? ??????????? ????????? ??????, ?????? ??????????? ???? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ????? ??????????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ???????????, ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????????. ????? ??????????? ?????, ????????? ?????????????? ??????, ????????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????????.(???''? ?????? ??''? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ?' ?????? ????????). ?????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ???????????, ???? ???????????? ???????, ?????? ??????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????, ??? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????. (???''? ?????? ??' ?' ?????''? ??' ?''? ???''?). ?????? ????????? ???????????(?????????? ???''? ?????''?). ?????????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????????, ????? ??? ????????? ?????, ???? ????????? ???? ?????????? ???????, ???? ?''?. ?????? ?''? ?????????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???????????? ????????, ????? ??? ???? ??????????? ??????????? ????????????? ????????????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????, ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????????? ????????. specifically, semicha IN THIS TIME, so that people know that....he has permission. So if his teacher died, there is no need for semicha. The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general" It is very forced to claim that there is more here. You basically have to read things into it that are not there. I am not sure if you are claiming that women cant have semicha? or that they cannot be moreh hora'ah. because it seems very clear here that those who can be moreh hora'ah can get semicha b'zman hazeh..And there is a long list of poskim who agree that women can be moreh hora'ah. Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable. And also, that even though the Talmud specifically states that someone in a particular category cant be a judge or witness, when the understanding of that person's abilities changes, there is potential for them to be witnesses and/or judges- essentially in some cases, where the understanding of the Talmud was at variance with what we know now, the restrictions on some categories is not fixed. If I am reading correctly, R. Herschel Schachter in b'din ger dan et chavero (available at YUTorah August 2002), seems to state that hora'ah in issur v'heter is NOT a issue of serarah. and, according to some opinions, being a dayan for dinei mamanot is similarly not an issue of serarah. Perhaps more to the point, In 'Kuntrus HaSemicha"(published in eretz hatzvi and it seems to be the basis for a talk given at an RCA convention- the talk is available at YUTorah(1985) Smicha in the talmud and today), if I understand correctly, R. Soloveitchik made a distinction as to whether Smicha was a din in dayanus or in Hora'ah. It would seem that such a distinction would indicate that restrictions on dayyanus via semicha do not automatically apply to hora'ah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 00:14:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:14:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 5/28/2017 10:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >: And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to >: reality... > It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are > other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem. I'm not sure that the views of Avodah's LW are the point. To the extent that they argue in favor of those with "other, less defensible, ideologies", it's reasonable to argue against those "other, less defensible, ideologies". And I would be willing to supply examples of where members of Avodah's LW do appear to see it that way, but I suspect such examples would be bounced as "adding more fire than light to the discussion". On 5/28/2017 11:52 PM, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of > Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' > I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as > kedoshim tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in > the sense of being like aggadeta. I don't see that. They are halakhic in the sense that they are commandments. > Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos would be > incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give the > value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are > part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan > pesukim and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos. Most > often that's implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the > gemara of value based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the > expense of what looks otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular > dracheha darchei noam is cited. There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what can be done today. When members of the left claim that brachot should be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old. > I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic. > Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not > operate in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how > the value system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We > ignore meta-halachic pesukim at our peril. The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum". If you mean that the system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to respectfully disagree. The ethics must themselves come from within our own cultural framework, based on our own traditions. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:32:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:32:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:11:37PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least : equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, : because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has : not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself : included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these : teachers, because, after all, *Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! I do not think the typical yo'etzet is qualified under mikol asher yrukha regardless of how capable she is. The term only applies to be elegable to recieve full semichah -- if the chain hadn't been lost, or could be restored. THat's the thesis of what I'm pushing here; that even the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services. And, since this seems ot be turning into a full reprise, even though we should all know the other's position by now, my third problem is with egalitarianism in-and-of itself. It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah. By justifying finding worth in this way, we are indeed teaching girls their traditional role is inferior and they can't reach equality. Rather than trying to find equal meaningfullness without egalitarianism. Second, the fact that we can't reach full eqalirianism implies something about the anature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely consistent with our religion. It should mean that we should really think through our even wanting to make halakhah more egalitarian, and how to balance that with the clear message of laws like davar shebiqdushah, talmud Torah, esrog, sukkah, shofar... Again: 1- Who can pasqen 2- Who was shul designed to serve 3- Trying to accomodate agalitarianism is both strategically and in terms of values, a bad idea. Notice the absense of the word "serarah". Trying to minimize or eliminate the role of serarah in our conversation won't do much to sway me, as it has little to do with my arguments to begin with. Now, back to R/Dr Stadlan's email: :> I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. :> IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that :> anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. : I agree that YD 242 is about kavod harav. And if the rav is niftar, : then that permission is no longer necessary, but that's not what the : discussion is about. The discussion is about who is covered by mikol : asher yorukha. So why wouldn't the semicha place a musmach into that : category? It could or couldn't -- I believe couldn't. (Following R/Prof Lieberman and RHS.) But SA 242 can't be cited on the topic either way, since the se'if is not on topic for our discussion. R/Dr N Stadlan brought it as the defintion of the role of semichah, so I wanted to dismiss taking this siman that way.` "Mikol asher yorukha" is written in the context of dayanim. The only reason why we say it applies to today's musmachim, despite the lesser kind of semichah and the lack of sanhedrin is that "yoreh yoreh" is framed as a splinter of dayanus (which is where the phrase "yoreh yoreh" comes from) and that they are appointed to act as the surrogate of the last (so far) sanhedrin. None of which pro forma can be applied to women. Only someone who could be a dayan, if the situation were such that they could become qualified and real semichah were available can serve as their fill-in. On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:06:06PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah. : And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't : necessarily apply to anything else. But the OU authors claim that some of : YD 242 is based on classic semicha... They note that the Rama in 4-5 is drawing from the Mahariq, and then explain that the Mahariq tells you he is basing his conclusion on the idea that what's true for classic semichah should be true for our current Yoreh-Yoreh (YY). They also cite the AhS 242:30, who assumes that only those eligable for classic semichah can be ordained YY. Those are the ony two mentions of siman 242 in the paper, neither of which refer to the se'ifim you did. And what you are attributing to the OU is actually the Mahariq and the Ah -- a source and an interpreter (who is for us a source in his own right) of the SA -- not their own take. : You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly : where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much : against that possibility. It states: ... : The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the : ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general" YD 242:14 isn't trying to define semichah. It's in a siman about kevod harav, not a siman about semichah. You are nit-picking in the wording about se'ifim that are only tangentially related, and ignoring the Rama's stated source. I disagree with how you read the se'if, since his "only" would be about kevod harav, not "semichah is only". But really that's tangential. Your read of the Rama contradicts one of the sources he names. ... : Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be : witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable... I do? Where do I say that? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 22:01:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 01:01:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the entire aliya in which the dibros appear. For those who feel the dibros merit standing, they are indeed standing. For those who feel that the dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria of the dibros begins. Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since their end is always the end of the aliya. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:04:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 23:04:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/05/17 15:18, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Ben Waxman wrote: >> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their >> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. > > Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that > Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent > introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, > pages 48-52. Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation that has such "gedolim". > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the >> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. > > It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it > something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus > and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus > then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. On the contrary. If it were a matter of yibum then it would depend on whether there was an original marriage. But then why would it be connected to redeeming the field? It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations would not be settled. Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz agreed with them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 00:10:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:10:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/28/2017 10:18 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Ben Waxman wrote: >> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their >> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. > Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that > Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." Yes, but the dor in question was one where "each man did what was right in his own eyes". So their being gedolei hador doesn't mean they were any better than, say, Yiftach. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:23:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:23:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation : that has such "gedolim". According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah Neustadt , this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam. Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim". But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el... If this is the Rambam's intent, it would fit a number of gemaros which refer to various shofetim as amei ha'aretz. See the article. OTOH, Tosafos's treatment of the question of how Devorah could serve as shofetes presumes the role includes being a dayan in the halachic sense (and then explains why Devorah is neither role model nor eis-la'asos exception), rather than only the serarah question of her being a civil leader. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:17:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:17:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29/05/17 01:01, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his > minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not > to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two > different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the > entire aliya in which the dibros appear. For those who feel the dibros > merit standing, they are indeed standing. For those who feel that the > dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up > specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria > of the dibros begins. Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since > their end is always the end of the aliya. Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. (Personally I stand for the whole leining so it's not an issue for me, but this is what I've seen.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:33:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:33:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <10c1c9ed-6b4e-cb90-8297-cdeb5a507e94@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <13c3a1e0-26da-f70b-7b13-b80c95bf5d1d@zahav.net.il> <58F44DE5-8AE0-4CF7-BC79-7048F752624D@sibson.com> <10c1c9ed-6b4e-cb90-8297-cdeb5a507e94@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: > Ok let's accept your presumption-Who that has the authority to determine which changes are with in the halachic system and which aren't. Can I say libi omer li if I have smicha and that's good enough? If not , how do you draw the line? ------------------------ I can't say that I can draw a clear line. Certainly someone who passes a 2 year smicha program (a change, BTW) shouldn't be doing this type of thing. It seems that change doesn't require unanimous agreement and very possibly it can be done even if the greatest rabbis disagree. My example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher. Ben ----------------------- Yup, as said, the wheel is still in spin with regard to this and the other current thread Maharat/smicha. Now "everyone knows" it was obvious that Chassidus would be accepted and Conservative not (see Kahnemaan Tversky on how we all do this) Anyone who thinks these or those are simply matters of black letter law discussions (hat tip R'Micha) IMHO is fooling themselves. Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 06:09:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 09:09:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in > the same town as one's rebbe. If the shiur-giver is very careful to merely read and explain the QSA, then I'd agree with you. But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require require semicha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 06:12:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 13:12:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] (no subject) Message-ID: "Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. And in light of this, may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed." Do you also sit for the musaf amidah on Rosh Hashana and Ne'ilah on Yom Kippur? And since there are those who cannot and do not stand for those because of physical infirmities, would you suggest that everyone sit for those teffilot so as not to embarrass the ones who truly must sit? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 09:41:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros Message-ID: <33c01f.93b651f.465da93b@aol.com> From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. YL >>>>>> I want to thank RYL for the reminder we all need -- myself very much included -- not to be too quick to assume we know other people's motives. Sitting during the reading of Aseres Hadibros may indeed be an indication not of arrogance but of arthritis. Let us be kind to one another, even in our thoughts. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 07:26:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 29/05/17 08:23, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation > : that has such "gedolim". > > According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP > beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah > Neustadt, > this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam. > > Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim > of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim". > > But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers > of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past > that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el... I actually had that article in mind, but was not taking Rashi's side. Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel Bedoro". So even if Machlon & Kilyon were considered "gedolei hador" that wouldn't seem to be sufficient reason to assume that they acted properly, even in the sense that they had an opinion which is one of the shiv'im panim and followed it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 09:46:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:46:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum," or you call it something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. Akiva Miller >>>>>> There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events in Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 13:01:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 20:01:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <92dae2a6-a1ea-f563-f350-cddd9a9fbade@starways.net> References: , <92dae2a6-a1ea-f563-f350-cddd9a9fbade@starways.net> Message-ID: 'There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what can be done today. When members of the left claim that brachot should be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old.' No argument there at all. The point was really to buttress the truism that halacha and Torah are not synonymous. Halacha works within the larger structure of Torah and is guided by principle and values. Your point that this idea is mangled and misused throughout heterodoxy is well taken though. I was not suggesting that someone can pick a favourite value, decide that it doesn't shtim with a particular halacha and proceed to mangle the halacha into submission. Not for a moment. 'The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum". If you mean that the system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to respectfully disagree. The ethics must themselves come from within our own cultural framework, based on our own traditions'. Again, agree 100%. Don't think I suggested otherwise. I'm a neo-Hirschian after all. What I was taking issue with was your contention that it is 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' That's true for the heterodox tendency to sidestep halacha (or worse) due to what they consider to be ethical issues. But it doesn't take into account the centrality of of values in the whole system of Torah, including underlying TSBP. Just for example, Pirkei Avos is not halachic but it's vital and has implications for halacha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 12:38:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:38:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> References: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> Message-ID: <2ba3e007-8860-37d6-2941-c41f1aac13bf@sero.name> On 29/05/17 12:46, RTK wrote: > There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events > in Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no > mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was. 1. How could anyone hold there was a mitzvah of yibum, when the Torah explicitly limits it to brothers? 2. If he held as a matter of halacha that Boaz was wrong, then he should have insisted on redeeming the field without marrying Ruth. The fact that on being informed of this requirement he backed out of the whole deal shows that he acknowledged Boaz's point. Therefore that point was not about yibum but about mitzvas geulah. Boaz pointed out that Machlon had an obligation to Ruth, and so long as it remained outstanding the mitzvah to discharge his obligations would remain unfulfilled. Ploni agreed, and since he could not do that he waived his rights. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 12:51:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:51:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel : Bedoro". The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah". Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so? Yes, it's dachuq. But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include the generation's gedolim. I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology, but that doesn't mean I share it. However, given Chabad's linking HQBH medaber mirokh gerono shel Moshe to Moshe bedoro keShmuel bedoro to yield the notion that every generation has a Yechidah Kelalis, a single tzadiq who is uniquely that generation's person in that role, I would think the notion that Yiftach as that person but not one of the baton-passers of mesorah to be even harder to fathom than within my own hashkafah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 13:25:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:25:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <46edbb0e-6394-3e98-a574-f1c53410f0bf@sero.name> On 29/05/17 15:51, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the > : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the > : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel > : Bedoro". > > The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing > Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah". Yes, precisely. And yet he was the "gadol hador". > Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our > obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring > whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so? > > Yes, it's dachuq. > > But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but > not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm > not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include > the generation's gedolim. Your unstated but clear assumption is that "gedolei hador" means "gedolei *hatorah* shebador". I am challenging that assumption. I am saying that when Machlon & Kilyon are described as "gedolei hador" it does not mean that they were talmidei chachamim, any more than it means that when Yiftach is described as "kishmuel bedoro". It just means they were the generation's leaders, and thus if they did wrong everyone else would follow their lead. Meanwhile Pinchas was still the gadol hatorah. Remember, "Yiftach bedoro" is an explicit gemara, so the Rambam can't dispute it. So how can this machlokes between Rashi & the Rambam, that the article posits, exist? This is how. The Rambam accepts Yiftach bedoro, that Yiftach was indeed the "gadol hador", but that is irrelevant to his topic; he is listing who passed the Torah down from that generation to the next, and that was not Yiftach but Pinechas. > I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I > think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology, Wow. Just wow. No, it has nothing to do with Chabad *or* theology. It's an explicit pasuk and gemara. Yiftach was the one and only gadol hador, because the pasuk says so, and he had the same authority as Shmuel because the gemara says so. But one wouldn't ask him a shayla about "an egg in kutach". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:03:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing. Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R. Micha's interpretation: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/ Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to understand the Rama, but one of them is: " The first and simplest view, drawing the logical conclusion from the above depiction of semikhah and adopted by Rama in both the Darkhei Moshe and Shulh?an Arukh, concludes that anyone is eligible to receive semikhah when their teacher certifies they have acquired requisite knowledge and licenses them to issue halakhic rulings. The scope of this license may be limited to certain areas of law (depending on the studentVs actual knowledge and qualifications) and may be granted to one who is ineligible to receive Mosaic ordination that was present in Talmudic times. As such, basic contemporary semikhah is based on oneVs knowledge and competence to answer questions of law". the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have sources to rely upon. I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong with semicha for women. The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 05:08:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 08:08:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am going to revise and restate my original post, which got sidetracked onto issues of marriage to a non-Jewess, and of the role of a "redeemer", which I confess to knowing very little about. But it is very clear to anyone who has looked at it (again, pages 48-52 of ArtScroll's Ruth is an excellent summary) many of Chazal were uncomfortable with the possibility that Machlon and Kilyon would marry women who had not been converted at all. At the same same, they are also very uncomfortable with Naami telling women who *had* converted that they should leave. Some have tried to resolve this by suggesting some sort of "tentative" conversion, but I cannot imagine that we'd allow such a conversion to be cancelled after ten long years. Instead, my solution is that there was a genuine halachic machlokes involved, such that Machlon and Kilyon held the conversion to be valid (at least on some minimal b'dieved level), while Ruth held it to be totally invalid. This simple approach answers all the problems listed above. (It also allows you to think whatever you like about the level of Machlon's and kilyon's gadlus.) I will leave it as an open question whether Ruth reconverted to satisfy Naami's shita, or whether Naami resigned herself to accepting the first geirus. I also retract all my comments about Boaz, as they will turn on topics that I am woefully ignorant about. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:32:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 17:32:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging > Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an > obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he > owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations > would not be settled. > Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages > were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz > agreed with them. I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a related question which is probably simpler: What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then there was no kiddushin. I'll repeat that: Even if it is mutar to marry a woman AZ-nik (not from the Seven Nations) that marriage is one of convenience, maybe even love, but not of kiddushin, and I'm not aware of any halachic obligations that the husband has toward such a wife. I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have towards the husband himself, and we see in pasuk 4:4, that Ploni Almoni was willing to buy the field from Naami in order to meet those obligations to Elimelech. But in 4:5, Boaz pointed out that buying it from Naami would be insufficient. He'd have to buy it from both Naami and Ruth, at which point Ploni declined and Boaz himself accepted the responsibility. My question is: *What* responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid? (I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so, then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech left. Why did they wait ten years?) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:51:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 23:51:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > RMB: the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. > All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and possibly the latter. > > RMB: Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of > shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use > to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi > in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services. > On the one hand, I completely agree with you. One of the things I love about Orthodox Judaism is the all-women spaces - women's shiurim and batei midrash and tehillim groups and ladies' auxiliaries and all-girls schools. I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have comfortable space for women as well. I understand that the "men's club" gets to run the tefillot and be the gabbaim and the ba'alei tefillah and ba'alei korei and rabbi - and that losing that space would not be good for men. But I hope that having an ezrat nashim open for all tefillot (during the week, Shabbat mincha) would not ruin the mens' club atmosphere. Does having a woman give the drasha go too far in this regard? I think it depends on the community. > > > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah.... > Second, > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about > the > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely > consistent with our religion.... > Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. I think you have presented some compelling reasons for declining to endorse or promote the institution of maharats. I see no reason for maharats to be universally accepted. However, I believe that the maharats personally, and the communities they serve, remain clearly within the Orthodox community. We can disagree strongly with another Orthodox sector's practices (Hallel on Yom Ha'Atzma'ut comes to mind) without declaring them out-of-bounds. Finally, a perspective from Israel. Women rabbis/maharats are a particularly contentious issue in the US, because (a) it is similar to changes made by the Conservative and Reform movements, (b) a very common career path for American male rabbis is the shul rabbinate, which is particularly problematic for women, and (c) it seems to have perhaps been instituted in a manner designed to provoke controversy. In Israel, Conservative and Reform are a small minority with little influence. Most male rabbis work in education, writing/translating/publishing, or computer programming - all perfectly acceptable careers for learned women. Full-time shul rabbis are almost unheard of. And I can think of three or four respected, mainstream, dati leumi institutions that are essentially giving women the equivalent of smicha, without a lot of fanfare. Some people think this is great, some people think this is awful, and many people have not really noticed - but there isn't a big brouhaha and questioning of Orthodox credentials. Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it seems to be shaping up as the latter. Chag sameach, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 03:10:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 06:10:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170530101006.GA10791@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have : sources to rely upon... Again, the Rama cites the Mahariq... So, so rule leniently is to read the Rama and ignore his source. : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the : specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. Well, in the case of Maharat in particular, the big bold print in the middle of the certificate reads "heter hora'ah larabbim". http://www.jta.org/2013/06/17/default/what-does-an-orthodox-ordination-certificate-look-like Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 49th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 7 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 goal of perfect unity? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 04:51:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 06:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R Micha. You did not answer my question. When you and/orthe OU panel use the word semicha when you forbid it to women, what exactly does it mean? Heter hora'ah? Something more? Something different? Clarity please. Thank you Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 07:27:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shavuos (Lifeline) Message-ID: <448A28D9-D7AC-47C4-807C-08E3C10A0318@cox.net> The Rabbis tell us the Book of Ruth teaches neither of things that are permitted or forbidden. Why then is it part of Holy Scriptures? Because its subject matter is gemilus chassodim. Along the same line, three times a day we recite ?God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob.? However, we conclude the blessing ?mogen Avraham? ? only with Abraham. Why? In explanation, a Chassidic Rabbi explains that each of the patriarchs symbolizes one of the three essentials as articulated in Pirkei Avos 1:2). Jacob represents Torah; Isaac, Avodah; and Abraham, gemilus chassodim. Though all three principles are vital, kindness is sufficient to stabilize the world (how we need it now more than ever!). An interest in the performance of good deeds was the quality that marked Abraham ? a quality which can be a shield and support to us even when other qualities in our nature are weak ? hence, MOGEN AVRAHAM. Ruth was no ordinary convert. Her name gives us a clue to her essence. In Hebrew, Ruth's name is comprised of the letters reish, vav, tav, which add up to a numerical value of 606. As all human beings have an obligation to observe the seven Noachide commandments ? so called because they were given after the flood ? as did Ruth upon her birth as a Moabite. Add those seven commandments to the value of her name and you get 613, the number of commandments in the Torah. The essence of Ruth, her driving life force was the discovery and acceptance of the 606 commandments she was missing. Another lovely aspect is the meaning of the name "Ruth." In Hebrew the name is probably a contraction of re'ut, ' friendship,' which admirably summarizes her nature. The meaning in English is also very apropos: ? Compassion or pity for another ? Sorrow or misery about one's own misdeeds or flaws. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 15:46:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 01:46:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Naso In-Reply-To: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> References: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos > 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which > mitzvos are listed specifically? > > Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice > of Shavu'os reading. > > To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms > of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of > observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani. > Barukh shekkivanti. I made exactly this comparison in a Tikkun Leil Shavuot this time last year, and a parallel observation in a shi`ur last Shabbat: when the Zohar needs an example of how Basar veDam can make a hit`aruta dil'tata which will cause a hit`aruta dele`ela and kickstart the process of atzilut shefa from the upper to lower worlds, it typically says something like "hoshiv ani al shulhanecha". Because for Hazal, the Torah is above all Torat Hesed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 06:06:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:06:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. ---------------------------------------------------- Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the debate on black letter law? KT Joel Rich (full disclosure-kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-not everything that is permitted to you should be done) THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 07:22:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:22:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Probably the best and most succinct historical analogy I've seen for this question. Ben On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > > Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women > rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the > vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it > seems to be shaping up as the latter. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 13:59:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:59:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation. Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. How can this be? Dare we imagine that he did such things unauthorizedly? Certainly he must have had/received some sort of Heter Hora'ah. If so, then when and how did he get it - and without getting semicha at the same time? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 10:22:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] matched soldier and praying for them In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014801d2d969$41c5c800$c5515800$@com> A while ago on Avodah, a well known (chareidi) Baal machshava was quoted as disagreeing strongly with the concept of matching frum people with a nonfrum soldier in order to pray for them. "we have no brotherhood with secular Israelis" Recently, I posted to Avodah a link to a collection of 1400 short tshuvot from HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlitah (of Toronto) On the above topic, he writes there.. #600 Pray As They Go Q. There are two organizations here in Eretz Yisroel, one called; Elef LaMateh, and the other; The Shmirah Project. Basically, their intent is to match Israeli soldiers with Avreichim and bochurim learning. Each Avreich and Bochur who volunteers, receives the name of a specific soldier (his name and his mother's name) that he takes responsibility to daven for and learn specially for so that in the merit of the tefillos and learning, that soldier will merit to return home alive and well. (Is this a good idea) A. HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is a great mitzvah to pray, learn Torah and accomplish mitzvos for the benefit of all our brethren B'nay Yisroel in times of peril and need, especially for those who put their life in harm's way to save and protect others. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 00:39:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:39:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should be identical for each community and each generation? - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 20:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: . I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start farming? I suppose it was pretty desolate after a ten-year famine, but did she even try? She must have at least gone there to see the place, if for no other reason than to be sure that no squatters took over while she was gone. Without making sure of such things, how could she even hope that anyone (even a goel) would buy it? Maybe she expected to get a better profit from Boaz than she'd get from farming it herself, but maybe there are other answers? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 20:05:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:05:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the distinction? When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on this. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 02:14:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (ADE via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:14:59 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are still being machshiv some pesukim over others. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk > *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:32:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:32:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <510d4fd4-6c91-fb85-0c23-f6cdfa7ffcbf@sero.name> On 02/06/17 05:14, ADE wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one >> pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this >> reason. > Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are > still being machshiv some pesukim over others. There is no requirement to treat all pesukim exactly the same. One is entitled to stand or sit during KhT as one wishes, and has no obligation to choose one policy and stick to it. The problem is only with standing up for special pesukim, such as Shma or the 10D. Since there's nothing special about the pasuk before the 10D, there's no problem with deciding to stand for it. And when the special pesukim come along one is already standing, so one has no obligation to sit down. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 18:46:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:46:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> In our personal religious commitments there are those among us scrupulous in performance of the ceremonial mitzvot but at the same time displaying reckless disregard of our elementary duties towards our fellowman. Halacha embraces human life in its totality. One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social trait from our behavior! A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 08:31:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:31:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought In-Reply-To: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> References: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170602153131.GA15356@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made : a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study : of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social : trait from our behavior! Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, among the aphorisms of his listed in R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 21:28:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:28:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4dd6e4f1-2d00-a274-ace0-e5d2a803039a@sero.name> On 01/06/17 23:05, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I only see four instances of "Ruth Hamoaviah", three in ch 2, and only one in ch 4, in Boaz's description of the situation to Tov. Since his purpose was to scare him off, it made sense to mention her origin, so Tov would be reluctant to risk his future. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:20:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:20:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/2/2017 6:05 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I can't cite a source for it, but I remember once reading that Ruth HaMoaviah was intended to praise her, since she gave up her position in Moav to join us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:31:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:31:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Actually if the land had lied fallow for 10 years, it should be in good shape. Granted it needs weeding but the soil should be good. It only requires a relatively small amount of rain for grass to grow and re-invigorate the soil. Maybe she was too old to work the land and figured that a sale would provide her with enough money to live out the rest of her days in dignity? Ben On 6/2/2017 5:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 00:04:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 09:04:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? They came back on Pesach, at the beginning of the barley harvest. Nothing was growing on their land, presumably. Planting is after Sukkot, at the beginning of the rainy season. If they planted, it would be a full year until they could harvest the first barley. As we see from Megillat Rut, the barley then had to dry and wasn't threshed or winnowed until after the wheat harvest (early summer?). When they come back, they have nothing. They need to eat. And two women alone will not be able to do all the work of planting and cultivating in the fall. They would need money to hire workers and probably buy or rent an animal to help with plowing. And to buy seed. They didn't have the capital to go back into farming, or the means to support themselves until the first crop. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 21:17:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:17:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <272b8698-d5c1-55a1-560b-2bc6d0c39b74@sero.name> On 01/06/17 23:01, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? It seems to me that finding a buyer for the property was not at all important to her, and in fact she had shown no interest in doing so until she saw how she could use it to get Boaz to marry Ruth. It was Boaz who spun the story out for Tov in order to scare him off; first he drew him in with the prospect of an easy transaction for Naomi's portion of the field, but then he threw in the Ruth monkey wrench. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:18:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:18:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/2/2017 6:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the > halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I > think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: > > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? In the set of priorities that we had back then, the principle of yerusha was more important than simple economics. As I understand it. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:21:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:21:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22efff8f-5ee7-d47e-8701-b1541a7a8e41@zahav.net.il> And of course the irony is even greater in that many yeshiva rabbis will tell their guys to go to a community rav because they, the yeshiva rabbis, don't deal with shailas. Ben On 5/29/2017 4:11 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least > equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, > because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has > not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself > included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these > teachers, because, after all,*Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:16:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:16:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> On 6/1/2017 10:39 AM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly > egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the > experiences of women and couples and families and communities to > affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian > direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. > > RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument > is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically > permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically > forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without > asking whether HKB?H prefers it? > > Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should > be identical for each community and each generation? > I'm not sure that's the question. The problem is, as I see it, that when one adopts an external -ism as an ideal, and try and "move in a somewhat more -ism-friendly direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted", they're essentially saying that their motivating principle is that -ism. That halakha isn't the motivating principle, but merely bookends. Limits to how far they can push the -ism that's important. It's the difference between a static principle and a dynamic one. What you're describing has egalitarianism as the dynamic force, and halakha as a static one. A fossil. And there's no way to maintain that worldview for long without starting to chafe against the static limits. At which point, people put their shoulders into it and *push* those limits a little bit further. And then a little further than that. And they feel frustrated by those limits. That's probably the biggest problem. It turns halakha into shackles and frustration. And you only have to read articles written by certain YCT teachers and grads to see the hostility that comes out of that. Yes, there are people who can manage to walk the tightrope and not fall into that kind of frustration, but they are few in number, and not representative of the "movement", as such. And many of them, in my observed experience, eventually fall off. Permit me to illustrate this mindset with something that just happened *as* I was writing this. My 17 year old daughter was reading a comic book from the early 1990s. In the comic, the hero (Superboy) is 16, but all of the women he dates are in their 20s. Today, we call that statuatory rape, and have little to no tolerance for it. But if you recall the early 90s, that idea was rather new, and while the writers of the comic gave lip service to the idea, even having characters laughingly calling Superboy "jailbait", it wasn't nearly as taboo as it is today, at least when the younger person was male. But my daughter is livid about it. Appalled. And she isn't able to imagine a world in which that was the way people thought. Similarly, people immersed in the egalitarian ethos so prevelent in the Western world today cannot *imagine* a world where that isn't the universally accepted ideal, except for barbaric and backwards societies. It's a given that egalitarianism is the more advanced worldview. The more civilized worldview. That to the extent that a worldview is less egalitarian, it is less civilized. More backwards. So now consider what it means to say, "I want to be as egalitarian as possible, within the bounds of halakha". It means "I want to be as civilized as possible, within the bounds of the less civilized and more backwards system of halakha." How can that help but breed disrespect, discomfort, and eventually contempt for halakha? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:50:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:50:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> Message-ID: > > LL: The problem is, as I see it, that when one adopts an external -ism as > an ideal, and try and "move in a somewhat more -ism-friendly direction > WITHIN what is halachically permitted", they're essentially saying that > their motivating principle is that -ism. That halakha isn't the motivating > principle, but merely bookends. Limits to how far they can push the -ism > that's important...... > > Similarly, people immersed in the egalitarian ethos so prevelent in the > Western world today cannot *imagine* a world where that isn't the > universally accepted ideal, except for barbaric and backwards societies. > It's a given that egalitarianism is the more advanced worldview. The more > civilized worldview. That to the extent that a worldview is less > egalitarian, it is less civilized. More backwards. > > So now consider what it means to say, "I want to be as egalitarian as > possible, within the bounds of halakha". It means "I want to be as > civilized as possible, within the bounds of the less civilized and more > backwards system of halakha." How can that help but breed disrespect, > discomfort, and eventually contempt for halakha? Yes, if one defines one's ideology and worldview primarily as feminist, one is going to struggle with halacha. Some people struggle and still maintain Orthodox practice. Some become "halachic egalitarian." But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah live in an increasingly egalitarian society. Even women who would never dream of making a women's zimmun (range of psak on this goes from obligatory to optional to assur) have their own credit cards and vote in elections and choose whom they want to marry. Halachic psak does not exist in a vacuum; it applies to a particular metziut in a particular time and place. I can certainly see room to argue that the institution of maharat is an example of an attempt to "push" halacha to evolve artificially to conform to feminism. But to some extent, increased involvement of women teaching and learning all areas of Torah, at all levels, is a natural halachic development in response to changing reality. Each posek will draw his own line as to what is a positive development (maharats? yoatzot? Rebbetzin Heller?), and what needs to be reined in. Halacha is dynamic. (This is true even if the Conservative movement also says it!) Obviously, there are boundaries, but there is also plenty of room for different opinions, and for development over generations. I am not advocating always choosing the most feminist interpretation possible within the bounds of what is mutar. I am pointing out that increasingly egalitarian psak within halacha reflects the reality in which we live. Shabbat Shalom, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 10:00:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Martin Brody via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:00:09 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat etc. Message-ID: "R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation" Did the Chazon Ish have semicha?.I think not -- Martin Brody -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 11:35:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:35:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <960df966-7387-baf7-202b-5a6624127fed@sero.name> On 30/05/17 16:59, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura > did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the > ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite > involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send them to the rav. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 11:46:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:46:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37d489e2-09cc-d836-f973-74d1b831ec0a@sero.name> On 29/05/17 17:32, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging >> Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an >> obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he >> owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations >> would not be settled. >> Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages >> were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz >> agreed with them. > I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to > respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too > complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a > related question which is probably simpler: > > What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then > there was no kiddushin. I don't see how this matters. Machlon was shacked up with this woman for ten years, and left her high and dry. She was now in Beit Lechem living in poverty, and everyone who saw her would say "there's Machlon's widow, poor thing". Thus seeing her settled was an unsettled obligation that Machlon had left behind, so taking care of it was part of the goel's duty, just like paying off his credit cards and returning his library books, so that nobody should be left with a claim against his memory. > I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's > relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have > towards the husband himself [...] My question is: *What* > responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might > be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid? Yes, the goel's duty is to his relative, not to the relative's creditors. But that duty *is* to discharge the relative's obligations, which he is himself unable to discharge, whether because of poverty (as in the Torah's example) or death (as here). Neither Tov nor Boaz owed anything to Ruth, but Machlon did. > (I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the > family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we > want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be > paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so, > then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech > left. Why did they wait ten years?) Redeem it from whom? At that point it still belonged to Elimelech. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 12:55:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 15:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170602195535.GA7359@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 09:09:10AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this : other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that : question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require : require semicha? Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also not an open question that requires decision-making rather than just reporting the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:51:26PM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: : > the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore : > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. : All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to : offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not : sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and : possibly the latter. I am missing something. My assertion was that "the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur" for the same reason that she could never give hora'ah as a dayan either. I wasn't denying the reality that there are women who know enough for their knowledge not to be a barrier to their pasqening. ... : I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the : other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have : comfortable space for women as well... I think there should be comfortable space for women too, and that it makes sense for it to be in the same building. Our topic was women rabbis. My first point was my belief that the Mahariq holds like Tosafos, the Rama like the Mahariq, and therefore we cannot ordain a poseqes. In this, my 2nd point, I was arguing that since shul and minyan as Anshei Kenses haGadolah invented them are men's spaces, we shouldn't want women speaking from the pulpit or otherwise making it a co-ed experience, a second element of the rabbi's job. : > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for : > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be : > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah.... : > Second, : > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about : > the : > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely : > consistent with our religion.... : : Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that : is highly egalitarian... And this was my third point. That the notion doesn't fit the gestalt built of numerous halakhos. I don't think our living in a world where opportunity is increasingly egalitarian changes that. The disjoin poses a challenge, not a license. : And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the : experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect : religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction : WITHIN what is halachically permitted. I tried to explain why that can't happen. You're not moving into a setting of greater equality; you are aiming women toward hitting a glass cieling. The implied message of "as much egalitarianism as allowed" is that it's the role traditionally given to men that is meaningful, and women can't fully take on that role. To my mind the long-term outcome, once there is little room for further innovation left, will be worse that trying to find different but equally valuable roles. Aside from the "minor" problem that that message about male roles is simply sheqer. On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 01:06:28PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that : as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted : (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by : r'mb's black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether : HKB"H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all : or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the : debate on black letter law? I don't think that's fair. We all learn in the early grades that derekh eretz qodmah laTorah, but we'll talk about frum theives, but not frum shellfish eaters. Our culture's focus on those mitzvos and dinim that can be reduced to black-letter is a problem we need to work on, and not a given to be leveraged further. On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:50:32AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: : But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah : live in an increasingly egalitarian society... Egalitarianism as metzi'us, the fact that gender roles are progressively becoming more similar, is different than eqalitarinism as a value -- the notion that they should. At the very least, halakhah is telling us there are a number of greater values that override egalitarianism. I argued that some of them actually impact who enters the rabbinate. But really the burden of proof lies in the other direction: It is change that needs justification. One has to prove that whatever those conflicting values are -- and I guess this would require identifying them -- they are not issues that impact the desirability of ordaining women. So, to get less abstract, here's an example. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting : R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing. : Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid : muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R. : Micha's interpretation: : http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/ But lemaaseh he wrote a letter against ordaning women that held up JTS changing policy until after R/PSL's passing. has a complete translation by Rabbi Wayne Allen. The issue isn't how RGS read the letter, but the letter itself. And I understood your father-in-law differently than your (and your wife's, judging from her choice of subject line) take. He writes: Professor Lieberman might have been opposed to any clerical role for women. Nevertheless, he only cited the classical sources that indicate that only men may be dayyanim or even serve on a bet din as laymen (hedyotim). Since Yeshivat Maharat is careful to remain within the bounds of Halakhah by not ordaining women to roles that are proscribed by Halakhah, Professor Liebermans responsum does not apply to the yeshivah or to any of its graduates. So he agrees with RGS that R/PSL was opposed to orgaining women as rabbi. After all, most of the letter is about what we mean today by "Yoreh Yoreh", and how it's NOT dayanus. It was about admitting women to JTS's semichah program, to "being called by the title 'rav'", not "dayan". It would seem that minus the political pressures within JTS, R/PSL's letter would at most permit "Rabbah uManhigah". Your FIL writes that R/PSL only cites sources about dayanus, not that his point was only about dayanus. And as we saw, there is a connection made between who can become a dayan and who can give hora'ah. His only mention of the political dynamics at JTS at the time is to explain his own position -- why he was against ordaining women when he was among those starting UTJ, but is in favor of Yeshivat Maharat. His letter to your wife does not speak of this issue in terms of his rebbe's position. For that matter, his description of R/PSL's lack of proving his point WRT non-dayan rabbanim reads as explaining why his own position was justified despite R/PSL's letter, rather than justified by that letter. He doesn't say RGS is wrong, he says it's "beside the point". : Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and : Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to : understand the Rama, but one of them is: But the burden or proof is on the innovator. You can't simply say your read is possible -- and given the aforementioned citation of the Mahariq, I don't see how this se'if can be, you would have a self-contradictory siman. But in any case, you have to prove your read is the Rama's intent; saying "it's possible" is not enough to justify a mimetic rupture. ... : the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have : sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have : sources to rely upon. I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and : Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong : with semicha for women. "Rather than nitpicking"? How do we learn a sugyah without nitpicking? In any case, you jumped from "could be read as someone to rely upon" to "someone to rely upon". : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the : specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. Sorry I made you wait long enough that you felt a need to re-ask this question. Semichah today may well be a heter hora'ah, but that doesn't mean that it's the only barrier to hora'ah. And if one's rebbe passed away, there is no need for heter hora'ah -- and yet still other barriers could exist. Tosafos, and the Mahariq cited by the Rama link the authority for hora'ah with being eligable to gain the qualifications and become a dayan. That's a barrier to hora'ah even if someone's rebbe wrote them a "qlaf" or passed away. We would have to find another shitah about hora'ah, show it's not dekhuyah -- and given we're talking about an opionion that disputes 3 pillars of Ashkenazi pesaq (if I include the Rama's se'if 4), for someone of Ashekazi background, that's a tough row to hoe. And then there are my other two problems.... Both of which would also reflect on Rabbah uManhigah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 3 20:23:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 23:23:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . Is semicha required for hora'ah? To illustrate the possibility that it is *not* required, I wrote: > Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura > did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the > ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite > involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. R' Zev Sero responded: > Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, > and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send > them to the rav. And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression of his personal opinion. Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"? I had written that a non-semicha person could give a shiur in Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, provided that he is careful to merely read and explain the text, but ... ... > But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this > other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that > question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require > require semicha? R' Micha Berger responded: > Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also > not an open question that requires decision-making rather than > just reporting the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community. "Black-letter halacha" is often not as black as we might think. Who gets to decide which shita is the dominant one? If the community has a recognized rav who issued a ruling on this exact question, then I can quote that. But in the great majority of cases, there are two or more shitos, and I have no idea which is "dominant". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 3 22:51:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 07:51:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c3c1e25-04b7-878e-d93b-d6b5edc10a0f@zahav.net.il> My intent, or my desire, is to reduce the number of issues on which we decide to break Torah community into even more pieces. If these issues are meta halachic, or have a bad feeling, then let's take the argument between the RWMO and LWMO down a notch or two. Let's lower the tones. For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi community consider to be kefira. If so, than kal v'chomer many of the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in getting hung up on multiple non-issues. Ben On 5/29/2017 4:20 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I am totally at lost as to your intent. Megillah reading or dancing with > a sefer Torah are reducible to black-letter law. In contrast to, for > example, deciding how to triage my tzedaqah donations. > > Wehther that reduction can be done within vanilla halachic process or > by appeal to metahalakhah, or by appeal to the general "feel" of halakhah > -- like the Rambam's "li nir'eh" -- is a different question. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 04:36:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 07:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a0d51cd-f693-b8a0-f2bd-a23a15a3e44a@sero.name> On 03/06/17 23:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > >> Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, >> and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send >> them to the rav. > And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to > find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim > wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us > which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other > expression of his personal opinion. > > Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"? AIUI no, it is not. Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a specific shayla for a specific person. Writing books does not involve any shikul hada`as, it merely involves setting down the halacha as one understands it, including, if applicable, the range of options available to a moreh hora'ah when applying his shikul hada`as. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 09:40:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 12:40:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170604164052.GA8050@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 11:23:05PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to : find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim : wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us : which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other : expression of his personal opinion. Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone know what has been said in the years since the standardization of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh. I argued that the difference between the AhS and the MB was not that one was a mimeticist and the other a textualist, but that the AhS was out to justify accepted pesaq, and the other is a collection of texts, a tool for the poseiq -- not pesaq. The personal opinion is just that, advice, not hora'ah. Or, other assumed you need to dismiss the MB's self-description as reflecting the CC's anavah, and not to be taken at face value. But then one has to explain the numerous stories of the CC personally not following the MB's conclusion -- the size of his becher, his tzitzis were tucked in, he supported the building a a community eiruv, etc... (Something is broken on my blog right now. It may take a 3-4 refreshes before getting anything but the AishDas "page not found" page.) In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable. And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving R Ploni answering questions. (The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the model.) This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads -- or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her rebbe's license? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 08:48:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:48:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you understand the OU panel as defining it. Otherwise you are just using a nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning. The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here: http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah ). There was a period when leaders did not have semicha, The Tzitz Eliezer points out that Sephardim for a long time did not have semichah, yet communities had religious leaders. So one does not need semikhah to be a communal religious leader(in keeping with the Rama in 242:14). Furthermore, R. Lichtenstein points out(Leaves of Faith vol 2 293) "originally a samukh would pronounce a decision that was binding by don't of his authoritative fiat. ...Now, he essentially serves as a reference guide, providing reliable information about what the tradition and its sources, properly understood and interpreted, state; but it is they, rather than he, that bind authoritatively." (quoted in the name of the Rav, in the name of his father, Rav Moshe.) Furthermore, as R. Lichtenstein points out, the Rambam viewed that Smikhah applied to hora'at issur v'heter as well as din. However, as R. Schachter himself points out, (see Kuntrus Ha semicha in Eretz Hatzvi chap 32) the other Rishonim hold that Semichah is a Halacha in beit din, NOT Hora'ah. AND, there are lots of authorities who clearly state that women can give Hora'ah. So you really need to define exactly what you mean by Semicha and how you are using it So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that apply to beit din. That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist. The semikhah for that type included wearing a specific garment, only being given in Israel, and according to most(but not all), prohibited to women. According to most Rishonim, that category did not apply to Hora'ah, just beit din. And, R. Lichtenstein illustrates that there is a clear and gaping difference in authority. There have been many years and many communities where leaders did not have any formal semikhah. But obviously there was some sort of Hora'ah going on. So it is clear that Hora'ah doesn't require semikhah, unless you want to argue that they were doing it all illegitimately. granting a degree of ordination was re-established(perhaps in response to universities, perhaps other reasons, see "The Emergence of the Professional rabbi in Ashkenzic Jewry by Bernard Rosensweig in Tradition, especially references in note 6) and the word Semikhah was used(although not always and not always exclusively). But you are arguing that somehow someway the restrictions from ancient Semikhah still apply- well, actually you are only arguing that the restrictions on women still apply, you have conveniently neglected to argue for the restriction of semikhah to Eretz Yisrael, for the wearing of special clothing, and all the other restrictions that were in place on ancient Semikhah. I have not had a chance to see the Maharik inside. But just because he applies halachot of relationships between teacher and student doesn't seem to be a reason to generalize that everything that applied to ancient Semikhah applies to today's neo-semikhah. That logically makes no sense. Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus tradition trope. It is a false dichotomy. First of all, as R. Shalom Carmy wrote, the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism. More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of our Masoretic values has changed over time. We don't value slavery or polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more. And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah. Furthermore, our Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a women. L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 07:40:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:40:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is becoming increasingly clear to me that I need a very basic lesson in the concepts of "redemption" and a "redeemer's" responsibilities. In my experience, we find two different sorts of redemption in Judaism. (I was going to write "in Halacha", but it seems that Boaz's actions were more sociological and ethnic than halachically mandatory.) One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and "redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many others. The other sort of kedusha has nothing to do with kedusha, but rather ownership of land. If I'm not mistaken, we find this in Shmitta, Yovel, and ordinary land sales in a walled city (and maybe elsewhere too?). In these cases, land has been sold outright, but under certain circumstances, the original owner has a right to buy it back from the new owner. AFTER WRITING THE ABOVE, I remembered another sort of redemption, that of the Goel Hadam. That seems irrelevant, because even though Naomi is now destitute, and her husband and sons are dead, no murder was committed. I also found yet another kind of Goel, described in Vayikra 25:47-54: If a person became poor and sold himself, then close relatives are obligated to redeem him and purchase his freedom. Although Naomi and Ruth did not reach that level (slavery), I can easily imagine that a social sort of redemption would require Tov or Boaz to help them out. I would call this "tzedaka" (not geula) but I suppose this might be the origin of the rule that one's primary obligation in tzedaka is to relatives. Many thanks to all who wrote to me (both on- and off-list), who put so much effort into helping me learn this subject. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 03:01:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:01:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= Message-ID: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a commentary how do you read it? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 02:59:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 09:59:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] support? Message-ID: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah restrictions are generally not observed (e.g., hello includes a social hug between the sexes), although Reuvain is meticulous in his observance of them. He is in his office in a conference with two colleagues when Miriam, the wife of a third tier social friend, also well past childbearing age, comes to the office door and says with a tear in her eye, "Reuvain, I hate to do this to you." Reuvain quickly asks his colleagues to excuse them, and Miriam blurts out, "David (her husband) just passed away," and she begins to slump, crying. Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to comfort her and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not make any request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but she did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion of the community which did not presume a social negiah restriction. Was Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, what should he have done? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:23:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 15:23:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:01:10AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a : commentary how do you read it? I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq venimtza qal" were written out. That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:43:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 22:43:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?va=E2=80=99v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <30b106b1-2a2d-f8dd-e692-4af1979063c9@starways.net> v'doke On 6/4/2017 1:01 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a > commentary how do you read it? > Kt > Joel rich > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:33:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 15:33:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] support? In-Reply-To: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170604193342.GA24739@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 09:59:23AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a : Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah : restrictions are generally not observed... A real maaseh shahayah, which would liely garner the same thoughts. One day, around 10am, the woman sitting in the cubicle next to mine gets a call on her cell, and after a few moments had her screaming and crying. It was the Salvation Army, where her son volunteered and lived. He didn't wake up that morning. Another co worker of ours, a yehivish guy who grew up in Israel but lives in Lakewood, got us a conference room, dialed some phone calls for her -- the coronor's office and the like. He was clearly cfrom communities in which persumed social negi'ah restrictions are fully observed. But when our co worker broke down in a fresh round of crying, he put his arm around her. I think to do anything else is to be a tzadiq shoteh. But I never asked a she'eilah; that was just my gut reaction at the time. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:01:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 23:01:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Noam, It's not a "trope". While there can be situations in which egalitarianism vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them. Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not. It seems a poor argument, as well. I don't believe there is anyone who, without the impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical concepts of justice demand that we ordain women." Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Distinctions are one of the hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and non-Jews or men and women. We have never viewed having different roles as indicating superiority and inferiority. That judgment is foreign to our tradition. Foreign to halakha. Foreign to the Torah. Please note that I'm not talking about whether, given the assumption that having different roles conveys inferiority, one could argue in favor of equalizing roles in the name of justice. I am talking about that assumption itself. It is an assumption that comes from egalitarianism, and cannot be found in Jewish tradition, which is not subject to Brown v Board of Education. Different does *not* necessarily mean unequal in Judaism. Polygamy was never a "value". To Mormons, perhaps. Not to us. It was simply something permitted. Slavery is out of the question purely on dina d'malchuta dina grounds. Were that not the case, we might still engage in it. We certainly haven't changed the halakha pertaining to either kind of avdut (K'naani or Ivri). You say that modern values have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in our Mesorah. Can I ask where the need for such a re-evaluation comes from? It was my understanding that we value all of our Mesorah, and do not sift through it, deciding what parts of it we value and what parts we do not. Also, please note that I have specifically referred to egalitarianism, and *not* to feminism. I don't believe that feminism requires egalitarianism, and the moves by the left to try and force Orthodox Judaism into an egalitarian framework have nothing to do with the basic idea that women are fully competent adult human beings, which is what feminism was originally about. On 6/4/2017 6:48 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus > tradition trope. It is a false dichotomy. First of all, as R. Shalom > Carmy wrote, the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to > Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism. > More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of > our Masoretic values has changed over time. We don't value slavery or > polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more. > And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for > us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah. Furthermore, our > Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna > in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a > women. L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:53:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:53:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . I wrote that the Mishneh Berurah, despite a lack of semicha, > frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the > ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression > of his personal opinion. R' Micha Berger responded: > Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed > this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone > know what has been said in the years since the standardization > of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh. Yes, he does self-describe as a summary and teaching/learning tool. But he does *not* specifically disclaim being a posek for halacha l'maaseh. The Igros Moshe and many other recent seforim do that, but I do not see it in the Mishneh Berurah. As an example, let's open to the very first page. He writes in MB 1:2 (near the end) about Netilas Yadayim upon waking in the morning: "Some say that for this, the entire house is considered like four amos. But (4) do not rely on this except in a shaas hadchak." Let's analyze that: He cites an unnamed lenient opinion, and clearly tells us not to rely on it. Note 4 leads us to his own Shaar Hatziun, where he gives his source, the Shaarei Teshuva. The Shaarei Teshuva, fortunately, is printed on this same page, and I direct your attention to the last four lines of #2, where the lenient opinion is named as being the Rashba. It is not clear to me whether the psak to *not* rely on that Rashba comes from the Shvus Yaakov, or whether it is from the Shaarei Teshuva himself. But either way, it is clear to me that the Mishne Berurah is taking sides, and IS PASKENING TO US that we should be machmir unless it is a shaas hadchak. > In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in > every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, > which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise > unreachable. Then we need to figure out what *is* required for hora'ah. Because it seems clear to me that the Chofetz Chaim felt that he met the criteria, and (perhaps more importantly) Klal Yisrael agreed. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:58:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 19:58:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2F566ED7-C27E-4141-9BAA-E81C69F30CE1@sibson.com> > > I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq > venimtza qal" were written out. > > That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. > > HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" > -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. ------------ I had always been taught the latter. The bar Ilan data base uses the former. I suppose one could rationalize one person's try and it will seem easy is another's it's a bit of a stretch. Then again Kuf lamed could be kal lhavin or kasheh li. :-) Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 15:56:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 17:56:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > It's not a "trope". While there can be situations in which egalitarianism > vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them. > Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to > the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not. It seems a poor > argument, as well. I don't believe there is anyone who, without the > impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical > concepts of justice demand that we ordain women." > Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Distinctions are one of the > hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and > non-Jews or men and women. We have never viewed having different roles as > indicating superiority and inferiority. That judgment is foreign to our > tradition. Foreign to halakha. Foreign to the Torah. Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" It isn't an issue of being like men, it is an issue of fairness and justice. Regarding 'modern values' and Mesorah. please read Rabbi Walter Wurzburger, regarded as one of R. Soloveitchik's most prominent students here: http://download.yutorah.org/TUJ/TU1_Wurtzburger.pdf Since chazal owned slaves and the Gemara didn't outlaw them, obviously owning slaves was not seen as odious as it is now. I doubt that current rabbis have the same positive view of slavery as you do. in fact, one published author does not. see R. Gamliel Shmalo here: http://download.yutorah.org/2013/1053/798326.pdf Similar to polygamy, I doubt that any current rabbinical authority thinks that polygamy should be instituted(except in the very rare situations of heter me'ah rabbonim when in practicality there is only one wife) Many authorities, including Rav Lichtenstein, R. Nachum Rabinovitch(and see R. Wurzburger's article for citations to classic authorities of the past) and others state clearly that encountering 'modern values' helps us figure out which how to better balance the values already in our Masorah. And, as I pointed out, our Masorah has already moved towards egalitarianism, as demonstrated that most MO poskim don't hold by the Mishna in Horiyyot. And who was denying that there are different roles? no one denies that there are different roles for the genders. But Halacha should be the determinant of what those differences are. Not someone saying, "well, there have to be differences, and I am going to tell you what those differences should be." If there are no good Halakhic arguments against women's ordination(and there aren't), then claiming that there should be different roles for different genders is not a coherent argument. Basically you could use the same argument for everything and anything, since there is no Halachic basis for it. You could say that women shouldn't ride bikes because gender roles have to be different. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:47:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <6736acd1-ba2d-c1bc-1762-d8e55bb8e473@sero.name> On 04/06/17 06:01, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a > commentary how do you read it? Vest du velen kvetchen, kadoches vest du vissen On 04/06/17 15:23, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. > HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" > -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. Or "vedayeq vetimtza qashe" -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 20:38:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 23:38:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605033858.JVPC32620.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a >specific shayla for a specific person. I guess the question is: is that related to semicha? Note the following (by Joel B. Wolowelsky, from that Tradition issue last year that focused on women's leadership issues) The standards of the semikha might vary from yeshiva to yeshiva even though the text of the klaf certificate is generally the same. I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters of grave import. Very few rabbis are viewed as posekim, and their authority surely does not rest on any formal semikha they were awarded at an early stage in their professional career. Most rabbis even most pulpit rabbis are relied upon to relate what the accepted halakha is, not what it should be. They are not assumed to be posekim. Rabbi Menachem Penner, Dean of RIETS, recently made this clear when he stated that: not all individuals given the title of rabbi are entitled to serve as decisors of Jewish law... Following the halakhic opinion of a scholar or rabbi who is not recognized as a posek would represent a fundamental breach in the mesorah of the establishment of normative halakha... Musmakhim of RIETS, along with all learned individuals, are entitled to their personal opinions on halakhc matters and the halakhic system as it functions today and may publicize their views as opinions that are not halakhically binding. If this is true of musmakhim of RIETS, who have completed many serious and demanding years of study, all the more so for the myriads of rabbis who earned their semikha by simply sitting for a less-demanding final exam after self-study or learning in a beit midrash up until their wedding, at which time they received semikha. We should quickly note that this is not intended to imply a diminution of the value of semikha. Rather it reflects an unprecedented expansion of Torah study in our community. Which raises the obvious question: if so many men have semicha that shouldn't engage in hora'ah, what's the problem of having a woman in a similar position? [Email #2.] Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that in Israel, this doesn't seem to be so much of an issue. May I recommend an utterly fascinating article on this: A VIEW FROM THE OTHER SIDE By Rachel Levmore, Ph.D. - Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 05:42:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 12:42:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" ----------------------------------------------------- As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question (chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", on what basis are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" I'd say the debaters on this issue would be well served to read J Haidt's The Righteous Mind https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj_nMSM3abUAhUG7CYKHRfcAJgQFghZMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Frighteousmind.com%2F&usg=AFQjCNH2OB9Ny75lbVswde2ndpkNKXvilQ&sig2=hBXRmEu1I6x-J0radUdXqA to better understand why they aren't convincing each other KT Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 12:00:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lo Taamod In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605190033.GD3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:54:06AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Asher Weiss discusses in parshat Vayeitzeih on lo taamod al : dam reiacha that one would have to give up all his assets to save a : single life if he is the only one who can do it. However, "it's pashut" : that if others can also do it, that he doesn't have to give up all his : assets. Why is it so pashut if others refuse? (i.e. why isn't it a joint : and several liability?) I am not sure halakhah has the concept. The nearest I can think of is a zeh vezeh goreim, such as if a shor tam pushes another ox into a third party's bor bereshus harabbim. SA CM 410:32 rules that the baal habor must pay 3/4. Hezeq by a shor tam need only be reimbered 50%. So, the owner of the shor tam only has to pay 50% of his half of the guilt -- 25%. The baal habor therefore would cause the loss of the other 75%, so he has to reimberse it. But there is a machloqes about what happens when one of the two doesn't have the money -- does the other have to pick up the difference, or not? If not, then wouldn't that mean halakhah doesn't have a notion of joint and several liability?" But even if he does have to pay what the other can't... One may still be choleiq between someone who did something that incurs a fine and a chiyuv to spend money. It's not really a "liability". And this is beyond the usual limits of a chiyuv.... If there are others who can save the guy, RAW says I'm not chayav to spend all my money, but what about spending up to a chomesh, like for any other chiyuv? Maybe even if there is joint and several liability, it stops at 1/5 rather than 100%. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 12:33:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:33:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? In-Reply-To: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim : b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman : shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? The SA says "yekhavein lehispalel besha'ah shehatzibur mispallelim". Your question is why the Rama -- or is the Semag, I couldn't find the citation -- doesn't mention minchah. I think the MB s"q 31-32 *implies* that the emphasis is on Shacharis and Maariv since the solar landmarks vary the most, and therefore the minyan is more likely to have their own idiosyncratic time -- late Shacharis or early Maariv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The waste of time is the most extravagant micha at aishdas.org of all expense. http://www.aishdas.org -Theophrastus Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 11:49:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:49:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170605184905.GC3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 10:00:22PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : Can I burn something that was hefker without acquiring it? If I declare : something hefker (I'm not sure the legal implication of batel), and then I : burn it, wouldn't that imply I'm koneh it? Which makes things much worse. We might argue whether bitul chameitz means something other than hefqer. But even if it does, how can a formula that ends "vehefqer ke'afrah de'ar'a" not render it *also* hefqer? I am not sure what kind of qinyan burning would be. (Shinui? but shinui to something worthless is back to not having anything shaveh perutah to own.) Taking from hefqer means there is no maqneh, does that mean there is no qoneh? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 11:37:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:37:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a : conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of : YaVY... Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because there is no actual issur la'avor. : Since when is conversation : hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes : the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation : carries the din YvAY. I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from hirhurim. And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA: : That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, : causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of : hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and : certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? : : The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya : due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the downward character spiral. Tie'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:13:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? In-Reply-To: <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> References: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5424769a-057e-b1d6-87b8-130dad06850d@sero.name> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > : S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim > : b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman > : shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? It seems to me that "shacharit v'arvit" here may not mean the tefillot but the times: they should daven each morning and evening when they know the minyan in the city is davening. The city minyan presumably does mincha and maariv together in one evening session, so that's what individuals should do. This is so especially if this is from the Smag, and we know from Rashi and Tosfos Brachos 2a that the minhag in France at that time was to daven maariv immediately after mincha, while it was still daylight. We also know from elsewhere that minhag Ashkenaz at a later time was similarly to go straight from the Kaddish Tiskabel after Mincha to Vehu Rachum and Borchu, with no Aleinu or Shir Hamaalos/kaddish (or Ledavid in Elul) in between. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:55:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:55:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:40:56AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and : "redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually : to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many : others.... I think that bringing up pidyon and temurah just cloud the issue. IMinsufficientlyHO, it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that strikes me as a progression): - the go'el hadam - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) - and of people (ibid v 48) - the end of galus To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on its nachalah. But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first -- "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why there are different words in lh"q. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 14:06:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:06:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605210617.GB23709@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 03:18:13PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that : Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent : introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, : pages 48-52. Which ties to the other thread about how we're to view Yiftach or Shimshon -- baalei mesorah or amei ha'aretz? It's possible that at the nadir points in the days of shofetim, being the gadol hador didn't rule out also having fundamental flaws. : R' Zev Sero wrote: :> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the :> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. : It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it : something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus : and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus : then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. If it was some general Semitic notion of ge'ulah, then perhaps being common-law spouses in a 7 Mitzvos b' Noach sense would be enough to trigger ge'ulah, even if yibum would require real qiddushin. After all, the basis for ge'ulah was likely that the woman came to depend on the family for her support, and it would be wrong to let her down. Which is true of a Moaviah intermarrying into a Jewish family, even if the marriage only seemed real to her. I am also reminded of the Rambam IB 13, discussed hear repeatedly ad nauseum. Shimshon's and Shelomo's wives were p[resumed Jewish until their actions showed that they not only had ulterior motive, they lacked a true motive (qabbalas ol mitzvos) altogether. Geirei `arayos all are in that boat -- if we think they were mequbalos al mitzvos along with wanting to convert to marry, we presume they're kosher Jews but suspect and watch whether behavior matches presumption. Rus would be in a similar situation, no? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 14:55:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:55:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> References: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4674ee8c-5f5e-c740-051a-00191c18b4fb@sero.name> On 05/06/17 16:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > IMinsufficientlyHO, it pays to just stick to trying to find a common > theme to all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that > strikes me as a progression): > > [...] > > - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's not an > actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) Where is the word found in this context? My position is that the use in Megilath Ruth is an instance of the next meaning. > - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) - and of people (ibid v 48) This one. AIUI the underlying theme of this mitzvah is discharging ones own obligations, or those of a relative who is unable to do so himself. When one has sold the family patrimony, one must buy it back so that people will no longer look at one as someone who had to do that. If one can't, then whoever in the family can afford to do so must buy it back, to clear ones name. Included in this is a sub-obligation that if one is aware that a relative has to sell family land, and one can afford to buy it, one must offer to do so, so he is never subjected in the first place to the ignominy of selling it out of the family. (That, as near as I can tell, is what was happening in Ruth. Naomi and Ruth, having claimed Elimelech's property for their ketubot, were now purportedly looking for a buyer, and turned to the family to give them first refusal.) By extension this also includes discharging other obligations, not to do with the family land, such as ones obligation to a woman whom a relative has left destitute, so that her state will not be a disgrace to the family. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:56:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 20:56:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to comfort her > and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not make any > request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but she > did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion > of the community which did not presume a social negiah restriction. Was > Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, > what should he have done? I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to include any contact in any social situation in addition to more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly consistently not included are professional scenarios where your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors, nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says there that even in his generation he was unique in being able to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for this situation. But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei aveira then there is no issur of negia. I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred option. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 03:08:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 10:08:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? I heard from Rav Matis Weinberg that the final reference to Ruth Hamoavia emphasises that, despite the way we usually think of geirus, and despite everything she's gone through, she remains a Moavia. Meaning that she retains her Moavi roots and personal context, and brings the positive from that into Klal Yisrael. I understand him as polemicising against the tendency to destroy ones previous identity, consciously or otherwise, in order to join the Jewish world either as a ger or a baal teshuva. Ben ________________________________ From: Avodah on behalf of via Avodah Sent: 02 June 2017 03:34 To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 72 Send Avodah mailing list submissions to avodah at lists.aishdas.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org You can reach the person managing the list at avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." A list of common acronyms is available at http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms Avodah Acronyms ? The AishDas Society www.aishdas.org Here?s a hopefully useful but incomplete list of acronyms that are standard to Avodah, but aren?t in common usage. I marked each either ?A? for those specific ... (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) Today's Topics: 1. Re: Maharat (Rich, Joel via Avodah) 2. Re: Maharat (Ben Waxman via Avodah) 3. Re: Maharat (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 4. matched soldier and praying for them (M Cohen via Avodah) 5. Re: Maharat (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) 6. Elimelech's land (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 7. Ruth Hamoaviah (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 8. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (ADE via Avodah) 9. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (Zev Sero via Avodah) 10. A Holiday Afterthought (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) 11. Re: A Holiday Afterthought (Micha Berger via Avodah) 12. Re: Ruth Hamoaviah (Zev Sero via Avodah) 13. Re: Ruth Hamoaviah (Lisa Liel via Avodah) 14. Re: Elimelech's land (Ben Waxman via Avodah) 15. Re: Elimelech's land (Zev Sero via Avodah) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:06:28 +0000 From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" To: 'Ilana Elzufon' , "'The Avodah Torah Discussion Group'" , Micha Berger , "Akiva Miller" , Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05 at VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. ---------------------------------------------------- Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the debate on black letter law? KT Joel Rich (full disclosure-kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-not everything that is permitted to you should be done) THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:22:13 +0200 From: Ben Waxman via Avodah To: Ilana Elzufon , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Micha Berger , Akiva Miller , Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Probably the best and most succinct historical analogy I've seen for this question. Ben On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > > Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women > rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the > vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it > seems to be shaping up as the latter. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:59:33 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation. Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. How can this be? Dare we imagine that he did such things unauthorizedly? Certainly he must have had/received some sort of Heter Hora'ah. If so, then when and how did he get it - and without getting semicha at the same time? Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:01 -0400 From: M Cohen via Avodah To: , Subject: [Avodah] matched soldier and praying for them Message-ID: <014801d2d969$41c5c800$c5515800$@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A while ago on Avodah, a well known (chareidi) Baal machshava was quoted as disagreeing strongly with the concept of matching frum people with a nonfrum soldier in order to pray for them. "we have no brotherhood with secular Israelis" Recently, I posted to Avodah a link to a collection of 1400 short tshuvot from HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlitah (of Toronto) On the above topic, he writes there.. #600 Pray As They Go Q. There are two organizations here in Eretz Yisroel, one called; Elef LaMateh, and the other; The Shmirah Project. Basically, their intent is to match Israeli soldiers with Avreichim and bochurim learning. Each Avreich and Bochur who volunteers, receives the name of a specific soldier (his name and his mother's name) that he takes responsibility to daven for and learn specially for so that in the merit of the tefillos and learning, that soldier will merit to return home alive and well. (Is this a good idea) A. HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is a great mitzvah to pray, learn Torah and accomplish mitzvos for the benefit of all our brethren B'nay Yisroel in times of peril and need, especially for those who put their life in harm's way to save and protect others. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:39:53 +0200 From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah To: "Rich, Joel" Cc: Avodah , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Micha Berger , Akiva Miller Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should be identical for each community and each generation? - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:01:50 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" . I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start farming? I suppose it was pretty desolate after a ten-year famine, but did she even try? She must have at least gone there to see the place, if for no other reason than to be sure that no squatters took over while she was gone. Without making sure of such things, how could she even hope that anyone (even a goel) would buy it? Maybe she expected to get a better profit from Boaz than she'd get from farming it herself, but maybe there are other answers? Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:05:01 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the distinction? When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on this. Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:14:59 +0100 From: ADE via Avodah To: Zev Sero , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are still being machshiv some pesukim over others. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk > *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:32:23 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: ADE <9006168 at gmail.com>, The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: <510d4fd4-6c91-fb85-0c23-f6cdfa7ffcbf at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 02/06/17 05:14, ADE wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one >> pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this >> reason. > Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are > still being machshiv some pesukim over others. There is no requirement to treat all pesukim exactly the same. One is entitled to stand or sit during KhT as one wishes, and has no obligation to choose one policy and stick to it. The problem is only with standing up for special pesukim, such as Shma or the 10D. Since there's nothing special about the pasuk before the 10D, there's no problem with deciding to stand for it. And when the special pesukim come along one is already standing, so one has no obligation to sit down. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:46:10 -0400 From: Cantor Wolberg via Avodah To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50 at cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In our personal religious commitments there are those among us scrupulous in performance of the ceremonial mitzvot but at the same time displaying reckless disregard of our elementary duties towards our fellowman. Halacha embraces human life in its totality. One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social trait from our behavior! A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:31:31 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Cantor Wolberg , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <20170602153131.GA15356 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made : a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study : of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social : trait from our behavior! Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, among the aphorisms of his listed in R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I. :-)BBii! -Micha ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:28:00 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Akiva Miller via Avodah , "akivagmiller at gmail.com >> Akiva Miller" Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: <4dd6e4f1-2d00-a274-ace0-e5d2a803039a at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 01/06/17 23:05, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I only see four instances of "Ruth Hamoaviah", three in ch 2, and only one in ch 4, in Boaz's description of the situation to Tov. Since his purpose was to scare him off, it made sense to mention her origin, so Tov would be reluctant to risk his future. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:20:16 +0300 From: Lisa Liel via Avodah To: Akiva Miller , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 6/2/2017 6:05 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I can't cite a source for it, but I remember once reading that Ruth HaMoaviah was intended to praise her, since she gave up her position in Moav to join us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus [https://static2.avast.com/11/web/min/i/mkt/share/avast-logo.png] Avast | Download Free Antivirus for PC, Mac & Android www.avast.com Protect your devices with the best free antivirus on the market. Download Avast antivirus and anti-spyware protection for your PC, Mac and Android. ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:31:41 +0200 From: Ben Waxman via Avodah To: Akiva Miller , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Actually if the land had lied fallow for 10 years, it should be in good shape. Granted it needs weeding but the soil should be good. It only requires a relatively small amount of rain for grass to grow and re-invigorate the soil. Maybe she was too old to work the land and figured that a sale would provide her with enough money to live out the rest of her days in dignity? Ben On 6/2/2017 5:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:17:52 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Akiva Miller via Avodah , Akiva Miller Subject: Re: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: <272b8698-d5c1-55a1-560b-2bc6d0c39b74 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 01/06/17 23:01, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? It seems to me that finding a buyer for the property was not at all important to her, and in fact she had shown no interest in doing so until she saw how she could use it to get Boaz to marry Ruth. It was Boaz who spun the story out for Tov in order to scare him off; first he drew him in with the prospect of an easy transaction for Naomi's portion of the field, but then he threw in the Ruth monkey wrench. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/avodah http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org ------------------------------ End of Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 72 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 04:24:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:24:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <545028A09009CEB1.0C33F862-E0BD-4F09-B72B-2B14A928A471@mail.outlook.com> I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter, the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat, is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin and relay the answer. We have fine female educators like Shani Taragin etc and we have Yoatzot Halacha as above. I consider this ordination movement as a Western valued and inspired institution. Indeed, these days I know Shules look for husband *and* wife teams. The Rebbetzin occupies an increasingly important place. This is most certainly also true of successful Chabad Houses, and here I speak of people like Rivki Holtzberg hy'd whom I knew well personally and I watched as the women gathered around her and the men around her husband. This is the mimetic tradition not withstanding exceptions. That, I believe is the thrust of the OU proclamation and it is dead on the money. Judaism certainly adapts but it is not the plasticine for Western values and aspirations. Even at a funeral, where one expects little hope for Yetzer Hora, the Halacha mandates the Shura to be separate for males and females. This category of notion underpins our Mesora and always did; right back to the days when our tents were arranged with Tzniyus in mind. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 07:26:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:26:41 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap Message-ID: can anyone explain and show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from non-Kosher fat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 07:23:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:23:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh Message-ID: regarding Chamets buried under a collapsed building where we remain the owner - we intend to salvage it after Pesach but are not transgressing BY and BY without needing to make Bittul I explained that Halachic ownership is determined by ones perception of control and explained this is the reason that YiUsh means one is no longer an owner for example you forget your wallet holding your ID and some money in a restaurant even though you go back in the HOPE of finding it or are HOPING an honest person will return it this is nevertheless YiUsh you no longer believe you are in control although RaMBaM encourages that the finder return it Halachically the finder is entitled to tell you Once upon a time this was yours - but you were MeYaEsh so it is no longer yours and I picked it up AFTER you were already MeYaEsh This is the foundation for the Pesak of R Y E Spektor that money lost by a woman at a trade fair MUST be returned because there was NO YiUsh the money had been found and taken to the local Rav it matched perfectly the description given by the woman who lost it but the finder insisted he wants to keep the money unless he is obliged to return it even though the woman had Simanim Muvhakim there was no doubt the money found was the money she lost she was certainly MeYaEsh she is not the owner Reb Y E Spektor Paskened that there was no YiUsh her husband is the owner and he, sitting many miles away was unaware of the loss of the money so there was no YiUsh R Micha argues that this is not correct he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost so there is no YiUsh however if they would know it is lost they would be MeYaEsh I would suggest that there is no problem the Machlokes is simply a dispute about ACTUAL belief one is in control versus POTENTIAL belief one is in control for example walking behind a fellow Yid you notice a diamond fall off his ring he would be unaware of his loss if we say YiUsh requires DaAs then there is no YiUsh yet you would have to wait until you see the fellow stop and look around for something then you can take your foot off the diamond and take it home [BTW is such a person a Rasha? or worse, not a Mentsch?] If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs then you can take the diamond straight away because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 10:48:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:48:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> , <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a : conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of : YaVY... Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because there is no actual issur la'avor. I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where there's an issur involved? That's why I'm suggesting that since it's on pain of yeihareig then we know there must an issur la'avor so the point of the sugya is to work out what that is. The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below. : Since when is conversation : hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes : the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation : carries the din YvAY. I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from hirhurim. >From hirhurim? Chazal were gozer yeihareig on hirhurei aveira? If that were true we'd find the same din in a lot of other places. Which is why is seems to me we must be dealing with something else here. And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA: : That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, : causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of : hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and : certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? : : The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya : due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the downward character spiral. Me'heicha teisi that we're dealing with Hilkhos De'os here? Where do you find a din of yeihareig in Hilchos De'os? Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does. Your partially stated assumption is that this din in both man d'amrim is d'rabanan. Rambam strongly implies otherwise. Kol tuv Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 09:19:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha wrote: "In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable. And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving R Ploni answering questions. (The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the model.) This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads -- or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her rebbe's license?" me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using. They are hiding behind ambiguity. if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do hora'ah. AND, you cant use the model of semicha to prohibit women from hora'ah, becuase in the Venn diagram of the topic, there is hora'ah outside the lines of semicha. So R. Micha et al need to provide some other basis for their issur of hora'ah, AND, address all those who write that a woman can provide hora'ah. AND, address the quote from R. Penner that the semicha for REITS graduates is not one to pasken(or perhaps even to give hora'ah). AND, address why(rather than simply say) the Rabbanut semichah test system, perhaps the most popular semicha in Orthodoxy, does not undermine his entire thesis. One can give a woman 'heter hora'ah l'rabbim' because there has not been a cogent argument presented not to do so, and there are many poskim who write that a woman can give hora'ah. The argument regarding 'what would HKBH' want is interesting. Does he want us to restrict women from doing things just so that we can say there are differences between men and women? Or, did He establish Halakha to help us sort out those that He wants, rather than ancient ones that and are gradually being re-evaluated, similar to how we have gradually moved away from embracing slavery, polygamy(in the vast majority of instances), restrictions on the deaf/dumb, the devaluation of women(see Mishna in Horiyyot 'men's lives are saved prior to women....), the idea that a women's wisdom is only with the spindle, one who teaches his daughter Torah has taught her tiflut, etc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 11:28:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:28:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/6/2017 7:19 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all > those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to > clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using. They are > hiding behind ambiguity. if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then > saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do > hora'ah. Are you suggesting that the burden of proof is on those *opposed* to a radical change in Jewish practice? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 11:18:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:18:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> (And also some "Re: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim".) On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:48am CDT, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you : understand the OU panel as defining it. Otherwise you are just using a : nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning. To me, "semichah" is a secondary concept. My focus was to assert whose halachic decision-making can qualify as hora'ah. That question involves semichah in the discussion. We were discussing the Rama YD 242:14. The Mechaber writes in strong terms that a higi'ah lehora'ah is obligated to actually provide hora'ah. The Rama there adds that this is only if there is no barrier of kevod harav -- his rebbe passed away, gave him semichah, is a rebbe-chaver, or the like. He doesn't make semichah a definition of magi'ah lehora'ah, but only a removal of a barrier, a necessary condition in the usual circumstances. Not a defining feature. If we look at the Rama in se'ifim 5-6, he tells you he is basing himself on the Mahariq (113.3, 117 [and the OU panel adds, cf 169). The Mahariq's position is based on assuming that what was true for classical semichah is still true for modern day semichah. The Rambam (Sanhedrin 4:8) agrees with that comparison -- he derives the need today for netilas reshus from Mosaic semichah. IOW, who needs reshus for hora'ah? Someone who is magi'ah lehora'ah and has kevoad harav issues in giving hora'ah without one. A magi'ah lehora'ah can only be someone eligable to sit on a BD of [Mosaic] musmachim (or according to the Rambam, other mumchim). Not because "rabbi" is defined by "has semichah", but because "yoreh yoreh" or Yesivat Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim" declares someone to be a hegi'ah lehorah. I find the OU's argument compelling, fits the words of R/Prof SL's letter and is probably his intent, and how I understood the sugyah in general before the notion of an O woman as rabbi became a topic people would seriously discuss. I am interested to know if you asked R/D Novak which one of us understood his intent. Did he mean to explain R/Prof SL's position or explain why he differs with it in ways that makes Yeshivat Maharat an option? Agreed that few rabbis pasqen, and that we could have female clergy that avoid this first issue that I have even if a Maharat's semichah read "Rabbah uManhigah" instead of "heter hora'ah lerabbim". : The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship : between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah : to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here: : http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah ... : So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that : apply to beit din. That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist... And yet the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama all think that one continues enough of the other that we can draw conclusions across that bridge. It's not me doing the category taking, it's the Rambam and the SA. What greater authorities do you need? While on the topic of magi'ah lehorah... On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 11:24am GMT, Isaac Balbin wrote: : I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his : students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the : aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was : a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter, : the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat, : is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is : 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin : and relay the answer. There is a difference. Hopefully, someone who get "Yoreh Yoreh" is first magi'ah lehora'ah. But that's a sliding scale. They could get reshus to pasqn because there are less weighty or less involved questions they can and should be answering, while still being aware when they are in over their heads and should call RMF. Whereas the impression I got from RYHH's posts here on Avodah is that a Yo'etzet isn't supposed to ever be giving pesaq; only answering questions that the community has definite answers for -- reporting halakhah pesuqah. But then there's the second and third issues.... 2- How do we know shul is no supposed to be a men's club? Men's clubs work, or at least the Rotary and the Masons have for centuries. Movements that went egalitarian now have issues getting male participation in shul; this is a big topic in Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs (C umbrella organization) discussion. And more fundamentally, how do we know that this social dynamic was not Anshei Keneses haGdolah's intent? I would assume indeed it was. This would rule out having a woman for much of the congretational role of rabbi. 3- Halakhah is inherently non-egalitarian: a- Importing an external value over those implied internally. And more functionally, we are telling women that indeed, the traditionally male role is the better path to holiness -- let us help you run at that glass ceiling. b- This is bound to lead to greater frustration as soon as LWMO has gone as far as it could up to that halachic limit. and c- It is making a claim that is false. One is sacrificing Judaism's model of equal worth despite hevdel for the sake of egalitarianism and erasing havdalah. The last being more of a perceptual issue. And this may explain why you can get a bit further not using the word "rabbi". It's not merely a word game, there is an issue at stake; are we trying to be egalitarian, or to accept a system in which kohanim not only defy egalitarianism, but apparently start out holier than I am. Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW. On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 7:51am IST, Ben Waxman wrote: : For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community : that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like : Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi : community consider to be kefira. Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'" (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not! : If so, than kal v'chomer many of : the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are : some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in : getting hung up on multiple non-issues. There are two possible sources of division here. 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators, and therefore in practice will be a separate community. Comfort zone isn't only a psychological issue. it nostalgia, mimetic tradition, Toras imekha or minhag Yisrael sabba, communal continuity is a big issue. 2- The ideological problem isn't in the bottom-level issues but in how they highlighted the loss of common language. The opposition to these changes are talking about Mesorah, values, etc... and the proponents just see the issue as "if it's halachically allowed, why are you giving us a hard time?" This lack of common language, more specifically, the lack of a notion of metahalakhah* is disconcerting. So to my mind the schism-level battle isn't over ordaining women, Partnership Minyanim, or whether Document Hypothesis is a viable option without O as much as these decisions are apparently being made by a different set of rules. And that could quite validly be a schismatic level issue. (* In this sense of the "word" "metahalakhah". We on Avodah have also used "metahalakha" to refer to the halachos of making halakhos, even when the rules are more black-letter. Such as discussions of when we say halakhah kebasrai, or whether there is acharei rabbim lehatos in this post-Sanhedrin era.) Back to R/Dr Noam Stadlan... I believe in a role for women in the clergy that isn't that of poseiq, part of minyan, nor claiming to be egalitarian. The OU thinks that categorizing the resulting role set as "clergy" is itself too egalitarian. Again, I see that as a perceptual issue. But they too end calling for finding more venues for women to contribute communally and to be visible role models. (An Areivim-esque tangent: It would be interesting to see if the OU acts on these closing remarks as rapidly as they did about the 4 member shuls that already have Maharatos.) But then, the only difference between the position now taken by Aish or Chabad kiruv today and the actual permission granted in the driving responsum is perception as well. In terms of dry facts, both were premitting causing the non-observant to drive on Shabbos rather than let them remain disconnected. They only differed in how they let the person perceive his own driving. And yet one was a major part of a broad collapse of observance, and the other is apparently increasing observance. Presentation and perception matter. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:03:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:03:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606150330.GB26549@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:23:51AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : R Micha argues that this is not correct : he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control : then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs : i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost : so there is no YiUsh : however if they would know it is lost : they would be MeYaEsh Rather, I was saying ownership hinges on responsibility, which I suggested was both a consequence of and license for having actual control. : I would suggest that there is no problem : the Machlokes is simply a dispute about : ACTUAL belief one is in control versus : POTENTIAL belief one is in control It would help if you can find a case where somone has potential of believing they control an item for reasons other than having actual control, and has the din of ba'al, OR someone has potential to believe they lost control of an item for reasons other than actually losing control, and does not have ba'alus. Yi'ush is giving up on finding it again, not knowledge of loss of control, real or potential. Let me use your example to explain how I see it: : for example : walking behind a fellow Yid : you notice a diamond fall off his ring : he would be unaware of his loss ... : If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs : then you can take the diamond straight away : because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss But this is a case where he loses actual control. The yi'ush shelo mida'as is more of an expectation not to regain it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:06:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606150633.GC26549@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:26:41AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : can anyone explain and : show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim : to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from : non-Kosher fat "Preferable"? Because we make a point of using dish soap that is ra'ui la'akhilah. So, using a treif one means taking a position on akhshevei. I believe the OU knows they are just pandering to the market when they give such a heksher, though, and don't lehalakhah require it. (But you did say "preferable", and avoiding even a shitah dechuyah could be deemed preferable.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:55:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 09:53:30PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil : Siman 199, the Maharil writes: ... :> And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive :> commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we :> should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut ... :> And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible :> to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules :> and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in :> our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and :> hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by :> way of tradition from outside, I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather than knowledge of abstract ideas. However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. There I ass more promise. he quotes the Rambam (which you already discussed) and the Sema"q's haqdamah (from near the end). There the Maharil talks about oseiq beTorah as in kol ha'oseiq beparashas olah kei'lu hiqrivu qorban, and that this should apply even to mitzvos in which they are NOT obligated (like qorbanos). Is this exclusively TSBK? It might; the Maharil talks about men saying birkhos haTorah before reading pesuqim they do not understand. Ayin sham. : And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in : Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous : generations: :> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their :> upright fathers. Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. Which the Maharil you cited appears to be doing as well. I place more hope on the second Maharil. Which is why I disagree with: : But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the : ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach : women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was : taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in : the form of the Mishna?... Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an example to imitate. (Tosafos believe Rabbe compiled the mishnah; writing down didn't happen for centuries. So what the mishnah was to the amora'im was an official text to memorize and repeat. As in "tani tana qamei deR' ..." Not that it really touches on our discussion.) : So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what : the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women : to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al " peh... True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask why, etc... but it's not an "education" setting. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 16:57:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men gather. Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis. So that women can gather around women rabbis. certainly it is not an argument against women rabbis. And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals does not apply either. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 18:50:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:50:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: - R' Shalom Simon wrote: > I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value > as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters > of grave import. No one?!? I imagine this might be true about people who are relatively learned, and relatively savvy in the ways of certain yeshivishe circles. But I can testify that it is certainly not true of a typical less-learned nominally-Orthodox person. Towards the end of my first year in yeshiva in Yerushalayim, as I made my plans to returns back to the USA, my friends were nudging me to stay for a second year. I felt that the proper thing for me to do was to return, as per my plans. But their annoying reached a certain level, and I felt the most effective response would be to ask my gemara rebbe (who I was very close with), and then I'd be able to tell them to keep quiet. Surprise! He answered me honestly, that leaving the yeshiva would be a mistake, I needed a second year of chizuk, etc etc etc. I was devastated, having to choose between his p'sak and what *I* felt to be right. In the end, I wasn't strong enough to follow Hashem's halacha. I left the yeshiva, returned to YU for the one remaining year to get my degree, and then returned to my yeshiva in Yerushalayim. All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha. Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 19:25:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 22:25:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support? Message-ID: - R' Ben Bradley wrote: > I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur > derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what > consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to > include any contact in any social situation in addition to > more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly > consistently not included are professional scenarios where > your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors, > nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who > can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like > the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says > there that even in his generation he was unique in being able > to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for > this situation. > > But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively > certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei > aveira then there is no issur of negia. I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses, physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her, she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia. But in the case at hand, the physical contact is not incidental. It is the goal. Nay, I would argue even more strongly: The mere physical contact isn't the goal -- The EMOTIONAL RESPONSE to the contact is the goal! The whole point of hugging this person is for emotional support. I certainly agree that this sort of hugging is on a lower level that the sort of hugging that leads to sexual relations. But at the same time, it *IS* more intimate than the examples you cited. A person will choose a doctor, nurse or therapist, based on their medical ability -- but the sort of hugs we are discussing here are valued more when from a friend than from a stranger. > I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And > preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in > sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved > in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred > option. "The need to comfort the bereaved..." Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor" regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this "needed" comfort from someone else. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 20:28:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 03:28:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R Meir Rabi asked for mekoros. I suggest Yechaveh Daas 4:43 Although Chacham Ovadya is Meikel he does bring Rishonim who would hold its an Issur Derabonnon as in Pesach for 'off' Chametz. This is probably the place to look but I don't have the Sefer in front of me at the minute. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 03:38:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 06:38:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607103838.GC10990@aishdas.org> There are also sources in RAZZ's column in Jewish Action https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_kosher_soap (He sent me the link privately. Perhaps R/Dr Zivitofsky wanted to spare me being corrected in public.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 06:35:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:35:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> >Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed >incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis >are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community >in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to >do so?" >----------------------------------------------------- >As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question >(chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", >on what basis >are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a >Halachic reason to do so?" But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no? We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni or Tzlophad's daughters. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 06:49:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 08:49:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maharat Message-ID: R. Micha- if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL). It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is one of them. You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get semicha. You obviously hold that a woman cant be a judge, and the barrier to the woman is actually not semicha, but her not being qualified to be in the category of hl. Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness. There are others in that category. Since there is no reason to differentiate between those in the category, you are saying that all those others in the category also are forbidden, not from semicha, but from being in the category of HL. We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be dayyanim in some cases. So, the disqualification of women from HL actually wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot. So your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not claiming to be eligible for semicha. I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive lomdus. Is there a source that specifically states that women are forbidden from being HL? The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age. It seems that you may be distinguishing between hora'ah, and HL, there being hora'ah that is not in the category of being given by someone that is HL(if not, you have to deal with the myriads of sources that state specifically that women can give hora'ah). So you and the OU authors may be referring to HL in the mosaic understanding, and moderns, including YM, are using it in a different fashion, to refer to non-formal HL. Because if there is hora'ah that is not part of the formal HL, there is no restriction on women. And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? what is the basis for that? It seems that even assuming that you are correct(for which I have not found any support in any references), there is no basis for excluding women from having non formal hora'ah, someone acknowledging that they are capable of that non-formal hora'ah, and them functioning as a rabbi and doing what rabbi's do in shuls and elsewhere. Your restriction only keeps them from occupying a formal title which is not neccessary or needed for the job description. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 07:05:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 14:05:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> References: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> Message-ID: <94258eaf26e94a0ea0c49de3630ef2ce@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no? We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni or Tzlophad's daughters. ========================= So just to complete the loop-the question is who gets to answer this request for whom Kt Joel rich _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rn0JnHwKAKxEU5lYbmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGWm5q4mhsFBBsamlgbGDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAF5osAg&Z THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 09:38:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607163850.GA12495@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:49:45AM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL). It's not me positing it. Look again at YD 242:13-14, warning against the talmid shelo higia' lehora'ah against giving any, and the chakham who did higi'ah lehora'ah and was not moreh, applying condemnatory pesuqim to each. The SA is based on R' Abba amar R' Hunah amar Rav on AZ 19b. : It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can : give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is : one of them. So yes, it is clear. The SA says so outright. : You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get : semicha... Again, not me, Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq all assume comparability between the two. A Mahariq the Rama then cites (se'if 6) as the basis for his concluding how a musmach should behave toward the rav who gave him semichah, when not his rebbe. So it would seem the Rama buys into the notion that our "semichah" of declaring someone a hegi'ah lehora'ah (and in the case of a rebbe, implicitely that he has permission to be moreh) follows the rules of Mosaic semicha for beis din. So, thinking you are arguing against me, rather than centuries of dissentless precedent, you propose a line of reasoning at odds with the Rambam and Tosafos: : Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for : those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness... The Sema and Be'eir heiTev (on CM 7:4) does say yalfinan lah mei'eidus. See Nidah 49b But see the Y-mi, Shevuos 4:1 (vilna 19a) brings several derashos. One of them (R' Yosi bei R' Bun, R' Huna besheim R' Yosi) does learn is from a gezeira shava from eidus. ... : We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be : dayyanim in some cases. So, the disqualification of women from HL actually : wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot. So : your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not : claiming to be eligible for semicha. One thing at a time. Eligability for true Mosaic semichah and how it reflect on who can give hora'ah is what's relevant now. Not who can serve in other judicial roles that did/will not require semichah. : I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive : lomdus. Is there a source that specifically states that women are : forbidden from being HL? There are numerous sources that say women can't get real Mosaic semichah, and numerous sources that say that the laws of today's "semichah" are derived from those. The fact that I don't know anyone before the current dispute actually connect the two to deny something no (O and pre-O) observant community considered a plausible question even as recently as the late 1990s (including a statement by R' Avi Weiss) really doesn't make the argument less compelling. If you have A =/= B and B = C, do you really demand a source telling you that A =/= C? : The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara : and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age... No, that HL in the SA is the same. ... : And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the : requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? ... Never claimed that. I separated my problem with declaring a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" for women from my problem with a woman serving during services and from my 2 or 3 problems with giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings in halakhah. You have only responded to the first. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 10:33:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:33:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607173338.GB9596@aishdas.org> As I see it, the question WRT hora'ah is whether we follow the Rama's lead and hold like the Mahariq, or the Birkei Yoseif CM 7:12 a viable shitah -- and then, does "viable" mean "advisable"? (We aren't heter shopping, after all.) The Birkei Yoseif says Af de'ishah besulah ladun, mikol maqom ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah basing himself on one of the opinions in Tosafos (Yevamos 45b "mi", Gittin 88b, ve'od) about what it means that "Devorah melamedes lahem dinim". (Devodah vs. ishah asurah ladun is the topic of 11.) It seem to me that "melameid lahem dinim" is a different use of the word "hora'ah" than the SA is using in YD. And thus it seems to me that Birkei Yoseif would explicitly permit a yo'etzet, who is teaching established halakhah and defering questions that require shiqul hada'as to a rav. But he is not describing hora'ah as assumed in a Maharat's heter hora'ah lerabbim and the YD 242 sense of magi'ah lehora'ah and who needs such a heter when he does. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 10:12:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:12:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607171230.GA2858@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:25:57PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses, : physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a : "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one : will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so : too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked : her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her, : she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia. "Melakhah she'inah tzerichah legudah" is specific to the 39 melakhos, so "sort of" indeed. Besides, might be more of a pesiq reishei. In any case, when a professional violates negi'ah, the heter is ba'avidteih tarid (BM 91b). And it's specifically to professionals and the air of professionalism. (As well as the lowered odds of a problem for someone who has a license at risk.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 12:22:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 21:22:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/7/2017 3:50 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I > will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I > *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for > disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi > Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha. > > Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar > things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent. I would agree that this is an extreme example. I don't know you so I can't say anything about you in particular (not that I would anyway, not on a forum) but I would expect a yeshiva guy who had been learning with a teacher/rav for a year to take the teacher/rav's words much more seriously than the average ba'al habayit. The first thing a ba'al habayit would do is say "Well, I went to him for advice, not psak, so I don't have to listen to him". >I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value >as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters > of grave import. I don't know what constitutes grave import - an abortion? learning Biblical Criticism? Marrying someone of questionable yichus? Whether or not a particular business maneuver constitutes fraud in the eyes of halacha (or if it isn't but is illegal)? Accepting charity from criminals? Would the average MO Jew speak a rav and get his psak on these issues? Or do people limit themselves to strict Orach Chayim issues like eating on Yom Kippur? Are there issues that people will do whatever the rabbi says and ignore what he has to say about other things (obviously people ignore what rabbis have to say about a lot of issues, but I mean a straight psak)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 11:57:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maharat Message-ID: R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress. You are engaging in a theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls. (they were not arguing against specific wording on a claf, they were arguing against holding a specific position). Given what you wrote, we both agree that the OU argument against does not hold water. Even if they are technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are capable of doing so(even if according to you they actually do not need permission from their rav). Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R. Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and others. Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav) have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and the authority is in the sources, not the person. You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments. You have admitted that the issue of women semicha has not been considered until recently. So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong. (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an arguement, that it be consistent. So if you are claiming that the reason women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot. you cant have it both ways). Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.' Please read the article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier. He makes it very clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that external 'modern values' are an important part of that. Modern values are neither positive nor negative. Those that find resonance in the Mesorah are elevated. R. Nachum Rabinovitch and R. Lichtenstein point out that our goal is to make moral progress. You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'. It isn't about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion. As R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice. I happen to be married to a Maharat student and personally know many of them and their teachers. It is the ultimate in hubris and mansplaining for you and the others to claim to know what their motivation is. It was reprehensible of the OU panel to claim to know what the motivation is when they failed to talk to anyone actually involved in the enterprise. Even if we incorrectly grant that it is due to 'egalitarian yearnings,' is that wrong? I suggest that our Mesorah has incorporated egalitarian yearnings. The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way, and those that would probably would give all sorts of apologetics and rationalizations for it. (I am aware of the different shitot, and know that RSZA for example gave so many other rationales to decide that even though l'halacha he held this, there were so many other bases for deciding ahead of gender that practically it never would have been applicable.) Even the OU panel said that we value women the same as men. Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women. The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large or as small as possible? Because as we have decided above, if we go by strict halacha, there is no problem with women serving as shul rabbis. is it a value to have differences, and because you want to have differences, you are going to prohibit women from doing things? Just to have differences? There are differences between Jews and Converts. Is it a Halachic value to maximize the differences, or minimize the differences between Jew and Gerim? R. Moshe wrote that a convert can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah is not a problem. Would he have agreed that a women can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah is also not a problem for her? (rosh yeshiva does not require semicha). Mishpat echad yehiyeh lachem, ka-ger ka-ezrach. The OU paper brought up tzniut. I do not think that the MO community thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a violation of tzniut. So there is no violation of tzniut when women or men perform the functions of clergy on their side of the mechitzah(one could designate a man to take of things on the men's side of the mechitzah if you were worried about interactions across the mechitzah). if you are claiming that this is a tzniut problem, then it applies to every interaction of women and men, inside the shul and outside. The OU paper claimed that a synagogue required greater tzniut, and therefore women cant perform rabbinical duties. That is a non-sequitor. First of all, it hasnt been demonstrated that appropriately dressed and acting people are a problem with tzniut. and, why is this particular action the one picked to fulfill the mandate of more tzniut? perhaps the men fulfilling EH 21 would be a better starting place. I understand you and others not being comfortable with ordination for women. no one is asking for you to be comfortable with it. If you dont think it is a good idea(halacha v'ain mori'in kein), that is fine to say. But it isn't fine to say that Halacha bans it when it doesn't, and it isn't ok to try to kick people who are shomrei Torah u'mitzvot out of the tent because of your comfort or lack of comfort. I would hope that you are at least as uncomfortable with some of the people on the far right wing. No one is asking for you to go to their shul, ask them a shailah, or learn their Torah if you dont want to. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:10:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:10:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:57:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress. You are engaging in a : theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU : rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls... Well, my first point is a discussion of hora'ah, and consequently for whom is semichah meaninful. But my argument on this point is a subset of the OU's argument on that point. See their paper, pp 8-9 : Given what you wrote, we both agree : that the OU argument against does not hold water. Even if they are : technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give : hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are : capable of doing so (even if according to you they actually do not need : permission from their rav). HOW do you get from what I wrote an implication that we have agreement on that? I think it's firmly established by aforementioned rishonim (plus others in the OU's footnotes) that if someone is ineligable for Mosaic semichah they are ineligable to give hora'ah and therefore have no use for today's yoreh-yoreh. Or the Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim"? : Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch : who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R. : Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a : later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't : invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and : others. Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav) : have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and : the authority is in the sources, not the person. Asked and answered, although in a post after the one to which you replied. Some use the word hora'ah to mean "melameid lahem dinim". Which is not hora'ah as the Rama is discussing it. I pointed you to the Birkei Yoseif. The Chinuch is similar; his : You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments... Another? What's the first? : So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only : poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong. The OU paper doesn't make that argument. Not that I see everything the way the OU panel does. (But halakhah lemaaseh, I would be more likely to follow their opinion than my own.) Nor did I find RJF's analysis of this claim in neither (his general position on ordaining women) nor the only place where I saw him discuss the OU panel on Lehrhaus. As an activist on the subject, I'm sure you've spent more time reading up on it than I. Could you kindly provide more specific references? But let me deal with what you wrote: IOW, you are saying that because our ancestors thought the idea was absurd, we ought to go ahead? What such an argument would say is that we historically had numerous women capable of being rabbis and even so no one even considered making any of them one. The OU's section on mesorah should explain why such attitudes have precedential authority. But again, none of this reflects on what I myself was arguing : (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an : arguement, that it be consistent. So if you are claiming that the reason : women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from : being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including : that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot. you cant : have it both ways). I argued the opposite causality. Lo sosuru mikol asher YORUKHA refers to dayanim. So, someone who is excluded from becoming a dayan can't be the subject of the pasuq, and their decisions don't fall under the halakhos generated by this pasuq. Their decisions are not hora'ah, in the pasuq's sense. (YOu had me saying: Can't give hora'ah implies can't be dayan. I am really saying: Can't be dayan implies can't give hora'ah.) : Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.' Please read the : article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier. He makes it very : clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that : external 'modern values' are an important part of that. Modern values are : neither positive nor negative... Not because they're modern, no. But obviously some are positive, some negative. We can judge them. Mesorah and its values are logically prior to modern values. Numerous halakhos are unegalitarian. Even if egalitarianism is a good idea for benei noach, as a perspective it is inconsistent with that the Torah expects of Jews. : You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'. It isn't : about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers : to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion. As : R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice... The motive I attributed, really echoed back from what I heard in prior iterations, is not that anyone is about making halakhah more egalitarian, but a desire to make halakhah fit a more egalitarian reality. So I don't know what you're rebutting. I argued that some realities reflect values that must be resisted rather than accomodated. We can talk about the end of inequality in the workplace as a good thing, but can we talk about reducing the differences in avodas Hashem, differences that can't be eliminated because halakhah demands they're there, as a good thing? Good point here to address RSSimon's post. On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 09:35:14AM -0400, Sholom Simon wrote: : But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight : halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's : education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent : this", no? To avoid making this a false dichotomy, you have to define halakhah broadly, to include the obligation to live according to the values and general guidelines of aggadita -- mitzvos like qedoshim tihyu, vehalakhta bidrakhav, ve'asisa hayashar vehatov (a/k/a Chovos haLvavos or Hil' Yesodei haTorah and Hil' Dei'os). I think this is what the OU is trying to get to with the concept of "Mesorah". But if I may be frank, they are handicapped in their ability to discuss the aggadic by too many of them seeing the world with Brisker eyes. Back to R/Dr Stadlan... In addition to the question needing to be asked about the Torah's evaluation of a modern value before we simply adopt it (rather than tolerate, limit the scope, or entirely reject).... Second, I do not think justice is served by telling women to find their religious meaning in a headlong rush toward a glass ceiling. I think it's more just to teach them how to find meaning in ways that aren't dead-ended for them. More equal, if less egalitarian. ... : Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women. : The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large : or as small as possible?... That decision should be made by starting with "why does halakhah have those differences"? And what do our aggadic sources say? As I said above, we judge whether to adopt, tolerate or resist new values based on TSBP. : The OU paper brought up tzniut. I do not think that the MO community : thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a : violation of tzniut... Tzenius isn't about clothes. I don't agree with their argument, but don't fight strawmen. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 13:55:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:55:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a > woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken > that way I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:21:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 23:21:05 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB writes: >I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" >in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather than knowledge of abstract ideas. No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these were not "textual" sources - how would you translate ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? better though, to keep the flow and that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? >However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult to understand them as having been written by the same person. Indeed the Birchei Yosef, who seems to have only seen the first one inside, and seen the second one referred to in other sources, particularly the Beis Yosef,( who himself seems to have had the second on but possibly not the first) challenges the quotations from the second teshuva on the basis of the first, and seems to suggest (in the politest possible way) that the Beis Yosef got it wrong, because they just do not match. I do not know any real way to reconcile these two, and can only note that the two compilations of teshuvos were compiled by different students of the Maharil . : And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in : Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous : generations: :> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their :> upright fathers. >Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk, it is about actively teaching (albeit oral). Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting up of schools), but it is a strange pasuk to use if he was talking purely about mimeticism. >Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at all the experiential aspect. When the gemora cites a ma'aseh rav, is this *not* TSBP because it would seem to be mimetic? >I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an example to imitate. The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two types of TSBP. And the other alternative would seem to be to write this kind of teaching out of TSBP. But is not a lot of TSBP, even though by no means all of it, this kind of teaching. Is not the gemora etc filled with this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. : So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what : the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women : to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al " peh... >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting. But the Rambam doesn't say either - "but with regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she ba'al peh taught in a formal educational setting, but that not taught in a formal education setting is fine". And note of course that one cannot just observe Mum taking challa, one also needs to be told about the correct shiur. It is highly unlikely that anybody would necessarily conclude, by watching week after week, exactly what the correct shiur for taking chala and the bracha is by mere observation. That has to be communicated as a form of rule. Ok a situational rule, - taught in context, but the tradition would be lost in a generation if it was left for every generation to guess the correct shiur by watching closely enough week after week. >-Micha Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:53:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:53:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we have now is historically completely wrong. From "b'inyan semichat chachamim' published in Or Hamizrach: 'At this time when semicha is batel, all the mishpatim from the Torah are battel..based on lifneihem- and not lifnei hedyotot. And nowadays we are all hedyotot. And the only way it works is that we act as shlichim of Mosaic beit din' So everyone is a hedyot. More to the point in section five there is a detailed examination of semicha included what was required in various areas. 'The Chatam Sofer writes...that this semicha of morenu and chaver has NO BASIS IN SHAS but is a ashkenazi minhag and does not contain anything real'. 'They issue of semicha that they estabkished(tiknu), according to the Rivash, because it is forbidden for a student, even one who is hegiah l'hora'ah, to give hora'a or to establish a yeshiva(note that this obviously is not hora'ah)while his teacher is alive....therefore they had the PRACTICE of semicha...that he is no longer a student but can teach others(the word is l'lamed, not hora'ah)' There is a lot more. But it is quite clear in the sources brought in this article that the historical record clearly shows No connection between Mosaic semicha and what was begun in the Middle Ages. Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:53:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 22:53:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> References: , <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> Message-ID: <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 7, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > >> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: >> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way > > I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this Not really. They basically say either that there are other tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why.specific citations available upon request Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:07:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:07:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> References: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> Message-ID: On 07/06/17 18:53, Rich, Joel wrote: >> I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that >> this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this > Not really. They basically say either that there are other > tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it > would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why. That's what I thought too. I was surprised to read RNS not only insisting otherwise but deducing an entire shita from this supposed fact. In practise I doubt it was ever meant to be implemented kipshuto, because even on its own terms it applies only when all else is equal, and it rarely is. But it seems to me that when all else *is* equal, i.e. when we have no other information so all else is zero, and we are free to set our own priorities without fearing negative consequences (that too constitutes additional information which makes all else not equal), then the halacha must still apply. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:51:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:51:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170607225122.GA14289@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 05:48:13PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : > Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because : > there is no actual issur la'avor. : : I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on : pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where : there's an issur involved? Red shoelaces? : The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that : yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below. No, it could be preservational and still deOraisa. Like my example of a ben soreier umoreh, who Chazal say dies al sheim ha'asid -- we're also preventing the continuing deteriation in a downward spiral. This "downward spiral" was what I was calling Hil' Dei'os. Hirhurim and hana'ah -- devarim sheleiv in general -- aren't even punishable altogether, how could they allow a court to decide yeihareig? Most dinei nefashos don't even qualify. : Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context : of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must : be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as : issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does. And qiddush hasheim could involve avoiding something that is not assur either. (Agian: red shoelaces.) That too is death to preserve an attitude. I am just saying that your desire to make this yeihareig ve'al ya'avor is putting an overly formal halachic box. Whether or not something is a qiddush hasheim or otherwise worth dying for is not necessarily reducible to a Brisker chalos-sheim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:17:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:17:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we : have now is historically completely wrong... And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah? The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up to imitate the other with no continuity between them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:58:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> Message-ID: The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way, and that saying that modern semicha was set up to imitate ancient semicha(to such an extent that the same prohibitions apply) is a distortion of history and Halachic history. Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources. The Rama makes more sense when read in the context of the quotes that I provided from the Chatam Sofer et al. The Rambam, could well be discussing ancient semicha in the sources you describe........ On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun > 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: > : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we > : have now is historically completely wrong... > > And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based > on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical > study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah? > > The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up > to imitate the other with no continuity between them. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 23:40:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 09:40:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> References: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> Message-ID: <5938F16E.9010705@biu.ac.il> the topic is addressed in this article: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0048-0068.pdf ?A MAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER from Tradition in 2014 Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > >> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a >> woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken >> that way > > > I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this > is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? > What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument > is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the > question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O? > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 06:14:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:14:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check Message-ID: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> [RJR poses these questions at the start of his Audio Roundup column on Torah Musings . I prodded him to share them here as well, as questions work better in an actual discussion venue. But I didn't think he would do so without plugging his column! So, here's my plug: Worth reading, and if you have one -- pointing subscribing to on your news agreegator / RSS reader. -micha] A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled the commandment to wear tfillin. In fact, many pasul tfillin were pasul from the start (e.g., missing a letter). The Rav later reported that a listener heard the shiur and had his tfillin checked and found such a psul, even though he had bought the tfillin from a reputable sofer and had them checked earlier by another reputable sofer. The Rav was pleased with this result. Two questions: 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status) appropriate? 2) As a societal issue, how should current rabbinic leadership view the tradeoff of now requiring (suggesting) frequent checks? We will have some who will have the listener's result. OTOH, we will also have those whose tfillin will more likely become pasul due to uncurling the klaf and the increased costs of checking. BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan checking be appropriate? Kt Joel rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 06:15:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:15:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Parenthesis Message-ID: <1c9fcdd2c38f43e7af59d24ffe246c8b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> [See my plug of RJR's column in the previous post. His question about a distraught new widow and negi'ah as well... And that's just the column's *padding*! Extra credit if you answer the question about parenthesis while "vayehi binsoa'" and its upside-down nuns is still in parashas hashavua. -micha] 1. In the Shulchan Aruch -- who is the author of the statements in parenthesis in the Rama like print that don't start with Hagah? 2. In Rashi (or Tosfot), who decided to put certain words in parenthesis and why? (e.g., differing manuscripts, logic, etc.) Kt Joel rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 04:31:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 07:31:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . I would like to start a new thread to discuss exactly what we mean by "redemption". I will begin by quoting most of R' Micha Berger's recent post from the thread "Elimelech's land": > ... it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to > all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that > strikes me as a progression): > > - the go'el hadam > - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's > not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) > - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) > - and of people (ibid v 48) > - the end of galus > > To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even > something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on > its nachalah. > > But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more > to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first -- > "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of > redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why > there are different words in lh"q. Several years ago I tried working on this as part of my preparations for Pesach. The first obstacle I encountered was (as RMB mentioned in the last line here) that there are so many interchangeable synonyms. The first two that came to my mind are "geulah" and "pidyon", such as in Yirmiyahu 31:10: > Ki fadah Hashem es Yaakov, > Ug'alo miyad chazak mimenu. I agree that a good starting point, as suggested by RMB, is "restoration". This carries over to English as well, and I could cite several pieces of literature whose theme is "the chance to redeem myself," where someone suffered a significant loss of status (justified or not) and is trying to correct that loss, and restore himself to his prior status. This is very much what Naomi was trying to accomplish. But I'm not so sure how relevant it was to Mitzrayim, where the problem was not merely social status, but physical danger. And that brings more synonyms into the mix: yeshuah and hatzalah. A useful tool for distinguishing synonyms is when they occur near each other in the same context. I brought an example of pidyon and geulah above from Yirmiyahu, and here is a case of hatzalah and geulah: Shemos 6:6-7: "V'hotzaysi... V'hitzalti... V'gaalti... V'lakachti..." On this, Rav SR Hirsch explains: "Whereas hitzil is deliverance from a threatening danger, gaal is deliverance from a destruction which has already occured." In Shemos 8:19, RSRH seems to say that "padah" refers to redemption when "anything has fallen into the power of someone else, to bring it out of that power." I suppose that relates to kedushah (Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, etc) because the redeemed object is no longer encumbered by the halachos that applied before. On the other hand, Vayikra 25:24-54 teaches about using money to redeem land, or a house, or an eved. In those pesukim, the word "redeem" appears as some form of geulah 17 times, but as pidyon not even once. How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? Looking forward to your thoughts Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 04:49:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:49:29 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500 From: Noam Stadlan via Avodah > R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men > gather. Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis. So that women > can gather around women rabbis. I'm sorry this does not compute halachically or logically. The men don't gather around the Rabbi either, and I have never seen a problem when the Rav who has been directing everything requests women on one side and men on the other. > certainly it is not an argument against > women rabbis. It was a comment that even in a place where the Yetzer Horah is least likely to have an influence, we are asked to be separate from each other. > And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like > the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly > dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual > immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals > does not apply either. Ger does not make that their focus. They have Gedorim for their own wives even if dressed Tzniusdikly etc One doesn't have to be modern orthodox to encounter women in the workplace either. It would be good if there were more women asking shaylos period. For Nida shaylos there have always been ways to treat a matter discretely. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 07:30:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of > any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even > punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of > the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? Yes, it's what the victim's blood needs and deserves, and the victim is unable to provide it for himself, so as the closest relative it's his duty to provide it for him. The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. Ya`akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because Kel Nekamos Hashem. We are commanded to love our fellow Yidden so much that we forgive them and *forgo* our natural and just desire for revenge, just as we would do of our own accord for someone we actually loved without being commanded. Even the neshama of a murder victim is expected to forgive his Jewish killer, and Navos was punished for not doing so. But we can't forgive on someone else's behalf, especially on our father's behalf, or assume he's such a tzadik that he must have forgiven his killer. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 09:13:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:13:39 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Psak of a Musmach Message-ID: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> The Maharat thread got me thinking about this, but it is a bit of a tangent, hence the new thread. It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don?t recall that it is mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 07:23:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 10:23:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170608164150.ETSG4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> At 09:43 AM 6/8/2017, via Avodah wrote: > >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather >than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she >noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask >why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting. Surely, *some* of it is. Rn Ch L gave the example of a shiur, but there's an awful lot that goes on in the kitchen, and I would guess (I don't know, as I've never been a mother or a daughter) that the mother would be almost negligent if she didn't actually explain some various rules. (I'm using a slotted spoon here, but in cases x, y, z, I can't use a slotted spoon; or: when I do this it's not considered borer because x, y, z; or: if I want to return the pot to the blech, I have to have in mind x,y,a; or: this is how you make tea, and this is how you make coffee, and this is why I can't melt the ice in a cup, and this is why you can defrost the orange juice, etc etc etc). I have a teacher who told me that any women who is doing a competent job in the kitchen has to have learned TSBP. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:28:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:28:47 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> Message-ID: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of >> any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even >> punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of >> the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? > > The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like. Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:45:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 14:45:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <3c673353-b5e9-d704-9cb0-52aff2f213c7@sero.name> On 08/06/17 14:28, Daniel Israel wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not >> Jewish. > An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. > Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos > chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an issur on doing so againstyour own people, because you are commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in itself does not come from any Jewish source. > That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like. > Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam > should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise > above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes. He's not go'el ha'emes, he's go'el hadam. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 13:43:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 20:43:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? ------------------------- The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an extension of the beit din. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:40:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 18:40:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Psak of a Musmach In-Reply-To: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> References: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <70d0ce58d48443a8a6b7fb558f001745@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From: Daniel Israel via Avodah Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 12:14 PM > It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, > then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying > on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or > her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not > obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don't recall that it is > mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha. Good starting point is first Mishna in horiyot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 14:01:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:01:33 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> References: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2D819FCB-5A0D-497C-8E21-EE99A6A9069A@kolberamah.org> A few points that have been swirling around my head reading through this thread. 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? Let?s concede, for sake of argument, that there are halachically permissible ways for a woman to do much of what communal rabbis actually do in practice. Not everything that is mutar is advisable. I don?t see why we should be embarrassed that community policy is being set by Torah principles which are not purely halachic. And while we are all entitled to our own opinions, community policy must be set by gedolei Torah of a certain stature. I don?t believe any of the Rabbaim who are supporting these ventures, with all due respect to their legitimate scholarship and accomplishments, are among the select few who a significant portion of the Torah world look to for answers to these kinds of questions. They were never among those who set gedarim for the community before they become involved in this issue, and so it should be no surprise that their taking the initiative on this issue is widely not accepted. 2. As far as hora?ah, we are discussing it like there is a clear line: halacha p?sukah and hora?ah. (And some comments make a third distinction, between what a local Rav can pasken, and what requires phone call.) But every case requires some amount of shikul hada?as. Sometimes it is so trivial we don?t notice it (?is this specific package of meat marked ?bacon,' treif??). But there are lots of questions we essentially MUST pasken for ourselves. Things like, ?is my headache painful enough to justify taking asprin on Shabbos??. OTOH, most of the questions we ask a Rav (?is this spoon okay??) aren?t really about shikul hadaas, they are more about his knowing all the relevant sugyos. I.e., they are topics that we could (should?) learn enough to answer for ourselves. Note also that any responsible Rav is continually evaluating which questions he feels capable of answering on his own. Just to be clear, I?m not saying there is no distinction to be made. Given that hora?ah lifnei Rabo is assur, clearly there is such a category. But what it is is not so clear cut. Also, I?m not pointing this out to support Rabbanus for women (although one could formulate such an argument), rather to suggest that hora?ah is not this place this needs to be argued out. 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher.? I think this is a good model. First, I would note that there are definitely still circles which strongly disagree with aspects of the chassidic approach. What has changed is that no one is seriously concerned that it will degenerate into widespread k?firah. (Keep in mind there was precedent. Chassidus arose soon after exactly that happened with regard to the Sabbateans.) That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, much as happened with the Conservative movement. Fifty years from now, if that happens, the question will be answered. If it doesn?t happen, then those who are still opposed may be willing to make their peace with it as part of Orthodoxy, even they don?t themselves hold that way. Given this long term view, perhaps the vehement opposition is an important part of the processes (as it may well have been with regard to chassidus). 4. Related to the prior point, RnIE (I think) suggested that this is less of a big deal in E?Y. And RSS posted a link to an article by Dr. Rachel Levmore that concludes with a list of reasons the situation may be different in E?Y and the US. For myself, WADR to those involved, who I am sure really feel they are acting l?sheim shemayim, I share RMB?s concern that they are aiming at a glass ceiling (extremely well put!). And, consequently, I suspect that there will eventually be a schism with at least some of that camp transforming into a neo-Conservative movement. After reading the above mentioned article by DrRL, perhaps another reason for the difference is that in E?Y these developments are fundamentally a response to a need. That is, there are specific issues having nothing to do with female clergy which are creating a need, and in some natural way it has come out that the best solution is the creation of these new roles for women. Whereas, in the US, the driver seems to be a conviction that there should be some form of female clergy, in and of itself. Which leads to a concern I?ve long had about many issues where people point to historical halachic change to justify contemporary changes. Perhaps certain changes are okay if they happen on their own, but we really shouldn?t be pushing for them to happen. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 14:25:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 17:25:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170608212546.GB25737@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 06:58:57PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam : Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way... But you neither explain 1- If it is a "distortion of history and Halachic : history" to claim that current yoreh-yoreh is an imitation of the elements of true Mosaic semichah that are still meaningful, how and why the Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq the Rama quotes lehalakhah all derive laws of yoreh-yoreh from Mosaic semichah for dayanus? Nor 2- How the CS's claim -- citation would be helpful -- that today's semichah is "merely" an Ashkenazi minhag means that this minhag was not set up to certify who is standing in the shadow of the true Mosaic musmach? Don't we need something explicit from the CS before we can just assume he would not deduce the rules of the minhag from the rules of true semichah. After all, you're setting him up against the precedent of doing just that (in Q #1). See the AhS YD 242:29-30. He explains that contemporary "semichah" is to announce to the nation that (1) he is higi'ah lehora'ah, and (2) his hora'ah is by permission of the ordaining rabbi. (He also requires a community to have a rav ha'ir, and others need the RhI's reshus to pasqen in his town as well.) This is much like what you said the CS says, as well as the Rivash. And the Rivash, which appears from your quote is the CS's source, talks about hora'ah -- just as the AhS does. In any case, I am looking for the Tzitz Eliezer's discussion of Sepharadim and their not accepting the notion of contemporary "semichah". Because IIRC, his discussion about semichah, not higi'ah lehora'ah. Recall, AISI the real question isn't the nature of a semichah, but how can be higi'ah lehora'ah. Semichah is only a good belwether, because it's not meaningful to say yoreh-yoreh to someone who can't give hora'ah with or without that permission. And it's semichah the CS dismisses as minhag; the extra gate can be minhag without changing who is allowed to enter. The discussion of semichah doesn't touch on who can give hora'ah, it is just out one precondition before actually doing so. : Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of : the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the : Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources... I don't know what you mean. Does the Rambam derive halakhah from dayanim musmachim with Mosaic semichah to today's morei hora'ah or not? Does Tosafos? Do they not take it for granted that the laws are consistent between the two, without which those derivations would not work? What exactly is your other understanding? (To reword Q #1.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 19:36:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:36:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will bow out. A few details: I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look up the underlying sources to be sure. The article is in Or HaMizrach 44 a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski(I hope the transliteration does him justice). There are other sources on the the Halachic/ historical aspects of semicha including one by R. Breuer in the journal Tziyon. and many others. I do not have time to find and read them all, but I think the point is clear in the article cited above. In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may explain my difficulty in finding it. I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot both of which are not applicable(or have not been applied) to modern semicha. So it is a stretch to state that this Rambam implies anything about current Hora'ah or semichah. I have not found any specific statements that a woman is not qualified to reach the state of 'hegiah l'hora'ah', and certainly not in the modern(non-Mosaic) context. I am not arguing that some of the sources cant be read to come to this conclusion, but it seems to be a novel halachic statement(similar to the OU rabbis making a new halachic category of "stuff that a shul rabbi does") and the only characteristic is that women are forbidden from it. I suggest that if someone on the left had made a similar claim, they would be accused of pretzeling the Halacha to support a pre-existing mahalach. I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable understanding of the Halacha. And perhaps even that those who oppose are the ones who are trying to find arguments when a fair reading of the sources indicate that there really is none specifically applicable to the issue at hand. Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical Ethics on the topic of triage. thanks Noam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 20:55:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 05:55:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Cherlow's Post Message-ID: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> https://www.facebook.com/RabbiCherlow/posts/1442987509096046 In response to a question regarding a psak that supposedly allows women to recite Sheva Brachot and an accusation that certain rabbis are distorting the halacha because of feminism, Rav Cherlow wrote a response. I am summarizing a few points. Full text is in the link above.. Introduction: Your words are a perfect example of how someone can break the Torah's most serious commandments and yet act as if he is a yirei shamayim. 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah. 2) Never mock rabbis (or anyone) because you disagree with their opinions. Mocking people publicly is one of the most serious aveirot. 3) Never use a nickname for others, in this case "Dati Light". 4) Always be careful about generalizing. 5) Never accuse someone of being guilty of what you assume to be their hidden motivations. You don't know and accusing someone violates "M'devar sheker tirchaq". More importantly, you're assuming that you're a tzaddiq and don't have an agenda. 6) Never use a group name to mock someone. The Torah world owes feminism a great debt for things its done (Talmud Torah for women, leading the fight against sexual harassment, etc) along with strong criticism for other things done in its name. 7) Always try and live according to Halacha as it is written. Don't have other gods, like opposition to chiddushim. 8) Bring halachic arguments to halachic discussions. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 02:15:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:15:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: On 6/8/2017 9:28 PM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah > > wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. > > An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. > Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos > chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. > Where is there any issur on taking revenge? Against fellow Jews, yes, of course. But generally? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 04:21:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:21:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Cherlow's Post In-Reply-To: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> References: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <9f3eaf48-0c03-fc88-cc90-e84a27b77ea9@sero.name> On 08/06/17 23:55, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in > Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to > do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you > guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah. And yet in this case the newspaper seems to have got it right, and R Cherlow's correspondent simply hadn't bothered to read it before fulminating. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:06:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:06:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption Message-ID: Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it. Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time before they went into exile was simply waiting time? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 07:32:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 17:32:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern > day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? Who says it was? > What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin > (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah > tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work > to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It > doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it. Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite. But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. I don't think their much more lengthy exile was a punishment. I think it was simply necessary. Had they rejoined us, by which I mean all of them, and not just those who Jeremiah brought back, and we had been exiled as a single nation, things would have been different. But viewing themselves as a separate nation from us, how would you envision things having worked in the ancient world? I don't think it would have been significantly different from what happened with us and the Samaritans. In fact, the Samaritans called themselves Israelites; not Samaritans. (That's the root of the mistake in the Christian "good Samaritan" story, btw.) > Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time > before they went into exile was simply waiting time? Not at all. Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 07:50:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:50:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 09/06/17 11:06, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern > day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? Assuming that it was, and that Yirmiyahu didn't bring them back. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:20:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:20:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <019f7de8-108b-d533-3e11-4556470c1c43@sero.name> On 08/06/17 22:36, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is > that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the > time of the Gemara. I think that is obvious, and it didn't occur to me that this could be what R Micha was referring to. I thought there must be some other Rambam, perhaps a teshuvah, where he discusses "modern" semicha to whatever extent such a thing even existed in his day and place. BTW I have seen it suggested that the original semicha was kept alive at the yeshivah in Damascus (they would cross into the borders of EY to confer it) until it was destroyed in the 2nd Crusade, which, if true, would mean there may still have been living musmachim in the Rambam's day. > Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. > That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar > statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical > Ethics on the topic of triage. But that article doesn't support the claim you made, that there exist poskim -- and in fact that it is the unanimous position of MO poskim -- that this halacha is no longer operative. The article cites sources relevant to the entire topic of triage, in all circumstances, including the mishneh and gemara in Horiyos, and I didn't see any suggestion that they are less authoritative or applicable today than they ever were. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:00:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1af6febd-3d16-f901-472d-92f0a5cd66e7@sero.name> Another idea: To expect a redeemer from the House of David one must first subject oneself to that House. Those who reject its sovereignty can't (by definition) expect one of its members to save them, so on being exiled they would naturally assume that this would be their new home and these their new neighbors, with whom they must assimilate. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 11:08:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 05:32:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: :> Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any :> modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? : Who says it was? First, I think we concluded among ourselves that the 10 lost tribes are really 9+1 lost tribes, with Shim'on, living in Malkhus Yisrael, being a separate case. With, perhaps, it's own spiritual malais. They lived amongst sheivet Yehudah; is it likely their culture was more like Yisrael than their own neighbors? With that tangent out of the way... It's a machloqes tannaim in Sanhedrin 10:3 (110b), no? "The 10 shevatim are not destined to return, 'Vayashlikheim el eretz achares kayom hazah' (Devarim 29) [derashah elided]... divrei R' Aqiva. "R' Eliezer omer: [his own derashah] ... even as the 10 shevatim went through the darkening, so too it will grow light for them. The gemara's discussion focuses on the previous part of the mishnah's machloqs -- their olam haba. But Rebbe says they do have olam haba and seems to be implying that the kaparah is total -- so they will return to EY. The Sifra (Bechuqosai 8:1) has R' Aqiva saying they won't return, but based on (Vayiqra 26:38), "vavadtem bagoyim..." And it has R' Meir as the one disagreeing with R' Aqiva. In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman, we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim. Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. R' Chaim Brisker uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. Which R' Aharon Lichtenstein uses as a snif not to support giving them Israeli citizenship in "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity." :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:19:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:19:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema Message-ID: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in the famous midrash about Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry halacha guide demands that they be sourced? Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 09:39:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:39:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170609163954.GA24832@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:36:08PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will : bow out. A shame, as we went in circles on one issue and didn't touch the others. Including my assertion that the Chinuch (142) speaks "ishah chokhmah hare'uyah lelhoros" and "assur lo leshanos letalmidav" -- whether someone who has the skills to give hora'ah shouldn't be teaching when drunk. No mention of hora'ah, but ra'ui lehora'ah and teaching. Because, he explains, their teaching will be accepted by those who look up to them, as if it were hora'ah. Similarly the Chida (Birkei Yoseif, CM se'if 7:12) rules out ordaning women, following the example of Devorah. People can voluntarily listen to Devorah (or, it would seem, to a yo'etzes), but she cannot be appointed a rabbi nor ordained as one because her opinion could not be imposed. Picture the town hiring a rabbi that any chazan can say, "Well, I don't follow him" and therefore can break from the shul's norm, or even "I don't follow him on this one." But more to the point, following the Chinukh (who is cited), he says "deDevorah haysah melamedes lahem dinim." R' Baqshi Doron mentions this problem in his letter, which RGS has scanned at http://www.torahmusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Rav-Bakshi-Doron-on-Women-Rabbis.pdf#page=2 REBD concludes that because of this, women should not be tested or given semichah, as that would be an appointment rather than voluntary acceptance of a particular teaching. And, while the Chida (and thus REBD) says "ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah", he is defining this as teaching law, not interpresting law -- nidon didan. Which is consistent with the Chinukh the Chida is building on. Nor did we get to my non black-letter-halakhah concerns. Including my concern that the whole project reflects a misrepresentation of Judaism's demands by thinking that anything that can fit the black letter of the law is in compliance with the Torah. That there is none of the more nebulous side of the law; an obligation to pursue a given value system and ethic. The fact that "Mesorah" is dismissed as political rather than a real Torah issue is to my mind a blunder; and your disinterest in discussing this aspect actually hightened those concerns. Nor the question of telling women that they are correct to seek value in a manner that has a glass cieling for them. Nor the question of whether a woman belongs in shul service, or whether it was designed to be a Men's Club. And if not designed, whether its function as a Men's Club is too useful to be sacrificed. As one example, but not the whole problem: Will male attendance lessen if we lose that character; will Tue, Wed and Fri (workdays with no leining) Shacharis attendance among O men go the way of Shabbat attendance among their C counterparts? But on, the topic we did discuss... : I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing : certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look : up the underlying sources to be sure. The article is in Or HaMizrach 44 : a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski... But having a reference in the CS itself would have been more ... : In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of : the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may : explain my difficulty in finding it. It's the Rama who says 113. (It's either that the copy in OhC is idiosyncratic, or, the OU copied a typo in the Rama and didn't check. I know that's what I did.) : I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he : is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the : Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz : Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot ... Limnos ledavarim yechidim is not always to be a dayan. One can get reshus lehoros be'issur veheter or lir'os kesamim but not ladun. It's the same process as geting reshus ladun or ladun dinei kenasos, or... Do you think "lir'os kesamim" was ever limited to dayanim? The fact that the Rambam treats reshus lit'os kesamim and reshus ladun as one topic that's the whole point! (And that addresses Zev's recent post, which I approved while this one was sitting around mid-edit.) Now that you found the Mahariq that the Rama se'if 6 says he bases himself on, I would have like to have heard if you disagree that he too is treating the rules for yoreh-yoreh and the rules for Mosaiq semichah as one topic. And Tosafos? : I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the : discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very : least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of : women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable : understanding of the Halacha... I haven't heard a complete defense, but I didn't see at all a positive case for. After all, the burden of proof is on the innovator. We didn't touch the whole conversation of proving that the innovation is positive enough *in Torah values* to justify settling for just what could be read as a not 'beyond the pale' understanding. On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 03:01:33PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? ... : 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My : example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were : huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are : today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher." ... : That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two : camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that : this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically : okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, : much as happened with the Conservative movement... My own concern is (as Avodah long-timers should expect) more meta. Why is the only quesiton that of black-letter halakhah? Why the ignoring of -- what do I call it, "gray-letter halakhah"? -- laws that don't codify cleanly, that require a feel for what seems in line with the Torah, that which RHS calls "Mesorah"? (Although "mesorah" has become an ill-defined concept, including both Torah-culture values and mimetic practice. For that matter, I find that R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's use of "mimeticism" also blurs both, as both are transmitted culturally.) To me, that's a critical meta-innovation that warrants asking if we're still all playing by (evolving our practice with) the same rules. I am not worried about a slippery slope to C. To my mind, that's worrying about when the problem, if there is one, becomes symptomatic. To me the question is whether procedurally, the process R/D NS is defending is already unlike the rest of O IN A DEFINITIONAL WAY. After all, once you define MO to include an openness to modern values, following the Torah becomes just using the halakhah as a test -- can this new idea fit black-letter law or do we have to do without? But also our test itself changes. Deciding which shitah to follow depends in part on our priorities, and in LWMO, those modern values also define the priorities. As R/Dr Stadlan put it: : ... I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very : least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of : women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable : understanding of the Halacha... Thinking something is okay to do as long as one can find understandings of shitos that can combine to show the idea is plausible and not "beyond the pale" is to my mind itself beyond the pale. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 12:07:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:07:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> On 09/06/17 11:19, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in the famous midrash about > Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem > Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a > source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry > halacha guide demands that they be sourced? > > Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice? I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. When we say the Rambam doesn't give his sources, we mean that he doesn't tell us where in the gemara he derives the halachos. He doesn't expect his audience to be familiar with the gemara, and he's not interested in convincing those who are, or in defending himself to them. But he always gives the pasuk where a mitzvah or halacha is stated, or tells us that it comes "mipi hashmuah", or was instituted by chazal or by the geonim. When he gives a psak which doesn't come directly from the gemara he says "ken horu hage'onim", "ken horu rabosai", or "ken nir'a li". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 12:51:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:51:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> On 09/06/17 14:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman, > we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim. Only if he's from the countries where they were taken. > Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his > day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact; the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. As for the men's descendants by nochriyos, according to the first lashon Shmuel derived from the pasuk that they're nochrim, and according to the second lashon it's a halacha pesukah ("lo zazu misham"). But according to either lashon the problem of the women was solved. Also, there's no "by his day". Either the problem was solved within one generation, or it was never solved at all. Not by his day. By at latest the 2nd BHMK. Either Yirmiyahu brought them back, so they're not there any more, or the first generation had no children so they died out then and there, or the Sanhedrin decreed them to be goyim. > R' Chaim Brisker Where is this R Chaim? > uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not > halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. On what basis? Unlike the ten tribes' descendants, these children exist. How can they not be Jewish? Even if you want to say the second lashon applies to both the men and women, and it means they lost their Jewish status, this was not a gezera, it was derived from a pasuk, that Hashem took away their Jewish status, so in the absence of any pasuk about other people how can it be extended? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:03:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:03:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >In Yevamos... : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. : : Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke; he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...") : the : women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there : never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. That's Ravina. Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu". Which is inconsistent with Ravina. Whom I forgot about entirely. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 11:31:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:31:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check In-Reply-To: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 01:14:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is : needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without : knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled : the commandment to wear tfillin... : Two questions: : 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha : by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status) : appropriate? We're discussed variants of this question before. Usually WRT whether a person in the same situation buit with their mezuzah will get less shemirah. My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was really cheilev. And if that is true of cheilev and timtum haleiv, why not the protection of mezuzah or the effects of wearing tefillin? But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely, are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome. And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... If someone is doing everything they're supposed to, and we're not talking about the teva necessary to allow for human planning, then why wouldn't Hashem just give a person as per their deeds. Why have a whole metaphysical causality if it doesn't aid bechirah, nor Din, nor Rachamim? .... : BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has : changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan : checking be appropriate? I take this as evidence of the "Litvisher" answer. If it were really a problem, why wouldn't halakhah reflect a greater need to check? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:33:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:33:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 12:15:04PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos : >chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. : Where is there any issur on taking revenge? Against fellow Jews, : yes, of course. But generally? "Revenge is bad" is not the same as "revenge is assur". The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim. In which case, he would hold that only lo siqom would hold for them, whereas only lo sitor would apply to a yisra'el chotei. But Shabbos is coming, so I can't check about "chaveirim". But in any case, the notion that hene'elavim ve'inam olevim shome'im cherpasam ve'einam mashivim, aleihem hakasuv omeir, "ve'ohavav ketzeir hashemesh bigvuraso" (Shabbos 88b) has nothing to do with who the counterparty is. Not a chiyuv or issur in and of itself. But the person who doesn't take offense nor act on taking offense is among "ohavav". Similarly, the Rambam (ibid) talks about lo siqom in terms of "ma'avir al midosav al kol divrei ha'olam", not just offenses by chaveirim. This appears to be included in his "dei'ah ra'ah hi ad me'od". :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:26:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check In-Reply-To: <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> References: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <781fc94e-241d-e738-5060-522eeeb4f325@sero.name> On 09/06/17 14:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When > something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell > the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about > the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was > really cheilev. But if it's nisbarer afterwards that it really was chelev the kelim need to be kashered. Ditto if it's nisbarer after someone toveled that the mikveh was pasul all the taharos he touched since then are retroactively tamei. In fact if a mikveh is found to have been pasul all the taharos touched by all the people who used it since it was last known to be kosher are retroactively tamei. > But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely, > are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk > to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the > case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome. That's not a mystical position, it's a plain rational Litvisher position on risk assessment. > And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... Now *there's* mysticism! To a Litvak that shouldn't be a consideration. The din is the din, and it's not up to us to justify it. But IIRC you never deal with the explicit gemara about mikvaos. A gemara that explicitly distinguishes the case of kohanim who were found to be pesulim from *every other case* in the Torah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:40:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:40:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <81e3d31e-aa58-5f1a-fefb-bdc0297298a2@sero.name> On 09/06/17 16:03, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : >In Yevamos... > : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his > : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. > : > : Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact > > "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke; > he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the > issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...") No, he wasn't. Lo zazu misham has no connection to finding a solution to any problem, and there's no indication that "they" were even thinking of this problem. It's simply a statement that it was agreed upon by all that the pasuk makes the ten tribes (or at least their men) nochrim. No connection to any practical problem. > : the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there > : never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. > > That's Ravina. No, it isn't. It's Shmuel himself, answering why the womens' descendants are not a problem -- they didn't have any. Ravina is the one who says the halacha we all know, that the child of a nochri and a Yisre'elis is a Yisrael. > Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu". > Which is inconsistent with Ravina. It's irrelevant to Ravina, because in this lashon he isn't citing the general halacha about the child of a Yisrael and a nochris being a nochri, but instead says those children (of the men with nochriyos) were ruled to be nochrim from the pasuk. The women's children still aren't a problem, because there weren't any. But even if you say that according to the second lashon Shmuel didn't say the women were sterile, and he meant the pasuk to apply to both the men and the women, still it's specifically about them, not meshumadim in general. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:51:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:51:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: > The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any > Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different objects. > I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only > those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim. I don't believe so. The only non-Jewish "chaverim" I can think of are the sect that ruled in Persia in the Amoraim's times -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 15:36:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 18:36:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not > Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, > but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min > ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world. Me'am Lo'ez (R' Aryeh Kaplan's The Torah Anthology, pg 293) explains: "You must realize that your brother is suffering very much because he has no place to go. If his soul comes to heaven, it will be all alone, since no one else is here. If it comes down to earth, it feels great anguish when it sees its body's blood spilled on rocks and stones." > Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source? > And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because > Kel Nekamos Hashem. I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples, but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than "yikom". In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean it's appropriate for us. RZS continues in another post: > But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an > issur on doing so against your own people, because you are > commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want > revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in > itself does not come from any Jewish source. Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 14:07:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:07:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> Message-ID: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other places. I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? This one stands out. On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and > sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the > previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons > for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third > parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha > four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 14:16:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:16:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' AM wrote: 'Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor" regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this "needed" comfort from someone else.' Halachos of contact between husband and wife are more strict than with strangers, vis all the harchakos during nidda which are unique to a spouse, due to the familiarity of pas b'salo. So I wouldn't be as surprised. Although just to return my theme for a moment, If I'm right then the act is one of outright mitzva, probably including kiddush hashem. If I'm wrong, then the act is one of aveira lishma. Now I realise that we don't hold with aveira lishma these days, but when the overall cheshbon is as stated, I think I'd be willing to chance it. Especially when you add the possibility, as R'MB mentioned, that if you don't do it you're a chasid shoteh. Because then the cheshbon becomes tzadik or chasid shoteh for not doing it vs big mitzva or aveira lishma for doing it. Given that in any given circumstance we wouldn't be able to be clear about which of these would apply, I think the worst of those four options is probably the chasid shoteh. If this was on Areivim I'd sign off with :) Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 19:04:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:04:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170611020429.GA20848@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: : >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any : >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. : : Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase : with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei : amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different : objects. See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. Gut Voch! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 20:45:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:45:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <720f24ed-7e17-74ae-afc7-3e7d2a0f3a7b@sero.name> On 10/06/17 17:07, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and >> sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the >> previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons >> for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third >> parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha >> four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. > Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the > Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other > places. > > I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he > often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat > haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? > This one stands out. He has to give the source, explain why we do this, and he uses as few words as he needs to. He says mesorah hi beyadeinu; what else could he say? How could he express that any more concisely? BTW he cites medrash all the time; that's where halachos come from, after all. But here he doesn't mention any medrash, just this mesorah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 22:39:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 07:39:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Who says it was? As was stated in other posts on this thread, it is a machloqet in the Gemara if they will or won't come back. That more or less proves my point - their return, if it happens will be something completely different than what happened with the rest of the tribes. Even if we take the claims of various people claiming to be descendants seriously, they still have to convert. Their return will be tipot-tipot, individuals, that have to be re-integrated and not whole groups. > > Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of > assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where > they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite. But > even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . . Not at all. > Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were people from the > northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first > posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two separate exilic > populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our exile to have ended successfully? The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, it doesn't speak well of our history. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 23:54:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 09:54:49 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03c78b43-410c-30ec-c2bf-33691b72f348@starways.net> On 6/10/2017 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > > R' Zev Sero wrote: > >> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because >> Kel Nekamos Hashem. > I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. > Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is > intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. You're mistaken about the Hebrew. Yikom is not "uphold". That would be yakim. Yikom has a dagesh in the quf because of the dropped nun. There is literally no question whatsoever that Hashem yikom damo means may God avenge his blood. > It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples, > but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an > experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh > apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem > mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 > hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both > numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than > "yikom". Yinkom is a mistake. Just like the future of nosei'a is yisa and the future of nofel is yipol, the future of nokem is yikom. > In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean > it's appropriate for us. Consider Bamidbar 31. In the second verse, Hashem tells Moshe: Nekom nikmat bnei Yisrael me-ha-Midyanim. Take the vengeance of Israel against the Midianites. In the next verse, Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael latet nikmat Hashem b'Midyan. To take the vengeance of Hashem against the Midianites. Moshe isn't arguing with Hashem here. When we take vengeance upon our enemies, it *is* Hashem's vengeance. I recommend that you watch the video of Rabbi David Bar Hayim debating Jonathan Rosenblum at the Israel Center back in 1991 (I think). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYefNy1D0DY They both bring sources for their arguments on the subject, and rather than repeat all of them here, have a look. > RZS continues in another post: > >> But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an >> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are >> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want >> revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in >> itself does not come from any Jewish source. > Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo > sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) It doesn't just say lo tikom v'lo titor. It says lo tikom v'lo titor *et bnei amecha*. Do not take vengeance or hold a grudge *against* your own people. Detaching the first part of that from its object is unjustifiable. It would be like taking lo tochal chametz, dropping the object, and saying that we're forbidden to eat. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 02:02:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:02:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. > Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is > intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. > "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will avenge". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 20:40:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:40:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68dacd1f-f6c7-8792-daad-b5b21531f3bc@sero.name> On 09/06/17 18:36, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not >> Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, >> but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min >> ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. > Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in > pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world. Interesting, I'd never heard that. But in that case why "eilai"? That implies wanting something from Me. >> Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. > I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source? Yismach Tzadik ki chaza nakam, pe`amav yirchatz bedam harasha. When Chushim knocked Esav's head off, his eyes fell onto Yaakov's feet and Yaakov sat up and smiled. >> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because >> Kel Nekamos Hashem. > I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. Yikkom does *not* mean uphold, it means avenge. There's no such word as "yinkom"; the nun disappears into the kuf and becomes a dagesh. Perhaps you are thinking of yakim. > experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh > apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem > mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 > hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both > numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than > "yikom". For a non-existent word that's pretty good. I'm relieved that it doesn't outnumber the correct word :-) > In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean > it's appropriate for us. It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not something to be ashamed of. >> But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an >> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are >> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want >> revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in >> itself does not come from any Jewish source. > Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo > sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) Es benei amecha. [Email #2. -micha] On 10/06/17 22:04, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: >: >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any >: >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase >: with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different >: objects. > See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. > This doesn't answer the question. Lo sikom has the same subject as lo sitor. It's not even the identical object, it's literally the *same* object. So how can we pry them apart? Beside which, if netira is forbidden against a Jewish non-chaver, then how is nekama against him even possible? Netira would seem to be a necessary prerequisite for nekama (which is why the pasuk lists them as lo zu af zu). [Email #3 -mi] On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" > (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will > avenge". Is yinkom even a valid form? AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that have it in Av Harachamim are in error. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 09:11:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:11:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <83aef0cf-edbb-3ac8-3727-cc086f348ffa@sero.name> References: <83aef0cf-edbb-3ac8-3727-cc086f348ffa@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > >> >> "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" >> (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will >> avenge". >> > > Is yinkom even a valid form? AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that > have it in Av Harachamim are in error. > > It's irregular, but I would hesitate to say it's a mistake: there are a few exceptions to the rule that the initial nun assimilates, e.g. yintor in Yirmiahu 3:5; yinkofu in Yeshayahu 29:1; or tintz'reni in Tehillim 140:2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 11:29:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <2f8fdb3a-11ac-11d2-eea8-d064a7265bda@sero.name> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> <20170611020429.GA20848@aishdas.org> <2f8fdb3a-11ac-11d2-eea8-d064a7265bda@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170611182926.GA20138@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:56:06PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase : >: with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei : >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different : >: objects. : : >See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. : > : : This doesn't answer the question... But you didn't ask the question. You asserted that what I said was "not true". Since the Maharshal and Avodas haMelekh said it, and I don't know of a dissenting interpreter of the Rambam, I would assume it is indeed true. This was a bit of a hasty judgement on your part. But you said a great question, and worth exploring. Doesn't change that the Rambam apparently does hold what I said he did: > The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any > Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 12:32:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 22:32:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> References: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 6/11/2017 8:39 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of >> assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point >> where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were >> Israelite. But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . >> . Not at all. Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were >> people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards >> that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two >> separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been >> disastrous in very many ways. > That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our > exile to have ended successfully? Why harsh? Causes have effects. > The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of > (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them > (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal > with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this > feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, > it doesn't speak well of our history. Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind. And we don't gloat over their downfall. Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, which they were. And what kind of attempts would you have wanted? Jeremiah brought some of them back. I'm sure others joined us in Bavel after we were exiled. But their exile was their own doing. Though it affected us as well. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 16:18:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:18:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170611231815.GA29585@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:32:22PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind. And we don't gloat over : their downfall. Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, : which they were. (Quibbling about the orogin of the word "Jews" and whether or not Malkhus Yisrael and their descendents qualify aside. We all know we mean "Benei Yisrael", right?) Actually, one of the topics raised was whether the descendents of Malkhus Yisrael exist, bdyond the refugees absorbed into Malkhus Yehudah. And if they do, R Chaim Brisker takes the gemara as concluding the descendents are not part of the community of Beris Sinai. Yes, but in either case, as we cited numerous source showing in the past, "binfol" is not only about the fall of fellow Jews... Which I then collected into a blog post : The most common reason we pass around [for spilling wine at the mention of the makkos at the seder], however, is that we're diminishing our joy out of compassion for the suffering of other human beings, even the Egyptians. This reason is relatively new, but it is found in such authoritative locations as the hagaddah of R' SZ Aurbach and appears as a "yeish lomar" (it could be said) in that of R Elyashiv (pg 106, "dam va'eish").... ... The Pesiqta deRav Kahane (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a) gives us a different reason [for chatzi hallel (CH) during the latter days of Pesach]. It tells the story of the angels singing/reciting poetry at the crossing of the Red Sea... ... This is midrash is quoted by the Midrash Harninu and the Yalqut Shim'oni (the Perishah points you to Parashas Emor, remez 566). The Midrash Harninu or the Shibolei haLeqet ... The Beis Yoseif (O"Ch 490:4, "Kol") cited the gemara, then quotes the Shibolei haLeqet as a second reason... Sources from RAZZivitofsky (same blog post): The Taz gives this diminution of joy as the reason for CH on the 7th day (OC 490:3), as does the Chavos Ya'ir (225). The Kaf haChaim (O"Ch 685:29) brings down the Yafeh haLeiv (3:3) use this midrash to establish the idea that we mourn the downfall of our enemy in order to explain why there is no berakhah on Parashas Zakhor (remembering the requirement to destroy Amaleiq). Amaleiq! R' Aharon Kotler (Mishnas R' Aharon vol III pg 3) ... Then I listed others' suddestions here: ... R' Jacob Farkas found the Meshekh Chokhmah ... R' Dov Kay points us to the Netziv's intro to HaEimeq Davar... (Since we're going from Maharat was to ethics wars, might as well play the game to its fullest...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 16:27:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:27:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170611232725.GB29585@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 06:36:45PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" : actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is : often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. : Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is : intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. : Hashem yiqqom damam does indeed refer to revenge. : In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean : it's appropriate for us. Keil neqamos H'. (A little obvious this discussion didn't span a Wed yet.) But the whole point, to my mind, for sayibng HYD is a longing to see Divine Justice in the world. HYD undoes the chilul hasheim of the wicked prospering. Hinasei shofit ha'atzetz... Ad masair recha'im ya'alozu... If we were to take neqamah (qua neqamah; pre-empting a repeat attack is a different thing) we rob most of the possibility of that happening. Even the Six Day War gave people the opportunity to say it was luck or human skill -- "Kol haKavod laTzahal" Implied in HYD is that revenge is G-d's, not ours, to take. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 19:49:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 22:49:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . When I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong. I was wrong, and I thank all the chevreh who pointed out my error. "Yikom" does mean to avenge. Thank you all. But the main question is our attitude towards revenge in general. R' Zev Sero wrote: > It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not > something to be ashamed of. He seems to feel that there's nothing wrong with wanting to take revenge in general, except that we're not allowed to do it if the object of the revenge is a fellow Jew. I suppose he might compare vengeance to eating meat: right and proper in general, but sometimes forbidden. (Pork in the case of meat, and Jews in the case of revenge.) Exactly *why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew? RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct source. But either way... I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be in the "Ribis" category. There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a non-Jew.) Setting Nekama aside for a moment, does anyone know of a source which goes through the various Bein Adam L'chaveiros, and categorizes them in that manner? (I can easily imagine that most people would avoid publishing such a list, to avoid supplying the anti-Semites with ammunition, but I figured I'd ask.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 20:07:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 20:07:35 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists Message-ID: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into hashem's business. And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the future even though they were right. One surmises he would not have been surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land... Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 22:57:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:57:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> References: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9b2f0d53-8794-4b0d-43b7-3bb0ee4d6e3c@zahav.net.il> On 6/6/2017 8:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW. > > Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'" > (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL > Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not! However one defines the Chareidi opposition to Zionism and Zionists, the former wrote book after book justifying it and explaining why Zionism is so awful and why it is so wrong to participate in the Zionist enterprise. It is still going on today. Back in the 20s, people used extremely strong language about Rav Kook, language which was much worse than anything used today, not to mention what the Satmar Rebbe wrote about RK. > There are two possible sources of division here. > > 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were > only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My > predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply > de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators, > and therefore in practice will be a separate community. Here I have a couple of questions. 1) Like my wife always tells me, if someone is triggered by something he has to ask himself why. I know people who would walk out of shul if a woman gave the dvar Torah on Friday night. Yet the same people are perfectly OK having a Rosh Hashana tefilla that incorporates a lot of Sefardi piyuttim. Completely different prayers, tunes, flavor. But in order to have an experience of "b'yachad" we do it. 2) What what exactly would change? Does one see more women in shuls that have a maharat? Do the maharats come to Tuesday afternoon Mincha? If they do they're behind the mechitza, yes? What changes are people talking about? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 03:09:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 06:09:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:49:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" : only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of : morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be : in the "Ribis" category. : : There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even : to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed : against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. : (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a : non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I : admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B : or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, : things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a : non-Jew.) IOW: (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited. (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition when you do them against your sibling. (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito neshekh vesarbit". As for neqamah, I argued from quotes like kol hama'avir al midosav and ne'elavim ve'eino olvin that it's in (B). I would add now that this is implied by the Rambam's inclusion of these two issurim (lo siqom velo sitor) in Hil' Dei'os p' 7 that he is considering the middah bad, not only the act wrong. Interesting to note, the Rambam puts them after LH. Also, I noted that the only commentaries on the Rambam that I could find that discuss his change in terminology between Dei'os 7:7 and 7:8 explain that he is prohibiting neqamah against all chaveirim but netirah "mei'echad meYisrael". Meaning you now need a B' and C' where the category is only observant Jews. (And I still have a nagging recollection that the Rambam's "chaveirim" in general includes geirei toshav and other observant Noachides.) And neqamah is in one of those. So, (B'). How you get such a distinction in two issurim that are written in the pasuq as verbs sharing the same object is a good one. But the Avodas haMelekh says that the Maharshal reaches the same conclusion in his commentary to the Semag, and I see the Semag uses the same difference in nouns. Lav #11 - "[Lo siqom.] Hanoqeim al chaveiro". #12 - "Kol hanoteir le'echad miYisrael". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 03:53:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:53:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> References: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> On 6/13/2017 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > IOW: > > (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited. > > (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition > when you do them against your sibling. > > (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family > nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito > neshekh vesarbit". I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews. Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 04:37:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal > judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C (Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 04:33:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:33:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> References: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170613113340.GA11269@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:53:18PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: ... : >(B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition : >when you do them against your sibling. ... : : I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an : outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly : doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against : non-Jews. Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal : judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. But there are things that are morally wrong and yet not prohibited. "Stretch goals" like the Rambam's take on ego and anger in Dei'os pereq 2, the Ramban's "hatov vehayashar". Here, the gemara talks about (1) a ma'avir al midosav, (2) taking insult and not responding, it even says (3) a tzadiq is one who never takes revenge -- which, if it were about neqamah when assur, would be heaping overly high praise on someone for just keeping the din. So, two or three times that I am aware of, the gemara talks positively of the middos that would avoid ever taking revenge. It seems neqamah in particular is a moral wrong even when the black-letter halakhah allows the act. The Torah does manage to relay to us goals beyond those it prohibit or demand in black-letter halakhah. (Something Chassidus and Mussar were each founded on...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 06:44:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:44:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] restaurants Message-ID: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From the OU: Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example, one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility. Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food. Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based? For example, in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in a treif restaurant, what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % threshold for concern? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 07:16:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 10:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6388500a-9329-9367-9de2-e75ed55d6022@sero.name> On 12/06/17 22:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Exactly*why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew? > RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that > "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct > source. But either way... It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. > There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even > to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed > against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh *re`ehu* basater". > (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a > non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I > admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B > or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, > things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a > non-Jew.) Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 19:11:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shelach Message-ID: " We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." (Numbers 13:32-33). One of the greatest teachers of Torah of our age, Nechama Leibowitz, zt'l, in one of her essays on this parsha, asks an important question: how did the spies know what the "giants" thought of them? If they really were giant beings, then one could understand the feeling that "we seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes," but how did they know if the "giants" even noticed them? Unfortunately, although Nechama Leibowitz posed this great question, she didn't give any hint as to an answer. The following is a Midrash in which God rebukes the spies: "I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11). On the other hand, Rashi says that the spies reported overhearing the giants talking to one another, saying that "there are ants in the vineyard that resemble human beings.? (Rashi is also quoting an ancient midrash from the Talmud). Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities and an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties. Harry S Truman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 09:10:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:10:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/13/2017 2:37 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R"n Lisa Liel wrote: >> Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal >> judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. > My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category > A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C > (Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)? I would have to say that, by definition, if it's permissible to speak LH against non-Jews, it isn't immoral. But of course there are numerous subcategories of LH, and it'd be interesting to see if all of them are mutar against non-Jews, and if so, why? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 10:49:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:49:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shelach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170613174946.GA24674@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 10:11:31PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The following is a Midrash in which God rebukes the spies: : "I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to : ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to : them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? : Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11). ... : Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear : not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies : but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon : His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, : and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). Good -- is the yeitzer hatov, *very* good -- is the yeitzer hara. But in any case, the spies are an imperfect example, because they had G-d's promise that this specific mission would succeed. We don't have such reason to be optimistic. Related: I wonder if the difference between Chassidic or the Alter of Novhardok's view of bitchon is related to history. The AoN said that sufficient bitachon generates success, to the extent that he felt that being a "baal bitachon is an objective reality provable by experience and he signed his name with a B"B without fear of it being bragging. The CI's view is that bitachon is not prognostic, but the attitude that everything is happening according to Hashem's plan. I may fail and suffer, ch"v, but knowing it is all for a purpose makes it easier to cope. The history that I think divides them -- the CI's Emunah uBitachon was written in the shadow of the Holocaust. (It was published in 1954, a year after the CI's passing.) Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:57:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:57:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists In-Reply-To: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> References: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> Or they were part of a self fulling prophecy. Instead of going in confident in themselves and in God's ways, they chose to second guess God. The Bnei Yisrael who had actually seen Yitziat Mitzrayim would have gone into Israel. Instead a weakened Bnei Yisrael went in and almost immediately got trapped in the lure of the local idol worship. Ben On 6/13/2017 5:07 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into hashem's business. And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the future even though they were right. One surmises he would not have been surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:53:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:53:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Does it make a difference that the woman in the hypothetical scenario is - unfortunately - no longer an eishet ish, and presumably at her stage of life also not a niddah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:22:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:22:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. Can one enter a non-kosher establishment to buy a can of soda or use the bathroom? Message-ID: <1497385351309.31544@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. Can one enter a non-kosher establishment to buy a can of soda or use the bathroom? A. Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example, one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility. Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 18:09:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:09:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists In-Reply-To: <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> References: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170614010904.GA6321@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:57:19PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Or they were part of a self fulling prophecy. Instead of going in : confident in themselves and in God's ways, they chose to second : guess God. The Bnei Yisrael who had actually seen Yitziat Mitzrayim : would have gone into Israel... Or not. After all, Hashem didn't pick that generation for a reason. Apparently they didn't just sin, but they sinned in a way that made working with them a bad idea. And even before that Vayehi beshalach Par'oh es ha'am velo nacham E-lokim derekh Eretz Pelishtim ki qarov hu, ki amar E-lokim, "Pen yinacheim ha'am bir'osam milchamah veshavu Mitzrayim" Remember, they were also stuck with a slave mentality. But I agree with your point, about the self-fulfilling prophecy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 18:33:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:33:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special > consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah > of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not > hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend > him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip > about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. I would think that killing and stealing are in this category too. But you would then point to the phrase "special consideration". In other words, there is a particular shiur of consideration. Some actions are below that shiur; they are so basic that they apply even to non-Jews. And other actions are above that shiur; it is "special" consideration that we extend to family, but not to outsiders. I would accept such a response, but it isn't very helpful. Exactly what is that shiur? Where do we put the line? I have always thought that *all* these things are basic menschlichkeit, and apply to everyone, Jewish or not. > Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? > The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh > *re`ehu* basater". That's just two pesukim. Sefer Chofetz Chayim brings a lot more than that - 31 if I remember correctly. Granted that one doesn't violate these particular mitzvos if the object of the Lashon Hara isn't Jewish. But the others aren't so simple. At the very least, you're gambling that the Lashon Hara will remain secret and not result in a Chilul Hashem. > Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. True. I have always thought of ribis in a class of its own, for the simple reason that the entire world considers it to be a generally acceptable business practice. This includes Chazal, who felt it important to find a way to structure certain business activities in ways that would skirt this issur. The point is that ribis is NOT inherently immoral. It *can* be abused and thereby *become* immoral. But if done properly, it is a neutral (or even benevolent) business tool. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 21:17:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:17:28 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Anyone have access to HaRav Sh Goren's Terumas HaGoren? Message-ID: Anyone have access to HaRav Sh Goren's Terumas HaGoren? I am looking for 3 pages to be copied [pictured?] and sent to me - meirabi at gmail.com Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 21:02:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:02:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ac357ec-2fb0-c5c8-e187-ccbd26cd60f9@sero.name> On 13/06/17 21:33, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special >> consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah >> of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not >> hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend >> him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip >> about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. > I would think that killing and stealing are in this category too. No, those are inherently wrong, no matter who is the victim. You don't need to love someone in order not to kill them, hit them, steal from them, damage their property, etc. They have the right not to have these things done to them, so you may not do so even if you actively hate them. They have the right to be treated with common decency. Or, in the lashon of libertarianism, non-aggression, i.e. not to have you initiate force or fraud against them. Whereas they have no right to any favors from you; you have no duty to lift a finger to help them or to give them anything. Doing favors for people is a gift which you naturally give only to those you love; the Torah therefore commands you to give it to those whom it wants you to love. > But > you would then point to the phrase "special consideration". In other > words, there is a particular shiur of consideration. Some actions are > below that shiur; they are so basic that they apply even to non-Jews. > And other actions are above that shiur; it is "special" consideration > that we extend to family, but not to outsiders. No, it's not a matter of degree but of kind. > I would accept such a response, but it isn't very helpful. Exactly > what is that shiur? Where do we put the line? I have always thought > that *all* these things are basic menschlichkeit, and apply to > everyone, Jewish or not. No, they are not. >> Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? >> The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh >> *re`ehu* basater". > That's just two pesukim. Sefer Chofetz Chayim brings a lot more than > that - 31 if I remember correctly. The hakama to CC is mussar, so he piles on pesukim, but it you look at them they all pretty much flow from a very few sources, all of which specify "re'echa" or "amecha", etc. > The point is that ribis is NOT > inherently immoral. It *can* be abused and thereby *become* immoral. > But if done properly, it is a neutral (or even benevolent) business > tool. So are all these other things. They're normal and natural behaviour between people who don't necessarily like each other, but one would never treat someone one genuinely loved like that, so the Torah tells us that we must not treat our fellow yisre'elim like that. [Email #2] Google produced this: http://www.havabooks.co.il/article_ID.asp?id=1046 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 00:50:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 10:50:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 241) explains the prohibition of lo sikom as follows (my rough translation): "A person should understand in his heart that everything that happens to him good or bad is caused by Hashem and between people there is nothing but the will of Hashem. Therefore when someone bothers or hurts you, you should know that your sins caused this and whatever happened is a gezera from Hashem. Therefore, you should not think about taking revenge because the other person is not the cause of your troubles, rather your sins are the cause. " Based on the Chinuch's explanation there should be no difference between taking revenge on a Jew or a Goy. In either case they are not the cause of your suffering they are just the instrument of Hashem and therefore there is no reason for revenge. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 06:44:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:44:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/06/17 03:50, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 241) explains the prohibition of lo sikom > as follows (my rough translation): > > "A person should understand in his heart that everything that happens to > him good or bad is caused by Hashem and between people there is nothing > but the will of Hashem. Therefore when someone bothers or hurts you, you > should know that your sins caused this and whatever happened is a gezera > from Hashem. Therefore, you should not think about taking revenge > because the other person is not the cause of your troubles, rather your > sins are the cause. " > > Based on the Chinuch's explanation there should be no difference between > taking revenge on a Jew or a Goy. In either case they are not the cause > of your suffering they are just the instrument of Hashem and therefore > there is no reason for revenge. That is the basis for Chazal's dictum that "Whoever gets angry [over *anything*] is as if he serves idols", but there is no actual mitzvah against anger. Obviously one who truly believes in and fully accepts what we on Avodah have dubbed "strong HP" has no need for either of these two mitzvos, because it will never occur to him to hold a grudge, let alone to take revenge; but one who *does* gets angry or upset at what a fellow Jew does to him, but doesn't hold a long-term grudge against him over it is not violating a mitzvah. One mitzvah is that even if you *do* feel upset you shouldn't hold it against the person who did it, and another mitzvah is that even if you do hold it against him you shouldn't punish him for it. Therefore despite the Chinuch's relating this mussar idea to these two mitzvos, it cannot be the actual reason. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 09:16:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:16:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Akiva Miller wrote: 'I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be in the "Ribis" category. There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a non-Jew, such as Ribis.' I think this categorisation may need refining. It assumes that the Torah doesn't want us to do unethical things to non Jews either by black letter law or by unlegislated preference. The problem with this is that the Torah assumes that non-Jews are ovdei Avoda Zara and some mitzvos are specifically intended to malign them as such. Take Lo Sechaneim - The gemara learns that we can't even praise a non Jew, never mind be kind in a more concrete way. Gerei Toshav don't have this prohibition but the pshat din of the Torah is that it applies to non-Jews stam. In other words the mitzvos of the Torah treat non-Jews as transgressors and so it's likely that at least some of thing the otherwise unethical things we are allowed to do to them are due to this status. So we need at least to distinguish between what is allowed to any non-Jew and what is prohibited to a Ger Toshav. For example Ribis is clearly allowed even to a Ger Toshav. It's not unethical per se, just prohibited to a family member viz a Jew. So we need possibly, categories of: A) forbidden to everyone B) Forbiden to Jews and Gerei Toshav but totally allowed to Ovdei Avoda Zara C) Technically allowed to non-Jews of whichever category but best avoided as a bad midda D) Forbidden to Jews but totally allowed to all non Jews Re nekama, I think, subject to correction, that it is only ever positive when by Hashem or on his behalf. The nekama on Midian is 'nikmas Hashem m'es HaMidianim'. We needed to be commanded in order to do it. Hashem is 'El nekamos Hashem' in Tehilim. If anyone has a source for it being a positive thing to take personal revenge then let's hear it. Not sure the agadeta of Yaakov waking and smiling fits that bill. Otherwise the Rambam's placing of nekama in De'os as a bad midda should tell us what we need to know about it. That would be consistent with nekama being forbidden against Gerei Toshav, although we haven't found a source for that (yet). Lisa Liel wrote: 'I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews. ' The Torah clearly allows things which it considers morally wrong - Shivya Nochris for example. And the gemara says that's assur to bring one's wife as a Soteh, yet it's a whole parsha in the Torah. And the Ramban's naval birshus haTorah. Seems to me the Torah sets a floor, not a ceiling, and prompts growth through the mitzvos. Isn't that the whole thrust of Hilchos De'os? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 12:45:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:45:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish optimism [was: Shelach] Message-ID: <23c6ce.6a161a0e.4672ec49@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah ... : Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear : not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies : but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon : His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, : and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). [--Cantor Wolberg] RMB wrote: >> ...But in any case, the spies are an imperfect example, because they had G-d's promise that this specific mission would succeed. We don't have such reason to be optimistic.... ....Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? << Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> I once heard a powerful and inspiring talk given by R' Joseph Friedenson a'h. He had survived a number of different concentration camps in hellish circumstances, and had lost all or most of his family. He said in his talk that the last time he ever saw his father, his father said, "I don't know if you and I will survive this war, but no matter what happens, remember this: Klal Yisrael will survive!" R' Friedenson said that he never saw his father again but he went through the war with an unshakeable optimism. That's what he called it, optimism. He underwent horrendous suffering, but nevertheless he had a firm conviction that the Nazis would ultimately fail. He always held onto his father's words, "Klal Yisrael will survive." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 13:25:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:25:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shoah Message-ID: <842320B8-8657-4A22-98E8-76CAA22765DC@cox.net> R? Micha wrote in regard to the Shelach posting: Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? Along the same lines there was a fascinating book written many years ago by a legitimate, authentic, respected orthodox rabbi who wrote that someone who was not a victim in the holocaust has no right to say there is no God. Here is what was really an astonishing and somewhat shocking statement he made: if someone was actually in the Concentration Camp, this person has the right to deny God. I can see many raised eyebrows, but I would greatly appreciate someone remembering this book. Since it was rather revolutionary to be coming from a musmach who is respected by other orthodox rabbis. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 15:39:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:39:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: <20170614223903.GA14026@aishdas.org> In some, more Zionist, circles, the Satmar Rebbe's position that Israel is a maaseh satan is often left not understood. Many of the RZ camp have summarily dismissed it as overly polytheist for their liking. However, it is possible -- even if I or you do not find it plausible -- that Zionism was a challenge to the Jewish People. To see if after the Holocaust we would be so desperate for political relief that we would stop working toward true ge'ulah. As per the title of the SR's response to the mood after the Six Day War -- Al haGe'ulah ve'Al haTemurah (About the Ge'uilah and about the Replacement; perhaps "Decoy"). And, there is a particular mal'akh charged with posing spiritual challenges for us to grow through overcoming -- the satan. Thus, such a temurah would be a maaseh satan. Pretty conventional metaphysics, even for those who find the other religious positions bothersome. I mentioned this because of R' Gidon Rothstein's latest column in TM on the Ramban. "Ramban to Re'eh, Week Two: Avoiding False Prophets, Hearing From Hashem" http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/06/avoiding-false-prophets-hearing-hashem Along the way, RGR writes: It Might Actually Be From Hashem In the last verse in this passage, Moshe warns that this false prophet is a nisayon, a test, from Hashem. Ramban points out that back inBereshit, he had already dealt with the question of why Hashem "tests" us (doesn't Hashem know the future, and therefore know the outcome of the test? There are many answers, this is Ramban's). It's only a test from our perspective, he said. Hashem indeed knows the outcome, and is engaging in it to bring our potential into actuality (that implies that everyone always passes these tests, which works well for figures like Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov. It seems to me less convincing about the nisayon here, since the Jewish people have in fact occasionally followed such false prophets). Still, that's the less surprising part of this Ramban, since it is the face value of the verse, that the wonder did in fact come through the Will of Hashem, Hashem showed him this dream or vision to test our love of Hashem. Ramban doesn't say more, but I think he means--and this is the part that is more surprising and a bit challenging- that all people involved must realize that this is not what Hashem wants. I think he means the prophet him/herself was supposed to refrain from giving this prophecy (the other option is that Hashem was commanding and condemning this person to be a false prophet, to forfeit his/her life in doing so, and that someone we would put to death as a false prophet is actually a hero of Hashem's service. I find that unthinkable, unless the prophet said "I had this vision, but you clearly shouldn't listen to because we're not allowed to ever worship any power other than Hashem." But it's logically possible). The prophet aside, anyone who hears that prophecy, even if it's supported by uncannily accurate predictions, must both refuse to obey and react to this person as a false prophet. That is what true ahavat Hashem would lead us to do, a reminder that acting on our love of Hashem sometimes means doing that which under other circumstances should be distasteful. Putting someone to death for sharing his/her vision is not usually conduct we applaud. Here, it would still be upsetting, but necessary for those whose love of Hashem fills their beings. If the Ramban could say that there could be a navi sheqer who gets his message from Hashem for the sould purpose of challenging us, is it such a far stretch to the SR's anti-Zionism? IMHO, it's easier to understand Satmar or Munkacz anti-Zionism than Agudah's classical position of non-Zionism. The former agrees with the RZ that the Medinah is a huge event of vast import, but disagree about what the import is. The Agudist (at least classically, there were exceptions in the early years of the state, and things seem to be wearing down now) believe that Jews can regain sovereignty over EY for the first time in 2 millenia without it being religiously significant. (I am not talking about those of Neturei Karta who protest with the Palestinians and their supporters, or who visit Iranian gov't officials. They pose a whole different and perhaps even more fundamental set of problems. The SR's anti-Zionism included praying for Tzahal, as these were Jews led to danger through a horrible (in his opinion) error; an error that exists in part for the purpose of putting Jews in danger.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: RGR -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 18 10:59:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:59:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Korach Message-ID: <2943596C-CE9C-488B-B333-D25328C619BD@cox.net> 1) 16:1 "Vayikach Korach...." "And Korach, the son of Yitzhar, the son of Kehoth, the son of Levi took, and Dathan and Aviram, the sons of Eliav,etc.? The question is what did Korach take? The verb has no object. Resh Lakish said: "He took a bad 'taking' for himself" (Sanhedrin). Rashi said: "Korach...separated [lit.,took] himself. Korach placed himself at odds with the rest of the assembly to protest against Aaron's assumption of the priesthood." Ibn Ezra said it meant: "Korach took men..." 2) In the Ethics of the Fathers 5, 17 it states: "Every controversy that is pursued in a heavenly cause, is destined to be perpetuated; and that which is not pursued in a heavenly cause is not destined to be perpetuated. Which can be considered a controversy pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And that not pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Korach and his congregation." An analysis of this by Malbim explains in quite a compelling fashion why the Mishnah was not worded as we would have expected it to be: "A controversy pursued in a heavenly cause...that is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. That not pursued in a heavenly cause is the controversy of Korach and Moses." Instead it reads: "Korach and his congregation." As Malbim explains-- they would be quarreling amongst themselves, as each one strove to attain his selfish ambitions. The controversy therefore was rightly termed "between Korach and his congregation." They would ultimately fight among themselves. And the denouement would be their self-destruction. 3) "Korach quarreled with peace, and he who quarrels with peace quarrels with the Holy Name." (Zohar, Korach 176a [ed.,Soncino], Vol. V, p.238). The bottom line here is "Don't Mess with Hashem." In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves. Buddhal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 18 17:07:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 17:07:22 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: the aguda made a very practical decision-- to not make a halachic decision, but rather to seek support economically and non-military . the only halachic issue was to determine that the State's money is muttar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 01:17:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shalom Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:17:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shoah Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg's reference to the Orthodox Rabbi who wrote about who has the right to disbelieve after the Holocaust is most likely Eliezer Berkovits in his Faith After the Holocaust. Shalom Rabbi Shalom Z. Berger, Ed.D. The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education Bar-Ilan University http://www.lookstein.org https://www.facebook.com/groups/lookjed/ Follow me on Twitter: @szberger NETWORK*LEARN*GROW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 09:40:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:40:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. I am required to attend a business meeting at a non-kosher restaurant. How do I avoid the issue of maris ayin? Message-ID: <1497890418438.2614@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. I am required to attend a business meeting at a non-kosher restaurant. How do I avoid the issue of maris ayin? A. The general rule regarding maris ayin is that one can avoid the prohibition of maris ayin if there is a heker (sign) that indicates that the action is permitted. For example, Rama (YD 87:3) writes that one may not cook meat with almond milk, since this gives the impression that one is violating the prohibition of cooking milk and meat together. This would constitute maris ayin. However, this situation is permitted if one places almonds near the pot, since the almonds will alert a bystander that the milk comes from almonds and not from an animal. Therefore, if one must enter a non-kosher restaurant, one should do so in a manner that makes it clear that one is entering for business and not for pleasure. For example, one should enter carrying a briefcase or a stack of papers. Rav Schachter, shlita said that in such an instance it would be preferable to wear a cap instead of a yarmulke. Rav Schachter also said that once seated, one may order a drink -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 12:56:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:56:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur Message-ID: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> This is a comment on R Yaakov Jaffe's article at http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2017/6/13/get-your-hashkafa-out-of-my-chumash Since the Lehrhaus doesn't take comments, I thought we could discuss it here. (CC-ing RYJ.) He writes: Lehrhaus Get Your Hashkafa Out of My Chumash! [R] Yaakov Jaffe ... It has become commonplace in Modern Orthodox circles to lament the lack of alignment between the beliefs of the movement and some of the editions, translations, and versions of ritual texts that members of the movement use. These critiques are often welcome, such as Deborah Klapper's[13] recent excellent essay about the Haggadah for Pesach, and tend to frame ArtScroll Publishers as the almost villain who has taken the ideologically open, natural, innocent, uncorrupted foundational texts of Judaism and colored them with an Ultra-Orthodox translation, skew, or commentary.... Okay, that's the general topic. Here's the point I wanted to discuss: For me, there is a more grave concern when Modern Orthodox Jews flock to a different ritual text because it aligns more purely with their own ideology, and that is that the ritual text ceases to be important for its own sake (as a Siddur, Humash, or Hagaddah), a vehicle for transmitting sacred texts and values through the generations, but instead becomes a mere bit player in a larger drama about movements and self-identification. ("I use this Siddur because in many ways it demonstrates that I am a proud Modern Orthodox Jew.") This carries the risk that readers will stop reading the text of the Humash or being taken by the poetry of the Siddur and instead become hyper-focused on ideological markers that appear in those ritual texts. And for reasons that we will demonstrate below, the subordination of prayer within the mind of the person at prayer, beneath the selection of outward identifiers of ideology undermines the very purpose and notion of prayer itself. In 1978, Rabbi Soloveitchik authored a[15] short essay entitled "Majesty and Humility" in Tradition, in which he poses a dichotomy critical for Jewish religious experience and prayer. He describes one pole as majestic humanity, striving for victory and sovereignty, as "Man sets himself up as king and tries to triumph over opposition and hostility." The other pole is humble humanity, full of "withdrawal and retreat," which appreciates the smallness of human beings in the scope of the cosmic order. In the essay, prayer is an example of man in the mood of humility, of withdrawal, who finds the Almighty not when humanity triumphs over the forces of nature, or in the scope of the galaxies, but when humanity recognizes its own limitations, and, as a result, causes that "God does descend from infinity to finitude, from boundlessness into the narrowness of the Sanctuary," or: All I could do was to pray. However, I could not pray in the hospital... the moment I returned home I would rush to my room, fall on my knees and pray fervently. God in those moments appeared not as the exalted majestic King, but rather as a humble, close friend. While at prayer, the individual is constantly focused on his or her own inadequacy compared to the Divine Creator and his or her own limitations. The individual cannot be engaged in the battles of denomination supremacy, as he or she is paralyzed by his or her own smallness while attempting to pray. Moreover, prayer is generally a uniquely unsuited vehicle for conveying specific, unique, or modern ideologies and beliefs. It focuses on requests and aspirations, not on statements of creed. The text of the Siddur also serves as a unifying tool for the Jewish people (given the enormous general similarity despite centuries of division and dispersal) and highlights what we have in common and not what we have apart. 13. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-haggadah-without-women-2/ 15. http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2017/No.%202/Majesty%20and%20Humility.pdf 16. http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/?author=5886cfaabebafbcb2d43550f My problem is that tefillah is all about ideology, and the siddur runs from statement of creed to statement of creed -- Yigdal to Ani Maamin. (Not saying AM is mandatory, but it's there...) For example, RYBS's is one approach to prayer. It's different than that of Nefesh haChaim, where the focus of baqashos are what the world needs for G-d's sake, not our own needs for our sake. Curing the sick because His Presence is enhanced when people are healthy. Etc... It's different than RSRH's approach to berakhos, where they are declarations of personal commitment. So that we ask for health so that we can contribute to His Say in the world -- "berakhah" lashon ribui, after all. Etc... (I think I dug up 7 different theological resolutions to how to undertand "barukh Atah H'" given that ribui and HQBH don't mix.) This is taking a specific hashkafah's side in order to argue that tefillah shouldn't be taking a specific hashkafah's side. As for Tanakh... It is true that in one community, maximalist positions that magnify G-d's Greatness -- whether it's a description of qeri'as Yam Suf or Rivqa's age at meeting Yitzchaq -- have a near-exclusive currency. Saying that the sea simply split vehamayim lahem chimah miyminam umismolam is seen as the product if ignorance; of course it split into 13 tunnels, each providing all of our needs, ready to be grabbed out of the walls. Whereas the other prefers more rationalist positions, and in any case there is a broader array of Chazal's statements taken as possibly true. Or, does an MO Jew relate to a chumash in which the only topic of footnotes on the berakhos of Yissachar & Zevulun is their possible precedent for kollel life? (Despite there never having been an entire community where kollel was the norm until the past century.) In a community where wearing hexaplex (the snail formerly known as murex) dyed strings is a significant minority, isn't there more interest in sefunei temunei chol than in a community where it's unheard of? Then there is just different communities having different tastes in what kind of Torah thought they find more appealing / satisfying / moving. People who gravitate to the words of the Rav like the ideas in Mesores haRav for that reason. Just as Chabadnikim are more likely to find things to their taste in the Guttenstein Chumash than in the Stone Edition. Shouldn't, then, all these options exist? And is that any less true when thinking of how to relate to some complex poseq in Tehillim or a line composed by Anshei Keneses haGdolah (or the typical Ashkenazi paytan) to be a palimpsest of meanings? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 03:25:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:25:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: <> R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah poisition basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful but is against the wishes of G-d. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 06:19:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yaakov Jaffe via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:19:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Hi, Regarding the first point that "This is taking a specific hashkafah's side in order to argue that tefillah shouldn't be taking a specific hashkafah's side." I confess that I am guilty as charged. But one approach to tefilah (let's call it the one that resonates with me) is that it is purely a communication between the speaker and his or her Creator, and that consequently, it is not the time and place to be focused on proclaiming our ideologies. Obviously others may argue, and there are numerous siddur options for them. But we shouldn't pretend that this is the only approach to prayer, or that every Jew must use ideology in chosing a siddur. Regarding the second point, which I understand to be saying "each occasion of Torah study involves someone chosing an approach they prefer to understand the text, so they should chose a Chumash that furthers the approach that they prefer" I also tend to agree as well, but here my post focuses on the reductio ad absurdum problem of splitting hairs and hyper-focus on details hashkafa. I did not conduct a comprehensive study of the stone Chumash, but wonder whether the troubling explanations are ubiquitous, occasional, or somewhere in between. The problem with a "Modern" chumash, is that there are many "modern" explanations that could be equally troubling, depending on how modern the chumash and conservative the reader. Did Bilaam's donkey talk or was it a dream (Ramban versus Rambam)? If Artscroll said he spoke, and for example a new chumash says that he did not - then which one most accurately reflects my hashkafa? And if you imagine 100 different texts that can be each read multiple ways, how do we find the chumash that on all 100 provides the perfect match? Hope this makes sense, happy to continue the conversation further, Yaakov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 08:07:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:07:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Shmitta fund Message-ID: <2A3CAC10-A501-4AF5-A666-AB7B0D35E90C@gmail.com> http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2017/06/proposed-law-shmitta-fund.html?m=1. Is that the general psak, that heter mechira is no better than nothing? Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 15:02:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:02:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] restaurants In-Reply-To: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170620220230.GB29839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:44:00PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From the OU: : Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher : restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would : be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness : the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad : (giving the appearance of impropriety)... A question about that "and"... I agree with their parenthetic definition, but I will rephrase to show why I think it's rare-to-impossible for something to simultaneously be both mar'is ayin and cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone who sees the action will assume it's mutar, or at least informally "not so bad". Cheshad is where someone who sees the action is sure it's assur, and therefore think less of the person doing it. How many actions involve two conflicting default umdenos? So, being confused, I looked up the Igeros Moshe. The teshuvah is primarily about a frum minyan in a room in a non-O synagogue. The last paragraph begins "Ubedavar im mutar le'ekhol berestarant..." ("Restaurant" transliterated in Yiddish or hil' gittin style.) The line is "yeis le'esor mishum mar'is ayin vecheshad". But if someone is mitzta'er tuva, so that these gezeiros do not apply, they could eat betzin'ah something that has no actual kashrus problem. Does "ve-" here have to mean both? Or could it mean that between the two, it is assur in all circumstances? Like "lulav hagazul vehayaveish pasul" doesn't refer only to a lulav that is both stolen and dried out. Chazal's "ve-" is more complex than "and". (I am tempted to discuss de Morgan's laws and ve-, but I will just leave in this hint rather than detour into a class in symbolic logic.) If it does have to mean both mar'ish ayin and cheshad, can someone : Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based? I am not clear how they could NOT be. : For example, in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in : a treif restaurant, what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % : threshold for concern? In NYC, if you see two people, only one of which in O uniform, entering a restaurant, it's common to just assume this is a business meeting and accomodations were made. Restaurants in Manhattan routinely take delivery for a kosher meal when catering a group; it's a matter of the minimum size of the group they'll make such accomodation for. (I have been one of three, and got Abigails delivered double-sealed.) In such a climate, I don't think people would assume you're there to eat treif even if it's just two people meeting and no kosher could possibly be brought in from the outside. It's just a known thing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 16:11:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 19:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170620231132.GC29839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:33:00PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. : : True. I have always thought of ribis in a class of its own, for the : simple reason that the entire world considers it to be a generally : acceptable business practice... According to the Rambam, it's a mitzvas asei. The SA (YD 159:1) holds like the Tur, it's mutar de'oraisa, and usually prohibited derabbanan "shema yilmod mima'asav". Bikhdei chayav, tzurba derabbanan and if the profit is only defined derabbanan as ribbis are three exceptions. (Charging ribis from a mumar shekafar be'iqar is also mutar, because we are not obligated lehachayaso; but paying ribis to him is not.) The Levush says "shema yilmod mima'asev" doesn't apply in the current economy. Chazal assumed a primarily Jewish economy where we have a few exceptional deals with non-Jews. So for us, ribis is always mutar lemaaseh. I wonder whether this heter of the Levush would apply to Jews in Israel today. In any case, halakhah pesukah (assuming the reader isn't Teimani) doesn't mention any mitzvah asei. In terms of the taam being because their own economy is based on interest... Would you argue that it's wrong to lend a Muslim or an Amish person money with interest? (Even in the Levush's opinion?) Particularly in a Moslem country. where they have their own parallels to heter isqa , and the person's whole culture (I presume) reviles interest. So is it whether or not ribis is considered immoral by the person being charged, or whether or not kelapei Shemaya galya ribis is moral? I argued the latter, but your wording left me wanting to articulate the chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 13:49:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:49:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting Message-ID: What would you like the first thing that HKB"H says to you at 120 when you report to the beit din shel maaleh(heavenly study hall)? Kt Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 13:50:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban Message-ID: What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:53:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:53:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 11:21:05PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : > I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi : > haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, : > like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" : > in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather : > than knowledge of abstract ideas. : No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these : were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi : haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and : that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? "They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..." :> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. : These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult : to understand them as having been written by the same person... Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position. ... :: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in :: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21... ::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us ::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the ::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers ::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their ::> practice on their upright fathers. :> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. : Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the : pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] : and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk... But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write: : Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the : context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting : up of schools)... Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's derashah. I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with "chadash assur min haTorah".) :> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. : Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas : etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody : define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at : all the experiential aspect... Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect? :> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when :> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an :> example to imitate. : The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is : as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with : Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her : ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." : The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard : to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, : excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of : Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily : in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education. After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior? In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49. : And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they : could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward : etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two : types of TSBP... Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah. : Is not the gemora etc filled with : this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it occuring... So I am toally lost here. Maybe the "this" has been stretched further than I can follow. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 19:00:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Message-ID: The gematria for Rosh Chodesh is 813. In the whole of tanach there is only one verse with the gematria of 813. It is B?reishis, Chapter 1, verse 3. ?Vayomer Elohim ohr, vay?hi ohr? ?And God said: Let there be light and there was light.? Music is moonlight in the gloomy night of life. Jean Paul, Author From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:42:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:42:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170621234200.GF18168@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 09:19:46AM -0400, Yaakov Jaffe via Avodah wrote: : But one approach to tefilah (let's call it the one that resonates with me) : is that it is purely a communication between the speaker and his or her : Creator, and that consequently, it is not the time and place to be focused : on proclaiming our ideologies. Obviously others may argue, and there are : numerous siddur options for them. But we shouldn't pretend that this is : the only approach to prayer, or that every Jew must use ideology in chosing : a siddur. But if a person wants to approach tefilah as a pure communication, then shouldn't they pick a siddur whose ideology is that tefillah is a pure communication? Having a siddur of a given ideology is not necessarily about proclaiming that ideology. (But if you want to rail about the fact that too often this call for an MO siddur /is/ about proclomation, there is room to do so.) It is about having a siddur that aids the kind of prayer you want to do. Which is why I never understood why people assign value to having "their siddur". I have a collection, as I go from more cerebral to more experiential moods, and want different siddurim depending on where my head is just then. For example, the as-yet-unpublished RCA siddur has something in it about shelo asani that would say something that a Mod-O Jew is more likely to be concerned about saying than someone who is less engaged with the more egalitarian west would feel a need to say. ... : I did not conduct a comprehensive study of the stone Chumash, but wonder : whether the troubling explanations are ubiquitous, occasional, or somewhere : in between... In my experience, occasional. But the rationalists are under-represented, given the chareidi tendency toward more maximalist approaches. That's not troubling, but it's promoting one worldview and not allowing the other to reach the market-share it deserves. : or was it a dream (Ramban versus Rambam)? If Artscroll said he spoke, and : for example a new chumash says that he did not - then which one most : accurately reflects my hashkafa? ... My ideal chumash would present both, or if space requires, inform me that both possibilities are discussed without full presentation. If two hashkafic ideas are viable, why should I let an editor choose between them for me? But that's a different story. The problem the MO nay-sayers have with the absence of a vaiable alternative to ArtScroll is less that there is a specific problem with a comment. As I wrote, those are rare. But that without variety, without a survey that includes ideas current and popular outside the Agudist community, those ideas will cease being thought of as normative. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:20:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:20:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170621222015.GB18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:50:41PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? #1 Qedoshim Tihyu -- naval birshus haTorah #2 The end of Bo (although you didn't ask for a runner-up) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:28:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:28:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170621232850.GE18168@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:07:45PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : >I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons : >and sources, and this chapter is a perfect example... In the Bavli "Mai ta'ama?" is a request for a reason. In the Y-mi, it is a request for a pasuq as source. Reasons and sources are different things, and I think the difference helps clears up the question. : Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites : the Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than : in other places. Zev was saying that the Rambam usually opens or close with a reason, a ta'am hamitzvah. (And, as he explains in the Moreh, he only expects these to cover the generalities.) Usually, these are unsourced. But, kedarko, when he can paraphrase a source he does. Which is what he is doing here. : I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he : often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or : "pashat haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a : Midrash? This one stands out. This paragraph addresses the Rambam's not spending much time on sources, not about reasons. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:16:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:16:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170621221634.GA18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:49:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What would you like the first thing that HKB"H says to you at 120 when : you report to the beit din shel maaleh(heavenly study hall)? (After introducing me to my daughter...) "I'm proud of you, son!" "I would help you get used to this, but techiyas hameisim will be underway..." "So THAT'S why I did that..." But according to Rava (Shabbos 31a) I should expect, "Nasata venatata be'emunah?" Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:24:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:24:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170621232402.GD18168@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 08:43:42PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : > How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of : > any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even : > punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of : > the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? : : The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an : extension of the beit din. Perhaps according to the Rambam (Rotzeiach 1:2), who says "mitzvah beyad go'el hadam..." and if the go'el doesn't want to or there is none, "BD memisin es harotzeiach besayif". Rashi al haTorah appears to hold that "ein lo dam" means the go'el is killing an already dead man, and therefore bears no guilt. Not a mitzvah, but a reshus. (But see below.) And if the go'el only has reshus, it's hard to say he is operating as beis din's appointee. Sanhedrin 45b says "mitzvah bego'el hadam", but if there is no go'el, BD appoints one. There is no sayif. BUT, Makos 2:7 has a machloqes: R Yosi haGelili says that if the killer is found outside the techum, it is a mitzvah on the go'el hadam and a reshus for everyone else to kill him. (According to the beraisa on 12a, if there is no go'el, there is reshus...) R' Aqiva disagrees, saying it's a reshus for the go'el and a non-punishable issur for anyone else. (According to the beraisa, they are chayav.) And here's the weird part -- despite what I quoted above from the Yad, the Rambam on the mishnah says halakhah is like R' Aqiva. Rashi on Makkos 12a says about Bamidbar 35:27 "ika leferushei lashon tzivui ve'ika leferushei lashon tzivui. In sum, I think RJR is understating it. It's not "only" the pesuqim that are unclear. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 01:29:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:29:00 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: : No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these : were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi : haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and : that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? And RMB replied: >"They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..." I like "the root principles and the general rules .." - thanks, that is better than my use of source - but I think "osmosis" is not quite right either. I don't think "osmosis" as we understand it would necessarily have been within the Maharil's conception, and that it is not a great translation for "al pi hakabala" - maybe "from tradition" - but osmosis isn't right. The girls in question probably learnt how to speak the local language by osmosis (even if eg Yiddish was spoken in the home), but you would not say that is "al pi hakabbala". There is a big difference. :> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. : These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult : to understand them as having been written by the same person... >Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position. I don't think you can say that. First of all, the second one, ie the one from Maharil HaChadashos, made it into the Shulchan Aruch, - it is quoted by the Rema - and you can't just dismiss that. And the first one was in the possession of the Birchei Yosef, who is very influential in a whole host of ways in terms of psak. I think rather you have to treat them as two different rishonic teshuvot, and give them weight on that basis. It may well be that they were influenced by, or even possibly penned by, the student of the Maharil who collected them (hence my note that they came from two different collections) , and we may never know which one was really the Maharil's opinion and which one was in fact that of his student or some other rishon from around that time and attributed to the Maharil, but they are both rishonic source material, and I don't think we can ignore either of them. ... :: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in :: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21... ::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us ::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the ::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers ::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their ::> practice on their upright fathers. :> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. : Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the : pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] : and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk... But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write: : Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the : context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting : up of schools)... >Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's derashah. Yes, but even in terms of pshat, it seems very difficult to come away from the idea of transmission of tradition from father to children when using this process. "Asking" is not about osmosis - it is about an attempt at formal learning, and answering in response to an ask is exactly the process of formal learning in pretty much all contexts (it is why we still have teachers even in Universities, and not just books). If you have system where you are supposed to "ask" and somebody else is supposed to then answer, you have formal education. This is a step up from where you are expected to learn by watching (but not asking) - but where at least sometimes the educational aspect is clear - eg, I want you to watch and see how I go to place X, so you can find it yourself next time, is a less formal process than asking, but it is still a form of education, which is a step up from osmosis, where nobody on either side necessarily realises that something is being learnt, it just seeps in (language is a classic case, or how about accent - kids pick up their accent from school by osmosis, it is not a conscious process, and maybe the parents would in fact prefer, and maybe even they would prefer, that they talk with the parent's accent, rather than that of their peers, but it doesn't happen that way, you send a kid to school, they start talking like the locals in their school). >I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with "chadash assur min haTorah".) Because the proof text resonates, it does even in the pshat. In the pshat it is clearly linked to "vshinantam l'vanecha" - ie is the flip side of it (which is why the extension into drash makes sense, just as v'shinantam l'vanecha is the basis of the command for Torah study, this is the basis of the need to listen to the master of Torah). And if you know the drash, even when you use it in the pshat form, you will get the resonance. "V'shinantam l'vanecha" is the pasuk from which the obligation for boys to learn is learnt (banecha v'lo banotecha) - with the emphasis then on the father's teaching - the formal school process came later, when the father's obligation was delegated to a school teacher. Ask you father (in the masculine) is similarly in the pshat about a boy's obligation to learn. Applying it to girls is an odd stretch in the first place. What you are saying is that the proof text when applied to girls suddenly doesn't mean what it means when applied to boys, in either pshat or drash, that to me seems odd. :> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. : Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas : etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody : define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at : all the experiential aspect... >Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect? Well the CC is explaining the Rambam. The Rambam says: ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????, ???? ??? ??????, ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????, ???"? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????, ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????, ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man, because she is not commanded and all who do a thing that they are not commanded to do, there reward is not like the reward of one who is commanded and does rather [their reward] is less than these, and even though she gains a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning, and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut. So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav (note that the Rambam himself in Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 Halacha 11 - says a man is required to divide his time into thirds, a third in Torah shebichtav, a third in Torah sheba?al peh, and a third in understanding and weighing - what he calls Gemora, so there he seems to have three categories, but the third requires a knowledge of the other two, and presumably cannot be taught). So, in terms of your question "does anybody force the CC to define the set of TSBP that was classically prohibited as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including the experiential aspect" - it seems to me that the Rambam does. Ie given that the CC is explaining the Rambam, and the Rambam has only two categories of Torah, then either the experiential aspect is Torah shebichtav or it is not Torah at all. But saying that the experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase. I therefore think it very difficult to say that experiential teaching, especially when linked with the formality of "asking", as the CC does, can be defined as not Torah at all. So that leaves Torah shebichtav. I did try and say that was the Tur's point, what you are should not teach are the laws as written down, but to say that the experiential is Torah shebichtav seems to me a very difficult assertion. :> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when :> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an :> example to imitate. : The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is : as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with : Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her : ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." : The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard : to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, : excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of : Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily : in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". >I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education. >After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior? Yes he does, the minute he is "asked", or if he says "watch what I do" (similar to when I take my children somewhere to show them how to get there on their own, eg a new school, including pointing out the landmarks, that is most definitely active teaching, despite the fact that it is experiential, and not done from giving them a map and teaching them to map read). >In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49. And "look, let me show you how ..." is formal teaching, whether it is a maths problem or it is how to bake chala. And if that particular aspect of teaching falls within the definition of Torah, then one is teaching Torah, albeit informally. And the danger with understanding "lelameid" to only mean formal teaching, not informal teaching, is that you then write out of a father's obligation to a son an awful lot, as it is not within the mitzvah. You can't have it both ways, either when a father teaches a son informally (eg shows him how to put on tephillin, as that seems very difficult to learn from a book) he is teaching him Torah or he is not. Which is it? : And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they : could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward : etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two : types of TSBP... >Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah. So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect, showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn?t take the bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid? Isn't that the consequence of what you are saying? That the only Torah that men are obligated to learn as Talmud torah are the formal abstract rules and regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially? : Is not the gemora etc filled with : this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. >The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it occuring... I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules. If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? -Micha Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 06:27:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:27:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> On 22/06/17 04:29, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: >> The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or >> memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it >> occuring... > I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the > formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the > formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules. > > If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of > the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? Indeed, it's an explicit gemara: "*Torah* hi, velilmod ani tzarich". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 09:32:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:32:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170622163247.GA19841@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:27:07AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: :>If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of :> the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? : Indeed, it's an explicit gemara: "*Torah* hi, velilmod ani tzarich". I am excluding informal education from "lelameid bito", not excluding the acquired info from "Torah". When the R' Eliezer (as quoted by the Rambam) talks about learning or teaching, is he thinking about mimetic osmosis and the like or is he referring only to formal education? It is indeed a key way to learn how to practice. In many cases -- eg milah, safrus, mar'os, tereifos, etc... -- it's the /only/ way to learn the necessary Torah. "Mimetic osmosis *or the like*" is my acknowledgement that Chana managed to convince me that my dichotomy is really a spectrum from the informality of unconscious imitation to raw text study. And therefore there will be gray are that is more or less likely to be included by R' Eliezer or the Rambam rather than a yes-or-no. My talk of mimeticism and osmosis overstates where I am going, and created needless problems with the CC's use of "she'al avikha". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 06:26:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:26:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Letter from Europe Message-ID: <84dd8782469149f99c23cf85a031e37b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I seem to remember a letter from a European (German) Jewish community to someone/thing in Eretz Yisrael with the general message that their hometown was where they intended to wait for Moshiach whether moving to Eretz Yisrael was possible or not. Does this sound familiar? If so, do you know the source? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 07:06:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:06:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple Message-ID: <20170623140615.GB17536@aishdas.org> SA EhE 62:11 says that if the benei hachupah have to divide up into chaburos, they all make sheva berakhos. Even if the locations are not open to each other nor is there a common server -- none of the normal things that combine a zimun. The AhS #37 adds that they each make their own 7 berakhos. Does this mean that if a man needs to leave a wedding early, he should really invest the effort to find 9 others and not just 3, not only because zimun requires trying, but also because the 10 of you would be passing up a chance to bentch the chasan & kallah! To add more weight to the idea, earlier in the siman the AhS discusses the function of panim chadashos at 7 berakhos. In #23-24 he says that the Rambam (Berakhos pereq 2) implies that the reason why we need panim chadashos for 7 berakhos is that the whole thing is to fulfill *their* chiyuv to bentch the chasan & kallah. As guests of the couple, they have a chiyuv to give them a berakhah, which is fulfilled at the minimum by their amein. Whereas if everyone there already fulfilled that obligation, the berakhos are levatalah. Then in #35 he gives besheim "rov raboseinu" the usually quoted reason (at least in my circles) that it's their addition to the simchah that legitimizes the berakhah. Which is why the neshamah yeseirah and Shabbos meal can serve in the same role. (However, he warns, this only works for a real se'udah shelishis. A yotzei-zain shaleshudis lacks that requisite simchah.) So, it could be that according to the Rambam, walking out of the se'udah without 7 berakhos is neglecting one's chiyuv to give the couple a berakhah! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 10:46:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:46:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> <20170621234200.GF18168@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170623174657.GA20760@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:00:14PM -0400, Yaakov Jaffe wrote: : Thank you for your perspective. I understand your argument - rather than : my three-options (hashkafa a, hashkafa b and hashkafa c), you suggest a : fourth with a & b side by side, for the reader to chose. I hadn't : considered it - but it does have a lot to offer! We need to distinguish between a specific commentary -- R' Hirsch's Pentateuch, Mesoret haRav works, Divrei Moshe -- and an anonymous collector of footnotes as in the Stone Chumush, the ArtStroll or RCA siddurim, etc... And I want to acknowledge the gray areas. R/Lord Sack's siddur can be either, depending upon whether someone bought it out of esteem for R' Sacks and wanting to know his position, or it's as just Koren's contender in that market. I am only talking about the latter category, the anonymous shul chumash or siddur. Chareidism is founded on the need to protect ourselves from the modern. And only after dealing with the thread, one considers the opportunities. And part of that defense mechanism is deffering decisions to those more knowledgable. In contrast, Mod-O embraces the West's admiration of autonomy. Thus leaving a gap between the communities about when one turns to gedolim for answers, and when not. A side-effect of how "daas Torah" is formulated is that it has little tolerance for plurality. "The gedolim hold" is an oft-repeated idiom, in my hometown of Passaic, even by people who -- if you made them stop and consider the question -- know "the gedolim" often disagree. Because if we need to choose between valid answers, we could run the risk of choosing wrongly, a dangerous variant of one, the other, or in combination. A comparative unknown yeshivish rav or collection of avreikhem providing such commentary, choosing a consistent style of comment over others is perceived from that mindset. As promoting one position as the sole truly normative approach. The same often happens with Rashi. We think of Rashi's position as the default, because it's girsa diyenuqa, and another rishon is seen as the machadesh. Did the brothers sell Yoseif or did they find the pit empty after the Moavim got there first and selling him? There is a machloqes tannaim about Rivqa's age when married, but Rashi quotes one, and that becomes the default in some circles. In other circles, peshat is more likely to trump medrashic stories. With the position of numerous rishonim and acharonim (are there cholqim?) that medrashic stories are repeated for their nimshalim, not the story itself. Which brings me to a second effect of daas Torah... The more one takes pride in deferring to authority the more likely one is to embrace the maximalist position, to accept that which is further from rationalist, from what the autonomous decision would have been. A second reason why Rivqa must have been 3 when married, not 15. Yes, many people know both, but isn't there a clear emotional attitude about one position being normative rather than the other? I therefore think that giving a survey of opinions is itself an inherently MO way of doing this kind of text. It allows someone to choose autonomously between rationalism, mysticism, maximalism, etc... without the relatively-unknown rabbi -- or anyone but my own rav, his rav, his rav's rav... ("my gadol" is a much more MO view than "the gedolim) -- setting himself to tell large numbers of the observant community what to view as the mainstream, and what is an acceptable but avant-gard alternative, even if they ever learn of the other options. If we want RYBS's position to be viewed as part of the mainstream, or R' Herschel Schachter's (which is far closer to yeshivish but still not something ArtScroll would quote too often) or R' Aharon Soloveitchik or RALichtenstein, R' Amital, R CY Goldvicht or any other rosh yeshivas hesder, R' Kook, etc... there has to be chumashim that put these ideas in the hands of the common people, the ones who aren't spending spare time hanging out in the sefarim store or following e-zines, blogs, email lists or even FB groups that discuss (usually: argue) such things. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 15:56:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:56:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d2ec73$fba1e110$f2e5a330$@gmail.com> R' Joel Rich: What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? ------------------------ The one about being a naval b'rshus haTorah. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 14:04:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 23:04:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: <2a88576c-335d-3d30-a014-301f177029c1@zahav.net.il> References: <2a88576c-335d-3d30-a014-301f177029c1@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <297327dc-ba39-c064-1bd4-0a61c750d11f@zahav.net.il> Mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisrael, including conquering it. Ben On 6/21/2017 10:50 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? > KT > Joel Rich > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 06:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 16:10:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple Message-ID: "Does this mean that if a man needs to leave a wedding early, he should really invest the effort to find 9 others and not just 3, not only because zimun requires trying, but also because the 10 of you would be passing up a chance to bentch the chasan & kallah!" Actually, even without regard for Sheva B'rochos, the din of zimmun requires that one not who has eaten with a minyan not bentsch with less than a minyan. There is mention on OC 193:1 that only where there would be difficulty in a minyan hearing, thus necessitating the bentsching calling attention to itself and thus offending the host, that it can be done in groups of three; it would seem to be a kal vachomer that gathering ten and saying Sheva B'rochos would be even more noticeable, and thus more hurtful. It would also seem that if one person has to leave, he should not request two others to join him in zimmun unless they, too, must leave early, since otherwise they should not violate their obligation of proper zimmun so that the one leaving have an incomplete fulfillment of his obligation. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:01:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 01:01:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: . R' Eli Turkel wrote: > R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He > understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah position > basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a > state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful > but is against the wishes of G-d. Could you please explain to me what the Agudah position is, and *how* it denies that G-d affects history? Personally, I do not know what the Agudah position is about the Medinah. I'm not convinced that they even *have* a position. Over the years, I have gotten the impression that they have deliberately avoided publicizing their views, because at this point in history it is so difficult to be sure of such things. You yourself concede that the state "APPEARS" to be successful. Who knows? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:21:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:21:57 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] perhaps not such a well-known RaMBaM, but ... Message-ID: in his intro to Sefer Shemos Matan Torah was just a device employed to re-attain the standards that had already been accomplished by the Avos when they came to Mount Sinai - made the Mishkan and HaShem returned His Shechinah amongst them, that is when they restored their status to be like their Avos .... and that is when they were deemed to be redeemed [from the servitude in Egypt] Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:42:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:42:05 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] redemption - The GoEl HaDam Message-ID: the family can come to terms with the killer. when circumstances are such that the killer is deemed too negligent, he can not seek refuge in the Ir Miklat and they MUST come to terms, of the aggressor lives his life in constant fear of being executed. Lo SikChu Kofer LeNefesh RoTzeach Hu - is a warning [to BDin] NOT to take redemption money, NOT to avert the death penalty, NOT to come to terms; but in other circumstances it seems we ought to seek strategies to come to terms. That may include but is not limited to offering money - it probably has more to do with Teshuvah, which is the need to persuade the victims that the regret is sincere, which is why BDin cannot provide a ruling, it can only be negotiated through direct communications, and finding friends of the victims and persuading them of the sincerity and getting THEM to intercede - this is the Shurah that is described in Halacha and RaMBaM. Why are they defined as the GoEl the redeemer? It is a redemption for the society - an evil [negligence of this magnitude, especially when Chazal indicate it is a reflection of other misdeeds, is an evil] of this magnitude leaves an impression on the collective mind of the community, the Eidah, those whose lives is a testimony to HKBH, and if it goes unpunished, the community is tainted. So the community requires redemption. This too feeds into the coming to terms with the aggressor - it is not only the friends of the victim who are impressing upon their traumatised consciousness the need to forgive to accept that the aggressor truly regrets [and that the victim is also as Chazal say, a contributor to his untimely own end] but the community is a sort of spectator to these negotiations and the aggressors feel a need to be accepted by the community and not be seen as being too harsh and vengeful or rapacious in their demands for compensation. This is a very redeeming experience for everyone Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 10:10:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:10:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] most famous ramban Message-ID: <000b01d2edd5$f855df80$e9019e80$@actcom.net.il> First Ramban in Yayera-polemic with the Moreh Nevukhim. After that, 'Kedoshim tihiyu', (which many people are horrified by or completely misunderstand and yes, the Ramban was an ascetic and makes a brilliant case for asceticism) but we could probably have a whole lot of fun on this list making a list of Rambans that everyone should know. In fact, we may actually have done this already. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 10:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:05:14 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting from God Message-ID: <000601d2edd5$3d08f5a0$b71ae0e0$@actcom.net.il> I'd be thrilled to hear: "It's okay-don't worry about it" but I'm not counting on it. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 07:06:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:06:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170626140643.GD29431@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 04:10:45PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : hurtful. It would also seem that if one person has to leave, he should not : request two others to join him in zimmun unless they, too, must leave : early, since otherwise they should not violate their obligation of proper : zimmun so that the one leaving have an incomplete fulfillment of his : obligation. OTOH, if they have an obligation to bless the chasan and kalah, perhaps the threshold for "must leave early" has to be raised. After all, there are cases of need where we do break a zimmun, but we would never (e.g.) walk out on a beris milah over the same motivation. "Need" is a relative term. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 09:15:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 12:15:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> On this thread, did any of us mention birkhas ge'ulah? "Ufdeih khin'umekha Yehudah veYisrael" expresses our expectation that Hashem will redeem both malkhios. Or is there another way to talk separately about Yehudah and Yisrael. So I would think the siddur pasqens, and this is in all traditional nusachos, that the 1- tribes are not permanently lost. I am assuming since this is a birkhas shevakh rather than baqashah, this is an expectation "you will surely redeem", and not a request. Requesting the impossible is a tefillas shav. So... As a baqashah, the berakhah would only prove they could be redeemed; as shevakh (which is, I believe, the correct category), the berakhah is expressing our faith they will be redeemed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 14:51:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:51:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Talmud Torah vs Mitzvah Maasis Message-ID: <20170626215120.GA8220@aishdas.org> Another data point... AhS EhE 65:4 says "mevatlin talmud Torah lehakhnasas kalah lechupah", even toraso umenaso. But limited to someone who sees them going to the chupah. If you just know of a wedding in town, you aren't obligated to stop learning to go. For sources, the end of the se'if cites 1- Semachos 11[:7], which RYME summarizes as "dema'aseh qodem leTT". The mishnah itselces cites both Aba Sha'ul and Rabbi Yehudah, that "hama'aseh qodem letalmud". (Rabbi Yehudah would enjoin his talmidim to participate as well.) 2- Qiddushin 40b which discusses whether talmud gadol or ma'aseh gadol. R' Tarfon: ma'aseh R' Aqiva: talmud "Ne'enu kulam ve'amru: talmud gadol" because talmud leads to ma'aseh. (And so on, discussion elided.) This gemara concludes that talmud is greater. 3- And for exaplanation of how to resolve Semachos vs Qiddushin, he points you to Tosafos BQ 17[a] "veha'amar". The gemara there says "gadol limud Torah shemeivi liydei ma'adeh", much like Qiddushim. Rashi says "alma ma'aseh adif". R' Tam asks on Rashi, from the gemara in Qiddushin. Tosafos then explains the gemara's distinction between learning and teaching in two opposite ways: 1- It's teaching which has priority, because it brings the masses to action. Whereas one's own learning or acting are one person either way. 2- It's learning, which tells one how to act, that has priority. But since teaching doesn't inform the teacher how to fulfilll a mitzvah, it does not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 08:22:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:22:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chukas Message-ID: <9B3AD7FA-3712-4F5A-B2FC-BAC8F688CD87@cox.net> Rashi picks up on the juxtaposition of the consecutive sentences where we first read of Miriam?s death and immediately following ? of the lack of water. This would indicate some connection which Rashi points out that the existence of the water was on the z?chus of Miriam. Nonetheless, the question of the Sifse Chakhamim is also quite valid. Weren?t Aaron and Moses worthy enough to warrant the existence of the water on their z?chus? As a chok has no rational explanation, so, too, there is no logical explanation as to why as long as Miriam was there, offering her inspired leadership, the waters of the be?er, the wells of Torah, flowed ceaselessly and with her death, the waters stopped; whereas, the greatness of Aaron and Moses paled in comparison. This shows the error of those who downplay the role of women in Judaism. Remember, it?s the mother who determines the child?s religion and it?s the mother who plays a major role in her children?s development. The dedication and devotion of the exemplary Jewish mother are a shining example to all who would seek idealism in a Jewish woman. "The Lord gave more wit to women than to men." Talmud - Niddah ??And the Lord God built the rib which teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, endowed the woman with more understanding than the man.? Niddah 45b ?A beautiful wife enlarges a man?s spirit.? [adapted from] Talmud, Berakhot 57b -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 15:15:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:15:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <78965e20-72ab-5232-fd11-bfbe6b3a4ee2@sero.name> On 26/06/17 12:15, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On this thread, did any of us mention birkhas ge'ulah? "Ufdeih > khin'umekha Yehudah veYisrael" expresses our expectation that Hashem > will redeem both malkhios. Or is there another way to talk separately > about Yehudah and Yisrael. > > So I would think the siddur pasqens, and this is in all traditional > nusachos, that the 1- tribes are not permanently lost. It is not in all traditional nuschaos. TTBOMK it's found only in Nusach Ashkenaz. Sefarad substitutes the pasuk "Goaleinu", Italians substitute "Biglal avot...", I don't know what other traditional nuschaot do. (Modern Nusach Ashkenaz and some versions of the Chassidic "Sfard" combine the old Ashkenaz and Sefarad endings; this was originally Nusach Tzorfat, back when that was distinct from Ashkenaz.) (The reason for the Sefaradi ending with the pasuk rather than the other two versions is that the bracha is about Geulat Mitzrayim, not the future Geulah, hence the chatima "Ga'al Yisrael" as distinct from "Go'el Yisrael" in the 7th of the 18, so ending with a prayer for the future Geulah is off topic. I don't know how the other two nuschaot would respond, but maybe that's why NA ended up adopting the Tzorfati combination.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 22:08:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:08:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Agudah [was: Support for Maaseh Satan] Message-ID: <15180d.31f3d54b.4685e552@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <> [--I don't know who is being quoted here] R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah poisition basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful but is against the wishes of G-d. -- Eli Turkel >>>>>> All through Tanach there are examples of reshaim who succeed (if only for a while). Obviously it is Hashem's wish that they succeed, even if it is not His wish that they sin. What is remarkable and miraculous about the last century of history in Eretz Yisrael is how Eretz Yisrael has been built up, the growth of agriculture, cities, the economy, the Jewish population, and most of all the amazing growth of Torah living and learning -- despite secular socialist Zionism. The Medinah gets some credit but what is most remarkable is that so much good has happened despite the Medinah or even very much against the will of the secular government. There is so much ohr vechoshech mishtamshim be'irbuvya. Nevertheless it is impossible /not/ to see the Yad Hashem in the overall course of events over the past century. How many prophecies are coming true before our very eyes! A thriving economy grew up under the very feet of the socialists! Is that not a miracle?! Has such a thing ever happened in any other country?! :- ) So what is the Agudah's position? In November 1947, when the UN voted for the establishment of the Jewish State, the Agudah made the following declaration: --begin quote-- The World Agudas Yisroel sees as an historic event the decision of the nations of the world to return to us, after 2000 years, a portion of the Holy Land, there to establish a Jewish state and to encompass within its borders the banished and scattered members of our people. This historic event must bring home to every Jew the realization that ***the Almighty has brought this about in an act of Divine Providence*** [my emphasis] which presents us with a great task and a grave test. We must face up to this test and establish our life as a people, upon the basis of Torah. While we are sorely grieved that the Land has been divided and sections of the holy Land have been torn asunder, especially Yerushalayim, the holy city, while we still yearn for the aid of Mashiach tzidkeinu, who will bring us total redemption, we nevertheless see the hand of Providence offering us the opportunity to prepare for the geula shelaima if we will walk into the future as G-d's people. --end quote-- [quoted in __To Dwell in the Palace: Perspectives on Eretz Yisrael__ edited by Tzvia Ehrlich-Klein, 1991] The above is still fairly representative of the hashkafa of broad swaths of Klal Yisrael who are charedi or charedi-leaning, yeshivish or chassidish, neither Satmar nor Dati Leumi. That is, the majority of all frum Jews in America and Eretz Yisrael. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 22:31:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:31:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? Message-ID: <151979.a3a1c08.4685eabc@aol.com> From: Chana Luntz via Avodah I Well the CC is explaining the Rambam. The Rambam says: --quote-- A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man, ...and even though she gains a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning, and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. --end quote-- That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut. So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav ... ....But saying that the experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase.... .....So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect, showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn't take the bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid? Isn't that the consequence of what you are saying? That the only Torah that men are obligated to learn as Talmud Torah are the formal abstract rules and regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially? Regards Chana >>>>> I think that different uses of the word "Torah" are being confused here. The very word "Torah" has many meanings, depending on context. It can refer to just the Chumash -- the Torah shebichsav -- about which the Rambam says "but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." Some chassidishe schools to this day do not teach girls Chumash. The word Torah can mean both Chumash and Gemara. "The Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut." There is universal agreement that "Torah" in this context means Gemara. NO ONE thinks that teaching halacha to girls is tantamount to teaching tiflus. The word "Torah" can refer to the vast corpus of everything that has ever been written by or about the Tanaim and Amoraim, Rishonim and Achronim. The word can refer to halacha, to hashkafa, to everything that makes up Jewish life and thought. "Torah" can also refer to that which is taught and learned by example, or by osmosis, or by a mother's tears when she bentshes lecht and davens for her children. "Al titosh Toras imecha." Every language has words like that, words whose precise meaning depends on context. Certainly in the Gemara itself there are many such words. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 29 06:18:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:18:11 +0000 Subject: What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem’s name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? Message-ID: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem's name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, HY"D the Av Bais Din of Shomloy in Hungary, once wrote a letter on this subject. It reads in part, "We have a tradition in our hands from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty, that the reading of the honored and awesome name of Hashem is AH -- DOY -- NOY (AH-DOE -- NOY or AH-DOW-NOY) using the vowelization of Chataf Patach for the Aleph, a Cholam for the Daled and a Kamatz for the Nun..." "Our master the Chasam Sofer and the author of the Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah, zt"l and a whole group of Geonim and Kedoshim have already warned us that unfortunately there are many mistakes concerning this. One needs to be very careful about this matter for a common mistake has spread among the masses and even among those with fear of Hashem. Through a lack of concentration, the Daled (of Hashem's pronounced name) is said with a Sheva as "AHD-ENOY." It is certain that whoever pronounces Hashem's name this way has not said Hashem's name at all and must repeat the bracha again, and so did the Chasam Sofer rule." Rav Shimon Schwab, zt"l in his classic work on Siddur, Iyun Tefilla (p. 25), adds that one should also be careful not to say AH -- DEE -- NOY. He writes: "One must pronounce the Daled with a Cholam (DOY, DOE or DOW) and the Nun with a Kamatz, and not use a Chirik under the Daled (DEE) as is the custom of some who are mistaken and think that they are pronouncing the Name properly... This is a disgrace of the honored and awesome Name. One who pronounces Hashem's name with a Chirik even a hundred times a day is not transgressing the prohibition of saying Hashem's name in vain." Rav Pinchas Scheinberg, zt"l was once asked if Ahd-enoy or Ahdeenoy are acceptable be'dieved, after the fact. His response was a resounding "No!" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 29 06:30:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zalman Alpert via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:30:39 -0400 Subject: What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem’s name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? In-Reply-To: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> References: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 29, 2017 10:18 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > From today's OU Halacha Yomis > > *Q. What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem?s name in Shmoneh Esrei > and other brachos?* There are different ways in Ashkenazi hebrew to pronounce many vowels like cholom zeira segol etc so this answer isof little meaning Galicianer Lithuanian German Ukrainian Hungarian and Central Polish jews each have their own pronunciation See Michtvei Torah by Gerer rebbe Imre Emes where opines different than what is written here Rabbi Heschel of Hamodia several yrs ago discussed this issue in a very cogent manner Although many American college educated frum Jews believe there is only 1way of halachic practice that is absurd,there are many authentic practices to the chagrin of a group of yedhivashe people seeking to impose uniform practicr namely their own Nehare nehare upishteh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 30 06:56:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:56:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Forgotten Fast Days Message-ID: <650c141a32674be8bd8ee65a52bc1d83@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see the article at https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5929 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 30 09:04:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:04:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Authority of Cherem deRabbeinu Gershom Message-ID: <20170630160442.GA20546@aishdas.org> AhS EhE 1:23,25 etc... refers to taqanos or gezeiros passed by Rabbein Gershon meOr haGolah and his contemporaries. Not the idiom I heard in the past, "cheirem deR' Gershom" -- not even the same last letter on the name. Since this was well after the last beis din hagadol / Sanhedrin (so far), we have discussed in the past where the authority to pass such laws came from. My own suggestion revolved around them being charamim for anyone who... rather than direct issurim. But the AhS would be more medayeiq to call them charamim if he thought that was a critical part of the mechanism. But here is something that had me wondering all over again. AhS EhE 119:17... The question is how a gett given without the wife's agreement would be valid if one holds "i avid lo mahani" (like Rava). And yet the Rama says "avar vegirshah ba"k" he is an avaryan (and thus in nidui) until she remarries. One it can't be fixed, because he cannot remarry his gerushah anymore, the nidui is removed. But the AhS writes, if this is true for a derabbanan (Kesuvor 81b) *kol shekein* dChdR"G hu kemo qarov le'isur Torah. Without explaining why. And I can't even figure out how it has the authority to be more than minhag altogether... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 13:45:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:45:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Aruch HaShulchan was not happy with the minhag that the baal haseder has his wine poured by someone else. He writes that it's a bit haughty to order his wife to pour for him and that in his city it was not the minhag. Aside from the interestingly contemporary sound of his concern, it seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for everyone to pour for everyone else, which would avoid the concern of the ArHaSh. 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? 2. If so is it a) based on the poskim, b) an old practice without formal endorsement, or c) a new-fangled sop to modernity? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 17:49:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzav: "As Long As The Soul Is Within Me, I Will Give Thanks Unto Thee, O Lord, My God And God Of My Fathers" Berakhot, 60b Message-ID: <476D9522-69B8-43D1-9E77-D0491911541D@cox.net> Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the korban todah, Thanksgiving Offering. The Medrash (Lev. R., 9.7) tells us that in the future all the sacrifices will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering. Rashi (Leviticus 7:12) states (paraphrased): A man offers a thanksgiving offering (in the Temple) when he is saved from potential danger. There are four types: sea travelers, desert travelers, those released from prison and a seriously ill patient who has recovered. As the verse says in Psalms (107:21), "They should give thanks to God for His kindness, and for His wonders to mankind.? Interestingly and providentially, the mnemonic for this group of four is Chayyim, which stands for [Chavush (jail), Yisurim (illness), Yam (sea), Midbar (desert)], (Shulchan Aruch 219:1). In our times, we fulfill this concept with the recitation of the blessing, HaGomel ("He who grants favors..."). There is a beautiful insight in the Avudraham on laws and commentary on prayers. The author was student of Ba'al HaTurim (R. Yaakov ben Asher) and was a rabbi in Seville. When the hazzan says Modim, the congregation recites the "Modim d'Rabbanan" (The Rabbis' Modim). Why is that? The Avudraham says that for all blessings in the Sh?moneh Esrei we can have an agent. For 'Heal Us', for 'Bless Us with a Good Year' and so forth we can have the sheliach tzibbur say the blessing for us. However, there is one thing that no one else can say for us. We must say it for ourselves. That one thing is "Thank You". Hoda'ah has to come from the individual. No one can be our agent to say 'Thank You.' (This is similar to asking for forgiveness. You must obtain it from the individual wronged. Not even the Almighty can forgive you for wronging a fellow human being). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 20:28:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:28:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: <5101c.42bfc52f.460fb895@aol.com> References: <5101c.42bfc52f.460fb895@aol.com> Message-ID: > "The Halachic Adventures of the Potato" ? by R' Yitzchak Spitz > https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5184 > [...] > In fact, and this is not widely known, the Chayei Adam does actually > rule this way, Sigh. This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location, but do *not* cheat by copying a citation from some secondary source; I will not accept it, because I know very well that there are many secondary sources who claim this, but none of them give a *valid* reference to where he wrote it. What I *have* seen in the Nishmas Adam is an aside, in the course of writing something different, that by the way in Germany they treat potatoes as kitniyos. In fact I'll go further: I don't believe that there has ever been a posek of any stature who forbade potatoes as kitniyos, nor any community that ever accepted such a practice. I have seen many sources claiming that someone else, somewhere else forbade it, or that some other community far away treats it as kitinyos, but never any first hand acccount. When the Rosh writes that in Provence they said Tal Umatar from Marcheshvan 7th I believe it, because he was there and saw it with his own eyes. But I have never seen anyone report having seen with his own eyes a community that forbids potatoes, or a psak din to that effect. It's always someone else somewhere else. Until I see a first hand account I don't believe it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 20:30:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:30:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked about guests in a shul where the guest's practices differ from the shul's. I am bothered by the question, and even more so by the responses. What has happened Porush Min Hatzibur? What has happened to Derech Eretz and simple good manners? (Previous discussions here on Avodah have claimed that some poskim actually hold that a visitor who davens Nusach Sfard should use that text even if he is in the tzibur of a Nusach Ashkenaz shul. Ditto for responding to Kedusha, so I will not discuss those particular examples.) But: > Would your shul allow a guest to say 13 middot aloud > by Tachanun (if local practice is not to)? We're not talking about a few words here, but approximately a whole page worth, that the tzibur would be forced to say. It's not clear from the question whether this guest is the shliach tzibur or not, but I think it is safe to say that in my shul, a shliach tzibur who tries this would be quickly informed of his error, and if it came from someone in the seats he'd simply be ignored. > Would your shul allow a guest to read his own Aliya? >From your use of the word "guest", I am presuming that this was not arranged in advance. If the guest had approached the gabbai a few days in advance to make this request, I don't know what the answer would be. But it sounds like the guest was called up, and at that point he asked the koreh, "May I read it myself?", as in the story that R' Josh Meisner told. I am horrified by the lack of consideration that this guest has toward the time and effort that the baal koreh put into preparing the laining. In RJM's story this happened on Rosh Chodesh, and I do concede that RC is by far the most frequently read parsha of all. But the question as posed was more general, applicable to any laining whether weekday or Shabbos. I am particularly surprised by the reaction of RJM's rav, who <<< insisted ... that the next two olim also read their own aliyos so as not to directly draw a distinction between those who read their own aliyah and those who do not. >>> While I appreciate the sensitivity involved, I am really surprised that this shul has such a large pool of people who can be called upon to lain properly, even for Rosh Chodesh - literally at a moment's notice. How common is this? Are there shuls where any randomly chosen person is able to lain? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 03:40:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:40:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chazkah that changed Message-ID: <> I would venture that according to everyone chazakot in financial matters can change. The famous case is a borrower who denies everything (kofer ba-kol) according to the Torah he doesn't pay anything and is not required to swear since no borrower would be brazen to completely deny a lie. The gemara says that "today" people are brazen and so we require a "shevua". I would guess that other financial chazakot for example that someone doesnt repay a loan ahead of time would depend on the current situation. If today there would be some reason for people to pay back a loan early that I would guess that the halacha indeed would change. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 04:01:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:01:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Visiting a Shul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJRich asked: > Visiting a shul questions-actual practices and sources appreciated: > * Would your shul allow a guest to read his own Aliya? > * Would your shul allow a guest to say his own nussach of kaddish (not as shatz)? > * Would your shul (in galut) allow the shatz not to say baruch hashem l'olam in maariv? > * Would your shul allow a guest to say 13 middot aloud by Tachanun(if local practice is not to)? > * Would the answers be different if requested before prayer (vs. gabbai intervention at time of event)? Me: In all those cases, in our shul, local minhag trumps the wishes of the guest, though we won't jump at anyone for adding vekooraiv mesheechay or werewa'h weassalah. Sometimes the reading of one's own aliya may be tolerated. When I was an avel, I mostly davvened in shuls that did not adhere to my minhag (though I layer "converted" to one of those other minhaggim), and as shaliach tzibbur, always followed their respective minhaggim. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 06:15:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:15:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked about guests in a shul where the guest's practices differ from the shul's. I am bothered by the question, and even more so by the responses. What has happened Porush Min Hatzibur? What has happened to Derech Eretz and simple good manners? ----------------------------- I have seen them all occur. What triggered the question was a shiur on yutorah where a pulpit rabbi mentioned that a visiting guest sfardi scholar asked in advance and was granted the right to read his own aliya. I was surprised and then thought of other situations that I had a similar reaction to. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 19:16:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 22:16:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Poisoning in Halacha Message-ID: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> Tonight my chevrusa and I learned the sugya in Bava Kamma 47b of one who puts poison in front of his friend's animal. A brief synopsis and application of the sugya is at http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/infected: ?A person put some poisoned food in front of his neighbor?s animal,? Rabbi Dayan said. ?The animal ate the food and died. The owner sued the neighbor for killing his animal. What do you say about this case?? ?I would say he?s liable,? said Mr. Wolf. ?He poisoned the animal.? ?I?m not so sure,? objected Mr. Mann. ?The neighbor didn?t actually kill the animal. Although he put out the poison, the animal chose to eat the food.? ?Animals don?t exactly have choice,? reasoned Mr. Wolf. ?If they see food, they eat! Anyway, even if the neighbor didn?t directly kill the animal, he certainly brought about the animal?s death.? ?But is that enough to hold him liable?? argued Mr. Mann. He turned to Rabbi Dayan.?The Gemara (B.K. 47b; 56a) teaches that placing poison before an animal is considered grama,? answered Rabbi Dayan. ?The animal did not have to eat the poisoned food. Therefore, the neighbor is not legally liable in beis din, but he is responsible b?dinei Shamayim. This means that he has a strong moral liability to pay, albeit not enforceable in beis din (Shach 386:23; 32:2).? It struck us that it follows that if one poisons another human being by, say, placing cyanide in his tea, which the victim then drinks and dies, the poisoner is exempt from capitol punishment. It would seem that such a manner of murder falls into the category of the Rambam's ruling in Hilchos Rotze'ach u'Shemiras Nefesh 3:10: Different rules apply, however, in the following instances: A person binds a colleague and leaves him to starve to death; he binds him and leaves him in a place that will ultimately cause him to be subjected to cold or heat, and these influences indeed come and kill the victim; he covers him with a barrel; he uncovers the roof of the building where he was staying; or he causes a snake to bite him. Needless to say, a distinction is made if a colleague dispatches a dog or a snake at a colleague. In all the above instances, the person is not executed. He is, nevertheless, considered to be a murderer, and "the One who seeks vengeance for bloodshed" will seek vengeance for the blood he shed. (translation from http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1088919/jewish/Rotzeach-uShmirat-Nefesh-Chapter-Three.htm) Perhaps this was a davar pashut to everyone else, but for me, tonight, it was a mind-boggling revelation! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 06:05:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:05:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hilchos Chol HaMoed Message-ID: <1491224727245.62311@stevens.edu> >From the article at http://tinyurl.com/l8ll4lf The following is meant as a convenient review of Halachos pertaining to Chol-Hamoed. The Piskei Din for the most part are based purely on the Sugyos, Shulchan Aruch and Rama, and the Mishna Berurah, unless stated otherwise. They are based on my understanding of the aforementioned texts through the teachings of my Rebbeim. As individual circumstances are often important in determining the psak in specific cases, and as there may be different approaches to some of the issues, one should always check with one's Rov first. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 12:50:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:50:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> > RZS: > In fact I'll go further: I don't believe that there has ever been a > posek of any stature who forbade potatoes as kitniyos, nor any community > that ever accepted such a practice. I have seen many sources claiming > that someone else, somewhere else forbade it, or that some other > community far away treats it as kitinyos, but never any first hand > acccount. When the Rosh writes that in Provence they said Tal Umatar > from Marcheshvan 7th I believe it, because he was there and saw it with > his own eyes. But I have never seen anyone report having seen with his > own eyes a community that forbids potatoes, or a psak din to that > effect. It's always someone else somewhere else. Until I see a first > hand account I don't believe it. > This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade potatoes. David Riceman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 09:15:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 12:15:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: <7f1aa7e091a1468c8cc6c5df61f610ac@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <7f1aa7e091a1468c8cc6c5df61f610ac@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <29.EA.10233.B3572E85@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 11:57 AM 4/3/2017, Ben Bradley wrote: >The Aruch HaShulchan was not happy with the minhag that the baal >haseder has his wine poured by someone else. He writes that it's a >bit haughty to order his wife to pour for him and that in his city >it was not the minhag. > >Aside from the interestingly contemporary sound of his concern, it >seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for everyone to >pour for everyone else, which would avoid the concern of the ArHaSh. > > >1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? In my home the children poured my wine once they were big enough and now my older grandchildren do this. And they pour for my wife also. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 10:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:10:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bourbon no Longer an Automatic, Faces Kashrus Issues Message-ID: <1491239439011.48127@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/kh92xxv "Companies that once distilled just a few barrels of bourbon every year are now churning out dozens of other drinks-Sherries, brandies, flavored vodkas-which might not be kosher. They can contaminate the bourbon, Rabbi Litvin said, if the liquors are run through the same pipes or tanks." The Litvins, a family that lives in Louisville, "have taken it upon themselves to keep bourbon kosher." Despite the fact that Jews are proportionately poor Bourbon consumers (it is an $8.5 billion industry), there has been a dramatic increase in demand in recent years, particularly by younger kosher consumers. "Alcohol consumption has definitely increased manifold," said one kosher wine and spirits expert. Heaven Hill, one of the largest liquor companies in the world, is owned by a Jewish family, but only a few of the bourbons-Evan Williams, the company's largest brand, and the high-end single-barrel whiskeys-are still guaranteed to be kosher. The others are run through the same pipes and storage tanks as other products, including untold flavors of vodka, spiced rum and mint whiskey. ______________________________________________________________ I guess that I have been ahead of the trends, because I have been drinking bourbon for decades and never liked Scotch. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 12:21:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:21:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Good manners will open doors that the best education cannot. Clarence Thomas Message-ID: <708AB73F-9427-468E-AAEE-C0DD97D63B94@cox.net> One of my doors recently broke and I?m having a new one installed Wednesday. It brought to mind a MIdrash I once learned telling of the basic distinctiveness of the Jewish door and the secret of its architectural design, which served as a protection against annihilation. ?And strike the upper doorpost through the merit of Abraham, and the two side-posts, in the merit of Isaac and Jacob. It was for their merit that HE saw the blood and would not suffer the destroyer? (Midrash Rabbah XVII - 3 Exodus). It set me to thinking. Aren?t the doors to a home indicative of the nature and character of those who live beyond them? I began to think of doors with various emblems displayed upon them. Some say: ?We have given.? ?No Beggars or Peddlers Allowed.? ?Nobody lives here,? etc. But next Monday evening, the Jewish emblem on the entrance door will say: "Let all who are hungry, come and eat." On this Festival of Pesach, let not Judaism pass over our doors. When we open our doors to welcome Eliyahu Hanavi, let us keep it open wide, to welcome all that is positive, invigorating and creative in Jewish life. Let our doors be indicative of proud Jewish occupants. Let us display our Mezuzot not as mere adornments but as emblems which proudly proclaim for all to see: ?We are proud to be the sons and daughters of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and we are determined to carry on in their tradition. Grief is a room without doors but Passover?s power not only changes that situation but it sends Eliyahu Hanavi right through. Truncated clich?, rw From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:11:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> References: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> Message-ID: On 03/04/17 15:50, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: >> > This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a > friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly > gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one > ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. > Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras > kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade > potatoes. That comes close, but not close enough. If the name of the town were given, so that one could track down other families from that town and verify it, then I'd accept it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:17:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:17:00 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach Message-ID: *<<*This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location >> *Nishmas* *Adam*, *Hilchos* *Pesach*, Question 20 (from the article on Potatos) mentions retzke that are called tatarka which are used to make flour are kitniyot My yiddish is very limited I saw one place that translated this as corn while another used buckwheat later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called erdeffel which I saw a translation as potatos. If this translation is accurate then the Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that allowed potatos on Pesach in case of a major famine. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:43:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:43:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170403204335.GC6792@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:17:00PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not : true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or : whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location >> : : Nishmas Adam, Hilchos Pesach, Question 20 (from the article on : Potatos) mentions : retzke that are called tatarka which are used to make flour are kitniyot It's Kelal 119, Q 20. : later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called erdeffel which : I saw a translation as potatos. If this translation is accurate then the : Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that allowed potatos on Pesach : in case of a major famine. And so, as Zev pointed out, it is untrue that the CA advocated this position. Which is what is commonly retold. (At least, in my experience.) The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:47:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:47:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 01:15:37PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What triggered the question was a shiur on yutorah where a pulpit : rabbi mentioned that a visiting guest sfardi scholar asked in advance : and was granted the right to read his own aliya. I was surprised and : then thought of other situations that I had a similar reaction to. Isn't there a problem that the second you let those who are able to lein for themselves, you destroyed the minhag of leveling the playing field with a baal qeri'ah? Along thse lines, my father -- who certainly doesn't have to -- reads the berachos from the card on the bimah. The whole procedure is built around avoiding embarassing those less educated Jewishly. And today, where so many who get aliyos may be newer baalei teshuvah who don't know the berakhos by heart, shouldn't everyone read the berakhos, just the way everyone has a shaliach do the reading? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 14:34:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:34:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> References: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 03/04/17 16:47, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Along thse lines, my father -- who certainly doesn't have to -- reads > the berachos from the card on the bimah. The whole procedure is built > around avoiding embarassing those less educated Jewishly. As I understand it, the purpose of reading the brachos from a card is to make it clear that one is not reading them from the Torah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 14:30:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:30:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> On 03/04/17 16:17, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not >> true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or >> Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the >> location > Nishmas/ /Adam/, /Hilchos/ /Pesach/, Question 20 (from the article > on Potatos) Yes, I'm obviously aware of this reference, which *does not say* what so many people cite it as saying, because they saw it cited to that effect somewhere else, and have not bothered looking it up. This is frankly getting up my nose, which is why I specified that I am not interested in citations that the poster has not looked up himself and verified that they actually say what they are represented as saying. > mentions retzke that are called tatarka which are used to > make flour are kitniyot My yiddish is very limited I saw one place > that translated this as corn while another used buckwheat Retchke, or Gretchke, means normal buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum). Tatarke means Tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum). > later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called > erdeffel which I saw a translation as potatos. Yes, bulbes are potatoes. as in the famous song "Zuntik bulbes, Montik bulbes". > If this translation is > accurate then the Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that > allowed potatos on Pesach in case of a major famine. He reports having heard that in 1771-72 there was a famine and the community of Frth convened a beis din which permitted potatoes and kitniyos, but not buckwheat. His purpose in citing this is simply to demonstrate that buckwheat is worse than kitniyos, since even in this extreme case they refused to permit it. Of course this immediately causes the reader to wonder why they'd need a heter for potatoes, so he throws in the explanation that in Germany they don't eat them on Pesach. Of course anyone who sees this can see immediately that (a) he reports this practise neutrally, without expressing any support for it, and (b) he doesn't claim first hand knowledge that it even exists, but merely repeat a rumour he'd heard about some other place. Somehow, in the hands of irresponsible people, this seems to have transformed into the received wisdom that he forbade potatoes, or wanted to forbid them, or thought they ought to be forbidden, etc, none of which has the slightest tinge of truth, and it's perpetuated by lazy and dishonest people who repeat it as fact, complete with a fake citation which they have not bothered to verify. This, in turn, by exaggerating the extent of gezeras kitniyos, is used to make it seem ridiculous, onerous, impractical, and ripe for reform. On 03/04/17 16:43, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. and did so merely as a rumour. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 20:11:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:11:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder Message-ID: R' Ben Bradley wrote: > it seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for > everyone to pour for everyone else, which would avoid the > concern of the ArHaSh. > > 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? The ArtScroll Haggadah says (in the instructions for Kiddush), "The participants fill each others' cups", without mentioning any minhagim to the contrary. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat, in Halachos of Pesach, on pg 468, cites Haggada Kol Dodi (Rav Dovid Feinstein) 7:2, writing: > The Ramoh (473;1) specifies that the leader of the Seder > should not fill his own cup, but should allow others to pour > for him, as this displays cheirus (freedom). > > Although the wording of the Ramoh seems to imply that this > requirement only applies to the host and leader of the Seder, > the general custom is to do this for all the participants. > Most people therefore pour the wine for each other at each > juncture of the Four Cups. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 03:40:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 06:40:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> References: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170404104004.GA3715@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 05:30:34PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. : and did so merely as a rumour. What he repeated was a story about someone making an exception to their minhag. The explanation as to why the minhag was needed isn't given as part of the story. And if the CA puts the story into writing and uses in halachic argument, he obviously thought it was more than mere rumor. Still, not his own position, not even something he advised in theory, even before ein hatzibur yakhol laamod bah considerations. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 05:52:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 12:52:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman Message-ID: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> There is a shiur about this at http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 19:29:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 22:29:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Isn't there a problem that the second you let those who > are able to lein for themselves, you destroyed the minhag > of leveling the playing field with a baal qeri'ah? Yes, that's what MB 141:8 says. Actually, that MB goes a bit farther, and points out that "harbeh" such people *don't* know the laining so well, and the result is that the tzibur isn't yotzay. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 06:42:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:42:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato Message-ID: "This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade potatoes." This has nothing to do with potatoes but I was talking to the wife of a Moroccan this morning and she said that he told her (third-hand again) that many Moroccan towns had their own minhagim. For example, in one town they didn't use sugar because it was stored in bags near grain. So it's certainly possibly true about potatoes as well. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 06:23:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:23:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: from an OU bulletin My grandparents, may they rest in peace, would be startled to discover that I can purchase OUP kosher for Passover items such as breakfast cereals, pizza, bread sticks, rolls, blintzes, waffles, pierogis and farfel. OTOH the OU has many chumrot on what is kitniyot I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily be mixed up with chametz. It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 08:58:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:58:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> On 04/04/17 09:23, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer > makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as > kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. > > To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and > bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our predecessors made. Thus the machlokes acharonim about newly discovered legumes and pseudo-grains: was the original gezera only on certain species, or was it on the entire class? Most acharonim seem to say it was on the entire class, but then argue about how to define that class, and thus how to decide what it includes. But very few if any say zil basar ta`ma to include new things that definitely don't fall in the original definition of the banned class. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 09:45:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 19:45:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> References: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> Message-ID: <6bd3ddad-9fb6-b9ae-d7e5-edded0b2f267@starways.net> On 4/4/2017 6:58 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 04/04/17 09:23, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> >> It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer >> makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as >> kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. >> >> To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and >> bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. > > It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no > authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our > predecessors made. I was under the impression that gezeirot weren't something that could be instituted after the Sanhedrin. Even Rabbenu Gershom only instituted his rules as chramim, rather than gezeirot. And the minhag (not gezeira by any stretch of the imagination) was made by local rabbis for local conditions and local situations. Conditions and situations change. I realize that the reason we differentiate between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan law is because there's a meforash commandment of bal tosif. But we can learn out from that on some level that we shouldn't be jumbling up gezeirot and takkanot and cheramim and minhagim and siyagim and treating them like they're all the same. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:43:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 20:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58ee56f4-ffb7-2f3d-6cf8-93f18c2d7746@zahav.net.il> See my post a week ago in which I cited Rav Yoel Ben Nun and Rav Yosef Rimon as both taking the position that we need to ban flour substitutes and relax on kitniyot. Ben On 4/4/2017 3:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals > and bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:13:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:23:37PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer : makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as : kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. : : To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and : bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. In this era of packaged foods and heksheirim, the whole minhag makes no sense. People aren't deciding on their own whether quinoa is qitniyos. Or whether some sack contains pure peas with no wheat from the bottom of the silo. Or would eat a porridge based on a guess about whether it was pea or oatmeal. (The fact that I get my *unflavored* gourmet whole-leaf teas without a KLP symbol -- something little different than buying any [other] vegetable -- makes my wife nervous.) The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:58:06AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no : authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our : predecessors made... Well, they lacked that authority too. This is minhag, not gezeira. And the notion that we should be bery mimetic and work with what our ancestors actually did rather than what their rationale would imply in our context works even better with minhagim than with gezeiros. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:01:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman In-Reply-To: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> References: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170404180132.GB8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : There is a shiur about this at : http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz So, I am listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on YUTorah at this link. He opens by saying that the afiqoman (epikomion) must be before chatzos, and very likely the 4th cup too. So, kol hamarbeh means adding to the END of the seder, not having a longer Maggid that will push past chatzos. (Eg tzeis is 8:12pm in NY, as MyZmanim computes it -- 36 min as degrees, and chatzos is 12:56. So, we're talking Qadeish to the end of Hallel in 4 hr 44 min. Unhitting pause...) The Avnei Neizer (R Avrohom Bornsztain, the first Sochatchover Rebbe, descendant of both the Ramah and the Shach) argues that if you are finishing by chatzos to fulfil R Gamliel's shitah, then you could eat other foods after chatzos. And if you are not eating the rest of the night, that's because you're worried that if the mitzvah is indeed alkl night (unlike RG), ein maftirin achar hapesach would also be all night. So, the AN suggests that a moment before chatzos, eat a piece of matzah al tenai that if the halakhah is like Rabban Gamliel, it will be your afiqoman. Then, don't eat the minute or two until chatzos -- for R' Gamliel's en maftirin. Then, go back to eating (as long as you finish before alos), concluding with another afiqoman, also al tenai -- thus fulfilling the other ein maftirin. (BTW, note that the seder in the hagadah that went until zeman qeri'as Shema didn't include Rabban Gamliel.) R Meir Arik in Kol Torah uses this to answer a problematic Rashbam (Pesachim 121). The Rashbam says you're allowed to bring qorbanos todah or nedavah on erev Pesach. But you're not allowed to bring a qorban where you are mema'et the zeman akhilah, and the zeman akhilah for these qorbanos is until the morning. So how could you bring them on a day where ein maftirin achar hapesach will limit the time in which they could be eaten? But according to the Avnei Neizer, you can fulfill ein maftirin for both shitos and only limit eating for a moment before chatzos, by eating that 2nd afiqoman at the last possible time. However, there is a lot of opposition to the AN's chiddush. RALebowitz says there are 6 questions, but he's running out of time. 1- The Baal haMaor and the Ran's explanation for why ein maftirin would work with the AN. But the Ramban says the problem was that having so many people needing to eat their kezayis qorban pesach bein hachomos before chatzos, there was a worry that people would eat early, when still famished. (Which is assur derabbanan, gezeirah maybe they'll break bones. The question of why ein maftirin wouldn't then be a gezeira al hagezeira was not raised in the shiur.) Which means that even if the zeman for the qorban is until chatzos, if people could still plan a late dinner, they could rely on that and still eat their pesach while very hungry. 2- RMF (IM OC vol 5, pg 123) brings several objections. One basic one: even the AN says he never saw anyone do this before. RMF found it tamuha to rely on a sevara be'alma to change so many generations of mimeticism. (An argument that touches on some hot topics today.) 3- RMF adds that one needs to prove that the zman akhilah and the zeman ta'am are the same. Maybe the chiyuv of having the taste in your mouth happens to run longer? 4- The Chasam Sofer writes against doing a mitzvah mitoras safeiq. Similar to Rabbeinu Yonah's (on Berakhos) explanation for why an asham talui is more expensive than a chatas. Because we need to correct the "I probably didn't do anything wrong" attitude. If you never know when you're fulfilling the mitzvah, kavah will be lacking. RALebowitz then gives eidus from R Wolf that R Willig finishes his 4th kos right before chatzos. And timing then becomes a central theme during the seder. R' Avraham Pam said on many occations that we have to be aware of those who spent all that time making the seder. (Typically the wives and mothers.) Sometimes we spend so much time on Magid, that we then rush through the beautiful se'udah they made to get to the last kos on time. RAP thought that this bein adam lachaveiro issue is sufficient to justify relying on the Avnei Neizer. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 12:21:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 21:21:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <496ab467-1c33-a721-97d2-48512539e648@zahav.net.il> Rav Rimon's Hagaddah specifies that the minhag is to pour the wine/grape juice of the ba'al habayit alone. He also notes that there are those who don't follow the custom. In the footnotes, he cites that when people put water in their wine, it wasn't derech cheirut for the home owner to do it himself. Today, that isn't the case and it is common for everyone to pour his own wine/grape juice. He also cites the AHS' opposition. Ben On 4/4/2017 5:11 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? > > The ArtScroll Haggadah says (in the instructions for Kiddush), "The > participants fill each others' cups", without mentioning any minhagim > to the contrary. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:21:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:21:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Fungibility of Mitzvos Message-ID: <20170404182125.GD8762@aishdas.org> As y'all know, I'm obsessed with this topic. The notion of metaphysical causality that interferes with "you get what you deserve / need" bothers me. So I appreciated RNSlifkin finding these sources. http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2017/04/can-you-do-mitzvos-to-benefit-others.html Tir'u baTov! -Micha Can You Do Mitzvos To Benefit Others? April 03, 2017 Can you do mitzvos in such a way that the merit for them will benefit other people? Can you designate them to receive the reward for your mitzvah in their mitzvah bank account, such that they receive more Divine favor? A friend of mine recently forwarded to me a request on behalf of someone who is tragically unwell. The community was requested to pray for his recovery, which is certainly a time-honored Jewish response. But there was also a request to do mitzvos on his behalf, as a merit for God to heal him. My friend wanted to know if there was any classical Jewish basis for this. In my essay "What Can One Do For Someone Who Has Passed Away?" I noted that classically, one's mitzvos are only a credit to those people who had a formative influence on you. One's mitzvos cannot help the souls of other people. Rashba cites a responsum from Rav Sherira Gaon on this: "A person cannot merit someone else with reward; his elevation and greatness and pleasure from the radiance of the Divine Presence is only in accordance with his deeds." (Rashba, Responsa, Vol. 7 #539) Maharam Alashkar cites Rav Hai Gaon who firmly rejects the notion that one can transfer the reward of a mitzvah to another person and explains why this is impossible: "These concepts are nonsense and one should not rely upon them. How can one entertain the notion that the reward of good deeds performed by one person should go to another person? Surely the verse states, 'The righteousness of a righteous person is on him,' (Ezek. 18:20) and likewise it states, 'And the wickedness of a wicked person is upon him.' Just as nobody can be punished on account of somebody else's sin, so too nobody can merit the reward of someone else. How could one think that the reward for mitzvos is something that a person can carry around with him, such that he can transfer it to another person?" (Maharam Alashkar, Responsa #101) The same view is found explicitly and implicitly in other sources, as I noted in my essay. There is simply no mechanism to transfer the reward for one's own mitzvos to other people. It seems that only very recent mystical-based sources claim otherwise. Now, I don't see any reason why there should be any difference if the person that one is trying to help is deceased or alive. Nor do I know of any source in classical rabbinic literature that one can do a mitzvah as a merit to help someone that is sick. Prayer, yes. And Tehillim are also a form of prayer (though it may depend upon which Tehillim are being recited). But I know of no classical source that one can honor one's parents or learn Torah or send away a mother bird as a merit for somebody else. (The most common example of people attempting to do this may be the custom of women to separate challah on behalf of a sick person. Here too, though, it appears that the classical basis of this is not that the mitzvah of separating challah is crediting the sick person, but rather that the person separating the challah thereby has a special time of power/inspiration, which makes their prayer more powerful.) If I'm wrong in any of the above, I'll be glad to see sources showing otherwise. But so far, I have found that while people are shocked when one challenges the notion that you can learn Torah on behalf of someone who is sick, nobody has yet actually come up with any classical sources demonstrating otherwise. Furthermore, if this indeed was a part of classical Judaism, we would certainly expect it to have prominent mention in the writings of Chazal and the Rishonim. We appear to have another situation of something widespread that is believed to be an integral and classical part of Judaism, and yet is actually a modern innovation that has no basis in classical Judaism whatsoever. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:33:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:33:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> References: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we > start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system > will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. > > Mehila, but aren't you being rather Chicken Little (or is your tongue somewhere in the direction of your cheek?) We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other minhagim that people are so set against any change? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 12:22:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 19:22:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot Message-ID: > The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we > start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system will > collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and many modern oils RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and cottonseed oil and this is being expanded by many I don't see this as destroying a Mimetic tradition the reason to include canola oil is that it is similar to Kitniyot even though it or even corn oil did not exist at the time of the generation So the question is why extend the minhagim to canola oil when the problem of the confusion doesn't exist but we don't extend it to non chametz cereal or breadstick where the possibility of mistakes is greater As previously mentioned rsza was against these chametz look a like products as are several contemporary rabbis OTOH the outside is nachman in lecithin in candies where there are many reasons to be making and they are making in chametz looking and tasting products where many are machmir From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 13:15:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170404201511.GI8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:33:22PM +0300, Simon Montagu wrote: : We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha : hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other : minhagim that people are so set against any change? Sorry if this will sound like circular reasoning, but it isn't because of the time lag: Minhagim that are *currently* treated very seriously can't be broken *going forward* as readliy simply because of the psychological / experiential impact of bending or breaking something that is so vehemently held. Since my argument is about mimetics, halakhah-as-culture, you can't necessarily get a textual / theory-based answer. On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 07:22:32PM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote: : We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them : My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and : many modern oils RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and : cottonseed oil and this is being expanded by many .. Well, RMF didn't actively permit peanut oil as much as report that back in Litta, peanuts were commonly consumed on Pesach. According to R/Dr Bannet, within my lifetime peanut oil was THE go-to oil for Pesach. But that's Litta. Minhag Litta didn't expand qitniyos to legumes found in the New World, after the original minhag formed. (Although they did take on avoiding New World grain -- maize / corn.) Minhag Litta was also lenient on mei qitniyos, and a far broader range of the northern half of Eastern Europe (I don't know what Yekkes hold) were lenient on shemes qitniyos in particular. Yes, by my minhagim, there are two reasons not to need a special formula for KLP Coke. If we could get anyone to give a hekhsher to certify there is nothing "worse" than mei New World qitniyos in it. But other parts of Europe went by reasoning, and did have stringencies including liquids and oils. That's their minhag, and it always was their minhag. Which gets me to my point: It's not really that any rav is expanding minhagim. It's that the heksher industry is going to be cost efficient. Heksheirim that say something is okay for 2/3 of their audience don't survive. Causing a lest-common-denominator approach to the spread of minhagim. Like trying to find reliable non-glatt meat in the US; the larger hekhsheirim don't even try. And so, as more move into the area whose minhagim exclude using peanut oil on Pesach, it becomes harder to find KLP certified peanut oil, and all too quickly people forget what was once the norm. I think that framing it as pesaqim and machloqes is imprecise. It's more like watching the evolution of new minhagim as our new communities from mixtures of the old ones. Not necessarily in directions we would like, but at least that's the framework in question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:11:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:11:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/17 15:22, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them We have no more authority to limit them than to eliminate them altogether. > My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and > many modern oils What people do has no relation to what they have the right to do. > RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and cottonseed oil RMF (almost alone) holds that the original gezera was on particular species, and peanuts were never included. The machlokes about cottonseed oil is precisely about whether it is a kind of kitnis or not. > the reason to include canola oil is that it is similar to Kitniyot > even though it or even corn oil did not exist at the time of the > generation Whether the oil existed then is lechol hade'os irrelevant. If the species is included in the ban then all forms are included. RMF however would presumably say that since rapeseed was not an edible species at the time, it was not included. Most acharonim, who hold that the ban was on the whole category, would presumably include it. > So the question is why extend the minhagim to canola oil when the problem > of the confusion doesn't exist but we don't extend it to non chametz cereal > or breadstick where the possibility of mistakes is greater Once again, because no individual rav or group of rabbanim have the authority to permit what is already forbidden, or to forbid for the entire people what is currently permitted. > As previously mentioned rsza was against these chametz look a like products That he was against something doesn't make it assur. > as are several contemporary rabbis OTOH the outside is nachman in lecithin > in candies where there are many reasons to be making and they are making in > chametz looking and tasting products where many are machmir But what authority do they have for this? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:33:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 17:33:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman In-Reply-To: References: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <0A.54.10233.A4114E85@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:01 PM 4/4/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via >Avodah wrote: >: There is a shiur about this at >: http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz > >So, I am listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on YUTorah at this link. >R' Avraham Pam said on many occations that we have to be aware of >those who spent all that time making the seder. (Typically the wives >and mothers.) Sometimes we spend so much time on Magid, that we then >rush through the beautiful se'udah they made to get to the last kos on >time. RAP thought that this bein adam lachaveiro issue is sufficient to >justify relying on the Avnei Neizer. Rav Schwab in his shiur on the seder (to be found in Rav Schwab on Prayer) suggests eating very little during the Seder besides the required amounts of Matzah and Moror, so that one will have room and appetite for the Afikoman and not have to "force" oneself to eat it. I do not know what Rebbetzen Schwab prepared for the Seder meal, but I assume it was not an elaborate meal based on what she knew Rav Schwab would eat. I know that R. Miller would not allow his children or grandchildren to read from the sheets that they came home with from Yeshiva. He told them to save it for later, probably the next day. And since I mentioned all of the material that the kids come home with from school, let me say that IMO the schools "spoil" the seder. To me it is clear from the Gemara in Pesachim that the children are not supposed to be "primed" with all sorts of knowledge about the Seder. The things we do are supposed to be new to them so that they will ask questions. My children when they were young and my younger grandchildren now know enough to conduct the Seder themselves! There is nothing new for them. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:59:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:59:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah Message-ID: I understand that one cannot use Egg Matza for the mitzva of Achilas Matza, but I'm not sure exactly why. I'm aware of two different reasons, and they seem mutually exclusive. 1) The Torah requires that this mitzva be done with "lechem oni" - poor bread, plain and lacking the richness that it would have if it were made with eggs, juice, oil, or the like. 2) Matza must be something that could have become chometz, but was baked before chimutz could occur. According to those who hold that flour and pure mei peiros will not ever become chometz, "matza ashira" isn't really halachic matza at all. I suspect that I am conflating various shitos, and that according to any individual shita, one reason or the other will apply, but not both. Can someone help me out? Thanks! Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:27:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:27:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I understand it, the purpose of reading the brachos from a card is to make it clear that one is not reading them from the Torah. I believe that's the reason for turning one's head to the side, haven't seen that as the reason for using a card. And that's only according to the opinion that the oleh leaves the Sefer Torah open while making the brachos. The opinion that the Sefer Torah should be closed is for the same reason if memory serves, and then of course no card would be needed at all. So I presume the reason for the card is simply for people who need it. Given that the whole reason for having a designated baal koreh in the first place was to save the embarassment of those who can't read their own aliya, I'm bemused by the permission for someone to decide they'd like to read their own aliya. Unless you say that a well known talmid chacham, or a guest of honour, would not embarrass the other olim by reading his aliya since he's known as a scholar. It does seem that avoiding the chashash of embarrassment was more important to chazal than to many contemporary kehillos. Maybe it needs some chizuk. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 23:41:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 06:41:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot Message-ID: And so, as more move into the area whose minhagim exclude using peanut oil on Pesach, it becomes harder to find KLP certified peanut oil, and all too quickly people forget what was once the norm. Which is a difference between Israel and USA Israel with a large sefardi community has top level hasgacha on kiniyot products also many candies now list that they contain lecithin so that the consumer can decide rather than the hasgacha deciding -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 20:45:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 23:45:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/17 17:27, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > Given that the whole reason for having a designated baal koreh in the > first place was to save the embarassment of those who can't read their > own aliya, I'm bemused by the permission for someone to decide they'd > like to read their own aliya. Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone wants to do his own, why not? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 21:53:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:53:50 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Are Mitzvos Fungible Message-ID: Obviously, and in spite of all the stories of people selling their Olam Haba it is a nonsense - good and evil deeds cannot be redeemed or transferred by a financial transaction or any agreement HOWEVER if anyone is inspired to do a good [or evil] deed or desist doing an evil [or good] deed because of another persons influence clearly that influencing person is rewarded accordingly and so when we learn Torah or do any other other Mitzvah and we are inspired to do it because of an institution or a person be they in Olam HaEmes or in this world a Zechis accrues for that person Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 21:18:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:18:03 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru - We have no authority to decree new gezeros Message-ID: Although it has been said on these hallowed pages Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru - We have no authority to decree new gezeros yet many felt that the new stainless steel Shechitah knives were forbidden machicne Matza was forbidden Ben PeKuAh is forbidden they're even arguing that soft Matza is forbidden for Ashkenazim etc. But it is Kula Chada Gezeira Thus newly discovered foods are Kitniyos And whatever the truth is we are V lucky that potato was not included and not reversed remember when peanuts were KLP? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 03:01:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:01:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pate de Foie Gras Message-ID: <20170405100107.GA16249@aishdas.org> Daf Yomi learners just learned BB 73b. It looks to me like the gemara is condemning, although on an aggadic level, the preparation of pate de foi gras. Since I can't quote the gemara, here's R' Steinzaltz's commentary (from : And Rabba bar bar Hana said: Once we were traveling in the desert and we saw these geese whose wings were sloping because they were so fat, and streams of oil flowed beneath them. I said to them: Shall we have a portion of you in the World-to-Come? One raised a wing, and one raised a leg, [signaling an affirmative response]. When I came before Rabbi Elazar, he said to me: The Jewish people will [eventually] be held accountable for [the suffering] of [the geese. Since the Jews do not repent, the geese are forced to continue to grow fat as they wait to be given to the Jewish people as a reward.] Rashbam ("litein aleihem es hadin"): For in their sins, they delay mashiach. They, those geese, have tza'ar ba'alei chaim because of their fat. Apparently even the messianic se'udah is insufficient grounds to justify torturing geese for their fat. Also implied is that the sin of making the geese suffer in their obesity is not a sin so great at to itself holding up the mashiach's arrival. Otherwise, R' Elazar would be describing a vicious cycle. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 03:51:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:51:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on > kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU > gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be > prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily > be mixed up with chametz. > > It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if > no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the > same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. I am both surprised and confused, by this post and almost all the ones that followed. It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and gebroks. Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right? So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate gebroks. I am not surprised that amei haaretz like myself have trouble understanding the definitions of kitniyos. But one thing is for sure: That our rabanim ought to understand that kitniyos and gebroks are two different things. Some might respond that today's "farfel, bread sticks etc" are being made not of matza meal but of potato and tapioca. I don't see that as relevant. *ANY* definition of kitniyos has to be one that doesn't include matza meal. And if matza meal is excluded, then you can't include potatoes merely because they are so useful. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 05:20:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:20:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <50BEA150-B533-4159-AFEB-ADE8B18EB7E1@sibson.com> > Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone wants to do his own, why not? > > -- Synagogue practices in particular are a very sensitive area, at least according to rabbi Soloveutchik. THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 08:56:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:56:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170405155630.GA29273@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:45:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any : given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, : it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone : wants to do his own, why not? Since when does logic have to do with emotions? Your line of reasoning would work for robots, not people. If everyone else is leining their own aliyah that day, someone who can't may still be embarassed and decline taking an aliyah with the ba'al qeri'ah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 05:57:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 08:57:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Tefillin on Chol Moed Message-ID: R Samuel Svarc wrote on Areivim >This, as it turns out, is a minority view. Not all Ashkenazim hold >that way, nor do Sefardim, nor a nice junk of the Litvishe wing. From http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/tefillinONmoed.htm The Aruch Hashulchan notes that "recently" a practice among some Ashkenazic Jews has developed to refrain from wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. He is referring to the practice of Chassidim, which was also the practice at the famed Volozhiner Yeshiva (as recorded by the Rav, Shiurim L'zeicher Aba Mori Zal p.119) And from http://dinonline.org/2014/04/07/tefillin-on-chol-hamoed-pesach/ The Rema adds that the Ashkenaz custom is to wear Tefillin and recite a berachah, but because of the sensitivity of the topic the berachah should be recited quietly. Later authorities espouse the compromise noted by the Tur, meaning that Tefillin are worn but the berachah is not recited (see Taz 31:2; Mishnah Berurah 31:8). YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 09:29:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:29:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170405162920.GB19562@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 06:51:14AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and : gebroks. I think the conversation works better as is. Gebrochts is a minhag to avoid the possible manufacture of real chameitz from any flour that happened to stay dry when the matzah was made. Qitniyos is a minhag or multiple minhagim to avoid things that either: 1- are stored in the same silos as with chameitz, in which case it's much like gebrochts in function. Or 2- are used in a manner similar to chameitz, and people might eat chameitz thinking it's pea porridge or mustard seed or whatnot. And these could indeed be divergant minhagim, where different explanations became primary drivers in different areas, leading to difference in how practice evolved. But explanation #2 does open the door for the original question. Pretzels made from oatmeal make it possible for someone to accidentally eat real chameitz pretzels. And if your ancestral version of qitniyos includes growing it to include new items that make the same mistake possible, eg corn, then why not all these gebrochts or potato / potato starch products -- not because they're gebrochts (if they are), but because reason #2 applies. : So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever : arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they : were rejected by communities that ate gebroks. No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) This really is a recent development. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 07:48:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:48:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Fungibility of Mitzvos In-Reply-To: References: <002801d2ae0d$a752e040$f5f8a0c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: R? Micha Berger quoted R? Natan Slifkin: <<< I have found that while people are shocked when one challenges the notion that you can learn Torah on behalf of someone who is sick, nobody has yet actually come up with any classical sources demonstrating otherwise. >>> I?d like to suggest a very slight difference between two scenarios: Suppose I say, ?Hashem, I am going to learn some Torah now, and I?d like the s?char for this mitzvah to go to Ploni, instead of to me.? That seems to be the situation that RNS is talking about. But suppose I say, ?Hashem, I am going to learn some Torah now, and I?d like *MY* s?char for this mitzvah to be that You heal Ploni, who is currently ill?, or ?? that You elevate Ploni to a higher level in Gan Eden?, or something similar. My point is that if there is no mechanism to transfer s?char from one person to another, perhaps we can still request that the s?char should take a particular form, and it would result in the same effect. I?m pretty sure that there *are* sources for requesting that the s?char should take a certain form. More accurately, I recall cases where one requests that his *onesh* should take a particular form, such as if it has been decreed that one should lose a certain amount of money, it should occur in tiny amounts over a long time, or some other similar request. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 08:52:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:52:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos HaGadol Message-ID: It is not easy to explain the origin of the Hagadol which is applied to this coming Shabbos. In the Haftorah, the prophet Malachi speaks of a Yom Hashem Hagadol which according to various customs is to be read when the Sabbath before Pesach happens to be Erev Pesach. And yet the term Hagadol as applied to the Sabbath before Passover has been accepted by all whether or not it falls on Erev Pesach. The Midrash offers additional insight as to why this Shabbos is termed Hagadol and tells us something most of us have learned that on the Shabbos preceding the 14th of Nissan (when the Pascal lamb was to be brought as an offering), the Egyptian masters entered into the homes of the Jews and noticed that each family had a sheep tied to its bedposts. The Egyptians asked: ?What are you doing with our sheep?!? The Jews replied: ?We are going to slaughter it as an offering to our God.? The Egyptian masters gritted their teeth in exasperation and walked out. This is another basis for the Shabbos preceding Pesach to be called the ?Great Shabbos.? It is the Shabbos that the Jewish people experienced a miracle ? they were not killed by their masters because of their subordination to the Will of the Almighty and they were not deterred by concern for their personal safety. THAT was ?greatness? and they were, indeed, truly ?great.? It is also interesting that every Shabbos symbolizes complete freedom ? freedom from technology and the mundane. Pesach typifies freedom and redemption. The parallel to Shabbos is profound. May this Shabbos be the ?GREATEST!? "The price of greatness is responsibility.? Winston Churchill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 14:25:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:25:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a5b4365-260b-ab41-7882-0043d896073e@zahav.net.il> On 4/5/2017 12:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone > who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from > gebroks, right? Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can get today which is no different than cake flour? [Email #2. -micha] On 4/4/2017 8:33 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and > halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all > other minhagim that people are so set against any change? If this one is different it is because people have set out to take down this minhag. Whereas something like changing from an Ashkenazi white with black stripes tallit to a more Sefardi all white one wouldn't be such a big deal because no one is making an issue out of it. In my community there is a back lash against the kitni-chumrot so I see it changing, somewhat. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 01:32:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:32:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Food in the desert questions Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: "In the mishkan, a mincha offering was brought. other offerings too. Some : required flour and oil. Where did they come from? " I just saw a Tosafos in Menachos 45b that discusses the question of flour in the midbar. Tosafos quotes Rashi as saying that they did not make the shtei halechem in the midbar because all they had was man (so they had no flour). Tosafos disagrees and says that they bought flour from merchants (based on the Gemara Yoma 75b). I would assume that Tosafos would say the same thing about oil. The Rambam in the Peirush Hamishnayos (Menachos 4:4) agrees with Rashi that they had no flour in the midbar. So to answer your question according to Rashi and the Rambam they had no flour and therefore did not bring anything flour based. According to Tpsafos they bought flour from merchants in the midbar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 22:03:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Meisner via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 01:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > I understand that one cannot use Egg Matza for the mitzva of Achilas > Matza, but I'm not sure exactly why. I'm aware of two different reasons, > and they seem mutually exclusive. > > 1) The Torah requires that this mitzva be done with "lechem oni"... > 2) Matza must be something that could have become chometz, but was baked > before chimutz could occur. According to those who hold that flour and pure > mei peiros will not ever become chometz, "matza ashira" isn't really > halachic matza at all. If matzah is baked with mei peiros and a kol she-hu of water, it would not be lechem oni but would be halachically matzah. Josh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 04:16:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:16:49 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller asked: "It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and gebroks. Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right? So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate gebroks." There is no question that this is a new problem, even 50 years ago no one made things out of matzo meal or potato starch that looked almost exactly like the equivalent chometz item. There has been an explosion of "imitation" chometz products over the last 20 years that look and even taste like chometz. This is more a spirit of the law issue. One of the reasons given for not eating kitniyos is that since kitniyos look like and/or can make things that look like chometz we are afraid that people will confuse them with chometz and come to eat chometz. This concern certainly applies much more to these modern products. If I can get kosher l'pesach cereal that looks exactly like chometz cereal there is certainly a risk of confusion. No one is saying that these things are kitniyos, what they are saying that in the spirit of kitniyos these should be prohibited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 05:06:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those measures should be. I wrote: : So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? : Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 : years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate : gebroks. and R' Micha Berger responded: > No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks > that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) > This really is a recent development. Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my mother made at home? I'm sorry, but I can't buy that. It is true that today's factory kitchens allow an amazing variety of technologies and abilities, including products that are almost indistinguishable from regular bread. But I maintain that this does NOT translate to an increased chance that someone will mix flour and water in their home kitchen, precisely because the factory and home are so far apart - both geographically and sociologically. If someone is enticed by the quality of a store-bought breadstick or pizza slice, I cannot imagine that they would attempt to duplicate it at home nowadays without a recipe. Seeing a breaded chicken cutlet at one's neighbor's home *IS* something that you might duplicate in your own home, and there is great danger there. But I just don't see that happening with factory-made goods. Anyone who is awed by the quality will read the box to figure out how they managed such a feat, and they will immediately see the potato and tapioca listed. (But I am willing to listen to other arguments.) My suspicion is that the anti-potato sentiments may have originated in the non-gebroks sectors. Pesach pizza and pancakes are very new to them, and I suppose I can understand their concern. But among those who have been eating gebroks for generations, I just don't understand why these new products bother them. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 03:35:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:35:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah Message-ID: R' Joshua Meisner wrote: > If matzah is baked with mei peiros and a kol she-hu of water, > it would not be lechem oni but would be halachically matzah. That's true. Theoretically, if one would bake it fast enough, before it becomes chometz, it would be real matza. But because of the mei peiros, it isn't plain matza, but it is "rich" matza - matza ashira, and thus disqualified from Mitzvas Achilas Matza. But as far as I know, no one makes such matza, because (there is a fear that) the combination of both water and mei peiros will allow the dough to become chometz much faster than usual. That's not the case with the stuff on the shelves that's labeled "Egg Matza" or "Matza Ashira" - This has no water at all, and its dough can never become chometz. If so, then it seems to me that the term "Matza Ashira" is a misnomer. It isn't matza at all, because it was incapable of becoming chometz. A better term for it might be "Matza-style squares" (which is the term that the industry has chosen for the potato and tapioca stuff). I suspect that at some point in history, some educator felt that the logic of "the fruit juice makes it rich bread" was more easily accepted by the masses, and the logic of "it can't be chometz and therefore it isn't matza" was too difficult for them. And from that point onwards, it was the go-to explanation, despite the technical shortcomings. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 05:28:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat Message-ID: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I've been thinking (pun intended) about staam daat" . (I have in mind "whatever HKB"H wants me to have in mind without actually knowing what that is [e.g., to be yotzeih the chazan's bracha]). Firstly what is the source of the concept. Secondly, Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal says works, that's what I want to think/occur). [relatrd to daat makneh and koneh issues] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:07:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:07:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru Message-ID: We all assume we can't have new gezerot. Is this really true? At least according to some opinions bicycles and umbrellas are allowed on shabbat. According to RSZA electricity (without a heat or fire) is really allowed on shabbat and certainly yomtov. Years ago many held that electricity was allowed on yomtov. Today we have things like fitbit watches which many feel are allowed on shabbat. Yet in practice the poskim prohibit all these things. Other things are prohbited in davening because it is a slippery slope etc. In essence these are all new gezerot perhaps without the nomenclature -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:21:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:21:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:06:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos : understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect : people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is : acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those : measures should be. Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change a minhag. And if we were talking about gezeiros, then we'd need a Sanhedrin or universal consensus to create one. ("Universal consensus", eg RSZA on electricity.) But we would also need that level authority to modify or repeal one. So there too there is a high barrier to change. So in either case, while I could appreciate R' Aviner's reasoning, I don't know if I would be comfortable applying it lemaaseh. :> No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks :> that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) :> This really is a recent development. : Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in : the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my : mother made at home? While, really I'm suggesting that an environment where -- even a bagel or a loaf of bread -- could be a gebrochts or potato starch replacement poses bigger problems than we faced 50 years ago. Because a person can pick up anything and mistake it for a KLP alternative. Much like one of the reasons given for qitniyos. The same was not true when the only KLP pancakes were rare and homemade. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:41:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:41:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Working on Chol Moed Message-ID: <1491493270335.3143@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If I don't work on Chol Hamoed my paycheck will be much smaller. Is this a davar behaved (irreparable loss)? Am I permitted to go to work on Chol Hamoed? A. A loss of profit is generally not considered a davar ha'avud. As such one cannot automatically assume that it is permissible to work on Chol Hamoed. Nonetheless there are situations where davar ha'avud would apply. For example, if a person will use up vacation days by not working during Chol Hamoed, and there is a preference to take vacation at a more convenient time, this may be considered a davar ha'avud. (See Shmiras Shabbos Kihilchoso, vol. 2, chapter 67, footnote 47.) Furthermore, if a person is struggling financially, and not earning a salary on Chol Hamoed would be stressful, this may be treated as a davar ha'avud. Nonetheless these leniencies are not ideal, and Rav Belsky, zt"l stressed that it is preferable to not work on Chol Hamoed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 09:44:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:44:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat In-Reply-To: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <958e2160-18d0-985e-70d4-9c571dea3a3f@sero.name> On 06/04/17 08:28, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Secondly, Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., > I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal says > works, that?s what I want to think/occur). Isn't that *exactly* what we do when we write in a shtar that we stipulate to having made whichever kind of kinyan is most effective ("be'ofan hayoser mo`il")? We don't know which of the various kinyanim we should be doing so we stipulate that whichever one it is, we did it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 10:01:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 20:01:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/6/2017 6:07 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We all assume we can't have new gezerot. Is this really true? ... > In essence these are all new gezerot perhaps without the nomenclature The nomenclature is vital. As I said in my previous email, we don't blur the distinctions between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan, and we don't blur the distinctions between gezeirot, takkanot, chramim, siyagim, minhagim, etc. Yes, it's forbidden to eat chicken parmesan. And it's forbidden to eat a pork chop. There's no wiggle room. Both are forbidden. So to someone on the outside, those prohibitions might look like the same thing, "perhaps without the nomenclature". But the nomenclature matters, because there are different rules for the two. Just as there are different rules for the various "add-ons". Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:49:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:49:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7c4f2947-d6c6-62b2-40fd-a9b977d026f4@starways.net> > Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy > in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes > that my mother made at home? Matza meal pancakes, which I grew up with as well, are nothing at all like regular pancakes. The difference is clear and obvious. Ditto for cakes. We used to have sponge cake at Pesach. And we thought of it as a Pesach cake. It wasn't something we had all year. I don't have a problem with fake treyf. So I don't really have a huge problem with fake chametz. But to pretend that there's no difference between what we used to have in the 60s, 70s, etc, and today is just silly. The difference is enormous. And while I don't have a huge problem with fake chametz, I see another distinction between fake chametz and fake treyf. You can't ever eat bacon. So making fake bacon is reasonable. But fake chametz? Really? We can't make it a week without waffles and pizza and pretzels? [Email #2. -micha] On 4/6/2017 6:21 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be > mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very > overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change > a minhag. WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be determinative. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 10:54:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:54:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:03:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept : of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be : determinative. Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei For that matter, the topic here is qitniyos -- which is itself a minhag avos, not halakhah. It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the accepted ruling in practice. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 13:59:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:59:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> I am confused by the term mimetic. I understand it in the sense of tradition, We are discussing various situations that didn't exist years ago, My parents didnt use Canola oil because it was not available but they did use cottonseed oil. What is my mimetic custom for lechitin? When I grew up we had mainly macaroon cookies. Any cakes even with matza meal tasted and looked different than chametz items. No one I knew used CI shiurim. In EY on the radio I still hear about the necessity of using CI shiurim at least lechatchila. I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. I recently heard a shiur from R. Aviner attacking much of these chumrot and R. Lior also has many kulot and these are considered right wing DL rabbis. As I stated before one difference between EY and the US is the existence of a large charedi sefardi community, This gives rise to kitniyot products with top level hasgachot. The easy availability of soft matzaot etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 12:10:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:10:26 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder Message-ID: is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a korban pesach? i think we all agree that the matzot to make a korech were soft matzot [and presumably mashiach will rule that's the way we should all be making them ]. if the zaytim were like larger then , would the sandwich have been the size of a big mac? or half a pizza? kiddush would have started the meal . then some form of maggid [ 3 hrs long? would the korban be edible that many hours later?] . so people washed and then what? hamotzi on 3 matzos? but the mitzva matza was to eat the korech no? so the rest of the meal was not matza followed by marror, but rather that of korech. so then the chiyuv-matza was the afikoman matza? or people would have chazon ish'ed it up twice---at the matza they washed on and again on korech? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 07:46:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:46:29 +0000 (WET DST) Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Apr 6, 2017 11:03:15 am Message-ID: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> > > ... This is another basis for the Shabbos preceding Pesach to be > called the "Great Shabbos." > No, it is not. Haggadol is not an adjective modifying Shabbath, because Shabbath is feminine. No one who speaks Hebrew uses masculine adjectives to modify Shabbath, ever (pedantic footnote: except in the fixed expression "Shabbath shalom umvorakh", which is said by people who do speak Hebrew, but which for other reasons is clearly an idiomatic expression that does not follow the rules of grammar, unless you want to call it a mistake, which is also fine with me). It is the same reason why we know that Lshon Hara` and `Eyn Hara` are not nouns modified by adjectives, because lashon and `ayin are feminine nouns. No one who speaks Hebrew would ever use the masculine adjective ra` to modify the feminine nouns lashon or `ayin. They are nouns modified by other nouns, and so is Shabbath Haggadol. (Whether lshon hara` and `eyn hara` are the correct pronunciation turns on whether the smikhuth forms in Rabbinic Hebrew are the same as the smikhuth forms in Biblical and modern Hebrew, a question that is irrelevant to the current discussion. They are unquestionably smikhuth forms, however they should be pronounced.) This alone is not sufficient reason to reject your translation "The Great Shabbos", because languages do not have to be translated literally and word-for-word. I do not reject the translation "the holy tongue" for "lshon haqqodesh", even though "lshon haqqodesh" literally means "the tongue of holiness", because languages do not have to be translated literally. If you want to translate "lshon haqqodesh" as "the holy tongue", fine. But you cannot do that with "Shabbath Haggadol", because we do not say Shabbath Haggodel, or Shabbath Haggdula, we say "Shabbath Haggadol", and gadol is an adjective, albeit a masculine one. As for what it does mean, well, if you want to say that Hagadol is a kinuy for God ("the Great One"), I think that is far-fetched, but I won't post an article publicly saying that you are wrong. It is clear to me that we say Shabbath Hagadol for the same reason that we say Shabbath Xazon or Shabbath Naxamu or Shabbath Shuva. You may disagree. But what you cannot plausibly say is that it means "the great Shabbath". Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:24:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:24:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matzah Meat (was Kitnios In-Reply-To: <728a7944561447f0984b79952cedf5a5@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <728a7944561447f0984b79952cedf5a5@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <86.ED.07959.212B6E85@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:03 PM 4/6/2017, Ben Waxman wrote: >On 4/5/2017 12:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone > > who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from > > gebroks, right? > >Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for >matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can >get today which is no different than cake flour? I must admit that I have no idea what you are referring to when you write about "roughly ground matza meal." Is this what is called cake meal? If so, it is good for making many things. See for example http://tinyurl.com/n6yo95b Also, do a google search for cake meal recipes, and you will see how many recipes come up I use "regular" matza meal to make matzah balls and they come out fine. See http://tinyurl.com/kl5tljs for a recipe for matza balls that calls for matza meal. I have never seen shmura cake meal. Has anyone? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 13:30:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:30:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 4/6/2017 8:54 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:03:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: >: WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept >: of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be >: determinative. > Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel > Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei > > It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering > cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the > accepted ruling in practice. I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:48:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:48:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170406214806.GH26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:30:40PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : >It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering : >cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the : >accepted ruling in practice. : : I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi : is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that : we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea : that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible. You are only discussing the absolutes, the case where the halakhah isn't known, and that where it is, but common practice differs. But in the part I left above, I described the gray area. There are cases where the logic for one position is more compelling than the other, but not muchrach. In fact, this is more common than a case where two rishonim or noted acharonim disagree and one opinion is found to be outright wrong. Between the brilliance of the people involved and the "peer review" as to which ideas reach us, it is very rare for us to find a true incontrovertable mistake, and even harder to know if we really did, or if it is our own assessment that's in error. In that situation, where we have to choose between multiple viable shitos, there are a number of things a poseiq would weigh. Different schools of pesaq may give each different weights. This kind of comparison of apples and oranges requires real shiqul hadaas, and is why pesaq is an art, not an algorithm. This is my usual list of categories of factors that go into pesaq. 1- Textualiam 1a- Logicalness of the rationale 1b- Authority of those who back each postion: majority, expertise (eg the Rambam and Rosh carry more weight than some other rishonim) 2- Mimeticism 3- Aggadic concerns -- whether it's chassidim not wearing tefillin on ch"m or some of RSRH's innovations. My point in #2 is that there are many times that we continue following what we do because it has a sound textual basis -- even though some other shitah may have a stronger such basis. And again, this is minhag, not halakhah. The whole topic of qitniyos rests on mimeticism, not formal halachic reasoning. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] P.O.P. Paradox Of Pesach Message-ID: <5204F12E-00B5-47B0-92DD-2D93AB3E7C87@cox.net> A great ambivalence is to be found in the symbolism of the Seder. On one hand, the white kitel is a manifestation of joy and purity, and on the other hand, it is also the shroud of death. An egg is a token of mourning, but at the Seder it recalls the korban chagigah, the additional sacrifice brought to assure joy on Pesach. The matzah is the bread of affliction as well as the food of freedom baked in haste as our forefathers rushed out of Egypt. The very word individual which refers to a single person ends with DUAL. Pesach brings out the duality of man but through the unity of the family, we are able to live with cognitive dissonance, paradox and conflict. ?We may have different points of arguments from perspectives of belief, faith and religion. But we must not hate each other. We are one human family.? ? Lailah Gifty Akita, (Think Great: Be Great!) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:04:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:04:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406220429.GK26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:59:51PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be :> mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very :> overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change :> a minhag. : I am confused by the term mimetic. I understand it in the sense of : tradition, Mimetic is from the shoresh mime, to copy. (Like a mimeograph.) Mimeticism is Judaism as culture. Things like absorbing that "Shabbos is coming" feeling of the erev Shabbos Jew. The pious Jew of today may be able to work himself up emotionally on Yom Kippur, the mimetic Jew of 100 years ago was simply terrified, without such work. (Both kinds of religiosity have their pros and cons.) Mimeticism evolves because culture evolves. Textualism is also tradition. But it's the formal tradition passed off from rebbe to talmid. RYBS's dialog down the ages that he watched gather around his father's table, or later, in his own shiur room. So the mimetic-textualist axis is not quite the same as the tradition-ideology one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:07:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:07:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> References: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> Message-ID: <20170406220711.GL26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 02:46:29PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote: : Haggadol is not an adjective modifying Shabbath, because Shabbath is : feminine. No one who speaks Hebrew uses masculine adjectives to : modify Shabbath, ever (pedantic footnote: except in the fixed : expression "Shabbath shalom umvorakh", which is said by people who : do speak Hebrew, but which for other reasons is clearly an idiomatic : expression that does not follow the rules of grammar, unless you want : to call it a mistake, which is also fine with me). What about Shabbos morning, and "veyanuchu vo"? The previous night it was "vahh". I agree with your thesis, I am more trying to get from you what the masculine noun "vo" refers to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:27:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav Message-ID: Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik heh under my understanding and also be milera. Is my understanding of the word incorrect? Kol tuv and Chag Kasher v'Sameach to all, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 00:29:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:29:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot Message-ID: from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) BTW the sefer contains 3 sections ; main, dvar halacha and orchot halacha. I am assuming that all 3 are from RSZA or notes of students. I will do my best in the translation but have added some of the notes in Hebrew RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who determines this minhag?) He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat. He adda that PERHAPS there is a reason to prohibit potato flour (serach kitniyot - based on chiddishin of RSZA to Pesachim). Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be prohibited (ie even according to those that eat gebrochs) (yesh ladun behem - Pesachim 40b - Rashi that when people are "mezalzel one should be machmir) In the notes that this was what RSZA said in shiurim and when asked a question responded that one should follow the family minhag. Nevetheless he remarked several times that cakes with matzah flour that look like chametz cakes that he didn't understand the heter when we go to lengths to avoid things that might be confused with chametz -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 23:27:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 06:27:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Afikoman_-_=93Stealing=93_and_Other_Rel?= =?windows-1252?q?ated_Minhagim?= Message-ID: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> Please the article at http://seforim.blogspot.com/2017/04/afikoman-stealing-and-other-related.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 20:28:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:28:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: > ... Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., > I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal > says works, that?s what I want to think/occur). [related to daat > makneh and koneh issues] I think Mishne Berura 649:15 might be exactly what you're looking for. I am paraphrasing him, and he was paraphrasing the Magen Avraham and Pri Megadim. But basically, the point is: >>> Suppose it is the first day of Sukkos, and you want to use someone else's lulav, but you can't, because on the first day you need to own it yourself. So l'chatchila, the best option is make it explicit that you want to acquire his lulav in a "matana al m'nas l'hachzir" (gift on condition of returning) manner. >>> But b'dieved, if you borrowed it in a "stam" manner so that you could be yotzay with it, then we presume that he gave it to you intending to do it in whatever manner would allow you to be yotzay, namely, "matana al m'nas l'hachzir". >>> However, if you explicitly used the word "borrow" rather than "gift", then you would not be yotzay. Also, if the lulav's owner is unaware that a borrowed lulav is pasul, it would not work then either. (End of Mishne Brura.) Here's my commentary: There are two requirements for "stam daas" to help us here. The first is that the conversation must be vague, because if it were explicit we would not be able to assign a meaning to the words. But the second requirement is very relevant to RJR's question: The lulav's owner has to be aware that a borrowed lulav is pasul. If the owner does have that awareness, then we say that his stam daas was to grant ownership to you. But if the lulav's owner is not aware of this halacha, then his stam daas is to *lend* the lulav, which would not be valid. We see from this that "stam daas" is not a magic wand that can be applied conveniently to any vague comment. Rather, it is applied with a lot of care and understand of what the person's likely intention really was. Please read the MB yourself and see what he means. Even better, check out the MA and PM that the MB was summarizing (because I did not go into that much depth. Maybe over Shabbos.) [Press Pause button... Okay, continue...] I have now reread RJR's post, and I noticed that while the MB ruled how the halacha views these two people and the lulav, RJR's post is much more "me"-oriented. He asks about the case where > I have in mind ?whatever HKB?H wants me to have in mind > without actually knowing what that is ..." It seems to me that this is an explicit vagueness. If "stam daas" works where outsiders are trying to figure out what Ploni probably meant, it should certainly work where Ploni himself is being deliberately vague. I never studied Logic to the depth that R' Micha and other have, but even I can see a serious flaw in the above paragraph. In the MB's case of the lulav, the owner had *something* in mind, and we are presuming to know what it was. But in RJR's case, the individual made an effort have nothing in mind at all, and I can easily understand someone who says that this simply won't work. I would suggest this as a practical solution: One should never say simply, "I have in mind whatever Hashem wants me to have in mind," because that is essentially admitting that he really has nothing in mind. Rather, one should use an explicit tenai: "If Hashem wants me to have A in mind, then I do have A in mind; but if He wants me to have B in mind, then I do have B in mind." Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#m_3151624698786785420_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:24:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav Message-ID: > Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH > translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". > Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik > heh under my understanding and also be milera. Upon reviewing the pshat in the word "bushala", it is possible that my understanding was incorrect and the structure would be similar to "yochLUha" where the translation of the suffix in both cases is "it" as opposed to "its" and thus not requiring a mapik heh. Shabbat Shalom, HT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:25:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:25:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67447a90-4764-0dce-4f82-b0f11d5c55af@sero.name> On 06/04/17 18:27, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: > Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH > translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". > > Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik > heh under my understanding and also be milera. It's a verb, not a noun. If it were written as you would have it it would be a noun, presumably meaning "its cooking", but then it would be "bishulah". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 08:46:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:46:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170407154652.GD32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:27:30PM -0400, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: : Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH : translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". : : Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik : heh under my understanding and also be milera. That would make it a posessed noun, "if its cooking was in a copper vessel". RSRH is treating is as a verb. In more contemporary American English, "if it had been cooked in a copper vessel". :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:47:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Afikoman_-_=E2=80=9CStealing=E2=80=9C_and_Othe?= =?utf-8?q?r_Related_Minhagim?= In-Reply-To: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> References: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <0a933758-f6de-9e33-4fd0-33f89b9dc517@sero.name> > http://seforim.blogspot.com/2017/04/afikoman-stealing-and-other-related.html My father gives presents to all those children who *don't* steal. He also explains that if the hidden matzah is stolen he will not pay any ransom for it but will simply use a different matzah. Thus the purpose of the minhag is preserved but the bad chinuch is avoided. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 08:44:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:44:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:10:26PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a korban : pesach? I assume koreikh was the norm. Not that Hillel argued they were necessary and no one else made wraps, but that everyone made a wrap, which is why a machloqes could arise as to whether one is yotzei if not. : i think we all agree that the matzot to make a korech were soft matzot [and : presumably mashiach will rule that's the way we should all be making them ]. One could be yotzei koreikh just putting a tiny lump of meat on a cracker. Not difficult. OTOH, we seem to have proven in numerous years that until the acharonic period, softa matzos were the norm in every community. (Ashkenazim too; see the Rama.) : if the zaytim were like larger then, would the sandwich have been the size : of a big mac? or half a pizza? But they were smaller, so no problem. Another perrennial is whether the growth of the kezayis is halachically binding even after archeology proved the historical assumptions wrong. : kiddush would have started the meal... And Ha Lachma Anya would have been 4 days before, as you can only invite people to join the chaburah BEFORE the sheep is set aside. For that matter, I'm convinced Ha Lachma Anya is not part of Maggid. Maggid ought to begin with questions, so let's assume it does. HLA is an explanation of Yachatz. And then, once we fact out qwhat it's like to have to ration our lachma anya, we express empathy for the dirtzrikh and dichpin. So perhaps Yachatz too would be before picking the sheep. . then some form of maggid [ 3 hrs : long? would the korban be edible that many hours later?]. Sure! How quickly does meat go bad where you live? It looks like there is a fundamental machloqes about the seider. Notice that Rabban Gamliel wasn't present at R' Aqiva's seider in Benei Beraq. OTOH, in the Tosefta at the end of Pesachim Rabban Gamliel hosts big seider in Lod, where they spent the whole night "osqin behilkhos haPesach". (This Tosefta goes with "ein maftirin achar haPesach afiqoman". A whole answer-to-the-chakham vibe here.) Notice that at R' Aqiva's seider "vehayu mesaperim beytzi'as mitzrayim". R' Aqiva held that a seider is all about the story. R' Gamliel -- the mitzvos. Most of Maggid we do R' Aqiva style: 1- We follow R' Yehudah, and tell the story of physical redemption. Avadim Hayinu. 2- Then (after an intermission in which we explain why we're doing multiple versions -- 4 banim, etc...) we follow Rav, and tell the story of spiritual redemption. Betechilah ovedei AZ. 3- And we tell the story using Vidui Biqurim and other texts. 4- Then, at the very end, we make sure to do the least necessary to be yotzei according to Rabban Gamliel. So it would seem we basically hold like R' Aqiva, that the main role of the foods is as aids to the story-telling. But Rabban Gamliel would have Maggid as /during/ the other mitzvos of the seider. We discuss the foods. : washed and then what? hamotzi on 3 matzos? but the mitzva matza was to : eat the korech no? so the rest of the meal was not matza followed by : marror, but rather that of korech. so then the chiyuv-matza was the : afikoman matza? or people would have chazon ish'ed it up twice---at the : matza they washed on and again on korech? The afiqoman was the sheep, all matzos umorerim. Before that was the chagiga, re'iyah and shulchan oreikh. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:48:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Meisner via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:48:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:10 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a > korban pesach? The Rambam in Ch. 8 of Hil. Chametz uMatzah provides a step-by-step description of the seder that includes the eating of the Korban Pesach, which is probably a good start. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 09:32:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:32:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4167b94e-52b7-16a4-0069-0697990750d6@sero.name> On 07/04/17 11:44, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And Ha Lachma Anya would have been 4 days before, as you can only invite > people to join the chaburah BEFORE the sheep is set aside. Not true. One can join or leave a chavurah right up to the moment of shechitah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 09:58:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 17:58:36 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Surely either we'd pasken like Hillel, and eat the full portion of Pesach, Matza and Maror in one sandwich, or else we wouldn't, and there'd be no Korech at all? On 7 April 2017 at 16:44, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > One could be yotzei koreikh just putting a tiny lump of meat on a > cracker. Not difficult. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 10:15:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:15:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170407171523.GI32239@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 05:58:36PM +0100, Allan Engel wrote: : Surely either we'd pasken like Hillel, and eat the full portion of Pesach, : Matza and Maror in one sandwich, or else we wouldn't, and there'd be no : Korech at all? I assume everyone ate koreikh. It's most reasonable to assume that a machloqes over an annual practice kept by everyone is theoretical, not pragmatic. Not that one person is saying what a significant number of people are doing is pasul / assur. For similar reasons, I assume that until the rishonim, people considered both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam tefillin to be kosher. Otherwise, how were both styles in existence and common use since the days of the Chashmonaim until some 1,300 years later when rishonim started voicing preferences? Note my use of the phrase, "I assume". Li mistaber, I have no strong arguments for it. Back to our topic... I figure everyone ate the matzah, marror and lamb in a wrap. Otherwise, how did Hillel come around and argue that what everyone was doing was pasul? And why would it stay with Hillel, wouldn't he have the Sanhedrin vote on it? Rather, the machloqes was whether one was yotzei if they did the weird thing and eat them separately. If this was a rare event, multiple opinions could persist without resolutions. Now when it came time to commemorate, rather than fulfill the mitzvah.... Matzah we have to eat separately from maror, because without the pesach, there may be a problem with our fulfilling the mitzvah of eating matzah without it being the only tast in the mouth. And then there's the question of what are we commemorating -- eating all three in one meal, and the wrap aspect was not a critical facet that needs commemoration, or are we commemorating a wrap? So, we do both. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 10:28:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel In-Reply-To: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> References: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:05:30PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : My son who lives in EY told me that Ashkenazim have to very careful : about the products that they purchase for Pesach, since many products : that are certified for Pesach contain kitnios. The item below reinforces : this. ... : Eretz Yisrael: Strauss Cottage Cheese Contains Kitnios : : April 3, 2017- from the Arutz 7 : : : "Badatz Mehadrin, the hashgacha of Rabbi Avraham Rubin Shlita, alerts... I was wondering about this. Qitniyos is batel berov. Ah, you may say: but they're intentionally mixing in the qitniyos, there is no bitul! So here's my question: If a Sepharadi makes cottage cheese containing qitniyos, he isn't really having Ashkenazim in particular in mind. And for him the qitniyos are mutar. By parallel, a non-Jew mixing 1:61 basar bechalav for his own use or for a primarily non-Jewish customer base isn't bitul lkhat-chilah, as a permitted person's intent doesn't qualify as lekhat-chilah. So, does this Sepharadi man mixing qitniyos in run afowl of the problem of bitul lekhat-chilah? Why can't one argue that as long as the qitniyos is a mi'ut of the cottage cheese, and as long as it's not against the mixer's own minhag or that of the main bulk of people for whom he is mixing, the food is permissible for Ashkenazim too? And does it have to be both the mixer's own minhag AND that of most of the people the cottage cheese if for? After all, this is minhag, not pesaq. It's not like an Ashkenazi holds a Saphradi ought to be holding like us too. What if an Ashkenazi was doing the mixing on a product where most of the target customer base is Sepharadi? (Now, add to that mei qitniyos, and whether corn should have been added to the minhag, the observation that it is primarily NOT made for Ashkenazi Jews, and ask the same thing about Coca Cola.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 15:48:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: <<< I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. >>> Is this only in the DL community? If so, can anyone suggest why this would be so? I can this of two very different possibilities: One is negative, that there is some sort of jealousy to the sefardim, or taavah for the many products that are available. The other is positive, that this is simply a natural development of how minhagim change over the centuries when communities mix. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 13:42:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 22:42:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel In-Reply-To: <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> References: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <43acd44d-c45c-b481-7dfb-2671547565a7@zahav.net.il> This is part of the backlash. People want the labels to read "contains kitniyot", not "for ochlei kitniyot only". Ben On 4/7/2017 7:28 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Qitniyos is batel berov. > > Ah, you may say: but they're intentionally mixing in the qitniyos, there > is no bitul! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 10:44:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:44:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58E92189.9030803@zahav.net.il> [Part 2, a mid-post detour. -mb] And as long as I am writing, a comment on the next posting in the Digest 48. Matza meal is the coarse version and is used for making latkes and kneidlach. Cake meal is the fine ground version for making cakes. Both were on the market and used by my mother in the US some 70- 80 years ago. And R' Micha mentioned a week or so ago that R/Dr Bannet pointed out that in my youth, peanut oil had the most machmir heksher of all Pesach oils. Three comments: It is true that chasidim used only peanut oil made by a Shomer mitzvot Jew. I am neither a R nor a Dr, and my family name ends with two t's. PKvS. David Bannett From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 10:44:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:44:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58E92189.9030803@zahav.net.il> [RCD tried to sneak multiple topics into the same email. For the sake of threading, I split it and fixed the subject lines. -micha] Without commenting on the meaning of Shabbat Hagadol, I'd like to comment on the "fact" that Shabbat is feminine and one would have to say Shabbat Hag'dola. The Rambam in Hilkhot Shabbat 30:2 says Shhabat Hagadol. I then looked in the Bar Ilan Shu"t and found that there are a dozen other sources for a male Shabbat. [End of part 1. Now, part 3. -mb] And then R' Micha on the vayanuchu va, vo and vam in the tefila: There were three nuschaot. One said Shabbat and va, Another said yom haShabbat and vo and the third said Shabbatot and vam. PKvS. David Bannett From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 20:22:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2017 05:22:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If the issue was jealousy of sefardim, people would want to drop the minhag entirely. There is that, but only on the fringe. These chumrot seem like a false imposition, something someone invented. You can only hear "when I was a kid, we ate X, Y, Z" or "I went to a shiur and the rav said X, Y, Z are muttar" so many times before asking yourself "so why don't we eat X, Y, Z"? And yes, intermarriage is a huge factor. On 4/8/2017 12:48 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I can this of two very different possibilities: One is negative, that > there is some sort of jealousy to the sefardim, or taavah for the many > products that are available. The other is positive, that this is > simply a natural development of how minhagim change over the centuries > when communities mix. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:00:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:00:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) > ... > He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak > was never accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat. > He adds that PERHAPS there is a reason to prohibit potato flour > (serach kitniyot - based on chiddishin of RSZA to Pesachim). > Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be > prohibited (ie even according to those that eat gebrochs) ... To me, it seems contradictory to allow gebroks yet forbid matza meal cake. Yet it certainly seems that this is how RSZA held. I think I'm going to have to retract most of my recent posts. Or add least append a big "tzorech iyun" to them. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:22:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimetics [was:kitnoyot] Message-ID: > Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be > mimetically defined, by definition, .... [--RMB] WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be determinative. Lisa >>>>> "Shema beni mussar avicha, VE'AL TITOSH TORAS IMECHA." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:19:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <23551cea-98c2-5446-2323-d0fb7e82cc09@starways.net> On 4/8/2017 1:48 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Eli Turkel wrote: > > <<< I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been > a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. >>> > > Is this only in the DL community? If so, can anyone suggest why this > would be so? I think it's because the DL community is the community that is (a) committed to the Torah and (b) not stuck in fear mode. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 01:16:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 11:16:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller asked why in the dati leumi community there is a backlash against kitniyos? I think there are a number of reasons for this: 1. Theological - The Dati Leumi community views the establishment of the State of Israel as a significant theological event, the beginning of the Geula. They view the state as having significance. Therefore, they view the Jewish people as much more of an organic whole and want to eliminate things that separate the Jewish people into groups. Kitniyos very much does that. There is no question that whan Moshiach comes the division between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no machlokes. The Charedi world on the other hand believes that we are still fully in Galus and nothing has changed. 2. The Dati Leumi community isw much less segragated between sefardim and Ashkenazim. There are no ashkenazi or sefardi yeshivas and there is quite a bit of "intermarriage". If your daughter marries a Sefardi do you suddently not go to her for Pesach because she eats kitniyos? 3. People realize the hypocrisy of not eating kitniyos while eating kosgher l'pesach pretzels. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:31:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:31:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Why can't one argue that as long as the qitniyos is a mi'ut of > the cottage cheese, and as long as it's not against the mixer's > own minhag or that of the main bulk of people for whom he is > mixing, the food is permissible for Ashkenazim too? > > ... What if an Ashkenazi was doing the mixing on a product where > most of the target customer base is Sepharadi? I would like to focus on the words "target customer base". We have to distinguish the manufacturer's customer base from the hashgacha's customer base. The two might be identical for a small brand that markets only to frum neighborhoods, but not for an industry giant like Strauss. We can presume that the manufacturer and their target customer base is mostly not makpid about kitniyos. Therefore, the manufacturer is doing nothing wrong by putting kitniyos into the product, and once they have done so, it is acceptable even for Ashkenazim, exactly as RMB suggests. But the hashgacha cannot put their certification on it. The target customer base of this hashgacha seems to be people who *are* makpid on kitniyos. (If they're not the majority of the hashgacha's clientele, they are at least a very significant minority.) And as such, the hashgacha has accepted the responsibility to act in place of their clientele at the factory. This turns it into a "bittul lechatchila" situation, and the hashgacha cannot grant an official okay to such products without an accompanying warning, which is exactly what they seem to have done. > (Now, add to that mei qitniyos, and whether corn should have > been added to the minhag, the observation that it is primarily > NOT made for Ashkenazi Jews, and ask the same thing about Coca > Cola.) Not just Coca Cola. Weren't we discussing chocolate bars a few weeks ago? Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 23:42:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 02:42:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman Message-ID: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> I tend to agree with the negative aspect of stealing the Afikoman. Very similarly, I feel the minhag to get so drunk on Purim so that you can?t distinguish between blessed be Mordecai and cursed be Haman is a very bad minhag and more offensive than stealing the afikoman. You are encouraging people to get drunk and that also has caused many problems in recent times. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:02:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:02:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman In-Reply-To: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> References: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 02:42:40AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : I tend to agree with the negative aspect of stealing the Afikoman. : Very similarly, I feel the minhag to get so drunk on Purim so that : you can?t distinguish between blessed be Mordecai and cursed be Haman : is a very bad minhag and more offensive than stealing the afikoman. Yeah, I don't see how teaching kids to steal the afiqoman is going to weaken their knowledge that it's wrong to steal. Should kids playing baseball not steal home? Just because the rule of the game is called "stealing"? But there is backlash against the drunk-on-Purim minhag too. The OU and RCA each put out something like annually. Hatzola puts out warnings. There are black-n-white wearing yeshivos that clamped down on their kids getting drunk when doing their Purim fundraising. And there has been backlash to the backlash, by people who value minhag. Really, the treatment of the two has been pretty parallel. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:19:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman In-Reply-To: <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> References: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <621677e8-92b7-ca89-7197-201a3af3f7e6@sero.name> On 09/04/17 09:02, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Yeah, I don't see how teaching kids to steal the afiqoman is going > to weaken their knowledge that it's wrong to steal. Should kids > playing baseball not steal home? Just because the rule of the game > is called "stealing"? That's a different sense of the word: "4. to move or convey stealthily". As in "with cat-like tread upon our prey we steal". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:48:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:48:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > There is no question that when Moshiach comes the division > between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The > Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no > machlokes. This is news to me. There is no machlokes here to be paskened. Everyone agrees that the halacha allows even rice to Ashkenazim. It is all minhag. Even if the Sanhendrin would want to, I don't know where they'd get the authority to do away with minhagim. On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim! > The Dati Leumi community is much less segregated between > sefardim and Ashkenazim. There are no ashkenazi or sefardi > yeshivas and there is quite a bit of "intermarriage". If your > daughter marries a Sefardi do you suddently not go to her for > Pesach because she eats kitniyos? That depends on your posek. By my memory, many poskim, including among the DL, hold that one can eat from the keilim, but to avoid actual kitniyos. And many other shitos in both directions. > People realize the hypocrisy of not eating kitniyos while > eating kosher l'pesach pretzels. I was arguing strenuously against this until a few hours ago, when I was reminded that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach held this way too. Perhaps I have overdosed on inoculations of matza meal cake and matza meal pancakes, and I cannot see myself ever sharing this view. But having seen RSZA's words, I cannot claim that it is only the little people who say this - it's the big guns too. And I would be indebted to any listmembers who would quote other gedolim on this topic. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 15:47:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 08:47:40 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyos - Why do today's Poskim argue with the Mishneh Berurah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can anyone show some Halachic source that argues with the Mishneh Berurah who Paskens that Foods containing LESS THAN 50% Kitniyos that is at the same time not visually discernible Although its taste is certainly discernible, is Muttar during Pesach? Is a Rov permitted to refuse to identify a Kosher product as Kosher (or worse, declare a product not Kosher) because of other considerations? See this article http://www.kosherveyosher.com/chocolate-pesach-lecithin-1001.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 01:45:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:45:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] order of the seder Message-ID: < See "leil haPesach be-taludum shel chachamim" (Hebrew) by David Henshkr who has a detailed discussion -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 01:47:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:47:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Matzah meal Message-ID: <> In Israel it is readily available in many supermarkets -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 02:04:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:04:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism Message-ID: <> Doesn't answer my question of how mimeticism deals with new situations. Sticking to kitniyot by patents used cottenseed oil but knew nothing about Canola oil or Lecitisthin <> Let me use this to sound off. I have a major problem with textualiism. In some circles it means studying a sugya and coming to a conclusion without any regard to the outside world. In regard to shiurim the Noda Yehuda has a question. One doesn't suddenly change minhagim because of a question. In recent years this doubling of shiurim has become popular because of CI. First there is evidence that CI himself did not use his own shiur. It is well known that some descendants of the CC don't use his kiddush cup because it is not shiur CI. However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. Even a slightly smaller shiur would hit various walls making it impossible to walk around while various testimonies make it smaller. There is now a new exhibition of a virtual 3D reality of walking around the bet hamikdash. It is based on aerial photographs of the current Temple mount and supplemented by details in the Mishna and archaeology using the topography of the land. Theis construction places the holy har habayit on the currently raised portion of the Temple mount. This yields an amah of about 38cm (CI=57, CN=44-48) Other proofs included the length of the Siloam tunnel which is documents in amot and can be measured. One of the strongest proofs is based on the meitzah of the cohen gadol which could not possibly hold the shiur of CI (note that if his hands were bigger this would redefine the amah). As to changes over the generations olive pits from the Bar Chocba era are the same size as today. In spite of a preponderous evidence that the shiur of CI is way too large almost all seforim in Israel give the amount of matzah to eat and wine to drink based on CI (at least lechatchila). This is textualism at the extreme in contrast to common sense -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 03:15:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "I have an opportunity to kill the terrorist..." Message-ID: <20170410101557.GA14700@aishdas.org> Anyone want to try this one, with meqoros? RSE raises two issues: killing a neutralized terrorist, and (I guess) dina demalkhusa on the topic. Chag Kasher veSameaich (belashon "lo zu af zu"), -micha The Jewish Press Tzfat Chief Rabbi Was Asked in Real Time whether to Kill Ramming Terrorist By David Israel -- 11 Nisan 5777 -- April 7, 2017 http://www.jewishpress.com/news/jewish-news/tzfat-chief-rabbi-was-asked-in-real-time-whether-to-kill-ramming-terrorist/2017/04/07/ Chief Rabbi of Tzfat Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, who is not known for particularly leftwing sympathies (he encourages his flock to refuse Arab renters, for instance), on Thursday night told a class he was teaching that one of his students had phoned him from the scene of the ramming attack that killed an IDF soldier. The student posed a halachic inquiry: "He told me, I see my buddy here lying down dead," Rabbi Eliyahu recalled, adding that his student had asked, "I have an opportunity to kill the terrorist - should I kill him or not?" Advertisement Around 10 AM, Thursday, an Arab terrorist rammed his vehicle into two IDF soldiers waiting at a hitchhiking post on Rt. 60, outside Ofra in Judea and Samaria. Sgt. Elhai Teharlev HY"D, 20, was killed, and the other soldier was injured. The terrorist was arrested by security forces. Rabbi Eliyahu said that his response was that "this terrorist deserves to die. However, unfortunately, the laws in this country are not well constructed, and so there is no legal way to do to him what needs to be done." "I told him that had he been able to do it while the attack was on it would have been possible, but we were after the event, unfortunately." Advertisement From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 03:39:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed Message-ID: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ > Let me run an idea by you guys... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha > 2. Melacha is forbidden on chol hamoed > 3. One of the permits for doing melacha is for tzorech hamoed, but in this > case, if possible you should do the melacha before the chag > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. > 5. If you find yourself on chol hamoed without pre-torn toilet paper, you > can tear it, however preferably not on the lines. > Am I crazy? :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 04:54:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:54:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> References: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2017 1:40 PM, "Micha Berger via Avodah" wrote... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha > 2. Melacha is forbidden on chol hamoed > 3. One of the permits for doing melacha is for tzorech hamoed, but in this > case, if possible you should do the melacha before the chag > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. > 5. If you find yourself on chol hamoed without pre-torn toilet paper, you > can tear it, however preferably not on the lines. > Am I crazy? Not at all. Please see Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa perek 66 footnote 78. RSZA was machmir for himself, though the author suggests that nowdays it would be unnecessary. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 06:39:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:39:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12e4046f8d104931a3a60fafe99b3947@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > There is no question that when Moshiach comes the division > between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The > Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no > machlokes. This is news to me. There is no machlokes here to be paskened. Everyone agrees that the halacha allows even rice to Ashkenazim. It is all minhag. Even if the Sanhendrin would want to, I don't know where they'd get the authority to do away with minhagim. On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim! --------------------------------------- Aiui there is some debate as to how much practice was/will be standardized-some believe (IIRC R'HS) that the shevet Sanhedrin set local practice and few issues went to great sanhedrin for standardization. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 06:41:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:41:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170410134127.GB29583@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:04:31PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> Mimeticism evolves because culture evolves. : Doesn't answer my question of how mimeticism deals with new situations. It answers your question by implying there is no answer. There is no rule for how common practice will evolve. Rules are textual. But the truth is, halakhah requires both. Not every evolution of a minhag is valid. That way lies Catholic Israel. It has to pass muster against the sources and sevara. :-)|,|ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 07:54:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Misc interesting Halacha questions from R Shlomo Miller shlitah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <035201d2b20a$5ef3d1a0$1cdb74e0$@com> Misc interesting Halacha questions from R Shlomo Miller shlitah http://baisdovyosef.com/rabbi-past-questions/ Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlitah for a printout of all the Q&As (100 pgs) https://www.dropbox.com/s/70y971r0ct2l7x8/RS%20miller%20bartfeld%20questions .doc?dl=0 or email me offline mcohen at touchlogic.com GYT, mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 12 12:45:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:45:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz Message-ID: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy A rav gave over some quick halachot and cited the Shulhan Aruch that if one finds chameitz in one's home, you cover it (if you find it on shabbat/yom tov) and later burn it, or burn it right away (cholo moed). I asked, if one sold one's chameitz, how can you burn it? It now belongs to the non-jew. This rav (and second rav) said that the sale only includes the chameitz that you specify. If you don't have a piece of chameitz in mind, you didn't sell it. OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz, everything in all of his properties. It makes no mention of what you have in mind. If a contract say "ALL" it means all, n'est pas? So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 12 21:09:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:09:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taanis Bechoros - Women? Message-ID: My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros. So I read her Mishne Berurah 470:4, which gives the reason as because there are no halachos in which female firstborns have any such kedusha. That seemed to satisfy her, but it didn't satisfy me. After all, if a boy is his father's first but not his mother's first, then he has no kedusha which would require Pidyon Haben. Aruch Hashulchan 470:2 gives that same logic, but explains that although the father's first doesn't get a Pidyon Haben, he *does* have special halachos about inheritance, and Aruch Hashulchan 470:3 says the same thing regarding a boy who was born after a miscarriage, or a firstborn Kohen, or a firstborn Levi. My question is: So what? Why is the special status of "firstborn for inheritance" more relevant than "would've been killed in Mitzrayim"? (Please note that there is another case that I'm *not* asking about, namely, where none of the people at home was a technical bechor, then whoever was oldest was subject to Makas Bechoros. Since that could vary depending on who was home in any particular year, I can easily understand why it never got included in the minhag.) Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 13 13:24:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 23:24:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefirot Ha`omer Message-ID: Every year I would like to get deeper into the combinations of sefirot (or middot) that appear in siddurim with the counting of the Omer, and every year I get lost and confused. For example, what is the difference between hesed shebigevura and gevura shebehesed? If tiferet is a synthesis of hesed and gevura, how does it differ from either of the above? And so on and so on. There seem to be a thousand books and websites that explain the sefirot and their combinations in modern terms, but I haven't found any that quote or even cite primary sources. Where might one look for such sources? Mo`adim lesimha! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 13 22:56:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:56:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim!" Given the illogic of the minhag of kitniyos I think not. Why would they impose a din that makes no sense in today's world. With regards to visiting children R' AKiva Miler wrote: "That depends on your posek. By my memory, many poskim, including among the DL, hold that one can eat from the keilim, but to avoid actual kitniyos. And many other shitos in both directions." I was saying that facetiously. WADR you missed the forest for the trees. Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child and can't eat all the food. You are looking at this from a pure halachic perspceticve but in truth, there is a non-halachic sociologcal perspective here that needs to be addressed as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 14 01:12:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 11:12:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefirot Ha`omer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71537556-72e6-e4ec-3ea1-61c0f913fb9b@starways.net> Lama li kra? It seems pretty clear on the face of it. Hesed she'b'Gevura means that you're doing Hesed by means of Gevura. Your intended result is Hesed. The way you're achieving that Hesed is by an act of Gevura. So let's take R' Aryeh Kaplan's understanding of the two Middot, where Hesed means going above and beyond what is required, and Gevura is restraining yourself, and here are a couple of examples. You're at the grocery store, and there's one box of Wacky Macs left on the shelf. You see a mother with a bunch of her kids coming down the aisle, and the kids are beginning for Wacky Macs. So you don't take it. You're limiting yourself in order to do something nice (but not required) for the mother. That's Hesed she'b'Gevura. You're at the grocery store, and you've taken the last box of Wacky Macs. You know you shouldn't eat it, because it's all starch and fat, but you can't help it. You're standing at the checkout line, and there's a mother behind you whose kids are giving her a hard time because they wanted Wacky Macs, but the store is out. So you decide that this will help you keep your diet, and you offer the mother the box of Wacky Macs. You're doing something nice (but not required) for the mother in order to limit yourself. That's Gevura she'b'Hesed. It's a thin line, sometimes. Figuring out what the actual action (or inaction) is and what the purpose is. Means and ends. As far as Tiferet, while you can see it as a synthesis of Hesed and Gevura, which is nice if you like the thesis-antithesis-synthesis paradigm, it's really the point of balance between them. Where you aren't refraining and you aren't overdoing. Another term for Tiferet is Tzedek. Meaning doing what you're supposed to do, or what you're allowed to do: no more and no less. I think that one of the reasons there aren't books that cite primary sources about this is simply because there aren't any. There are primary sources about what the meaning of each of the Sefirot mean, but the combination should be fairly clear. That said, I know it isn't. When I was a camper as a kid, we had discussion groups about whether we were "Jewish Americans" or "American Jews". I was 12 the first time we did it, and it was a mess. The next time, I think I was 14 or 15, and I already realized what the problem was, although the counselor leading the discussion didn't. It's a matter of definitions. If you look at it in terms of language, one of those words is the noun, and the other is the adjective. The noun is what you *are*. The adjective just modifies it. So "American Jew" is putting being Jewish first, and "Jewish American" is putting being American first. But a lot of the other kids (and the counselor) were looking at it from the point of view of which *word* came first in the phrase. And theoretically, I suppose, you could interpret X she'b'Y in the opposite way from what I've described above, but I'm not sure there's a real nafka mina, because we cover all the combinations. It just seems to me that the first week, we deal with the concept of *doing* Hesed, with all 7 possible intents, since these 7 Sefirot are fundamentally Sefirot of action (and interaction), as opposed to the first three, which are Sefirot of mind. But can you say that the first week, we talk about the concept of *intending* Hesed, with all 7 possible methods? I suppose. It's not the way I look at it, but absent primary sources to determine which way is right, I suppose it's possible. Shabbat Shalom and Moadim L'Simcha, Lisa On 4/13/2017 11:24 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > Every year I would like to get deeper into the combinations of sefirot > (or middot) that appear in siddurim with the counting of the Omer, and > every year I get lost and confused. For example, what is the > difference between hesed shebigevura and gevura shebehesed? If tiferet > is a synthesis of hesed and gevura, how does it differ from either of > the above? And so on and so on. > > There seem to be a thousand books and websites that explain the > sefirot and their combinations in modern terms, but I haven't found > any that quote or even cite primary sources. Where might one look for > such sources? > > Mo`adim lesimha! > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 14 06:40:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:40:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <491b0760-73a4-cf76-550a-2c2dfb57aeb3@sero.name> On 14/04/17 01:56, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > I was saying that facetiously. WADR you missed the forest for the trees. > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child and > can't eat all the food. If you think that's a problem now, wait till Moshiach comes and you have parents visiting their daughter who married a Cohen. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 11:52:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 20:52:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8fe0a1db-6349-9011-e2d4-ea78a89684eb@zahav.net.il> I've said this before but it bares repeating. I was married to someone with multiple food allergies. Cooking even at home was always a challenge. Going out to eat at someone else's house and giving them the list of what yes, what no made that it even harder. Whenever we had guests, we always asked about food allergies, kashrut requirements, and preferences. Compared to allergies, kashrut stuff was kid's play. More than that, I learned that it is perfectly OK to have food on the table that not everyone can eat. Any vegetarian who came over expecting to be able to eat everything was disappointed. Not being able to eat rice and having to settle for the five other dishes doesn't even make it on my radar. Thinking that one should be able to eat everything is a sense of entitlement that I don't accept. Ben On 4/14/2017 7:56 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child > and can't eat all the food. > > You are looking at this from a pure halachic perspceticve but in > truth, there is a non-halachic sociologcal perspective here that needs > to be addressed as well. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 18:36:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:36:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > Given the illogic of the minhag of kitniyos ... ... > Why would they impose a din that makes no sense in today's world. I could easily argue that avoidance of poultry and milk "makes no sense in today's world." I'd like to hear whether other people think that din to be logical or illogical. (One is a minhag, and the other is d'rabbanan, but that's a side issue. My question is whether one is less logical than the other.) Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 18:22:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:22:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini Message-ID: One of the main areas this portion deals with is kashruth. There is an overriding concept in the laws of kashruth that the characteristics of what we eat somehow have a great influence on the way we behave. We do not want to associate ourselves with cruelty, therefore we are forbidden to eat cruel animals, and in this case certain fowl. Among the fowl that are listed as being non kosher is the chasidah, the white stork. You may ask what cruel character trait does the stork possess. Rashi mentions that the reason it is called a "chasidah" is because it does chesed with its friends regarding the food it finds. On the surface this seems strange. If the stork acts kindly with its food, why is it disqualified as being kosher? A beautiful explanation to this difficulty has been given by the Chidushei Harim, a Chassidic 19th century Talmudic scholar, in which he explains the nature of the stork. He says that the fact the stork only shows its kindness with its friends defines its cruelty. A fowl who is not in the circle of the stork's good buddies is excluded from getting any help from the stork in finding food. In other words, the stork is very selective in its kindness. This type of kindness is misleading. We, as Jews, are commanded to help our foes. If we come across someone we dislike intensely who needs help, we are commanded to help. The stork, on the other hand, helps only his friends. It is this character trait of differentiating between close friends and others when it comes to providing food that makes the stork non-kosher. Chesed means reaching out altruistically, with love and generosity to all. The process of maturing involves developing our sense of caring for others. This is crucial for spiritual health. The Talmud likens someone who doesn't give to others as the "walking dead.? A non-giving soul is malnourished and withered. It is only through unconditional love that our successful future will be built. In the words of King David (Psalm 89:3): Olam chesed yibaneh - "the world is built on kindness.? May we live to see this kindness and care infused in all our lives. Kindness is the language the deaf can hear and the blind can see. Mark Twain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 12:40:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:40:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: <042313fe1c2b495fbe8f8efad437f69d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <042313fe1c2b495fbe8f8efad437f69d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: I was reminded of this question this evening. Our shul is nominally nusach Sefard. However if someone (like moi) does daven Ashkenaz, the gabbi is OK, but insists on things like: Saying Shir Ha'ma'lot in Maariv Saying Keter during Mussaf Ben On 3/30/2017 2:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Visiting a shul questions-actual practices and sources appreciated: > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:45:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:45:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ff40b88-0f88-fb08-9c92-10e44bbdfc3d@zahav.net.il> A bit of perspective here: this is the Orthodox version of a first world problem. 100 years ago how many Ashkenazim and Sefardim even met, much less intermarried or lived in the same neighborhoods? At most, this is a bit of growing pain. Ben On 4/14/2017 7:56 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child > and can't eat all the food. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:34:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:34:27 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: How do we determine when the dough is baked to the point where it can no longer become Chamets? when there are no Chutim NimShaChim When the Matza is torn apart there are no doughy threads stretching between the two pieces. These days this test is not available because so little water is added to the flour that there is no opportunity for the chemical reaction that activates the gluten and even when the Matza, or the batch of dough is torn BEFORE it is put into the oven there are NO Chutim NimShaChim [this is noted by the Chazon Ish] So if one suggests that there is a possibility that some flour within [but not on the surface of] the Matza which is protected from the heat of the oven and does not become baked [as once it is baked, flour can not become Chamets] then the Chashash that this flour might become Chamets if it becomes wet pales into insignificance and is completely eclipsed by the much greater risk that the middle part of the Matza which may not have been baked may actually be Chamets [Gamur] The fact that it is now now dry means nothing that is simply dehydrated dough AKA Chamets, maybe Chamets Nukshe Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:40:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:40:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed Message-ID: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ > Let me run an idea by you guys... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha....... > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. >>>>> It seems to me you are no more obligated to tear toilet paper for the whole week than you are to do all your cooking for the whole week before the yom tov. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:49:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:49:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taanis Bechoros - Women? Message-ID: <63e57.57f1ef36.46246de8@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros. << Akiva Miller >>>>> That's a pretty obscure medrash. It is seemingly contradicted by the Torah itself, which specifies that a pidyon haben is required for a firstborn boy because the firstborn boys were spared makas bechoros in Egypt. Nothing about a pidyon habas. On the other hand, according to Sefer HaToda'ah (Book of Our Heritage), "There are different customs associated with this fast. Some say that every firstborn, male or female, whether from the father or from the mother, must fast on that day. If there is no firstborn, then the oldest in the house must fast.....However others say that only firstborn males need to fast and this is the generally accepted custom." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 21:50:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Martin Brody via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:50:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Fast of the First Born. Message-ID: Akiva Miller posted "My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros etc." Maybe because the fast has nothing to do with the 10th plague at all? They should be celebrating, not fasting! Fasting is for repentance. More likely the Sin of the Golden Calf, when the firstborn lost their priestly status. On the 14th the first born have to watch the Aaronite priests slaughtering the Pascal offering instead of them. Cheers Martin Brody From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 20:55:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:55:38 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen son in law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: when Moshiach comes parents will seek a cohen for a son in law because it's a great investment, they can feed their son in law and his family with their tithes. It's like having the Bechor reinstated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 06:28:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:28:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is > impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har > habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. > ... > This construction places the holy har habayit on the currently > raised portion of the Temple mount. This yields an amah of about > 38cm (CI=57, CN=44-48) > Other proofs included the length of the Siloam tunnel which is > documents in amot and can be measured. ... I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction as well. The minimum shiur for a mikveh is 3 cubic amos, as this is the size that a typical person could fit into. Who among us could fit into a space 38x38x114 cm? (15x15x45 inches)? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 06:41:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:41:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > If you think that's a problem now, wait till Moshiach comes and > you have parents visiting their daughter who married a Cohen. Indeed! And I think an even more common case will be a husband (regardless of shevet) who wants (or needs) to eat taharos, but his wife is nidah. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:28:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:28:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170416212823.GC13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 09:28:13AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Eli Turkel wrote: : > However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is : > impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har : > habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. I pointed out that we know length of the water tunnel in meters and rounded to two digits precision amos. In contrast, the current Har haBayis platform post-dates Hadrian y"sh lobbing off the top of the mountain and dumping it into the valley between the kotel and the current Moslem and Jewish Quarters. So we really only have part of one wall to go on. The floor can't possibly date back to either BHMQ. But that doesn't mean the shiur is impossible. The shiur may indeed be at odds with historical interpretations of the halakhah. Even perhaps by accident. But would that necessarily mean it's not binding? In either case, the CI's ammah is textual. RCNaeh's ammah is a textualist's attempt to formalize a precise number that is basicallhy consistent with the praactice of the Yishuv haYashan. Mimeticism-driven. RAM himself replied: : I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction as well. : The minimum shiur for a mikveh is 3 cubic amos, as this is the size : that a typical person could fit into. Who among us could fit into a : space 38x38x114 cm? (15x15x45 inches)? According to http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13993-stature , in 1906, the average Jewish man was about 162cm high. Let's make his miqvah 165 x 31 x 31 cm. Same volume of water. A maximum belt size of something like 97 cm (39") would fit. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:49:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 10:29:56AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) ... : RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who : determines this minhag?) Well, if it's mimetic, you just watch what people do. And if so, RSZA's statement is descriptive, not descriptive. As in: Lemaaseh, people are nohagim not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach. : He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never : accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason than the one given. ... : Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be prohibited (ie : even according to those that eat gebrochs) (yesh ladun behem - Pesachim 40b : - Rashi that when people are "mezalzel one should be machmir) Who is being mezalzel on chameitz? If he saying that because some people are questioning qitniyos, we should strengthen qitniyos, then what does that have to do with foods not already under that umbrella? And even among those who question the minhag's sanity, is there really a major zilzul going on among Ashkenazim doing less and less to avoid qitniyios? On the contrary, as your translation opens, avoiding shemen qitniyos has spread well beyond the communities that originally had that minhag, to the extent that it's being applied to foods that in the past weren't on the list of qitniyos! The questioning is a counter-reaction to the growth of the minhag. Who is being mezalzel? : In the notes that this was what RSZA said in shiurim and when asked a : question responded that one should follow the family minhag... Ascerting mimeticism over his own textualism. Sevara aside, minhag is whatever is the accepted practice. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:30:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:30:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach - Lecithin does not render chocolate non-KLP for Ashkenasim In-Reply-To: References: <0b78331e-194b-c586-6de0-fc623959e4e3@sero.name> <32449da1-df34-d5e8-7170-a2c8676adf0e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170416213032.GD13509@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 07:25:10AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 2) The prohibition of being m'vateil an issur applies to the super : corporations that run the milk industry? This is a case where buying Chalav Yisrael, which is de rigeur in Zev's Chabad community, would be more problematic. After all, something done for CY milk is being done for Jews. Something done for stam OUD milk would not be. :-)||ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:38:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Poisoning in Halacha In-Reply-To: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> References: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170416213850.GE13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 10:16:10PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: : Tonight my chevrusa and I learned the sugya in Bava Kamma 47b of one who : puts poison in front of his friend's animal. A brief synopsis and : application of the sugya is at : http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/infected: ... : It struck us that it follows that if one poisons another human being by, : say, placing cyanide in his tea, which the victim then drinks and dies, : the poisoner is exempt from capitol punishment. It would seem that such : a manner of murder falls into the category of the Rambam's ruling in : Hilchos Rotze'ach u'Shemiras Nefesh 3:10: It might be similarly true, but I don't know if "it follows". After all, gerama in Choshein Mishpat has a more limited definition than in hilkhos Shabbos. So, it didn't have to be true that the same definitions of gerama and garmi apply in dinei mamunus as in dinei nefashos. Lemaaseh, they are consistent. I would ask the Y-mi-style question: How is retzichah more similar to mamon than it is to Shabbos? :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:10:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:10:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> References: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> Message-ID: <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 2:40am EDT, RnTK wrote: :> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook :> https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ :> Let me run an idea by you guys... :> 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha....... :> 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the :> beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. : It seems to me you are no more obligated to tear toilet paper for the whole : week than you are to do all your cooking for the whole week before the yom : tov. Actually, the heter is that the food tastes better when made closer to eating time. But if one is talking about food that would taste as good if made days ahead (including the logistical limitations of storage), one is actually supposed to be cooking it before YT. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 15:44:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:44:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> References: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> On 16/04/17 17:49, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never > : accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... > > But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod > bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason > than the one given. again, no he doesn't. We just went through this last week. He never proposed it, even as a hava amina, and never gives a reason against it. He merely reports, as a matter of fact and completely without comment for or against it, that he heard that in Germany they forbid potatoes because over there they make flour from them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 15:36:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:36:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> References: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8d50d8fe-f514-fdbf-c460-9971ad347ed9@sero.name> On 16/04/17 17:10, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Actually, the heter is that the food tastes better when made closer to > eating time. But if one is talking about food that would taste as good > if made days ahead (including the logistical limitations of storage), > one is actually supposed to be cooking it before YT. But not before chol hamoed. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 20:00:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:00:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> References: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170419030020.GA29092@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 06:44:54PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 16/04/17 17:49, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >: He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never : >: accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... : >But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod : >bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason : >than the one given. : : again, no he doesn't. We just went through this last week... And given the relatice abilities of RSZA and you to read the Chayei Adam, you're obviously mistaken. : never proposed it, even as a hava amina... He reports the existence of such a minhag, and recommends against its adoption. Close enough. You're setting yourself up as a baal pelugta of RSZA by splitting hairs to crration a distinction without a difference? Really? -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 19:56:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:56:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Isru Chag Message-ID: <68F6CB3B-3D32-4BF0-A68E-3AD77FD7EE69@cox.net> The gematria for Isru Chag is 278, the same gematria for l'machar found in Bamidbar, Ch.11, vs.18. This is in the Sidra, Beha?a'lotcha, where God has Moshe establish a Sanhedrin because Moshe complained that he could not carry on alone. God says to Moshe: "To the people you shall say, 'Prepare yourselves for tomorrow and you shall eat meat..." There is an interesting tie here. The day after a festival is the "morrow" and even though the holiday is over, we must always be preparing ourselves. (Also, in counting the omer, we are preparing ourselves for the climax of our faith in 50 days). A good Isru chag to all. ri ?By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.? Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 21:06:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:06:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: R' Meir G. Rabi explained his logic: > if one suggests that > there is a possibility that > some flour > within [but not on the surface of] the Matza > which is protected from the heat of the oven > and does not become baked > [as once it is baked, flour can not become Chamets] > then the Chashash that this flour > might become Chamets if it becomes wet > pales into insignificance > and is completely eclipsed by the much greater risk > that the middle part of the Matza > which may not have been baked > may actually be Chamets [Gamur] I do not follow this logic. He is comparing two distinctly different risks. For simplicity, I'd like to call one risk "insufficiently kneaded" and the other one "insufficiently baked". "Insufficiently kneaded" means that there might be some flour in the middle of the matza that never got wet and is still plain raw flour, and that if it gets wet it will become chometz. "Insufficiently baked" means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not get baked, and it is already chometz. And RMGR feels that the second of these is a "much greater risk". I don't know where he gets the statistics to say that "insufficiently kneaded" is a small risk (his words are "pales into insignificance"), and that "insufficiently baked" is a "much greater risk". Personally, my opinion is that *IF* one checks his matzos to be sure that they are uniformly thin, *AND* checks to be sure that they have none of the kefulos or other problems that halacha warns us about, then he can be confident that no part of the matza was insufficiently baked, and they are NOT chometz. Thus, there are steps that the consumer can take to minimize the risk that his matzos were insufficiently baked. In contrast, I don't know of any way that the consumer can check the matzos to verify that they were kneaded well enough; who knows if there might be a few particles of flour that never got wet? I guess the consumer has to rely on the manufacturer and hechsher to insure that they are doing a good enough job of kneading the dough. Anyway, my main point is that these two risks are distinct from each other. I don't see any logical connection between them. From the way he worded the subject line, it sounds like RMGR is making a "kal vachomer", that if one is worried about one of the risks, then he must certainly worry about the other one, but I don't see that. (In fact, I can't even figure out which risk he feels leads to the other.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 13:17:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:17:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: I am moving this to Avodah. >From: Ben Waxman via Areivim >To: Simon Montagu via Areivim , areivim > >Why is this even an issue? Meaning, why is it such an issue that people >with a different minhag are davening together*? Or is the issue that >both sides feel that the other is doing an aveira**? > >*Sefardim and Ashkenazim wrap their teffilin differently. That factoid >doesn't stop anyone from praying together. >** Which brings up other issues. >Ben My understanding is that people who wear Tefillen during Cho Moed are not supposed to wear them in a minyan where the custom is that no one wears Tefillen. I know that in a couple of shuls near me they are makpid that those who wear Tefillen and those who do not do wear them do not daven together until after the kedusha of shachris when Tefillen are taken off. In the Kivasikin minyan that I normally daven with, those who were Tefillen are upstairs in what is normally the ladies section. After Kedusha of Shachris, those upstairs join those downstairs for a Hallel. I have been told that in the Agudah in Baltimore those who wear Tefillen are on one side of the mechitza and those who don't are on the other side until after kedusha of shachris. So, apparently there is a problem with having a mix of Tefillen wearers and non-wearers during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 14:17:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:17:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:17:21PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : So, apparently there is a problem with having a mix of Tefillen : wearers and non-wearers during Chol Moed. Lo sisgodedu. The pasuq behind the whole notion of minhag hamaqom altogether. Eg see MB 31 s"q 8. The AhS OC 31:4 is okay with minyanim that are mixed between wearers and non-wearers. Nowadays, when the concept of minhag hamaqom is so weak and has so little to do with our sence of belonging, I think the psychology is the opposite as that assumed by those who apply lo sisgodedu. Having two minyanim is more divided, and certainly if it ends up an argument about which part of the minyan is behind the mechitzah. Look how in Israel, many minyanim ignore the halakhos of having a set nusach for the beis kenesses and just let each chazan use his own minhag avos! And this enables a single minyan to function in spite of diversity; a variety of Jews from different cultures able to daven together! Tir'u baTov! -Micha (PS: "wfb" summarized a nice list of sources about whether they should be worn from R Jacob Katz's article in Halakhah veQabbalah at .) -- Micha Berger Today is the 8th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed for another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 14:41:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:41:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Why would tefillin be any different to the various different practises about who does and doesn't wear a tallis? I have never heard of a non-tallis-wearing post-bar-mitzva boy being banished behind the mechitza at a yekkishe shul, or vice versa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 01:20:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:20:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> I didn't understand the question. My daughter married a sefardi and they eat kitniyot. I was by them for seder and everything served was without kiniyot. BTW I not aware of any shitah that there is a problem with keilim used for kitniyot. BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given modern communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a problem but there might be technological answers to that also. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 01:38:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:38:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kiniyot Message-ID: <<: RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who : determines this minhag?) Well, if it's mimetic, you just watch what people do. And if so, RSZA's statement is descriptive, not descriptive. As in: Lemaaseh, people are nohagim not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach. ... Sevara aside, minhag is whatever is the accepted practice. >> The question is "whose minhag". RSZA is stating what he saw. In my area of New York everyone used cottenseed oil. I recently saw a discussion of women saying kaddish. After a lengthy discussion the author concludes that the minhag is for women not to say kaddish. Well in almost all the shuls in my town women do say kaddish. I understand that even the Rama in SA in quoting minhag means Polish (Krakow) minhag and many other existing minhagim in Russia, or Italy were ignored. Similar things in the Sefardi communities. There are several cases that ROY opposes Morrocan customs as being against (sefardi) halacha but are heatedly defended by Moroccan rabbis. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 05:15:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:15:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Look how in Israel, many minyanim ignore the halakhos of having a set nusach for the beis kenesses and just let each chazan use his own minhag avos! And this enables a single minyan to function in spite of diversity; a variety of Jews from different cultures able to daven together! ---------------------------------- Which gets to the heart of the matter - some see diversity of Minhag as lchatchila (all the shvatim had their own Sanhedrin/practice) while others see it as a result of galut. IMHO this debate will continue ad biat hagoel (may it be very soon) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 05:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41e2d260-e360-8e8e-4d15-6f524b655121@sero.name> On 20/04/17 04:20, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make > sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given > modern communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush > hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a problem but there might be > technological answers to that also. The simplest method of getting word of kiddush hachodesh to the whole world on Shabbos/Yomtov is to have a goy send a tweet, which every Jewish house or shul could be set up beforehand to receive. Amira lenochri is of course midrabbanan, so the Sanhedrin can authorise an exception. But there's an even better solution: Kidush hachodesh (as opposed to notifying people about it) is docheh Shabbos/Yomtov. Eidim can be positioned in advance in places guaranteed to have no cloud cover and a good view of the moon (perhaps Ramon Crater?), and they can then drive to Yerushalayim, arriving in plenty of time to testify as soon as the beit din opens in the morning. They could even be positioned on desert mountaintops in chu"l, and fly in. Thus we could guarantee in advance that Elul will never again have a 30th day, and everyone could rely on that without actually being notified on the day. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 09:38:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:38:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:20:04AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make sense I : vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given modern : communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush : hachodesh instantaneously.... I would like to suggest a different angle on YT Sheini. It's not so much that Chazal were afraid of the same problems might arise in bayis shelishi. After all, the language in the gemara isn't the usual that we find with (eg) chadash on Nisan 16 or other taqanos to avoid that kind of problem. I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh ought to be al pi re'iyah. It is that important to remember that the progression is "meqadesh Yisrael vehazmanim", that people sanctify time, rather than the times imposing themselves on people. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 10:13:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:13:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> On 21/04/17 12:38, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I would like to suggest a different angle on YT Sheini. > > It's not so much that Chazal were afraid of the same problems might > arise in bayis shelishi. After all, the language in the gemara isn't > the usual that we find with (eg) chadash on Nisan 16 or other taqanos > to avoid that kind of problem. The language is "sometimes the kingdom will decree a decree"; therefore in an era when -- according to all opinions -- we will never again be subject to hostile kingdoms, it would seem no longer relevant. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 10:45:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:45:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:13:27PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The language is "sometimes the kingdom will decree a decree"; : therefore in an era when -- according to all opinions -- we will : never again be subject to hostile kingdoms, it would seem no longer : relevant. The language of the azhara to keep the minhag talks about zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah. Rashi ad loc says that the said gezeira would be against studying Torah, the community would lose the sod ha'ibbur and mess up their version of the calculation. But that's not the cause for keeping the minhag going. Because that rationale has nothing to do with where the messengers could arrive on time back when we needed them. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 11:23:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:23:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:58:36PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: :> The language of the azhara to keep the minhag talks about zimnin degazru :> hamalkhus gezeirah. :> Rashi ad loc says that the said gezeira would be against studying Torah, :> the community would lose the sod ha'ibbur and mess up their version of :> the calculation. :> But that's not the cause for keeping the minhag going. : The letter explicitly says that *was* the reason. You don't address my claim, just deny it. What the gemara says the letter read was: Hizharu beminhag avoseikhem! Zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah, ve'asi le'ilqalqulei. This is a motive given for "hizharu". (The letter expliticly says so.) Yes, it could mean that it's the motive for the minhag, which is so strong that that justifies not only keeping it going, but being warned But, given that the potential oppression does not justify the format of the minhag, this explanation must be for the caution alone. :> Because that :> rationale has nothing to do with where the messengers could arrive on :> time back when we needed them. : Those places never had a minhag of two days, so Chazal weren't going : to institute one now. Why not? If the problem is the unreliability of a computed calendar that is done once for centuries ahead without a Sanhedrin, this is new to those in Israel too! I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. Then they add, that one shouldn't say it's not /that/ important, because there is a pragmatic benefit as well. (In any case, Chazal were instituting a derabbanan based on a pre-existing minhag. I don't think you intended to imply that the "one" being instituted now was a minhag.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 11:42:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> On 21/04/17 14:23, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > What the gemara says the letter read was: > Hizharu beminhag avoseikhem! > Zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah, ve'asi le'ilqalqulei. > > This is a motive given for "hizharu". (The letter expliticly says > so.) > > Yes, it could mean that it's the motive for the minhag, which is so > strong that that justifies not only keeping it going, but being warned > But, given that the potential oppression does not justify the format > of the minhag, this explanation must be for the caution alone. No, it's not the reason for the minhag in the first place; we know what that was, and it no longer applies. That's why they wrote to the Sanhedrin asking whether they should abandon it. Hizharu means don't abandon it, keep it going anyway, and the reason for doing so is Zimnin degazru. > : Those places never had a minhag of two days, so Chazal weren't going > : to institute one now. > > Why not? Because that would be an innovation and Zimnin degazru is not enough reason to do so. But it *is* enough reason to continue an already existing practise that has just become obsolete. It takes a lot more to justify changing existing practise than it does to continue it. > I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that > qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices > from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. But there's no hint of this, and the letter explicitly says otherwise. > (In any case, Chazal were instituting a derabbanan based on a pre-existing > minhag. Yes, exactly. It's a din derabanan that behaves *as if* it were a mere minhag, because that's what the rabbanan said it should do. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 12:26:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:26:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421192640.GA20001@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 02:42:49PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : No, it's not the reason for the minhag in the first place; we know : what that was, and it no longer applies. That's why they wrote to : the Sanhedrin asking whether they should abandon it. Hizharu means : don't abandon it, keep it going anyway, and the reason for doing so : is Zimnin degazru. No, hizharu means "be careful", not "keep it going anyway". This is NOT "kevar qiblu avoseikhem aleihem. Shene'emar 'Shemi beni musar avikha, ve'al titosh toras imekha.'" (Pesachim 50b) ... : >I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that : >qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices : >from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. : : But there's no hint of this, and the letter explicitly says otherwise. Again, only once you mistranslate what it means lehazhir. This "explicitly" is not only far from explicit, it's not even there! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 13:37:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:37:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer > make sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside > Israel. Given modern communications, the whole world would know > the time of kiddush hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a > problem but there might be technological answers to that also. Shavuos mochiach. Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. If you can discover all of them, and explain all of them, and explain how Shavuos fits, *then* we can discuss "gezerot that no longer make sense". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 14:21:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:21:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> On 4/21/2017 7:38 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole > taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh > ought to be al pi re'iyah. That's a real possibility. In addition, I suggest that halakha is intended to be feasible without any technology. Just imagine changing something this fundamental to rely on an electronic network that will inevitably be subject to attack by EMPs at some point. I don't think it would be responsible. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 10:35:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 20:35:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole > taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh > ought to be al pi re'iyah. > It is that important to remember that the progression is "meqadesh > Yisrael vehazmanim", that people sanctify time, rather than the times > imposing themselves on people. Even more so once a Sanhredin is reconstituted and there is qiddush hachodesh ougal pi re'iyah.there is no use for YT sheni From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 19:18:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:18:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170423021813.GC19870@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:21:23AM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : That's a real possibility. In addition, I suggest that halakha is : intended to be feasible without any technology. Just imagine : changing something this fundamental to rely on an electronic network : that will inevitably be subject to attack by EMPs at some point. I : don't think it would be responsible. While I get your basic point... What EMPs? Even by Shemu'el's rather prosaic version of the messianic era, ein bein olam hazeh liyamos hamoshiach ela shib'ud malkhius bilvad. Gut Voch! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 00:03:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 03:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: <59924.64874017.462dabd2@aol.com> [1] From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" >> My understanding is that people who wear Tefillen during Cho Moed are not supposed to wear them in a minyan where the custom is that no one wears Tefillen. I know that in a couple of shuls near me they are makpid that those who wear Tefillen and those who do not do wear them do not daven together until after the kedusha of shachris when Tefillen are taken off. << YL [2] From: Allan Engel via Avodah >> Why would tefillin be any different to the various different practises about who does and doesn't wear a tallis? I have never heard of a non-tallis-wearing post-bar-mitzva boy being banished behind the mechitza at a yekkishe shul, or vice versa. << >>>> The difference between the tallis-or-not issue and the tefillin-or-not issue is that the former is in the realm of minhag while the latter is in the realm of halacha. People are not so makpid about differing minhagim in the same shul, but differing piskei halacha in the same shul -- that is much more serious. When you have some men wearing tefillin and others not wearing tefillin in the same minyan on chol hamoed, the presence of each subset implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 00:14:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 10:14:12 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> Hard to imagine that all communication would be lost for 15 days. It certainly is less likely than some problem with lighting fires between mountains. Remember that originally the "entire" galut knew the correct date of Pesach and Succot and so there was only one day of yomtov. Only when there was a deliberate attempt to mislead was the system changed. Also interesting is that there is no discussion of communities beyond Bavel. What was done in Alexandria and Rome? In any case even if locally they kept 2 days it was widespread. BTW I assume it took months to reach Rome. If there was a community in Spain (sefarad) it was even longer. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 12:34:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:34:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tazria Message-ID: <60DB8D20-7368-440D-830C-67A3C69835DD@cox.net> Rabbi Zelig Pliskin, in his book ?Love Your Neighbor,? quotes a hilarious true story about Lashon Hora. Someone asked a cerain woman if she wished to borrow a copy of ?Guard Your Tongue? to study the laws of lashon hora. Her response was: ?I don?t need it. I never speak lashon hora. But my husband really needs it. He always speaks lashon hora." We all know about lashon hora and how speaking ill of others is rather a poor reflection of ourselves. However, taken to another level, it was the S?fat Emes who said that it also can refer to having failed to speak lashon tov. This brings to mind the poignant story of a man weeping uncontrollably at the grave of his young wife. When the rabbi tried to console him by saying how good he was to her, he replied: ?Oh, rabbi, how I loved her so much and once I almost told her.? We have friends who take the time and effort to say nice things, and it would even be nicer if more of us did that. You never know the ripple effect a good word can have. ri After receiving another notice from school about bad behavior, a frustrated father sat to explain to his child the source of each one of the gray hairs in his once black beard. ?This one is from the last time the principal called about your misbehavior. This one is from the time you were mean to your sister. This one is from the time you broke our neighbor?s window,? etc., etc. The father looked at his child for a response to his appeal for better behavior, to which the child calmly replied: ?Oh, now it makes sense why Zaide has such a white beard!? Speech is the mirror of the soul Publilius Syrus, Latin Writer 85BCE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 11:47:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 18:47:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 256 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 25 15:03:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 22:03:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> "When you have some men wearing tefillin and others not wearing tefillin in the same minyan on chol hamoed, the presence of each subset implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment." Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people conscientiously following their family customs and davening together nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. Just a thought from a different perspective. Joseph Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 05:02:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:02:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "Shavuos mochiach. Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. If you can discover all of them, and explain all of them, and explain how Shavuos fits, *then* we can discuss "gezerot that no longer make sense"." The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 04:52:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:52:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Metzorah "LEPERS DO CHANGE THEIR SPOTS" Message-ID: On this, the Shabbos preceding Yom Haatzmaut, we read the Haftarah containing the following verse referring to the four lepers: ?And they said to one another: ?We are not doing the right thing; today is a day of good tidings and yet, we remain silent! If we wait until the light of dawn (until it?s too late), we will be adjudged as sinners; now come, let us go and report to the king?s palace.? Second Kings 7:9 It is fascinating that in our own times, this verse contains a challenging message. It is remarkable how the events of modern Israel ran parallel to the the story told in this Biblical chapter. The Arab armies besieging the Jewish community in Israel, their panic and sudden flight, the great deliverance which followed, and the birth of the State of Israel ? do we not see the hand of Providence in all these events? In one respect we are deeply worried. The lepers of the Haftarah possessed the moral obligation to proclaim the miracle. ?We are not doing the right thing. This is a day of good tidings and it is not proper that we should be quiet about it.? Many of us today (outcasts of yesterday) have still not risen to the moral height of recognizing that a miracle has transpired before our very eyes and therefore our duty to proclaim the greatness of the day! Let us, therefore, proclaim it to our children and to the world. Let us, with a firm belief in the future of Israel, do everything possible to assure its existence, strengthen its foundations, and thus look forward to the day of good tidings, the day of Israel?s total and quintessential Independence! rw John Adams: "I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations? They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews.? John F. Kennedy: "Israel was not created in order to disappear ? Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 13:29:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:03:43PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: :> implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This :> makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look :> bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. : Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly : perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people : conscientiously following their family customs and davening together : nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out : of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that : anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. I think we've lost sight of the original topic. Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. When I was a kid, we tefillin-wearers davened Shacharis in the basement, joining the rest of the shteibl only for the latter part of davening. We are therefore starting with data, the pesaq, and trying to figure out what that means aggadically. Not just blindly guessing about how things look in heaven. If things are as you portray it, the original question is stronger -- what you said doesn't resolve anything. BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos as self-identifications. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 15th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in Fax: (270) 514-1507 harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 14:42:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 21:42:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com>, <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> Lost sight of original topic? If that were a valid criticism we'd hear it at least once if not more in every issue. As to substance. I've been davening in shuls on chol haMoed for more than 50 years and every shul I've davened in, all Modern Orthodox led by rabbis who were well respected talmedei chachamim, had men with and without teffilin davening in one minyan together, sitting next to each other without problems or, I'm pretty sure, thinking of transgressors. That's MY data which I would hope is as valid as shteibl data. And that's what my response to my good friend Toby was trying to deal with. I wasn't the one to raise the perspective of Heaven but I found Toby's thoughtful comment refreshingly interesting and, as always, articulate, so I thought about it a bit and responded. I thought that what we do here on A/A. Joseph Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 26, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:03:43PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: > :> implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This > :> makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look > :> bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. > > : Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly > : perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people > : conscientiously following their family customs and davening together > : nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out > : of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that > : anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. > > I think we've lost sight of the original topic. > > Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in > a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises > evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. > > When I was a kid, we tefillin-wearers davened Shacharis in the basement, > joining the rest of the shteibl only for the latter part of davening. > > We are therefore starting with data, the pesaq, and trying to figure > out what that means aggadically. > > Not just blindly guessing about how things look in heaven. If things > are as you portray it, the original question is stronger -- what you > said doesn't resolve anything. > > BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are indeed > motivated by a consciencous following of family customs and the > perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. And how much > is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification with Litvaks or > Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than identification with the > Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos as self-identifications. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Today is the 15th day, which is > micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. > http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in > Fax: (270) 514-1507 harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 16:11:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:11:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:42:41PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : As to substance. I've been davening in shuls on chol haMoed for more : than 50 years and every shul I've davened in, all Modern Orthodox led : by rabbis who were well respected talmedei chachamim, had men with and : without teffilin davening in one minyan together, sitting next to each : other without problems or, I'm pretty sure, thinking of transgressors. : : That's MY data which I would hope is as valid as shteibl data. And : that's what my response to my good friend Toby was trying to deal with. Those are both anecdotes. (BTW, it was a pretty MO shteibl. We had more professors and other PhDs than you can shake a stick at. R/Dr SZ Leiman, R/Dr David Berger, Rs/Drs Steiner, Rs/Drs Sachat, progessors of Asronomy, Physics (R/Dr Herbert Goldstein, likely author of you physics textbook), Topology...) What is data is that the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed between tefillin wearers and not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 18:24:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:24:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com>, <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB wrote: "What is data is that the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed between tefillin wearers and not." Here's some "data" from R. Chaim (Howard) Jachter: "Nevertheless, in many North American congregations on Chol Hamoed, some wear Tefillin and others do not wear Tefillin in one Minyan. Are all these congregations disregarding the Mishna Berura and the Aruch Hashulchan? One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent authorities. The Gemara (ibid.) states that the coexistence of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad ? two distinct communities maintaining disparate practices in one community ? does not violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 1:158 and 159) notes that in this country Jews have gathered from the various sections of Europe and continue the Halachic practices of their former communities. Subsequent generations continue the practices of their parents. Rav Moshe asserts that American Jewry constitutes ?a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad? and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. The Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan addressed a situation in Europe, which radically differs from the situation in North America, as explained by Rav Moshe. However, it appears that one violates Lo Titgodedu if he wears Tefillin in public in Israel on Chol Hamoed." Joseph Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 22:54:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 01:24:46AM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent : authorities. ... Rav Moshe asserts : that American Jewry constitutes "a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad" : and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) : writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single : community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does : not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of : Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. : The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed... So, that answers the OP. Next question.. How long are we /supposed/ to continue being 2 BD be'ir echad, following the minhagim of our ancestral communities, rather than invoking lo sisgodedu and combining into communal minhagim in our current communities? EY is nearly there WRT tefillin on ch"m, with only a few holdouts like KAJ. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 04:29:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> , <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <36AE5716-00CB-4838-A9CE-5321370B72B4@tenzerlunin.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 27, 2017, at 1:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > > Next question.. How long are we /supposed/ to continue being 2 BD be'ir > echad, following the minhagim of our ancestral communities, rather > than invoking lo sisgodedu and combining into communal minhagim in our > current communities? Considering modern mobility, the world has been made so much smaller that I think the idea of strong communal minhagim imposed on all members of the community may be a thing of the past but not of the future. Joseph From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 16:48:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:48:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. ...<< Akiva Miller >>>>> I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 11:15:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent Message-ID: <20B9894A-31AD-494D-8049-66C38175C660@cox.net> It has been taught that a man must recite 100 b?rachot daily. There are different explanations why 100 and the following are a few: Rabbi Mayer said: a person is obligated to recite 100 Brachos each day. In the Jerusalem Talmud we learned: it was taught in the name of Rabbi Mayer; there is no Jew who does not fulfill one hundred Mitzvos each day, as it was written: Now Israel, what does G-d your G-d ask of you? Do not read the verse as providing for the word: ?what? (Mah); instead read it as including the word: ?one hundred? (Mai?Eh). King David established the practice of reciting one hundred Brachos each day. When the residents of Jerusalem informed him that one hundred Jews were dying everyday, he established this requirement. It appears that the practice was forgotten until our Sages at the time of the Mishna and at the time of the Gemara re-established it. There is an additional hint to the need to recite 100 blessings each day from the Prophets as it is written, Micah, Chapter 6, Verse 8: What does G-d ask of you (Hebrew: mimcha). Mimcha in Gematria is 100. There is also a hint to the need to recite 100 blessings from Scriptures as it is written in Psalms, Chapter 128 Verse 4: Behold, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the Lord (the Hebrew words: Ki Kain appear in the verse. The letters in those words total 100 in Gematria). I?d like to proffer another explanation. In most tests you take in school, a perfect score is 100 or an A+. Hence, when reciting a hundred brachot a day, we come as close to perfection as possible. ?If sin becomes an abomination to you, you will have a hundred percent victory over it.? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 17:35:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:35:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> References: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> Message-ID: <1210e77c-beca-a075-ee6d-2fb9df2cafe8@sero.name> On 27/04/17 19:48, via Avodah wrote: > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the > mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman matan toraseinu. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 18:13:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:13:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> On Areivim we were discussing how some activity could be labeled yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. Along the way I wrote that it couldn't be because the enviroment includes gender mixing. I concluded: : Arayos isn't yeihareig ve'al ya'avor until it's : actual relations. I'm not even sure that yeihareig ve'al ya'avor would : apply to bi'ah with a willing penuyah (who is not a niddah). Two people asked me off list to look at Sanhedrin 75a. In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he could speak to her; at least through a fence. According to either R' Yaaqov bar Idi or R Shemu'el bar Nachmeini, she was even a penuyah. (Peligi bah... chad amar...) But one could learn from that gemara that it would NOT be yeihareig ve'al ya'avor: Bishloma according to the man da'amar she was an eishes ish, shapir. But according to the MdA she was penuyah -- mah kulei hai? Two answers: R' Papa says because it's a pegam mishpachah, R' Acha berei deR' Iqa says "kedei shelo yehu benos Yisrael perutzos ba'arayos". So what's the exchange saying? That it is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor because of the consequent peritzus? Or that bishloma an eishes ish would be YvAY, but a penyah, who isn't, why wouldn't the guy be allowed to speak to her? As I said on Areivim "I am not even sure" which, because the gemara could be taken either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:03:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:03:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: R' Micha Berger concluded: > BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are > indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs > and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. > And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification > with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than > identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos > as self-identifications. That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the MB and AhS were on. By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? Do we really want to accuse the MB and AhS of that? I think there is another way we can look at this whole topic. Let's ask what makes Chol Hamoed Tefillin so unusual. Why is this case different than so many others? Someone else asked why there isn't any enforced uniformity regarding unmarried men wearing a tallis in shul. Why is that different? How about the differing ways of avoiding simcha during sefira? One person will make a wedding during the last week of Nisan, and another person FROM THE SAME SHUL will make a wedding after Lag Baomer. Not only is this tolerated, but the entire shul is allowed to attend both weddings! Why don't we insist that the whole town should go one way or the other, like with the tefillin? Sometimes I feel that our perspective on these issues is so very different than what prevailed in the unified kehilos of yesteryear, that we cannot ever hope to understand it. I think the confusion comes from try to impose one perspective on a differing situation. Perhaps we ought to "agree to disagree". Specifically: *WE* get strength from our diversity; *THEY* got strength from their uniformity. I personally worry about the misfits in those cultures, and the losses they suffered. But perhaps their leaders accepted that as an acceptable price for the chizuk that came to the larger group. We have been trained to be unwilling to accept such a price, and we fight for every single individual. But that too has a price, and we are often unable or unwilling to admit it. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:12:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:12:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement > in the mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. Yes, there is a disagreement over whether the Torah was given on 6 Sivan or on 7 Sivan. And there are lots of cute vertlach about whether Shavuos is about *Matan* Torah, or *Kabalas* HaTorah (and whether or not they happened on the same day). But the bottom line is the the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after Pesach. If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty about Shavuos. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:52:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:52:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025454.YQWS32620.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in >a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises >evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. There's something about this that I've never understood. Suppose a person is having a stomach problem -- isn't he supposed to refrain from wearing tefillin? So, in a shul, a guy is not wearing tefillin -- how do we even know what his reason is? (In fact, I think I recall hearing that R Moshe himself didn't wear tefillin many times towards the end of his life for this reason). So, of all the things regarding lo sisgadedu -- why tefillin? Why not all the other things that daveners wear differently? (E.g., different minhagim via-a-vis wearing a tallis before marriage?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:54:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:54:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Rabbi Mayer said: a person is obligated to recite 100 Brachos each >day. In the Jerusalem Talmud we >learned: it was taught in the name of Rabbi Mayer; there is no Jew >who does not fulfill one hundred >Mitzvos each day, as it was written: Now Israel, what does G-d your >G-d ask of you? Do not read the >verse as providing for the word: ?what? (Mah); instead read it as >including the word: ?one hundred? >(Mai?Eh). IIRC, there's a fun Ba'al HaTurim on this pasek: If you add the alef into the pasuk -- not only does it turn the word into "100" -- but the pasuk will then have 100 letters in it. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:58:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:58:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> > > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the > > mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. Indeed. Machlokes over whether it was Sivan 6 or 7. OTOH, the 50th day could also have fallen on Sivan 5, no? >The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed >calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman >matan toraseinu. Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? (I'm not being snarky -- it's a genuine question) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 21:45:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:45:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170428044535.GC2155@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:58:07PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" : when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? The explanation I like (eg from Maadanei Yom Tov) is that "zeman matan Toraseinu" is not a date in Sivan, but a number of days after Yetzias Mitzrayim or of the omer. Your question is based on the idea that "zeman" is a time on the calendar, not a point in a process (be it redemption or of omer). The MYT I mentioned earlier explains why Matan Torah was on the 7th whereas our Zeman Matan Toraseinu is on the 6th: He (the Tosafos Yom Tov?) notes that omer is both tisperu 50 yom and sheva shabasos temimos. It is 50 days or 7 x 7 = 49 days? So, uusually we think 49 days of omer, Shavuos is the 50th. The MYT says that 49 days of omer and the first day of Pesach is the 0th. Zeman Matan Toraseinu is thus after 50 days of process. For our Pesach, that's day 1 of Pesach + 49 omer, yeilding Sivan 6th. The first Pesach, though, Yetzi'as Mitzrayim was at midnight. So the first full day, usable as day 0, was the 16th of Nissan. Shifting everying off one day, so that process from physical ge'ulah to matan Torah ended on 7 Sivan. But whether you like that vertl or not, the idea that would answer your question is just that "zeman" is not necessarily a date; just as Shabbos is a time based on interval, not date. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:33:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:33:49 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <40e6067e-a5cf-689b-619a-908d5249a8a8@zahav.net.il> When was that prayer written, before or after the calendar was set? Ben On 4/28/2017 4:58 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" > when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 02:33:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:33:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the Exodus. Lisa On 4/28/2017 5:58 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed >> calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman >> matan toraseinu. > > Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" > when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:18:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:18:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428061804.GA19887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : "Insufficiently kneaded" means that there might be some flour in the : middle of the matza that never got wet and is still plain raw flour, : and that if it gets wet it will become chometz. "Insufficiently baked" : means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not : get baked, and it is already chometz. And RMGR feels that the second : of these is a "much greater risk". But... If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently kneeded, would any of the dry flour that went through the oven be still capable of becoming chaneitz if wet? If the dough is now too baked to rise any further, wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be to toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5, which discvusses things not to do because "shelma lo qulhu yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is that possible? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:22:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. Lo zakhisi lehavin. All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty. Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays being of the form of an uncertainty. But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain about the date. What am I missing in the CS's sevara? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 22:03:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:03:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite Message-ID: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> I signed up for something called Carbonite, which uploads everything on your computer to the Cloud where it might be possible to retrieve it all if your computer dies or is stolen. The thing is, either I have way too much on my computer or my computer is way too old and slow, but anyway, Carbonite started uploading on Sunday afternoon and now, Thursday night, it is STILL uploading. It continuously shows what progress it has made, and it is showing me that it has uploaded 43% of my computer. I am no math whiz but I can figure out that if it took from Sunday to Thursday to upload 43% it is not going to reach 100% before Shabbos. I asked the Carbonite tech person what happens if you turn off your computer in the middle, and he said Carbonite will just continue where it left off when you turn your computer back on. Interestingly we had a test case on Monday when my neighborhood lost power for six hours. When the power came back on, Carbonite did NOT resume where it had left off. Instead, I had to call Carbonite and ended up being on the phone for an hour while they told me to do this and that and then they did whatever and finally got Carbonite to resume its weary work. So here is my question for the learned chevra here on Avodah: Can I just leave my computer on all Shabbos, in another room with the door closed where I won't see it and it won't fashtair my Shabbos, and let Carbonite keep running and running? (It looks like it will take a whole nother week to finish.) Or should I sell my laptop to a goy and buy it back after Shabbos? (That was a joke, for those of you in Rio Linda.) Should I turn it off and resign myself to talking to tech support again for another hour to get it working again after Shabbos? Oy, siz shver tsu zein a Yid! Is leaving a laptop on all Shabbos with Carbonite uploading more like [A] leaving your lights, fridge and air conditioning on all Shabbos or [B] leaving a TV or radio on -- dubiously muttar, definitely not Shabbosdik or [C] making your eved Canaani work for you all day Shabbos -- a no-no or [D] giving your clothes to the Greek dressmaker to fix and telling her you need them some time next week, and if she for her own convenience decides to do the work on Shabbos, that's copacetic? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 06:44:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:44:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite In-Reply-To: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> References: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:03 AM, [Rn Toby Katz] wrote: > I signed up for something called Carbonite... > Can I just leave my computer on all Shabbos, in another room with the door > closed where I won't see it and it won't fashtair my Shabbos, and let > Carbonite keep running and running? (It looks like it will take a whole > nother week to finish.) ... What tzurus. I use crash plan. They each have their share of grief. I leave my computer on 24x7 except 2 day yomtov. I turn off the monitor and make sure the keyboard and mouse are secure before Shabbat. Why is it any different than leaving on the A/C? Back in the day, people would set the vcr to record a show over shabbat. That was a bit more dubious but was done. Good Shabbos From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 04:02:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:02:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org>, <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From: Micha Berger Sent: 27 April 2017 13:13 ... > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he > could speak to her; at least through a fence... > Bishloma according to the man da'amar she was an eishes ish, > shapir. > But according to the MdA she was penuyah -- mah kulei hai? ... > So what's the exchange saying? That it is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor > because of the consequent peritzus? Or that bishloma an eishes ish > would be YvAY, but a penyah, who isn't, why wouldn't the guy be > allowed to speak to her? Of note, that gemara is brought in Rambam Yesodei HaTorah in the context of acheiving cure for illness through hana'as issur. Meaning that it's not a halacha of gilui arayos per se, rather hana'as issur. He paskens it's assur even with a pnuya so that bnos yisrael won't be hefker. No mention of pgam mishpacha. (Parenthetically this seems to be an din of yeihareig v'al ya'avor midrabannon (so that bnos yisrael etc..). Any other such cases? I'd assumed YvAY is always d'oirasa, almost by definition) The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought. There is no suggestion that conversation in any normal situation is an issur hana'a per se, so therefore is not assur, certainly not Yeihareig V'al Yaavor. Therefore can't see how this gemara would be relevant to the army issue any more than the familiar dinim of r'eiyas einayim, kirva l'arayos etc which are no less relevant in the workplace and on the street. [Email #2. -micha] On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua. Nonetheless the whole gemara is still only relevant to a case of clear hana'as issur. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 07:57:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:57:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite In-Reply-To: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> References: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> Message-ID: <247ffd82-32aa-3bf1-c6ef-36c008a1a4a3@sero.name> On 28/04/17 01:03, via Avodah wrote: > Is leaving a laptop on all Shabbos with Carbonite uploading more like > [A] leaving your lights, fridge and air conditioning on all Shabbos > or [B] leaving a TV or radio on -- dubiously muttar, definitely not > Shabbosdik or [C] making your eved Canaani work for you all day Shabbos > -- a no-no or [D] giving your clothes to the Greek dressmaker to fix and > telling her you need them some time next week, and if she for her own > convenience decides to do the work on Shabbos, that's copacetic? It's A, shevisas keilim, which is a machlokes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. The halacha of course follows Beis Hillel, that we are not commanded on shevisas keiliim, so it's completely OK. The problem with B is hashma`as kol, which is a species of mar'is ho`ayin; passersby will hear the sound of work being done in your home and will suspect you, if not of actual chilul shabbos, then at least of amira lenochri. It is muttar if there are no Jews within a techum shabbos. C is of course completely out, mid'oraisa, even if the eved sets his own schedule. Avadim are obligated to keep Shabbos. D is amira lenochri, which is completely muttar mid'oraisa, but the chachamim forbade it lest you come to do melacha yourself. Thus it's muttar if the decision to do the work on Shabbos rather than during the week is completely up to the nochri. BTW you don't need to leave it to sometime next week; you can ask to have it ready when the shop opens on Sunday morning, and it's up to the cleaner whether to do it on Shabbos or to stay up all night motzei shabbos to get it done. It's only assur if there are literally not enough weekday hours between now and when you want it, so that the nochri *must* do some of it on Shabbos. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 07:27:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:27:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:14 PM 4/27/2017, R. Micha Berger wrote: >EY is nearly there WRT tefillin on ch"m, with only a few holdouts >like KAJ. This statement does not seem to be correct. See http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x Note the following from there. Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau?er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. and (I do not know what all of the ? stand for.) Here are a few names, a sampling of some past gedolim who wore tefillin on chol hamoed IN ERETZ YISROEL (either betzinoh or otherwise) ? Moreinu HaRav Schach, Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, Rav Michel Feinstein (eidem of the Brisker Rav), Pressburger Rav, and Rav Duschinsky, ????. The ???? ????? was in Eretz Yisroel. In his siddur Shaarei Shomayim, he has tefillin on chol hamoed. Rav Moshe Feinstein ???? writes in a teshuvoh that he knows of thousands of bnei Torah who put on tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel. ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????, ????? of Edah Charedis was heard also taking the position that someone whose minhog is to put on tefillin on chol hamoed cannot just suddenly drop it totally in Eretz Yisroel. The above and previous post is based on what I heard about this inyan ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????, ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????. I think there is an Oberlander minyan in Yerushlayim where they wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed as well, if I recall correctly. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 08:03:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:03:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7af7f734-f777-e833-2997-5d8daf3057af@sero.name> On 28/04/17 02:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos > : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not > : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day > : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a > : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most > : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But > : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the > : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. > Lo zakhisi lehavin. > > All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a > taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty. > > Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the > uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays > being of the form of an uncertainty. > > But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was > like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain > about the date. I think what he means is that even in their days, when most YT Sheni were safek d'oraisa, the 2nd day of Shavuos was a vadai d'rabanan pretending to be a safek d'oraisa. Nowadays that describes *all* YT Sheni (except the 2nd day of RH, which is a vadai d'rabanan not pretending to be anything else, because even in their days this was occasionally the case). So his explanation is merely historical, that what we have is not a new situation, because they had it on Shavuos. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 08:27:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:27:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is > the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the > case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which > we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the > Exodus. Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th day but on the 51st. So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the pseudo-Julian anniversary. Therefore I assume they did *not* say ZMT. In fact I assume they didn't say it even when it *did* fall on the 6th, since that was just a coincidence. Only when it was set to fall on the 6th every year did it take on a new nature as ZMT. This is all, however, on the assumption that we hold like the opinion that yetzias mitzrayim was on a Thursday. This is the basis of the entire sugya in Perek R Akiva Omer that we all know. But right at the end of that sugya, at the top of 88a a new source is suddenly cited, the Seder Olam, that YM was on a Friday, and the gemara seems to say "Aha! Forget everything we said till now, trying to reconcile the Rabbanan's opinion, now everything is simple: the Seder Olam follows the Rabbanan, YM was on a Friday, and MT was 50 days later on the 6th of Sivan, and the sources we've been working with, that say YM was on a Thursday, follow R Yossi, who says MT was on the 7th. So for years I've wondered why it is that we seem to ignore this source and continue to maintain that YM was on Thursday, even though it means accepting the strained explanations the gemara comes up with to reconcile them before it found the Seder Olam. If the SO was enough for the gemara to overthrow its earlier discussion, why isn't it enough for us? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 11:16:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:16:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: <24769a.1d3ee4d4.4634e11b@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> But the bottom line is the the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after Pesach. If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty about Shavuos. << Akiva Miller >>>> In the days when they kept two days Pesach because they didn't know when Rosh Chodesh had been, perhaps you can say that by the time Shavuos rolled around, the messengers had arrived to tell them when Rosh Chodesh Nissan (and therefore when Pesach) had been so by then they knew for sure when Shavuos was. But of course we still keep two days of Pesach until now, as we've been discussing, despite the fact that we no longer have a safeik about the date. So your statement, "If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty" is not really true or maybe is true but not relevant. After all, didn't you start counting Sefira on your [second] Seder Night? Was that not a stira -- counting sefira at the seder? After all, we're supposed to start counting "mimacharas haShabbos" -- the day AFTER yom tov, i.e., the first day of chol hamo'ed. So "fifty days after Pesach" turns out itself to be a slightly slippery concept. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 12:07:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:07:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent In-Reply-To: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> References: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Message-ID: I heard this from the late R Hershel Fogelman, of Worcester MA: The passuk says "ha'elef lecha Shelomo, umasayim lenotrim es piryo". What does this mean? The Gemara (Chulin 87a) says that the opportunity to say a bracha is worth ten golden coins. So we owe You, Melech Shehashalom Shelo, 1000 coins. But on Shabbos we are short 200. Who makes up these 200? Those who keep it with fruit. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 03:17:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 20:17:11 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: "Insufficiently baked" means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not get baked and it is already chometz. RMGR feels that this is a "much greater risk" than the risk of Gebrochts. I hope the following clarifies my argument that G is an utterly fake concern IF one is Choshesh that the baking has NOT reached the central part of the Matza as are Choshesh all those who do not eat G [bcs if it is properly baked then even if some flour remains bcs the dough was insufficiently kneaded that flour which has been baked CANNOT become Chamets] The problem is once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash that the central part of the Matza is not fully baked then never mind the problem of flour which will BECOME Chamets when it gets wet and given time WE HAVE A MUCH GREATER PROBLEM according to the Gebrochts-nicks argument we ALREADY HAVE CHAMETS in the Matza since the dough that is insufficiently baked is ALREADY Chamets -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 19:44:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:44:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently > kneaded, would any of the dry flour that went through > the oven be still capable of becoming chameitz if wet? > If the dough is now too baked to rise any further, > wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be > too toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5, > which discusses things not to do because "shema lo qulhu > yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is > that possible? What's the shiur of "qulhu yafeh"? Maybe roasting flour is more time-consuming than baking matzah? You want to say they're the same, but who knows? If we had a better handle on these things, our Pesach breakfasts could be farina or oatmeal made with chalita, but we have forgotten how to do that correctly. I have a friend who has been a Home Economics teacher at the local public high school for about 40 years. She likes to point out how different baking is from cooking. Cooking, she says, is about flavors, and you can put just about anything you like into a pot, cook it for a while, and it will be okay. "But baking is all about chemistry." You have to get the right ingredients in the right proportions at the right temperatures for the right time, or it will be a disaster. This distinction doesn't show up in Hilchos Shabbos, but it certainly does in Chometz UMatzah. Timing is key. I have no idea what the poskim say about varied situations of "shema lo qulhu yafeh", but it is very easy for me to imagine that if there is some dry flour inside the matza dough, the matza could be adequately baked while that flour is still not yet roasted enough to prevent later chimutz. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 04:10:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 21:10:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe Message-ID: R Micha points out RaMBaM does record the Halacha that we may not cook in water during Pesach toasted grains nor the flour ground from them because Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe perhaps they were not fully toasted and they may become Chamets one assumes this is because over-toasting the Camel grains ruins the taste and it was therefore far more likely that they were under-toasted than over-toasted Furthermore there is no test to apply to toasted grains as there is to baked Matza Matza is tested for being baked by tearing it apart and ensuring there are no doughy threads stretching between the torn pieces -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 19:17:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Acharei Mot Message-ID: Acharei Mot is the only Torah portion with the word ?death? in its title. The two words together are captivating: ACHAREI mot. In other words, we should be focusing on ?Acharei,? AFTER death. As depressing, difficult and mysterious as death is, we must not dwell on it. We must go on with our lives ?Acharei" AFTER. Life is eternal, and love is immortal, and death is only a horizon; and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight. Rossiter Worthington Raymond (April 27, 1840 in Cincinnati, Ohio ? December 31, 1918 in Brooklyn, New York) He was an American mining engineer, legal scholar and author. At his memorial, the President of Lehigh University described him as "one of the most remarkable cases of versatility that our country has ever seen?sailor, soldier, engineer, lawyer, orator, editor, poet, novelist, story-teller, biblical critic, theologian, teacher, chess-player?he was superior in each capacity. What he did, he always did well." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 20:58:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 05:58:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <77074713-e49c-4af3-1f69-39b611caa0e0@zahav.net.il> Read further down on the page: Your exceptions prove the rule. Sorry you are unfamiliar with minhagei eretz yisrael. They are esentially minhagei Hagra, brought here by the famous ?prushim? clan, and these minhagim have been accepted throughout Israel, with some exceptions.In Yerushalayim , they are accepted almost uniformly. The Tukotchinsky Luach for minhagim of the davening is a reflection of this and it is accepted by almost all. True, here and there, as your friend noted, there is a minyan that puts on tefillin. To each his own. But there are thousands of minyanim that don?t, and many of them do not hesitate to unceremoniously throw anyone out that dares put them on, even in the corner or in another room. I have seen this myself. Rav Schach?s custom, and certainly the Erlauer Rebbe indicate that the general custom is not to put on tefillin. None of the yeshivas, including Rav Schach?s yeshiva, adopted his minhag.None of the chassidim here do either except the relatively small numbered Erlauer. Ben On 4/28/2017 4:27 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > This statement does not seem to be correct. See http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x > > Note the following from there. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 20:53:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:53:56 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I had asked whether people had a view on the halachic propriety or otherwise of using a sous-vide machine over Shabbos and received no response. The sous-vide is a method of cooking which one might call very slow cooking. Bags with the food (e.g. meat) are places in a bucket or the like, and the machine is placed inside the bucket together with water which covers the plastic bag(s). It can take a really cheap cut of meat and make it tender and delicious. It?s buttons can be covered if someone is worried about Shehiya, I think the issue is Harmono. It can?t be both. One thing I noticed is that nobody seems to fiddle or touch the bags until the ?given time period?, and then one just pulls the plastic bags out. One can pre-program to turn the machine off, or it can continue keeping the water at the set temperature. There are various scenarios. Where the food is ready on Friday night. Where another bag of the food has a different texture is left till lunchtime on shabbos Where the meat is Mamash Raw (let alone not Maachol Ben Drusoi) on Erev Shabbos but will be good on Shabbos Where the concept of Mitztamek Veyofe Lo has nothing to do with Mitztamek, but rather a quantitative improvement that is still possible without it shrivelling The final issue is whether you say that since it might have had another 12 hours cooking and the temperature does not rise, that the meat is of a different VARIETY as opposed to quality. For example cooked versus roasted steak. Either way, here is a link to the only Tshuva I know of on this issue. I?m interested in reactions. There is a touch of Choddosh Ossur Min HaTorah from Rav Asher Weiss, but in the main, I can?t think of a reason why it?s not Hatmono. Disclaimer: I have not reviewed Hatmono for many years, and started to in dribs and drabs with the Aruch HaShulchan. This is the link to the Tshuva http://preview.tinyurl.com/kvxswnp or http://tinyurl.com/kvxswnp I spoke to Mori V?Rabbi Rav Schachter about it, and interchanged with his son Rabbi Shay, but they haven?t managed to show him the device and he won?t pasken until he has seen it (of course). "It is only the anticipation of redemption that preserves Judaism in Exile, while Judaism in the Land of Israel is the redemption itself." ______________________ Rabbi A.I. Hacohen Kook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 06:34:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:34:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >: The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos >: Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not >: differentiate between holidays... > All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaint[y]... > But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was > like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain > about the date. The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about second day of Yom Tov apply. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 09:48:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:48:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170430164805.GA11800@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 04:34:17PM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: : The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made : b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about second day of : Yom Tov apply. I know. That's my question. He says YT sheini of Shavuos was mishum lo pelug. So, if it's really lo pelug, then how/why would it be different in form than YT Sheini Sukkos, Shemini Atzeres or Pesach (x 2)? If it's lo pelug, then the usual qulos of pretending we're dealing with the old-time safeiq should apply -- or else, there is a pelug. No? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 09:57:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:57:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:02:29AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he : > could speak to her; at least through a fence... ... : The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone : who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as : issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought. ... : [Email #2. -micha] : : On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar : pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned : with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as : arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua. Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy for letting his taavos get so worked up. I see a slight conflict in your answers. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 11:05:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:05:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From AudioRoundup at Torah Musings: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/864540/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-sous-vide-cooking-for-shabbos-(and-through-shabbos)/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-From The Rabbi?s Desk ? Sous Vide Cooking For Shabbos (and Through Shabbos) Sous vide cooking (another thing we?ve lived without but now sounds like it will be the next sushi). If you do it for, or over Shabbat, is there an issue of hatmana or shehiya? FWIW the hashkafa at the end of R?Asher Weiss?s tshuva is well worth thinking about ? we seem to live in an age where any sacrifice is difficult. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 13:50:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> , <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I didn't think I was giving two answers, just clarifying further. So, let's work through it again. I must admit I have looked at neither Rishonim (except Rambam) nor achronim. But here goes: The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of YaVY. The gemara then says that this works fine for an eishes ish, The first question should be why that's obvious? Since when is conversation with an eishes ish YvAY? We answered that by saying, al pi Rambam, that the point of the gemara is to clarify how far we apply YvAY to hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation carries the din YvAY. That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. However, the bottom line for our original reason for analysing this gemara remains that it's not part of the cheshbon governing any standard interactions in which any ben Torah might participate, as it only applies to someone sick enough to have inevitable sexual hana'a from a conversation. R Micha's two correspondents can feel free to challange that whether off or on list. BW Ben Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy for letting his taavos get so worked up. I see a slight conflict in your answers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:22:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:45:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy : ... : OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the : rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very : clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz.... : : So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? I think the "out" is the clause "sheyeish lanu ba'alus alava". So, chameitz that you didn't have baalus on, but was delivered on Pesach wouldn't be included. (And would be a davar shelo ba le'olam, even if you did try to include it.) No, that doesn't cover things you owned since before Pesach and were unware "delo chazisei" that you only found on Pesach. OTOH, wasn't that stuff already mevutal anyway? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:30:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430173012.GB27111@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are :> indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs :> and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. :> And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification :> with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than :> identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos :> as self-identifications. : That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the : MB and AhS were on. : By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they : putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, : ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on : identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? ... I don't see how they are. If someone says there should be a single pesaq for a location and the shul could be consistent is talking about unity. Not about whether our community's minhagim are better or worse than those of another community -- they aren't present to suggest we're comparing. I was contrasting two different motives for breaking that unity: The first archetype is the one who does so because he takes more self-identity from his Litvisher (eg) ancestry than in being in part of the observant community, or Jewish community in general. The second is the one who is motivated by the logic of the pesaq or the hashkafah payoff. Such as someone who is "into" qabbalah for whom "qotzeitz bintiyos" means something and motivates not feeling happy in tefillin on ch"m. I was suggesting that lo sisgodedu only rules out the first motivation, not the second. But the acharon who promotes everyone following one practice isn't a question of whether their motivation is more important than lo sisgodedu to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:30:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430173012.GB27111@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are :> indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs :> and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. :> And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification :> with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than :> identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos :> as self-identifications. : That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the : MB and AhS were on. : By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they : putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, : ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on : identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? ... I don't see how they are. If someone says there should be a single pesaq for a location and the shul could be consistent is talking about unity. Not about whether our community's minhagim are better or worse than those of another community -- they aren't present to suggest we're comparing. I was contrasting two different motives for breaking that unity: The first archetype is the one who does so because he takes more self-identity from his Litvisher (eg) ancestry than in being in part of the observant community, or Jewish community in general. The second is the one who is motivated by the logic of the pesaq or the hashkafah payoff. Such as someone who is "into" qabbalah for whom "qotzeitz bintiyos" means something and motivates not feeling happy in tefillin on ch"m. I was suggesting that lo sisgodedu only rules out the first motivation, not the second. But the acharon who promotes everyone following one practice isn't a question of whether their motivation is more important than lo sisgodedu to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:08:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:08:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430170851.GD19139@aishdas.org> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 08:17:11PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The problem is : once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash : that the central part of the Matza : is not fully baked : then never mind the problem of flour : which will BECOME Chamets : when it gets wet ... Again, if gebrochts were about the middle not being baked, it would be worries about chameitz whether or not the matzah later gets in contact with water. It's about flour that didn't become kneaded. As the SA haRav states, the Besht ate gebrochts because in his day the 1 mil timer was stopped for kneading. We came up with this chumerah of trying to fit everything, including the kneading in the time limit. Which caused us to start rushing the kneading. (Yet, the Alter Rebbe of Lub lauded this new chumerah, despite it coming with new risks.) And so he justified chassidim of his generation following a new hanhagah that the Besht did not. (We discuss this teshuvah annually.) The question I asked is based on the fact that toasted flour doesn't become chameitz. And by simple physics, we expect that if dough, a huge lump, can bake through, then of course we would have completed the toasting of the same chemicals present in fine powder form, like any dry unkneaded flour within the dough. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 17:49:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 10:49:28 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <384BCE1C-0255-4CD6-9547-033963F2DA9C@gmail.com> Rich, Joel wrote: > > > From AudioRoundup at Torah Musings: > http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/864540/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-sous-vide-cooking-for-shabbos-(and-through-shabbos)/ > Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-From The Rabbi?s Desk ? Sous Vide Cooking For Shabbos (and Through Shabbos) > Sous vide cooking (another thing we?ve lived without but now sounds like it will be the next sushi). If you do it for, or over Shabbat, is there an issue of hatmana or shehiya? > > > FWIW the hashkafa at the end of R?Asher Weiss?s tshuva is well worth thinking about ? we seem to live in an age where any sacrifice is difficult. > > KT > Joel Rich R Joel, yes indeed. I got the Tshuva from R Aryeh :-) The other question is why does Halacha entail sacrifice. IF it's halachically sound it may be a hiddur! I know we have it on Tuesdays and everyone loves it. It is a superior form of cooking. If it's NOT Hatmono then why (if one has the implement) would one not use it. I find that a Hungarian Posek approach in general. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 17:34:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:34:13 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on Monday besides Hallel on tues Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 08:39:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 08:39:29 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> References: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <138374BA-01AB-4BF3-8554-304B33684B81@gmail.com> Young Israel century city holds both kulot. No tachanun Monday. Hallel Tues. Curious how most chul shuls do it. .I expect most follow israel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 09:51:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 18:51:40 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/1/2017 2:34 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on > Monday besides Hallel on tues Mine didn't and that was my experience in other shuls as well. The Tfilion app doesn't have Tachanun (but does have an added chapter of Tehillim for the fallen). Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 06:15:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:15:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> On Monday, May 1, 2017 6:02 AM, saul newman wrote: > Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on > Monday besides Hallel on tues Rav Ahron considered Hey Iyar to be Yom Ha'atzmaut and the day that Hallel (without a Bracha) is said and Tachanun is not said -- regardless of when Israel celebrates it (for whatever reason it may be delayed). I (and Yeshivas Brisk) did not say Tachanun at Mincha yesterday (Erev Yom Tov) nor today at Shacharis... nor will I say it at Mincha. I will say it tomorrow. HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 10:23:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:23:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Last year, in http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n055.shtml#10 , RHM gave R' Aharon Soloveitchik's shitah. Much like this year, although last iteration he added: One can review the Halachic sources RAS used in his book 'Logic of the heart, Logic of the Mind'. I responded in the post right below it, quoting RGS, http://www.torahmusings.com/technology-halakhic-change-yom-ha-atzmaut , who in turn was commenting on R/Dr Aaron Levin of Flatbush's evolving practice: In America, where the celebrations can be more easily controlled to avoid the desecration of Shabbos, many authorities did not recognize the change of date, among them Rav Ahron Soloveichik and Rav Hershel Schachter. They insisted that people recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar -- the day of the miracle of the declaration of the State of Israel -- regardless of when Israelis celebrate the day. Rav Aaron Levine's son, Rav Efraim Levine, told me that his father had to change his position on this question over time. Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a community to determine its own date to celebrate. To which I added: RAS might have decided similarly or not had he lived to see the day when the primary intercontinental communication was the telephone, not the aerogram. We can't know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 11:59:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 20:59:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: For Hebrew readers, Rav Yoni Rosensweig sums up Rav Rabinovitch's position on the matter: https://www.facebook.com/yonirosensweig/posts/1761639697197955 Bottom line: Moving Yom Aztmaout doesn't entirely remove the uniqueness of the day. While he does state that the rabbinate holds that one skips Tachanun only on the day Yom Aztmaout is celebrated, RYR doesn't accept that psak. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 12:35:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 15:35:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> On a lighter, more aggadic note, my father suggested that the existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to minimize chilul Shabbos is the very thing a Religious Zionist would be celebrating on Yom haAtzmaaut. Which reminds me of something Rav Dovid Lifshitz said about Yom haAtzma'ut. Rebbe said that Atzma'ut is something special, and certainly worth celebrating. But for now YhA is only half a holiday. We established the atzma'ut of Yisrael, but are still missing its etzem. To rephrase into my father's words: It is worthwhile to celebrate the existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to minimize chilul Shabbos, but what we pray for is the existence of a country that wouldn't have to! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 14:42:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 23:42:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the reading is pushed off until Sunday. Ben On 5/1/2017 9:35 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > It is worthwhile to celebrate the > existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to > minimize chilul Shabbos, but what we pray for is the existence of a > country that wouldn't have to! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 17:38:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 20:38:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:42:18PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the : reading is pushed off until Sunday. Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 22:29:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 07:29:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> Message-ID: 1) It is part of a package deal, the first part of which can fall on Shabbat. 2) When we go back to setting the month based on witnesses, it could fall on Shabbat. Ben On 5/2/2017 2:38 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. > > -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 23:12:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 09:12:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:42:18PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: > : It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the > : reading is pushed off until Sunday. > > Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. > 5 Iyyar certainly can fall out on Shabbat, and as it happens it doe so in exactly the same years when there is Shushan Purim Meshulash: Adar has 29 days and Nisan 30, so from 15 Adar to 5 Iyyar is 29 + 30 - 10 = 49 days or exactly 7 weeks. In other words, Shushan Purim and Yom Ha`Atzmaut (when not postponed or advanced) are always on the same day of the week. This last happened nine years ago in 5768 and will happen again in 5781 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 21:39:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 14:39:34 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Looking Jewish Message-ID: Gemara AZara 58a - R Yochanan b Arza and R Yosiy b Nehuroi, were drinking wine - they requested someone nearby to fix their drinks. After he fulfilled their request they realised he was not Jewish. May they drink the wine, is the Gemara's Q. But how could they make such a mistake? And how might the wine be permitted? the Gemarah 58b explains it was clear to the G that the Sages were Jewish, it was also clear that he thought that they knew he was not Jewish, and it was also clear that he as a non-J knew that if he handled the wine, they wold not be permitted to drink it So he thought - they MUST be drinking mead [which he may handle and mix for them] so even though he was actually handling wine, thinking it was mead, he would not make his usual pagan worship and so it did not become disqualified. So here is the tough part HE was CERTAIN they knew he was not J [that's why he was certain that they were drinking mead and not wine] however the truth was they DID IN FACT THINK he was J [and that is why they did invite him to fix their wine drinks] could this happen today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 04:48:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 07:48:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Ha'atzmaut Message-ID: <3866CC37-90C9-4337-8257-616B6EB01940@cox.net> The story is told of the Chafetz Chayim, zt"l, that he asked one of his visitors who had come from a great distance, "How are you?? which in Yiddish is, "Vos makhst du," literally, "What do you do?" So in answer to this inquiry, the visitor replied, "Thank God, I have a thriving business, I have no financial problems, I have a beautiful home with a swimming pool,? etc. etc. The Chafetz Chayim repeated, "Vos makhst du?" and the visitor, a bit confused as to why the question was repeated, gave the same reply. So for the third time, the same question was asked of the visitor, at which point the visitor looked at the saint and he said: ?I don?t understand why you asked me three times 'How I am.? I told you that thank God, I have a thriving business, a lot of money, a beautiful home, etc.? The Chafetz Chayim replied: ?You don?t understand. You told me what GOD is doing for YOU, but I asked, 'What are YOU doing?' I therefore repeat: 'Vos makhst du?'" How does this apply to Israel Independence Day? We know what Israel has done for US. The question remains: What are we doing for Israel, and what are we doing for each other? May we become ?Independent" enough to help others who "depend" on us. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 11:50:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Avram Sacks via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 13:50:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Cong Or Torah in Skokie said tachanun at shacharit, but not at mincha on erev Yom Ha-Atzmaut. On YhA, at ma'ariv we added additional tehillim at the end of davening, as found in the Koren siddur for Yom HaAtzmaut. At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. Kol tuv, Avi Avram Sacks From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 13:16:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 16:16:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Looking Jewish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170502201609.GB17585@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:39:34PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Gemara AZara 58a ... : the Gemarah 58b explains ... : So he thought - they MUST be drinking mead : [which he may handle and mix for them] : so even though he was actually handling wine, : thinking it was mead, he would not make his usual pagan worship : and so it did not become disqualified. ... : could this happen today? Their wine was this thick syrup that required dilution (mezigas hakos) to be drinkable. They also often had to add spices and/or honey to make it palatable. Inomlin / yinomlin (spelled with a leading alef or yud, depending on girsa; Shabbos 20:2, AZ 30a) was wine mixed with honey and pepper (Shabbos 140a). So, if the grapes were particularly sour, and more honey was added, perhaps it wasn't that easy to determine that it was wine (enomlin) and not meade. A problem 2 millenia of vintners eliminated through breeding better grapes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 14:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 17:20:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5908F811.8040504@aishdas.org> Beautiful sentiments, to be sure, but 100% emotional and 0% halachic. Was there live music on 6 Iyar? KT, YGB On 5/2/2017 2:50 PM, Avram Sacks via Avodah wrote: > Cong Or Torah in Skokie said tachanun at shacharit, but not at mincha > on erev Yom Ha-Atzmaut. On YhA, at ma'ariv we added additional > tehillim at the end of davening, as found in the Koren siddur for Yom > HaAtzmaut. At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel > (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and > ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it > is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet > observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in > Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added > that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about > those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA > on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 15:17:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 18:17:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akrasia and Ritual Message-ID: <20170502221754.GA25834@aishdas.org> Akrasia is a classical Greek term for why we so often don't do what we believe. In more mesoretic terms -- the problem of akrasia is the question of "what is the yeitzer hara?" In http://www.thebookoflife.org/akrasia-or-why-we-dont-do-what-we-believe there is an interesting piece on how ritual helps solve akrasia. It might help one's qabbalas ol mitzvos: ... There are two central solutions to akrasia, located in two unexpected quarters: in art and in ritual. The real purpose of art... (Fans of RAYK or Dr Nathan Birnbaum might want to read the part I'm skipping here.) Ritual is the second defence we have against akrasia. By ritual, one means the structured, often highly seductive or aesthetic, repetition of a thought or an action, with a view to making it at once convincing and habitual. Ritual rejects the notion that it can ever be sufficient to teach anything important once - an optimistic delusion which the modern education system has been fatefully marked by. Once might be enough to get us to admit an idea is right, but it won't be anything like enough to convince us it should be acted upon. Our brains are leaky, and under-pressure of any kind, they will readily revert to customary patterns of thought and feeling. Ritual trains our cognitive muscles, it makes a sequence of appointments in our diaries to refresh our acquaintance with our most important ideas. Our current culture tends to see ritual mainly as an antiquated infringement of individual freedom, a bossy command to turn our thoughts in particular directions at specific times. But the defenders of ritual would see it another way: we aren't being told to think of something we don't agree with, we are being returned with grace to what we always believed in at heart. We are being tugged by a collective force back to a more loyal and authentic version of ourselves. The greatest human institutions to have tried to address the problem of akrasia have been religions. Religions have wanted to do something much more serious than simply promote abstract ideas, they have wanted to get people to behave in line with those ideas, a very different thing. They didn't just want people to think kindness or forgiveness were nice (which generally we do already); they wanted us to be kind or forgiving most days of the year. That meant inventing a host of ingenious mechanisms for mobilising the will, which is why across much of the world, the finest art and buildings, the most seductive music, the most impressive and moving rituals have all been religious. Religion is a vast machine for addressing the problem of akrasia. This has presented a big conundrum for a more secular era. Bad secularisation has lumped religious superstition and religion's anti-akrasia strategies together. It has rejected both the supernatural ideas of the faiths and their wiser attitudes to the motivational roles of art and ritual. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 21:48:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 06:48:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0a07acaa-4c79-5eb5-b387-1887573b3cd1@zahav.net.il> There is an oversimplification here, that the issue is the secular. Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed off even if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash. Getting the country ready for these days means hundreds, thousands of people have to be in place. This includes soldiers, policemen, etc who are 100% dati. Holding these events on a date that would force these people to work on Shabbat is simply a non-starter and everyone understands that point. I have to add the following: My dream is that people will come to understand how wrong it is to make people (including dati'im) work on Shabbat when Lag B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate steps. Ben On 5/2/2017 8:50 PM, Avram Sacks wrote: > He added that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 21:30:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 21:30:06 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] nidche Message-ID: since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on thurs, does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded this way already in the 50's? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 06:38:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 16:38:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:30 AM, saul newman via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on thurs, > does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded this way > already in the 50's? > To be precise, they are only nidche if Pesah starts on Tuesday, like this year. If it starts on Shabbat or Sunday they are brought forward to Wednesday & Thursday. If my memory is accurate, the bringing forward has always been in practice, but the postponement from Sunday-Monday to Monday-Tuesday was introduced later, within the last 10 or 20 years. When I was first in Israel in the 1980s, YHA was still sometimes observed on a Monday. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 06:06:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 09:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> On 5/3/2017 12:30 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on > thurs, does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded > this way already in the 50's? It was instituted during the tenure of Rabbis Amar and Metzger. [Email #2. -micha] On 5/3/2017 12:48 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > There is an oversimplification here, that the issue is the secular. > Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed off even > if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash... > I have to add the following: My dream is that people will come to > understand how wrong it is to make people (including dati'im) work on > Shabbat when Lag B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate > steps. That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to 5 Iyar. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 14:34:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 17:34:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5a7c4dde-aeda-0d6e-0a6f-3824d06a66da@sero.name> On 03/05/17 09:06, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is > no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- > certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically > viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to > 5 Iyar. Why can't a religious holiday be defined by the day of the week, like Shabbos Hagodol and Behab? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 16:28:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 19:28:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: R' Micha Berger reposted from elsewhere: > Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this > subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on > the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his > position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, > Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut > celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with > perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a > community to determine its own date to celebrate. Why should telecommunications affect the day that my community says Hallel? Should we all start reading Megilas Esther on 15 Adar? R' Ben Waxman wrote: > Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed > off even if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash. Maybe not as unique as it seems. Isn't there a gezera against Motzaei Shabbos weddings for exactly this same reason - because of the likelihood that the preparations would begin on Shabbos? RBW also wrote: > My dream is that people will come to understand how wrong it > is to make people (including dati'im) work on Shabbat when Lag > B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate steps. Amen!! Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 20:43:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 05:43:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: Someone pointed out to me off line that the reading is on Friday, Al HaNissim on Shabbat, and Seuda/Matanot is on Sunday. Ben On 5/1/2017 11:42 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the reading > is pushed off until Sunday. > > Ben > > \ > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 21:26:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 14:26:20 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: <26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com> Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can never fall on a Thursday. Under the current arrangements, it cannot fall on a Monday, so those who fast on BeHaB and also wish to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzma?ut no longer need to be concerned. In Hilchot Yom Ha-Atzma?ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim (ed Nahum Rakover, 1973), there is an article by Rabbi Meir Kaplan which discusses what to do when the two did coincide. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 21:29:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 07:29:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Avram Sacks via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel > (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and > ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it > is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet > observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in > Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added > that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about > those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA > on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. ?Since the issue here is tachanun, hallel and suspending sefira restrictions, I fail to follow his logic. We are being asked to not say tachanun on the same day as the not-yet-observant?, on 6th Iyar. But why the 6th any more than the 5th. We should say hallel on the 6th, the same day as the not-yet-observant. Hardly. Sefira restrictions are suspended on the 6th like the not-yet-observant? If the entire sentiment is when we should have ceremonies to mark the significance of the State, you could that any day, or every day, as often as you like. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 22:11:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:11:39 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Nidche In-Reply-To: 26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com References: 26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: <8ff4cb3fb9929c8cf4af49714131daf8@mail.gmail.com> I wrote in haste. Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can fall on a Friday (as it does next year), in which case it is brought forward a day. David Havin *From:* David Havin [mailto:djhavin at djhavin.com] *Sent:* Thursday, 4 May 2017 2:26 PM *To:* Avodah *Subject:* Nidche Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can never fall on a Thursday. Under the current arrangements, it cannot fall on a Monday, so those who fast on BeHaB and also wish to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzma?ut no longer need to be concerned. In Hilchot Yom Ha-Atzma?ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim (ed Nahum Rakover, 1973), there is an article by Rabbi Meir Kaplan which discusses what to do when the two did coincide. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 07:53:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 10:53:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [From an Areivim discussion of how to be safe from house fires on Friday night.... -micha] On 03/05/17 18:26, Akiva Miller via Areivim wrote: > When eating the evening seudah elsewhere than where you're sleeping, > consider lighting at the seudah location, so that they won't be > unattended. My mitzvah is to light my own home, not someone else's. I know women have the custom of saying a bracha when lighting in someone else's home, but I'm not sure on what basis they do so. It seems to me they're not fulfilling their own mitzvah but rather helping their hostess with her mitzvah, just like helping someone else with his bedikas chametz. In that case (as opposed to doing the whole thing as his agent) one is supposed to hear his bracha, not make ones own, so why is this different? Thus it seems to me that this falls into the category of minhagei nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked, but the women have their own traditions and are not asking. But I don't see a basis for men, who don't have those traditions, to follow them. Yes, we are required to follow "toras imecha", but it seems to me that this means those things that women have traditionally taught their sons, not those that they have traditionally only taught their daughters. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 08:52:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:52:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <54B1C0DF-2CD4-49B5-92A0-AC29B878E3F2@sibson.com> The psak I receive many years ago is that you light where you sleep. One concern was to make sure the candles would run long enough so they were still burning when you came home so you could get benefit from them Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 13:50:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 20:50:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Tatoo Taboo and Permanent Make-Up Too Message-ID: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/ken8l8y There is a widespread myth, especially among secular American Jews, that a Jew with a tattoo may not be buried in a Jewish cemetery[1]. This prevalent belief, whose origin possibly lies with Jewish Bubbies wanting to ensure that their grandchildren did not stray too far from the proper path, is truly nothing more than a common misconception with absolutely no basis in Jewish law. Jewish burial is not dependent on whether or not one violated Torah law, and tattooing is no different in this matter than any other Biblical prohibition. Please see the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 15:13:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 18:13:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Tatoo Taboo and Permanent Make-Up Too In-Reply-To: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> References: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <72ddedb9-4172-c476-3fe6-acbb37a1e577@sero.name> > Jewish burial is not dependent on whether or not one violated Torah law, There are cemeteries, or sections within them, where only observant Jews can be buried, in line with the halacha that one may not bury a rasha next to a tzadik. But a person who qualified for burial there would not be rejected for having a tattoo, since it would be assumed that he had long ago repented. (The sin is *getting* the tattoo, not *having* it; once it's been done there's no obligation to remove it.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 20:54:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 21:54:36 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> On May 3, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is > no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- > certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically > viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to > 5 Iyar. My gut is with you on this. But then we do need to at least address the precedent of Purim. We don?t say Hallel, but we say a bracha on the Megillah. And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid chillul Shabbos. Now there are some important differences. For one thing, Purim seemed to be a concern of ignorance, not secularity. But it does seem to establish the precedent that it can be done. Whether it should be done is a different question. Following the precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off until Sunday, but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. Yom HaZikaron could be pushed earlier. ? Daniel Israel Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center of Santa Fe, President daniel at kolberamah.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 21:00:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 22:00:22 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> On Apr 30, 2017, at 11:22 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:45:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy > : OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the > : rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very > : clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz.... > : > : So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? > > I think the "out" is the clause "sheyeish lanu ba'alus alava". So, > chameitz that you didn't have baalus on, but was delivered on Pesach > wouldn't be included. (And would be a davar shelo ba le'olam, even if > you did try to include it.) I have been bothered by this same question for many years, and mentioned to my Rav over Pesach. It was his impression that contracts in EY more commonly did not use loshen including unmarked/unknown chametz. I think that is common in the US. I suggested that it is motivated by a desire to protect against the case of accidentally consuming chometz sh?evar alav haPesach where the person completely lost track and by the time he ate it, he didn?t remember he sold it. But it does seem that burning it would depend on how the contract was written. And I would take it a step further and point out that if it was sold, there is a serious geneivah issue. > No, that doesn't cover things you owned since before Pesach and were > unware "delo chazisei" that you only found on Pesach. > > OTOH, wasn't that stuff already mevutal anyway? Can I burn something that was hefker without acquiring it? If I declare something hefker (I?m not sure the legal implication of batel), and then I burn it, wouldn?t that imply I?m koneh it? Which makes things much worse. ? Daniel Israel Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center of Santa Fe, President daniel at kolberamah.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:08:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:08:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: On 04/05/17 23:54, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > . And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid chillul > Shabbos. The megillah only goes back, never forward. > Following the precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off > until Sunday, but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. The precedent of Purim is to pull it back to Friday *or Thursday*. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:40:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:40:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: 5 Iyar can also be on Shabbos (as it will in 2021), and its commemoration is pushed back two days, to Thursday. Nonetheless, that Thursday can never be a part of BeHaB, since the fasts begin on the Monday after the first Shabbos following Rosh Chodesh Iyar, and the preceding Shabbos is either the 28th or 29th of Nissan. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 6 12:32:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 21:32:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <04a24079-f3e7-a7e9-d195-3dac00552ebe@zahav.net.il> Yom HaZikaron and Yom Azmaut are an inseparable pair. There have been call to break the connection (to make it easier for the bereaved families to celebrate YA) but so far no one is willing to do so. Ben On 5/5/2017 5:54 AM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > Yom HaZikaron could be pushed earlier. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 21:20:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 00:20:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> On 5/4/2017 11:54 PM, Daniel Israel wrote: > On May 3, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: >> That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is >> no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- >> certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically >> viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to >> 5 Iyar. > My gut is with you on this. But then we do need to at least address > the precedent of Purim. We don?t say Hallel, but we say a bracha on > the Megillah. And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid > chillul Shabbos.... > Whether it should be done is a different question. Following the > precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off until Sunday, > but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. Yom HaZikaron could > be pushed earlier. On Purim Meshulash, the Al HaNisim remains on Shabbos, and the Megillah with the bracha is relocated to the day everyone else is celebrating. Moreover, there is no clash between simcha on 16 Adar and some pre-existing minhag to diminish simcha. Those are some of the differences. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:01:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 18:01:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: Discussion of chametz ?received? during Pesach can be listened to here: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/877269/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-girls-scout-cookies/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -From The Rabbi's Desk - Girls Scout Cookies KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 6 22:53:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 07 May 2017 07:53:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives today, certainly not in any practical manner. More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber). Ben On 5/5/2017 6:20 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > On Purim Meshulash, the Al HaNisim remains on Shabbos, and the Megillah > with the bracha is relocated to the day everyone else is celebrating. > Moreover, there is no clash between simcha on 16 Adar and some > pre-existing minhag to diminish simcha. Those are some of the differences. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 07:26:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 10:26:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Haircuts when Lag Baomer is on Sunday Message-ID: Rama 493:2 writes: "When [Lag Baomer] falls on Sunday, the practice is [nohagin] to get haircuts on Friday l'kavod Shabbos." What makes this Friday different from all other Fridays of sefira? If Kavod Shabbos is ample justification to get a haircut on Omer 31 (which is in the aveilus days by all reckonings), then it ought to justify a haircut on Omer 24 (the previous Friday) also, shouldn't it? But I have never heard of anyone allowing a haircut on Omer 24 simply because it is Erev Shabbos, so there must be an additional factor at work. For many years, I presumed the logic to be as follows: If a person would need a haircut on Friday Omer 31, or on Friday Omer 24, and fail to get that haircut, then he has failed to do Kavod Shabbos, but he did it by inaction. He did it in a "shev v'al taaseh" manner, and it is quite common for halacha to suspend an Aseh with a Shev V'Al Taaseh. (Compare skipping this haircut to skipping Shofar on Shabbos.) HOWEVER - If a person would go out of his way ("kum v'aseh") and actually get a haircut on Sunday, that is intolerable. To have been disheveled on Shabbos (even if justifiably), and then suddenly be all fancied up the very next day, that is an insult to Shabbos, and we cannot allow Shabbos to be insulted in that manner. So when the Rama writes that we allow the haircuts "for kavod Shabbos", what he actually means is that we allow the haircuts "to avoid insulting Shabbos." And this is what makes this weekend of Sefiras Haomer different from all the others: On the other Sundays of Sefira, no one is getting a haircut anyway, so the whole question doesn't exist. But in this year, on this particular weekend, we do have this problem. The Rabbis *could* have chosen to protect the kavod of Shabbos by forbidding us to get haircuts when Lag Baomer is on Sunday, but instead they chose to protect the kavod of Shabbos by allowing us to get haircuts when Omer 31 is on Friday. Or so I thought for many years. But I have questions on this logic. According to what I have written, getting a haircut on Sunday is a bad idea - no matter what time of year it is. Yet I don't recall ever hearing anyone advise against it. In particular, when this situation of a Sunday Lag Baomer occurs, I have often hear people cite this Rama as granting permission to get their haircut on Friday. But in actuality, shouldn't it be less of a permission, and more of a *recommendation*? When a person asks the question, shouldn't the answer be, "Yes, you can get the haircut on Friday, and that's even better than waiting for Sunday." But I have not heard anyone suggest this. That's about as far as I was going to write, but then I went to the seforim to make sure I understood the Rama correctly. Indeed, his phrasing, "nohagin to get haircuts on Friday l'kavod Shabbos", could easily be understood to mean DAVKA on Friday rather than Sunday. But although it *could* be understood that way, I don't remember anyone actually doing do. And then I came across Kaf Hachayim 493:33, who writes that the Levush held differently than the Rama in this situation: > The Levush writes that if the 33rd is on a Sunday when the > non-Jews are not barbering because of their holiday, *that's* > when you can get a haircut on Friday. Meaning that in a place > where you *can* get a haircut on Sunday, then you should *not* > get the haircut on Friday. But from the words of the Rama, who > writes "l'kavod Shabbos", he means to allow it in any case. > And Elya Raba #9 writes the same thing about this Levush, that > the Rama allows it l'kavod Shabbos in either case. To rephrase: If one has a choice between getting his haircut on Friday or Sunday, then the Levush gives precedence to the minhagim of aveilus during Sefira, and requires us to wait until Sunday for the haircut, and *not* get the haircut on Friday Omer 31. The idea of suddenly showing up with a haircut on Sunday does not (seem to) bother the Levush, and this is totally consistent with the lack of anyone ever being told to avoid Sunday haircuts the rest of the year. But the Kaf Hachayim (with support from Elya Raba) rejects the approach of the Levush. He seems to accept the word of the Rama, plain and simple, that we can get haircuts on Friday Omer 31 because it is l'kavod Shabbos. And, according to Rama, this applies whether the barbershops are open on Sunday or not. Even if one has the option of waiting until Lag Baomer, he can "violate" the aveilus of Sefira on Omer 31, because the haircut is l'kavod Shabbos. This leaves me stuck with my original question: If Kavod Shabbos is ample justification to get a haircut on Omer 31, then it ought to justify a haircut on Omer 24 also, shouldn't it? Obviously no, but why? with many thanks in advance for your thoughts, Akiva Miller PS: The Levush is not totally machmir; he does allow leniency, but only in the case of where Lag Baomer is on Sunday, AND the barbers are closed on that day. Only in such a case does he allow a haircut on Omer 31. I have to wonder why he would allow that exception, rather than disallowing it entirely. Here's my guess: The Levush was aware of poskim who allowed haircuts on Friday Omer 31, but he felt this to be an improper violation of the aveilus, and paskened that people should wait for Sunday Lag Baomer. But if the barbers would be closed, that means people would have to wait another two weeks for their haircuts, in which case he allowed the leniency. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 03:46:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 13:46:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: No, I'm pretty sure it was the 50th day. The first day after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the first day of the Omer. The 49th day after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the 49th day of the Omer. Shavuot is thus the 50th day after our leaving Egypt. On 4/28/2017 6:27 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >> I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is >> the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the >> case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which >> we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the >> Exodus. > > Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th > day but on the 51st. So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th > of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the > pseudo-Julian anniversary. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 06:38:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 09:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: On 07/05/17 06:46, Lisa Liel wrote: > No, I'm pretty sure it was the 50th day. The first day after our > leaving Egypt corresponds to the first day of the Omer. The 49th day > after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the 49th day of the Omer. > Shavuot is thus the 50th day after our leaving Egypt. Everyone seems to assume we left on a Thursday. The first day after we left was a Friday, so the 49th day was a Thursday. Mattan Torah was definitely on a Shabbat, thus the 51st day. There's no way out of that, unless we adopt the Seder Olam's view that the gemara suddenly springs on us at the end of the sugya that we left on a Friday. Then it all works perfectly, and as I read the gemara that seems to be the conclusion, but I've never seen any later source even deal with this view; everyone who mentions the day of the week on which we left Egypt takes for granted (as the gemara did for most of the sugya) that it was a Thursday. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 03:51:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 06:51:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minhagei Nashim Message-ID: In a thread about Ner Shabbos, R' Zev Sero wrote: > Thus it seems to me that this falls into the category of minhagei > nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked, > but the women have their own traditions and are not asking. But I > don't see a basis for men, who don't have those traditions, to > follow them. Yes, we are required to follow "toras imecha", but > it seems to me that this means those things that women have > traditionally taught their sons, not those that they have > traditionally only taught their daughters. That's an interesting way to classify things. I suppose it makes sense in the context of Ner Shabbos, which a mother would certainly teach to her daughters, but probably not to her sons. In this system, I suppose she would also teach Kitchen Kashrus only to her daughters, but Brachos to all her kids equally. Please consider the following scenario. I suppose it could happen even today, but it might be easier to imagine if you place it during the many centuries when there was no schooling for girls... A wife is preparing some food for dinner. She notices something unusual. Maybe it has something to do with meat and dairy, or maybe it has something to do with the just-shechted chicken she's kashering. Anyway, she concludes - based on what her mother (and both grandmothers and all her aunts) taught her - it's not a problem. Her husband happens to walk in, sees the same thing, and points out that it is a very clear black-and-white halacha that this food is assur. One could say that this sort of thing happens very rarely, because the men tend to stay out of the kitchen. But if you ask me, that only proves that the couple is unaware of the problem. It probably happened quite often, but no one noticed because the husband wasn't around. How could this *not* be a frequent occurrence? The men are busy learning, and the information never reaches the women. I concede that if a woman is unsure, she will ask, and some halachos will filter over to her side. But if she is *not* unsure, she could be blissfully unaware that her imahos have had a tradition for many generations, and it differs from the tradition that her husband got from generations of avos and teachers. And if this sort of thing can happen in Hilchos Kashrus, how much more often might it occur in Hilchos Nida? You may notice that I am taking pains to tell this story without prejudice as to which side is the truer halacha. Just because the women weren't in yeshiva, that does not prove them to be in error. All it proves is that there's been no opportunity for shakla v'tarya. Neither side can be discredited until they've carefully debated the issues. So who is right? As I wrote, these questions have been bothering me for years. But someone said that "Emunah is not when you have the answers; it's being able to live with the questions. " I got that chizuk from R' Haym Soloveitchik in his now-classic "Rupture and Reconstruction", which is all about these opposing chains of tradition, the mimetic and the textual. (The full text is on-line at www.lookstein.org. Just google the title.) He writes in footnote 18 there: > The traditional kitchen provides the best example of the > neutralizing effect of tradition, especially since the mimetic > tradition continued there long after it was lost in most other > areas of Jewish life. Were the average housewife (bale-boste) > informed that her manner of running the kitchen was contrary to > the Shulhan Arukh, her reaction would have been a dismissive > "Nonsense!" She would have been confronted with the alternative, > either that she, her mother and grandmother had, for decades, > been feeding their families non-kosher food [treifes] or that the > Code was wrong or, put more delicately, someone's understanding > of that text was wrong. As the former was inconceivable, the > latter was clearly the case. This, of course, might pose problems > for scholars, however, that was their problem not hers. Neither > could she be prevailed on to alter her ways, nor would an > experienced rabbi even try. There is an old saying among scholars > "A yidishe bale-boste takes instruction from her mother only". Somehow, these chains do find a way to work together. But I must be clear: I am NOT talking about a machlokes haposkim, where the wife was taught one thing and the husband was taught something else. In that case, there is much common ground, and they (or their rav) can go to the sources to figure out what the couple should do. I'm talking about a much more fundamental problem, where generations have passed on different traditions, without anyone ever realizing that there was a mismatch. (I'd like to close by pointing out that I am neither asking anything new in this post, nor am I trying to answer anything. But RZS mentioned a "category of minhagei nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked", and I simply wanted to expound on that category.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 09:43:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 12:43:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: In Avodah Digest 35:53 on Apr 19, R' Micha Berger wrote: > The AhS OC 31:4 is okay with minyanim that are mixed between > wearers and non-wearers. That's not what I see in the last line there: "In a single beis medrash, don't have some doing this and some doing that, because of Lo Tisgodedu." In Avodah Digest 35:55 on Apr 26, he seems to have corrected that: > ... the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed > between tefillin wearers and not. [You seem to have missed http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol35/v35n055.shtml#07 I didn't correct myself; I was forced to reread the AhS by RHK's post. -micha] This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. IF I understand that AhS correctly, he says that if there is only one Beis Din in town, then everyone must follow it, so Lo Tisgodedu doesn't apply. And if there is more than one Beis Din in town, then everyone can follow their own beis din, so again, Lo Tisgodedu does not apply. So when DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be factionalized like that. That is the AhS's explanation of why each town should be united and follow one set of days for the aveilus of Sefira: The question is totally minhag, and not under the jurisdiction of the local posek. It is a minhag of the people, and the people should get together and be united in one practice. The AhS doesn't mention it in that siman, but this explanation does help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 consistent with 493:8? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 8 05:32:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 15:32:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The relevance of the middle perakim of Bava Basra today Message-ID: Perakim 4-7 of Bava Basra (which Daf Yomi has been learning) deal with the sale of various things, what is included and what is not. The common denominator seems to be that these are seemingly solely based on the accepted business practice during the time of Chazal and what people expect to get when they consumate a deal. There are few to no Torah based sources for any of these. Here is a general outline of the perakim. Perek 4 - Hamocher es habayis discusses what is sold when you sell real property (houses, bathhouses, courtyards, fields, etc.) and what is not, for example when you sell a house the Mishna states that you include teh door but not the key Perek 5 - Hamocher es hasefina discusses the sale of movable objects, again detailing what is included in the sale and what is not (boats, wagons, animals, etc.) Perek 6 - Hamocher peiros lachaveiro discusses the sale of agricultural products. It details how much spoilage/wastage there can be in grain and wine etc. It also discusses selling land to build things on it like a house, graves, how much land is given, what access etc. Perek 7 - Deals with sales of real property how exact do the dimensions need to be. Given the above, are these at all relevant today? A house buyer in 2017 clearly has very different expectations as to what he is buying in comparison to the times of Chazal as does someone buying wine, a field, a boat, etc. The same goes for all of these categories. Since the mishnayos seem to be based solely on accepted business practice and have are not based on pesukim can we simply ignore these today? Am I missing something here? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 8 10:47:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 13:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The relevance of the middle perakim of Bava Basra today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170508174705.GA2335@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:32:57PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Perakim 4-7 of Bava Basra (which Daf Yomi has been learning) deal with the : sale of various things, what is included and what is not. The common : denominator seems to be that these are seemingly solely based on the : accepted business practice during the time of Chazal and what people expect : to get when they consumate a deal... : Given the above, are these at all relevant today? ... First reaction: They would be relevant to a poseiq trying to learn how to determine which of today's expectations have halachic import. It would require doing the saqme kind of mapping of market norms to law that chazal did, so the poseiq could learn from example. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 9 05:44:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 08:44:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor Message-ID: <4667BA80-CCF4-42D3-833D-99611C34F822@cox.net> ?And you shall count unto you from the morrow after the day of rest from the day that you bring the omer of the wave-offering; seven complete weeks shall there be.? (Vayikra 23:15) The Rambam included the counting of the Omer as Mitzvah 161 in his Sefer Hamitzvot. Those Rishonim who disagree, do count it as a mitzvah d?rabbanan and therefore, when we conclude the counting each night we pray: ?May the merciful One bring back to us the Temple service to its place speedily in our days, Amen, selah.? So the question has been asked why we do not say a ?sheheheyanu? when we first count the Omer on the second night of Pesach. The Rashba answers that according to most Rishonim who disagree with the Rambam, the counting is connected intricately with ktzirat ha?omer, harvesting the omer, ha?va-at ha?omer, the bringing of the omer and hakravat ha?omer, the offering of the omer as a sacrifice (Vayikra 23:10&16). So since these mitzvot are obviously inapplicable today it pains us to remember what we are missing when we count the omer. Therefore, the rabbis say, we pronounce no sheheheyanu which is said only when we experience joy. When I started counting my blessings, my whole life turned around. Willie Nelson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 06:33:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 09:33:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kedoshim Message-ID: It was brought to my attention that I hadn?t sent out a commentary on Parashas Kedoshim. Here is a belated d?var. ?In the presence of an old person you shall rise and you shall honor the presence of a sage and you shall revere your God ? I am Hashem.? (Vayikra 19:32) This verse is so rich with interpretation. According to Rashi, following one view in Kidudushin 32b, the two halves of the pasuk explain each other, i.e., the mitzvah is to rise and honor a sage who is both elderly and learned. Others hold that these are two separate mitzvot: to rise for anyone over the age of 70 and to rise for a learned righteous man, even if he is below the age of 70. The halacha follows the latter view, the rationale being that anyone can reach the age of 70 but it takes blood, sweat and tears to achieve scholarship and righteousness. I recall as a youngster being in awe when everyone in the beis medrash would stop what they were doing and a hush fell over the crowd as everyone rose immediately as soon as the Rosh Yeshiva entered the hall. There comes to mind the famous saying in Makkoth 22b: ?How foolish are those people who stand up when the Torah is carried by, but do not stand up when a scholar walks by,? indicating that greater than a piece of parchment upon which the Torah is written, is a human being who has put his whole life into learning and struggling in order to acquire a knowledge of Torah, and who in his personal life is a living embodiment of what the Torah teaches and represents. Along similar lines is the custom in some hassidic circles to kiss the hand of a talmid chochom upon first seeing him in the same manner as kissing the Torah when it passes by. The one thing we must never forget is the basic issue involved. It is not the mere person that is the center of the commandment; it is the ?v?yorayso mey-Elohechoh, Ani HaShem that is here involved. In rising before and granting honor to the talmid chochom, we affirm our profound belief in the Torah of God. Who sows virtue reaps honor. Leonardo da Vinci -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 13:24:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 16:24:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety Message-ID: In Avodah V35n60, RJR responded to RZS, who had responded to RAMiller: >>> When eating the evening seudah elsewhere than where you're sleeping, consider lighting at the seudah location, so that they won't be unattended. <<< >> My mitzvah is to light my own home, not someone else's. << > The psak I receive many years ago is that you light where you sleep. One concern was to make sure the candles would run long enough so they were still burning when you came home so you could get benefit from them < As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*); and as I learned as a kid every Pesach that my family was at a hotel (because my parents didn't have Pesach cooking utensils, dishes, etc. in their apartment), everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 14:55:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 21:55:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As RJR implies, I thought the key component of neiros Shabbos was enjoying their light (in contradistinction to neiros Chanukah); and as I learned as a kid every Pesach that my family was at a hotel (because my parents didn't have Pesach cooking utensils, dishes, etc. in their apartment), everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... All the best from Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA _______________________________________________ Except if they were incandescent bulbs in the individual hotel rooms. In that case I was taught that the women make a bracha on the bulbs in their room Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 04:54:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:54:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Lo Taamod Message-ID: Rav Asher Weiss discusses in parshat Vayeitzeih on lo taamod al dam reiacha that one would have to give up all his assets to save a single life if he is the only one who can do it. However, "it's pashut" that if others can also do it, that he doesn't have to give up all his assets. Why is it so pashut if others refuse? (i.e. why isn't it a joint and several liability?) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 04:55:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:55:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Local Government Message-ID: Anyone have any sources on how local government, if any, functioned in times of Tanach? Was there any besides the court system? What was the role of the nesiim of the shvatim? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 12:02:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:02:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App Message-ID: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Someone mentioned tahorapp.com on-line, so I took a look at their web site. To quote: > Keeping Tradition & > Keeping Your Privacy > Rabbinically Approved! Anonymously send pictures of your Taharas > Hamishpacha questions to a Rav right from your own home. Receive answers > quickly and privately. Download Tahor App For Free! I then thought of "The Dress" , a picture of a black-and-blue dress that floated around the internet that many of us perceived as white-and-gold. So, given that people guess at the background lighting when they see a picture and then subconsciously correct for it (see explanation on wikipedia page), how could a rav rely on a Tahor App image? So, I filled out their contact form with something to that effect, and a short discussion followed. They replied: : Color Precision: : Thank you for your inquiry, : To clarify (as this seems not to be clear): : "Tahor" is meant to serve as a halachically approved "filter" for a : majority of Shailos (many of which are straightforward and simple to : determine). It is meant to allow those who may not have access to a rov, or : who may not feel comfortable going to a rov, to have an option, when : halachically viable, to send in their sample anonymously. : What this app is not: : This app IS NOT meant to be an umbrella replacement for the process of : showing questionable bedikah cloths to Rabbonim. Rabbonim were all able to : pasken correctly because of our advanced white balance technology and : Rabbinic measurement capabilities. The cloths which are borderline or : questionable, will be told to show the actual cloth to a Rabbi. : It is obviously preferable to take the cloth directly to the Rabbi when : possible, but many many women are not doing it! This will allow them to : keep Taharat Hamishpachah and get accurate answers. I felt I was getting a barely touched form letter, so I paraphrased my original question: } But given that the human eye will misinterpret colors when the lighting } differs between the camera and the person looking at the picture, how } can you know the results are accurate? After all, the differences in } perception of the colors of The Dress is far far greater han that between } a tamei brown and a tahor one. And their reply: : Shalom, : Yes, this is true. : This is why the Rabbis will only answer questions through the app which are : clearly one or the other. : An example of this would be if a stain on underwear is less than a gris. : The Rabbi can with complete accurately declare this Pure/Impure. : If the Rabbi feels that it is not so clear, he will tell the user to go to : a Rav. I am letting it drop there, because I am not going to argue anyone into wondering whether or not his pet project works. But I myself am still wondering.... Given how pronounced optical illusions can be when it comes to color and how subtle many determinations are, can a rav even know when the question is "clearly one way or the other" rather than only seeming obvious? I saw the dress in a catalog, so I know I am getting it wrong when I look at the infamous picture. And yet, it's suprising. If it weren't for people reporting a different color set, I would have considered white-and-gold "clearly" right. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 30th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation Fax: (270) 514-1507 result in holding back from others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 12:57:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: See the following timeline: http://crownheights.info/jewish-news/575460 http://crownheights.info/chabad-news/575513 http://crownheights.info/communal-matters/575546 http://crownheights.info/chabad-news/575559 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 07:33:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 10:33:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> There is a definite dearth of rabbis on the site. I am somewhat conflicted on this. OTOH, the nuances of coloring will be distorted by many displays - perhaps all displays. OTOH, perhaps women who otherwise would not ask she'eilos would use this service. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 08:37:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:37:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App Message-ID: <11c7f4.7c2a7fc4.464730a1@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org Someone mentioned tahorapp.com on-line, so I took a look at their web site. To quote: > Keeping Tradition & > Keeping Your Privacy > Rabbinically Approved! Anonymously send pictures of your Taharas > Hamishpacha questions to a Rav right from your own home. Receive answers > quickly and privately. Download Tahor App For Free! I then thought of "The Dress" , a picture of a black-and-blue dress that floated around the internet that many of us perceived as white-and-gold...... .....So, given that people guess at the background lighting when they see a picture and then subconsciously correct for it (see explanation on wikipedia page), how could a rav rely on a Tahor App image? -- Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>>> According to wiki the human eye can distinguish about ten million different colors. Other sources say "only" seven million. (Not relevant here but interesting: Some birds, some fish, some reptiles, even some insects, like bees, can see colors we can't see.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision A computer screen can display about 33,000 different colors -- only a small fraction of the number of shades in nature that the human eye can see. http://www.rit-mcsl.org/fairchild/WhyIsColor/Questions/4-6.html The takeaway -- to my mind -- is that the tahor app probably can't be relied on. The rav needs to see the actual color, not on a screen. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 08:36:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:36:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:33am EDT, R Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: : I am somewhat conflicted on this. OTOH, the nuances of coloring will : be distorted by many displays - perhaps all displays. OTOH, perhaps : women who otherwise would not ask she'eilos would use this service. Because of "The Dress" I am worried that "perhaps all displays" really understates the possibility of getting a color wrong. While the problem you raise is real. I would still recommend yoatzos as a better solution. Still, there are women who still wouldn't go to antoher woman, or who live in an area with no one to ask. RnTK wrote: : According to wiki the human eye can distinguish about ten million different : colors. Other sources say "only" seven million. ... : A computer screen can display about 33,000 different colors... : small fraction of the number of shades in nature that the human eye can see. ... : The takeaway -- to my mind -- is that the tahor app probably can't be : relied on. The rav needs to see the actual color, not on a screen. I think the problem I raised can lead to more profound misassessments. The precision of color displays will blur the edges. And the rabbis behind Tahor App say that it's only for more clear cases. What had me concerned is that that perception is based on more context colors and lighting specifics than the phone's camera may capture. Thus "the dress", which is explained, amongst other startling optical illusions involving color perception here . It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in different lighting than it was taken. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 09:33:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 12:33:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 517 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 11:53:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 14:53:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:33:14PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote: : The 33rd day of the Omer is a minor holiday commemorating a break in : the plague. The common translation of askaria is some kind of lung disease. However, the only explanation of the gemara that predates the late acharonim is R' Achai Gaon's -- that the word is sicarii. Meaning, they were killed by Roman dagger- or shortsword-men. Tying the deaths of the omer to the Bar Kokhva rebellion. (The sicarii of the events of Tish'ah beAv were Jewish dagger bearers. Same word, different people.) If I may add, which emphasizes the connection to shelo nahagu kavod zeh lazeh. The galus was started by sin'as chinam; it couldn't be ended by people who still hadn't mastered showing another kavod. (A scary thought about our own hopes...) : This day is observed as a day of rejoicing because on this day, the : students of Rabbi Akiva did not die. Actually, it's not a day of mourning because they didn't die. It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. Or perhaps it's the day Rashbi left the cave the 2nd time, or.... For Litvaks, Yekkes, and other communities, Lag baOmer as a holiday is a new thing. Also, as per other iterations, Lag baOmer at Meron appears to have originally been Shemu'el haNavi's yahrzeit (Mag beOmer? Yom Y-m) at Nabi Samwel, and only moved when Arabs going to Nabi Samwel (from Tzefat) dangerous. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 12:42:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 15:42:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/05/17 11:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while > convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in > different lighting than it was taken. But isn't that explicitly taken care of by the instruction to the user to take the photo only in direct sunlight, and by the instruction to the rav to look at it only on a specific monitor at a specific brightness? However reliable or unreliable the technology is, at least *that* concern has been addressed, hasn't it? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 13:01:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 16:01:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> References: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/05/17 14:53, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined > communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- > find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) > writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then > a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping > the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. No typo is necessary. What could "yom simchas Rashbi" mean if not his yortzeit, which he explicitly instructed his talmidim to celebrate as if it were his yom hillula? That's where the whole concept of celebrating yortzeits rather than mourning on them comes from, as well as the concept of referring to them as "wedding days". > Also, as per other iterations, Lag baOmer at Meron appears to have > originally been Shemu'el haNavi's yahrzeit (Mag beOmer? Yom Y-m) at Nabi > Samwel, and only moved when Arabs going to Nabi Samwel (from Tzefat) > dangerous. This paragraph got garbled enough that if I didn't already know what you meant I could not have figured it out. But it's my understanding that it wasn't danger from Arab marauders that put an end to the pilgrimages to Shmuel Hanavi (from all over EY) but rather a government decree barring Jews from the site. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 14:49:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:49:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: References: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512214922.GB4067@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 04:01:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined :> communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- :> find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) :> writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then :> a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping :> the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. : No typo is necessary. It happened. Necessity isn't at issue. We know what the older version was, and there used to be a ches there. "Shemeis" is simply not what RCV wrote. : What could "yom simchas Rashbi" mean if not : his yortzeit, which he explicitly instructed his talmidim to : celebrate as if it were his yom hillula? Well, isb't that what I said in the last sentence quoted? But it's only the most likely (in my opinion) possibility, and not -- as you are taking for granterd -- the only one. To continue from where you chopped off that text: > Or perhaps it's the day Rashbi left the cave the 2nd time, or.... Simcha, in the sence that seeing the man carry two hadasim for besamim -- zekhor veshamor -- yasiv da'ataihu. His simchah learning with his son-in-law, R' Pinchas b Ya'ir. "Ashrekha shera'isi bekakh..." Shabbos 33b-34a give you plenty of reason to believe he was joyous, and wanted to share that joy with the qehillah. Or maybe R Aqiva started teaching his 5 new students in earnest the very day the massacre or plague stopped. And therefore Lag baOmer is the day Rashbi started learning qabbalah. Or maybe... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 18:04:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 11:04:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The rabbi is shocked He realises After pesach is concluded That one of the contracts he's supposed to sell to the G Was not sold to the G If ownership According to Halacha Is determined by believing one is in control And when that control Is lost There's YiUsh Then this Chamets Had no owner During Pesach This Chamets For all intents and purposes During Pesach Has no owner. And Chamets can be Muttar Even if owned by a Y If it's abandoned For the duration of Pesach That's the Halacha Re the Mapoles The shed collapse On a crate of whiskey It's buried under at least 3 Tefachim It's Muttar after Pesach And it seems Even without Bittul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 14:33:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:33:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512213304.GA4067@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 03:42:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 12/05/17 11:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while : >convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in : >different lighting than it was taken. : : But isn't that explicitly taken care of by the instruction to the : user to take the photo only in direct sunlight, and by the : instruction to the rav to look at it only on a specific monitor at a : specific brightness? ... My wife and I saw The Dress for the first time together, and reported different results. in that picture it is obvious it was taken on a sunny day. And we both saw it in the same lighting. So, I don't think it sufficiently takes care of the problem. Maybe if the distributed a color sheet that must be included in the picture in proximity to the kesem, and the rabbinic side of the software corrects the colors displayed based on knowing what the sheet should look like. If the woman prints the color chart herself, you widen the uncertainty. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 14:23:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 23:23:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I have also been in touch with them (the programmer and one of the rabbis). I haven't come to a final conclusion, but my impression so far is: (1) The people on this project are y'rei Shamayim who take what they are doing seriously and have worked very hard for a long time on developing something that will be reliable (2) It is definitely not as good as seeing a mareh in real life (3) It is not good enough for borderline or difficult-to-pasken cases, and when difficult marot are submitted the rabbis will tell them that they need to be evaluated in person (4) They have had quite good results testing this app with easier cases (and most marot that women ask about are easier cases), which is why they have the confidence to release it (5) There are clear instructions on photographing the mareh in sunlight (6) This is only available for iphone - and deliberately so. They have the camera and white balance technology to give a good enough image, and because everyone is using the same type of phone and operating system, there is more control. Developing an android version will be significantly more challenging. If asked, I think I would cautiously tell women that IF they have no way to get the mareh evaluated in person (they do not live near any qualified Rav or yoetzet, or they are traveling), and they have an iphone and carefully follow the instructions, this seems to be reliable. I have worked online with Rav Auman for a long time, and while I haven't actually met him in person, I do trust him to know what he is doing. I'm still checking into it. If any of you have iphones (like most Israelis, I have an android) and have installed the app, I would be very interested in hearing feedback. Thank you! Shavua tov, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 19:10:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 22:10:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Music on the night of Lag B'Omer Message-ID: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> It seems quite common that people have bonfires with music on the evening of Lag B'Omer. I haven't found a compelling reason for this custom - even those who are meikil like the Rama to lift the Aveilus on Lag B'Omer don't do so until the day, I thought, as miktzas hayom k'kulo. Does anyone have an explanation for this? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 21:20:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 00:20:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Music on the night of Lag B'Omer In-Reply-To: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> References: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <112dafa9-5b8f-9e78-8b3e-2c0fcd51e25b@sero.name> On 13/05/17 22:10, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > It seems quite common that people have bonfires with music on the > evening of Lag B?Omer. I haven?t found a compelling reason for this > custom ? even those who are meikil like the Rama to lift the Aveilus on > Lag B?Omer don?t do so until the day, I thought, as miktzas hayom > k?kulo. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Yes. If one is merely noting the end of aveilus, then it starts in the morning, tachanun (or Tzidkas'cha) is said at the previous mincha, and bichlal it's not a celebration, any more than one celebrates when getting up from shiva. I've never heard of people singing and dancing and playing music on such an occasion, even if it's permitted. But if one is celebrating Rashbi's yom hillula then it's a full holiday, an occasion for song and dance and music, and of course it starts at night, with no tachanun at the previous mincha. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 12:11:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:11:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin Message-ID: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 12:27:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:27:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin In-Reply-To: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> References: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170515192700.GA20468@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:11:29PM -0400, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? MB 40:3 says that's the universal minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 14:49:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 17:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped Tefillin Message-ID: <5F399CEB-B043-4AB8-A067-A8E1495829DF@cox.net> Saul Newman wrote: Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? To the best of my knowledge, YES. However, I also recall that one could give extra tzedaka in lieu of fasting. rw From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 16 19:26:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 22:26:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World" Message-ID: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> This Torah portion sets forth the blessings that are seen in this world in response to our deeds. It then continues with the Tochacha, words of admonition, "If you will not listen to Me and will not perform all of these commandments?" Interestingly, there are seven series of seven punishments each. God warns us throughout the portion that He will punish us in "seven ways for your seven sins. We are now counting seven days a week for seven weeks; the Torah has just recently given the laws for Shemita ? seventh year the land lies fallow and seven periods of seven years, we celebrate the Jubilee year. What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the diatonic scale, seven continents, etc. We wind the T'fillin straps around our forearm seven times. We sit shiva for seven days. At the wedding we chant 7 blessings (sheva b'rachos) and the wedding is followed by seven days of celebration. Even the Torah begins with seven -- the First verse has seven words also containing a total of twenty-eight letters which is seven times four. Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion. When we say "Baruch Hashem" we are praising God for something that is hopefully whole and complete. The acronym for Baruch Hashem (Beis, Hay) also equals 7. Finally, the patriarchs and matriarchs total seven: Avraham, Yitzchok, Ya?akov, Sarah, Rivka, Rochel, Leah. (Please don?t write me to say your phone number has seven digits or the rainbow has 7 colors or that there are seven letters in the Roman numeral system or that nitrogen has the atomic number of 7 or that there were 7 dwarfs with Snow White). :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 05:31:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 12:31:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality, Message-ID: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> See below concerning a frequently discussed issue: Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today, especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:30:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:30:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World" In-Reply-To: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> References: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170518143027.GB13698@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:26:19PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven : represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the : diatonic scale, seven continents... Although the diatonic scale and the division of the colors in the spectrum to fit the numbers 7 are human inventions. They say more about what 7 means to humans -- even without revalation -- than anything inherent. ... : Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion... As does the word. Without niqud, the letters /sb`/ could be read as "seven" or "satiated". (Or swear... go figure that out.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:18:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:18:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170518171844.GD26698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh : Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on : Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives : today, certainly not in any practical manner. A tighter comparison... The minhag as recorded in the SA clearly ran into Lag baOmer -- and ending mourning with the usual miqtzas hayom kekulo. Then the hilula deRashbi turned Lag baOmer into a holiday, and this new holiday overrode the older minhagim of aveilus. What's good for one new holiday ought to be good for another (YhA, where this conversation began), no? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:24:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:24:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:24:41PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was : enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*)... As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel YT") but it's "neir Chanukah". Their kids wouldn't forget. : everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get : enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel : dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... Fire hazard is safeiq piquach nefesh, and ein danin es ha'efshar mishe'i efshar. However, wouldn't the alternative been lighting in the dinig hall, near one's table? The point is to eat by neir shel YT, not to sleep by them! And in this case (combining the above with what RJR wrote), shouldn't they have provided incandescent lamps for each table? (Not that there were small bulbs of other sorts when we were growing up.) Wouldn't it be easier to justify making a berakhah on turning the light on than on lighting in a third room or a table off to the side of the dining room dozens of yards from where you are eating? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:35:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:35:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality, In-Reply-To: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170518143502.GC13698@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:31:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why : there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters : of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the : masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as : all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak : halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would : contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today, : especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.] Not sure what this means. There are halakhos about triage. About how much tzedaqah to give and how to prioritize them. There are a lot of halakhos about morality. I fail to see how this isn't circular. The open moral questions RYBS is referring to are those too situational for every possible situation to be addressed with its own pesaq. Ar the Ramban puts it on "ve'asisa hayashar vehatov". If "morality" is being used in a sense to limit it to those quetions that did not get halachic resolution, isn't he just saying the interpersonal questions that didn't get a pesaq didn't get a pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:46:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:46:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170518144626.GD13698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei : Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events : of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber). It seems (but is not muchrach) from the AhS 394:1-3 . As I wrote (in part) in 2010 . The AhS distinguishes between a global minhag from the Geonic period not to marry and a later minhag bemedinos ha'eilu. He attaches the minhag of 1-33 (and including miqtzas yayom kekulo) to when the talmidei R' Aqiva died (s' 4-5) and the minhag of the last days to "minhag shelanu" (s' 5), localizing the last days to the descendent of those who fled the Crusaders east. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:14:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 11:04:32AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : If ownership : According to Halacha : Is determined by believing one is in control : And when that control : Is lost : There's YiUsh : Then this Chamets : Had no owner : During Pesach But if this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as -- it would be open and shut. I think ba'alus (as opposed to ownership) is defined by having the legal responsibility for something, and only as a consequence about having control or a right to use it. Which would explain why qinyan, a mechanism for eatablishing shelichus or shibud, is more thought of as a means of establishing baalus. Because baalus is also primarily on the hischayvus side. And so, it has as a consequence actual legal right of control, rather than depending on belief that one is in control. Which is why a ganav needs yi'ush plus shinui. Yi'ush, loss of belief of having control, is NOT enough to end ba'alus. But that's ba'alus. We don't have ba'alus over chameitz on Pesach. For example, an avaryan who dies on Pesach while violating bal yeira'eh bal yeimatzeih (BYBY) does not leave that chameitz to his sons. BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs from choshein mishpat, and is not baalus. ... : And Chamets can be Muttar : Even if owned by a Y : If it's abandoned : For the duration of Pesach ... : And it seems : Even without Bittul. ... The mishnah on Pesachim 31b says that if it's buried so deep a dog cannot dig it up, it is a form of bi'ur. R' Chisda in the opening gemara says it needs bitul. But in any case, the question is whether this is destruction. The gemara likens it to bi'ur. Not about a loss of ownership. Which would create a whole different question, as Tosafos (Pesachim 4b "mideOraisa") understand relinquishing ownership to be the very definition of bitul. (The majority opinion -- Rashi "bibitul be'alma", Ritva, Ran, and the Rambam 2:2 -- say it's a form of bi'ur.) Rashi and the Ran say the need for bitul after a mapolah fell on one's chameitz is derabbnan, a gezeira in case it gets unburied. But while buried, it's kebi'ur. The Samaq (#98) says the need for bitul is de'oraisa. And the MA holds that the Semaq would require buried chameitz not was not batul to be dug up and burnt on Pesach. The Mekhilta (on Shemos 12:19, see #2 ) says that chameitz owned by a nakhri which is in a Jew's reshus or a Jew's chameitz are excluded from BYBY by the pasuq's extra word "beveteikhem". "Af al pi shehu birshuso". The Mekhilta is making a split between reshus and BYBY. And it could be we are discussing three different concepts of "ownership", with reshus and baalu being different from each other as well. There is also a whole sugya about buried issurei han'ah on Temurah 33b-34a (starting at the mishnah) that I would need to understand better with rishonim and posqim to really comment in full. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:38:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:38:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> References: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 18/05/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel > YT") but it's "neir Chanukah" In L's case, "neir shel shabbos kodesh", but "neir chanukah". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 13:53:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 21:53:30 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? Message-ID: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> A thought just struck me, and I wondered if this chimed with anybody. The Rambam says (Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 halacha 13): ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????. Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. The Tur says the same except that he has Torah shebichtav and Torah sheba'al peh around the other way (Tur Yoreh Deah Hilchot Talmud Torah siman 246): ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??"? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???"? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? The Sages said all who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking with Torah shebichtav but with Torah shebaal peh he should not teach her ab initio, but if he taught her it is not as though he taught her Tiflut The Beis Yosef says it is a scribal error in the Tur, and should be the same way as the Rambam, and that is how he has the statement in the Shulchan Aruch, and the Taz agrees, pointing to Hakel. The Prisha notes that the Beis Yosef says that it is a scribal error but adds: ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??"? In any event there is to give a small reason for this version in the books of the Tur, since with all of them it is written and published so, because there is a greater loss when Torah shebichtav is brought out as words of nonsense than with Torah shebal peh. However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil Siman 199, the Maharil writes: ?????? ????? ???"? ??????' ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?"? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ? - ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?????' ???? ???? ?? ??? ????' ?? ???????, ??? ??' ??"?? ?"?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????, ??"? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????, ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??'? ???? ???? ??????, ??? ??? ????? ????? ... ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???, ???? ?"? ????? ?????, And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut as it says in perek notlev and we learn it from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, when wisdom enters so does cunning since when wisdom enters the heart of a person there also enters into it cunning and according to the explanation of Rashi because of this she will do things privately, and if so we are concerned that she will come to damage since their knowledge is light and even though it is considered a mitzvah eit l?asot lashem so that one should not drown out the reward by loss and all the more so where there is not a mitzvah ... And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by way of tradition from outside, And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous generations: ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like it says ?ask your father and he shall tell you? and in this it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their upright fathers. But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in the form of the Mishna? That the Torah sheba'al peh was passed from father to son by oral transmission (albeit that at one point schools were instated for those lacking fathers who could teach them)? And on the other hand doesn't the Rosh (ie father of the Tur) famously say that today one fulfils the mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah by writing other seforim in Hilkhot Sefer Torah, chap. 1 as is brought by the Tur and Shulhan Arukh in Yoreh De'ah 270:2? So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al peh - as the vast majority of the details are sourced in Torah sheba'al peh, and if they were only to be taught what is in Torah shebichtav, they would all turn into Karaites! And indeed that women were, as the Chofetz Chaim suggests, taught in the home with the tradition handed over by their fathers in the same way as Torah sheba'al peh has always been learnt all the way back to Moshe Rabbanu. While if you understand Torah shebichtav as including mishna and gemora and rishonim, all so long as they have been written down, then one could indeed understand that as being a possible practical distinction - ie not to teach women to read and write and understand what is in the written seforim? Now perhaps one might say that if the Rambam had poskened like Rav Elazar in Gitten 60b as understood by Rashi, that Torahshebichtav is the majority and Torah sheba'al peh is the minority, because he includes in Torah shebichtav anything that is learnt out of the Torah by way of midrash or gezera shava etc, then it might be possible to understand that by and large women could both learn to do the mitzvot incumbent on them and simultaneously avoid Torah sheba'al peh, but he doesn't, as in his introduction the Mishna he categorises Torah Sheba'al peh into five categories, and is clearly in this poskening like Rav Yochanan. So how, according to the Rambam, did women know what to do if they were never taught Torah sheba'al peh, even ba'al peh, remembering that it is the Rema's addition to the Shulchan Aruch in the name of the Smag (actually Smak) via the Agur that adds in the halacha that women need to learn all the mitzvot that are relevant to them? Is not the Tur's version actually the one that makes more logical sense - especially if you explain Hakel as per the gemora in Chagiga that the women came to listen (ie hear it orally, without looking at the text)? Not that this would seem to explain Rabi Eliezer himself, as Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna in Sotah 21a - objected to women learning that sometimes drinking the Sotah water would not result in immediate death, and in the Yerushalmi, Sotah perek 3 daf 19 column 1 halacha 4 he objected to telling a woman why there are three different types of deaths listed vis a vis the chet haegel when there was only one sin - both of which pieces of learning were, at least in his day, definitely Torah sheba'al peh. So given that the Rambam poskened like Rabbi Eliezer, he would have needed, if a distinction was to be made, have to phrase it the way he did. But maybe what the Tur was saying is that, Rabbi Eliezer or no, the Rambam's solution is not workable, and given the way the gemora explains Rabbi Eliezer's limud from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, and that already in his day that kind of learning was found in Torah shebichtav, the whole thing can be made workable by turning it the other way around? Has anybody seen this suggested anywhere? Any thoughts? Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 15:56:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 08:56:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> References: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 19 May 2017 3:15 am, "Micha Berger" wrote: >: If ownership >: According to Halacha >: Is determined by believing one is in control >: And when that control >: Is lost >: There's YiUsh >: Then this Chamets >: Had no owner >: During Pesach > If this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as I don't understand. Please explain. One who is unaware of the loss of his wallet, believes he is still in control. We Pasken that he remains the owner. Famous story, woman lost her money at a trade fair, was found and taken to the Rov. Although there was no question that it was the money she had lost, there was no way to Pasken that it had to be returned to her. YiUsh. Until Reb Y ? explained that she was never the owner and her state of mind was not relevant. It was her husband's money and he, being unaware it was lost, still firmly believed he was in control. YSheLoMiDaAs suggesting that since he'd be in a different state of mind, if he knew the facts, in other words YSheLoMiDaAs, is still a Sevara that recognises and circulates around the principle that ownership depends upon ones state of mind. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 09:16:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 12:16:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts Message-ID: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Two Faces of Love Twice a day the Jew gives expression to one of the most potent forces in social life ? LOVE. In the morning we plead for ahavah rabbah, abundance of love, for in the morning we want love to expand and grow throughout the day. In the evening, however, when darkness descends upon us, we pray again for love, but not in quantitative terms. Instead we plead for ahavat olam ? enduring and eternal love. In the dark night love does not grow; it deepens. Two Philosophies of LIfe Sarah advised her husband to cast out Ishmael, when she saw he was ?Miitzachaik? and she feared he would be an evil influence on his brother ?Yitzchok.? Interestingly, both ?Miitzachaik? and ?Yitzchok? have a common root, meaning to laugh or to play. What is the disparity? The difference is compelling: ?Mitzachaik? is in the present tense and ?Yitzchok? is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael?s philosophy of life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future. Conversely, she saw that Yitzchok?s philosophy of life was to live life spiritually, delaying immediate gratification and living his life in a way that would provide genuine happiness and enjoyment in the future. The future depends on what we do in the present. Mahatma Gandhi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 11:14:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 14:14:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes Message-ID: <20170519181429.GA31873@aishdas.org> >From this week's emailing from The Halachah Center / Beis haVaad leInyanei Mishpat . There are a number of halachic discussions about e-cig use -- whether kashrus concerns apply, health issues, but then they close with this interesting (to me) more aggadic point. Note found interesting was that R' Yosef Greenwald assumes that venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem isn't about preserving life, but preserving one's ability to pull the ol mitzvos. (That sounds weird, but an animal "pulls a yoke", no?) Which includes preserving life. And thus includes intoxication and other mind- or mood-altering chemicals that could hamper one's ability to function. I could have seen argiong for each as separate values, but... Holy Smokes! A Halachic Discussion Regarding E-Cigarettes Are e-cigarettes problematic from a halachic standpoint? By: Rav Yosef Greenwald ... The Health Concerns of E-cigarettes ... 1. Are E-Cigarettes Any Better than Cigarettes? ... 2. Derech Eretz and a Life of Meaning Let us conclude with one more point about the general imperative to protect our health and its relevance to this case. Although as mentioned there is an injunction to safeguard our health based on v'nishmartem, we also have an assurance of shomer pesaim Hashem, that Hashem will protect those who engage in normal activities, as Rav Moshe explained, which is based on the Gemara (Yevamos 12b and elsewhere).[10] Consequently, eating greasy french fries, doughnuts, and the like, may not be the healthiest thing to do. However, doing so would not violate a halachic prohibition, as eating these foods is considered in the realm of normal behavior (like smoking used to be), and we can apply shomer pesa'im Hashem. There have recently been some questions asked about the kashrus on medical marijuana, due to the possibility that the recreational use of marijuana may be normalized soon. However, before discussing the kashrus questions, one must ask whether it is acceptable to consume marijuana. It would seem to be in the same category as significant alcohol consumption. Leaving aside any possible physical damage caused from overdosing, there is no specific halacha that forbids one from getting drunk, aside from being careful not to miss the proper time for Tefilla, and not issuing halachic rulings while in an inebriated state.[11] Nevertheless, it should be obvious that this is wrong, based on what could be called the "fifth section of the Shulchan Aruch," using common sense in living one's life. Clearly, Hashem does not want a person to waste away their life in a state in which one cannot serve Hashem properly. Rather, one should live life as an intelligent, sober person. One who overdoses on alcohol, or engages in mind-altering or mood- altering by ingesting marijuana, is taking away the ability to function as a normal person. This falls under the category of derech eretz, proper conduct, which precedes the observance of halacha. In other words, even if one does not directly violate the Shulchan Aruch, one must live in a manner in which the Torah and halacha can be fulfilled. To return to e-cigarettes, this notion of living healthy is an important reason why, even if it is concluded that they are 100% kosher even without certification, a non-smoker should not start using such a product. In the merit of being able to curb one's physical temptations, hopefully we as a people can merit to reaching great spiritual heights, and achieve the closeness to Hashem that He, and we, so desire. ... [11] Both of these issues are discussed in the Gemara (Eiruvin 64a) and are cited in the Shulchan Aruch. ... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 12:08:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:08:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Does Orthodox Commitment Provide What is Needed for Good Character? Message-ID: <20170519190815.GA24683@aishdas.org> From http://jewishethicalwisdom.com/does-orthodox-commitment-provide-what-is-needed-for-good-character Critical reading for anyone interested in what AishDas stands for. Jewish Ethical Wisdom Blog Does Orthodox Commitment Provide What is Needed for Good Character? Posted on April 6, 2017 Posted By: Anthony Knopf Does Orthodox commitment provide what is needed for good character? Not yet, I answer in this article. ... Rashei peraqim: Introduction Feeling and Thinking Ethically - Not Always a Matter of Halakha Exclusive Focus on Halakha Distracts from and Attenuates Moral Sensitivity More is Required :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 12:19:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:19:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts In-Reply-To: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> References: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170519191925.GA30260@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:16:28PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The difference is compelling: "Mitzachaik" is in the present tense and : "Yitzchok" is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael's philosophy of : life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as : much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future. However, "Yishmael", the name, is also in future tense, and later in his life, "Yitzchaq metzacheiq es Rivqah ishto" (26:8) -- in the present tense. And while "Yishmael's" name is about listening, not tzechoq, is not listening MORE fundamental to a healthy relationship? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 02:14:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 19:14:00 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah at the Age of 12 Message-ID: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> My maternal grandfather, who lived in Lithuania until his late teens, told me on a number of occasions that he celebrated his bar mitzvah when he was 12 years old, as his father had died and he was considered to be an orphan. Some years ago I recalled this and decided to learn more about the custom, but each of the rabbis I asked had never heard of it. Recently, however, I was re-reading A Tzadik in Our Time: The Life of Reb Aryeh Levin and, at page 95, he recounts that he attended a bar mitzvah of an orphan in Jerusalem on his 12th birthday. Does anyone know anything of this custom? David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 13:39:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:39:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs > from choshein mishpat, and is not baalus. We can see a connection between BYBY and "responsibility" by the situation of a shomer. Even in a situation where a shomer is absolutely not the owner or baal in any sense of the term, he will still violate BYBY if he is responsible for the chometz that he is watching. (I don't know which side of the discussion this supports, but it seems very relevant to *some* side, so I figured I'd mention it.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 19:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'midbar Message-ID: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> Israel?s brithplace was b?midbar ? in the wilderness. It has been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced the monotheistic faith. Man is always in need of fulfillment and his promised land is far away. He is always on the road to the actualization of his dreams, seeking better things and yearning for a fuller, fulfilling life. The wilderness is the symbol of man searching for his destination. It is told that a Chassidic Rebbe, impatient at the sad, mad state of the world (sound familiar?) and overcome with longing for the happiness of mankind, prayed to God: ?If Thou cannot redeem Thy people Israel, then at least redeem mankind!? May we reach the promised land in our lifetime! rw ?Ay me! sad hours seem long.? William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 19:00:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:00:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "Krias Moshe Leynen"? Message-ID: <7c27ddbf-5df2-526c-c8bd-dbfd5a94b96e@sero.name> Has anyone heard of such a thing? I came across it in a Munkatcher publication. If it were buried in a block of text I'd take it for a typo for "Krias Sh'ma Leynen", referring to the children who come on the vach nacht to say Krias Sh'ma for the baby. But it's in a prominent position where I think surely someone would have noticed such a blatant typo and corrected it before it went to print, so my current working theory is that it's some minhag that neither I nor anyone I've asked so far have heard of. So I'm throwing it to the wider Avodah community; does anyone know what this is? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 23:08:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 02:08:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah at the Age of 12 In-Reply-To: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> References: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 20/05/17 05:14, David Havin via Avodah wrote: > My maternal grandfather, who lived in Lithuania until his late teens, > told me on a number of occasions that he celebrated his bar mitzvah when > he was 12 years old, as his father had died and he was considered to be > an orphan. > > Some years ago I recalled this and decided to learn more about the > custom, but each of the rabbis I asked had never heard of it. Recently, > however, I was re-reading A Tzadik in Our Time: The Life of Reb Aryeh > Levin and, at page 95, he recounts that he attended a bar mitzvah of an > orphan in Jerusalem on his 12^th birthday. > > Does anyone know anything of this custom? There is, of course, no such custom of becoming a bar mitzvah early. But it was a common custom that a child with no father would begin putting on tefillin a full year before his bar mitzvah, rather than a few weeks or months as is the usual custom. See Aruch Hashulchan 37:4, who says this is "murgal befi hahamon", but he knows of no reason for it, and disapproves of it. See: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=374&pgnum=295 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 14:40:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 17:40:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts In-Reply-To: References: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Message-ID: <2B3DC5BF-D4C8-4C0D-A9B0-01AE8A89E41E@cox.net> > "Yishmael", the name, is also in future tense ...which means "he WILL hear or listen" which fits in with his personality and character. Presently he doesn't listen and does what he pleases. When he gets old, he will then listen. > And while "Yishmael's" name is about listening, not tzechoq, is not > listening MORE fundamental to a healthy relationship? A healthy relationship is fundamental with many elements: one of which is certainly listening NOW, not in the future. Can you imagine telling your child to do something and he says I'll do it in the future. He isn't even listening because as you point out "He WILL listen -- a lot of good that does for the present. And psychologists will tell you that a healthy relationship must have laughter and humor which can only increase the health of a relationship. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 22 07:47:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 10:47:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag Baomer in pre WWII Mir Yeshiva in Europe In-Reply-To: <1494871334409.64146@stevens.edu> References: <1494871334409.64146@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170522144737.GB29499@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:02:36PM +0000, Prof Yitzchak Levine posted on Areivim: : Please see http://mrlitvak.blogspot.com/ I can understand a desire to reaffirm the authentic Litvisher derkeh. But meanwhile, we have more learning than at any time in Litta's history, and kids are still uninspiring and fleeing in horrendous numbers. How often do people mention the RBSO? How much do we discuss or base decisions on the kelalim gedolim baTorah (cf RBW's recent review of RJB's The Great Principle of the Torah -- ve'ahvta lerei'akha kamokha, de'alakh sani, eileh toledos ha'adam, shema Yisrael, tzadiq be'emunaso yichyeh, etc...)? So, Lag baOmer may not be more than cheap sentimentality. But even if I were to agree this was true, I would still argue that we are in desperate need of sentimentality -- and will settle for the cheap kind rather than letting the pursuit of perfection become excuses for less emotional expression. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 10:54:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:54:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? Message-ID: We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that are on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv is al pi din. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 12:38:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:38:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Added textual mar'eh meqomos alongside the links. -micha] On 23/05/17 13:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would > like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. > Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that > are on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv > is al pi din. These would seem to be dispositive: [Rambam, Hilkhos Shekheinim 10:11:] http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/c310.htm#11 [SA CM 155:26:] https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9F_%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9A_%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9F_%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98_%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%9B%D7%95 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 13:35:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 16:35:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170523203556.GC10104@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 08:54:41PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would : like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. : Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that are : on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv is al pi : din. Related question, really came up last week. Someone had a tree that neighbors were complaining about, that it looked like it was dying and might fall on the neighbor's roof. On a windy day recently it actually snapped -- but not falling on the roof, instead the tree brought down the power lines. A number of people on the block lost food before power was restored and other expenses were incurred. Is the owner of the tree liable al pi din? What if the neighbor hadn't warned him, so that we cannot know if the owner was aware of an issue or not? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 42nd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliability crucial for universal brotherhood? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 13:37:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:37:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'Note found interesting was that R' Yosef Greenwald assumes that venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem isn't about preserving life, but preserving one's ability to pull the ol mitzvos. (That sounds weird, but an animal "pulls a yoke", no?) Which includes preserving life. And thus includes intoxication and other mind- or mood-altering chemicals that could hamper one's ability to function.' The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it either as far as I recall. So that leaves us fairly free to guess what it means, I suppose. I'd assumed it means preserving health, inasmuch as nefesh usually refers to life force, and we wouldn't need it to refer to preserving life itself, since that's covered by a) prohibition of suicide and b) al taamod al dam reyecha. And preserving health would presumably be in order to keep mitzvos the better, no? And I think an animal bears a yoke and pulls a plough. Lashon Hakodesh is always 'nosei ol'. Which corresponds better to bear than pull. So we carry/bear the ol mitzvos I think. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 14:25:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 07:25:01 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away - Mashkon Pikadon Message-ID: In Siman 440 chametz foods owned by a G in the care of a Yid (a ?shomer? / guardian) Siman 441 chametz foods owned by a G left in the care of a Yid as a ?mashkon? (lit. collateral) for guarantee of a loan from the Yid Pesachim 5b Two pesukim Shmos 13:7 ?Chametz shall not be seen to you and leaven shall not be seen to you in all your borders.? You may not see your own (i.e. keep in your possession), but you may see that of others (i.e. non-Jews)? Shmos 12:19 ?For a seven-day period leaven shall not be found in your homes.? a Yid may not accept Chamets deposits from non-Jews.? there appears to be an inconsistency Gemara Pesachim 5b If a Yid may see Chamets of non-Jews why does the Beraisa prohibit the chametz deposit of a non-Jew? It depends upon whether the Y has (monetary) responsibility for the Chametz, When a Y accepts monetary responsibility for the chametz he is considered to be owner to the extent that he is Over BYBY Mishnah Berura discusses whether the Y can sell the ?pikadon?. concludes yes If the Y has no monetary responsibility (i.e. for loss, theft or negligence) it may be kept in his house during Pesach but to ensure it is not mistakenly eaten must close it in a room The ?shomer? who assumes monetary liability becomes a part-owner therefore, a Jew's chametz with a non-Jewish ?shomer? does not absolve the Y he is Over BYBY A visiting non-Jew who brings his own chametz into the home of a Jew need not ask the non-Jew to remove the chametz and may even invite him into his home and eat the chametz right at his table provided the Y does not eat together with the G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 13:42:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:42:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim Message-ID: > > > > I am not expressing an opinion here on the permissibility of maharats, or > of women's ordination. I merely wish to express my respect for those on > both sides of this important question, and my hope that the dispute will > remain on the level of a machloket l'shem shamayim and that ultimately all > of us will benefit from this challenging and passionate conversation. > > ---------------------- Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilana. I have found that discussions about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven ... and of not having a recognized posek to support their halachic position. The discussions rarely focus on the relevant halachic issues. It's nice to hear someone who is willing to respect the other side...and recognize that the discussion is a machlokes l'sheim shamayim. -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 17:37:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 20:37:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170525003710.GA22308@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:42pm EDT, R Michael Feldstein wrote: : Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilana. I have found that discussions : about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because : those who support : shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven ... and : of not having : a recognized posek to support their halachic position. The discussions : rarely focus on : the relevant halachic issues. A discussion on Avodah can focus exclusively on the relevant halachic issues. A decision of what to do in practice has to include deferring to the position that actually is backed by recognized posqim. And one side's unwillingness to ask the question on this level itself becomes a relevant halachic issue. However, the following is true anyway: : It's nice to hear someone who is willing to respect the other side...and : recognize that : the discussion is a machlokes l'sheim shamayim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 20:03:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 05:03:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly accused of being agenda driven. Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. Ben On 5/24/2017 10:42 PM, Michael Feldstein via Areivim wrote: > I have found that discussions > about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support > shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 04:57:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 11:57:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> On 5/24/2017 10:42 PM, Michael Feldstein via Areivim wrote: > I have found that discussions > about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support > shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven _______________________________________________ Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:28:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:28:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? Message-ID: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:30:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:30:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shoftim-Mesorah Chain Message-ID: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&st=&pgnum=484 Fascinating article on the mesorah chain-were the shoftim really part of it ?(doesn't deal with broader question of why we don't see Sanhedrin in Nach). KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:46:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 10:46:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shoftim-Mesorah Chain In-Reply-To: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170525144620.GA16912@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:30:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&st=&pgnum=484 : Fascinating article on the mesorah chain-were the shoftim really part of it ?(doesn't deal with broader question of why we don't see Sanhedrin in Nach). Is this the right link? The article appears to be about the revalation of Tanakh "Dargot haNevu'ah baTorah, Nevi'im uKhtuvim", starting with Devarim vs the other 4 chumashim, then Navi vs Kesuvim. By R Moshe Menachem haKohein Shapira. I think you mean an earlier article, MEsoret haTSBP beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah Neustadt. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252pgnum=474 Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:26:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:26:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minhagei Nashim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526012654.GA29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 06:51:56AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I am NOT talking about a machlokes haposkim, where the wife was taught one : thing and the husband was taught something else. In that case, there is : much common ground, and they (or their rav) can go to the sources to figure : out what the couple should do. I'm talking about a much more fundamental : problem, where generations have passed on different traditions, without : anyone ever realizing that there was a mismatch. Is this really a problem? I highly recommend learning AhS. One of the things you get to watch is how much this conflict drives the dialectic of halakhah. Unlike the clean-room approach to halachic theory one gets from lomdus. You get a sense of how much acceptance of a practice in the field drives how much willingness to accept or draft a dachuq theory to explain how it could be justified in theory. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:43:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:43:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'midbar In-Reply-To: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> References: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170526014307.GC29809@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:37:34PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has : been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced : the monotheistic faith... But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged during the Exodus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:39:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526013946.GB29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, : and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying : observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes : when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ... : [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is : outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be : factionalized like that. .... : help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, : despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it : is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to : the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply : to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. : I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 : consistent with 493:8? Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag, as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin on ch"m either. It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the local court(s) or inherited. Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag side of the AhS's chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 20:53:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 23:53:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes Message-ID: R' Ben Bradley wrote: > The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is > that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui > which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in > fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha > nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it > either as far as I recall. This surprised me so much that I looked it up. Here's what I found: These words are from Devarim 4:15. The only comment of the Torah Temimah is: "This is brought and explained above, in the pasuk Ushmor Nafsh'cha (#9)." So I look at Devarim 4:9, and the Torah Temimah quotes a lengthy story from Brachos 32b, which references both pesukim (4:9 and 4:15). The comments of the Torah Temimah that I found particularly relevant to RBB's comment are found in the second and third paragraphs in Torah Temimah #16, and I will quote them here: > The Maharsha writes here, "This pasuk is about forgetting > the Torah, and these pesukim have nothing at all to do with > a person protecting his own nefesh from danger." According > to him, the tzadik of that story said what he said to the > government official merely to get out of the situation, > because the pasuk is really not about Shmiras Haguf. Further, > the fact that it is a common saying, for people to quote the > pasuk V'nishmartem Me'od L'nafshoseichem for any physical > danger - according to the Maharsha that's a mistake. > > But isn't it the explicit opinion of the Rambam, who wrote > in Rotzeach 11:4, "It is a Mitzvas Aseh to remove any > michshol which could be a Sakanas Nefashos, and to be very > very careful about it, as it is said, 'Hishamer L'cha, > Ushmor Nafsh'cha Me'od.'" So it is explicit that the language > of these pesukim *is* about protecting one's body. At first glance, this seems to go against what RBB wrote. BUT: Even according to the Rambam as cited by the Torah Temimah, it seems to me that the most one can say is that Ushmor Nafsh'cha (Devarim 4:9) talks about physical danger; we don't necessarily know that about V'nishmartem (Devarim 4:15), and it is not clear to me why the Torah Temimah closes that paragraph referring to "THESE pesukim" (hapesukim ha-ayleh). Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 03:18:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 13:18:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Bmidbar Message-ID: Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has : been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced : the monotheistic faith... But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged during the Exodus >> However, the avot were shepherds and it has been suggested that being alone with the flock and nature helped them perceive monotheism. BTW I am now reading The exodus you almost passed over by Rabbi Fohrman who demonstrates that the debate between Moshe and Pharoh and the 10 plagues all revolve about monotheism versus polytheism -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:39:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526013946.GB29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, : and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying : observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes : when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ... : [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is : outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be : factionalized like that. .... : help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, : despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it : is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to : the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply : to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. : I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 : consistent with 493:8? Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag, as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin on ch"m either. It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the local court(s) or inherited. Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag side of the AhS's chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 19:22:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 22:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government Message-ID: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> There is a popular theory that the positive description of the gov't found repeatedly found in the AhS is self-censorship and an attempt to make sure his works make it through the government censorship and approval process. But there are times he goes far beyond this, complimenting them in ways no censor would have expected, never mind demanded. For example EhE 42:51, the discussion of marrying in front of witnesses \who are pesulei eidus deOraisa -- eg converts away from Judaism. Rashi has a case of an anoos who got married with other anoosim, and they all returned. Rashi ruled that she needs a gett, because maybe they had hirhurei teshuvah and at that moment were valid eidim. Then he adds Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed. They would never force someone to convert. Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah, we don't have to be chosheish for it. So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus? In terms of timing, the first booklets of EhE started coming out in 1905. (After YD, which came out 1897-1905.) He stopped sometime during or before 1908, his petirah; but he could have written this well before 1905 -- I only know the publishing date. 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other things. Which then led to a new Russioan Constitution, a multi-party system, the Imperial Duma... and 11 years later, the Soviets. So, it's hard to believe he meant it, but it's hard to believe he would risk empty flattery with those stakes! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 04:50:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 07:50:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> On 25/05/17 22:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Then he adds > Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu > shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed. > They would never force someone to convert. He goes on far longer than that. So long that no reader could possibly miss his meaning. > Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he > continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's > converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah, > we don't have to be chosheish for it. > > So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he > suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO > obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up > to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus? This was a period when some publishers of siddurim felt it necessary to print "avinu malkeinu ein lanu melech bashamayim ela ata". He may very well have feared that including a practical psak about anoosim would arouse the censor's ire, especially since the censors were themselves mostly meshumodim. > 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which > was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other > things. Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would have been obvious to him too. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 07:57:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other :> things. : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would : have been obvious to him too. I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation audience. Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his contemporary readers. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 08:33:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 11:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2dc5d4d3-0686-0f3a-9692-24d0aa39595b@sero.name> On 26/05/17 10:57, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which > :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other > :> things. > > : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see > : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which > : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would > : have been obvious to him too. > > I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in > his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation > audience. candlesticks? I think you meant gelecther. But there's no false psak, just a false description of the metzius, which is so over the top that nobody could miss it. > Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining > qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting > them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his > contemporary readers. How could he possibly know what future conditions might be? Any reference in any sefer to "our times" has to be understood as about the author's times, not the reader's. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 07:53:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:53:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly : accused of being agenda driven. : : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response. Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality. Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a non-halachic agenda by making it look holy. (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:57:32AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post : modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all : agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid) But there are limits to eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. When in a halachic debate, one should be limiting oneself to the various answers that are objectively right. Thus presuming there is an objectively right, while still not being absolutist about it. And if we assimilated too much postmodernism to be able to see where eilu va'eilu ends (tapers off), we should be leaning on posqim who can. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 09:54:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 12:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Tvunah] St. Petersberg White Night Zmanim Message-ID: <20170526165420.GA22041@aishdas.org> >From the web site of R' Asher Weiss's pesaqim . I was told that they had a similar problem in the summer in Telzh. Motza"sh was havdalah, melaveh malkah, night seder, shacharis kevasikin, sleep. Tvunah in English Beit Midrash for Birurei Halachah Binyan Zion Under the Leadership of Maran HaRav Asher Weiss Shlita White Night Zmanim Questions: 1. During White Nights here in St. Petersburg we end Shabbat at midnight (2:00). This is also the time of alot ashahar. Accordingly, there is no opportunity to say a blessing on the candle and eat Seudat melawe malka. Question: Is it possible to rely on the opinion of rabbi Ovadiya Yoseph that alot ashahar is 72 dakot zmaniet before dawn, and accordingly there is a certain night after Chatzot for Bracha on the candle and melawe malka? 2. Can we finish fasts of 17 of Tamuz and the 9th of Av after tzet kahovim according Gaon (0:03 and 23:03)? Answers: 1. Since it is already the beginning of the light of the new day and hence Alot Hashachar, the bracha on the candle for havdala should not be said. However since it is still a few hours before Netz Hachama [sunrise] one could be lenient to eat Melave Malka. In fact, with regards to Melave Malka one could be lenient and eat before Chatzos, as long as 72 minutes have passed since shkiya [even though with regards to Melacha one should be machmir until Chatzos]. 2. With regards to ending Rabbinic Fasts, one could rely on the zman of Tzais Hakochavim according to Rabeinu Tam [according to the Pri Megadim that it is a set time in all places], waiting 72 minutes after shkiya. [Hebrew meqoros ubi'urim elided.] :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 45th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Malchus: What is the beauty of Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity (on all levels of relationship)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 27 12:11:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 22:11:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> On 5/26/2017 5:53 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly > : accused of being agenda driven. > : > : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. > > I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat > believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their > halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response. > > Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda > to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have > a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality. People keep using that word, "feminist". I don't think that's what feminism means. This is egalitarianism, which may overlap with feminism in some areas, but is a different ideology. And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to reality. That would imply that halakha comes first and responds to reality. I think that in the vast majority of cases, and if you want, I'll give you ample examples from the writings of JOFA/YCT people, it is a sense that egalitarianism is a moral imperative. That the egalitarian worldview is quite simply the *only* moral worldview, and that to the extent that halakha comforms to that worldview, it is a moral system, and to the extent that it does not, it is not. > Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means > of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a > non-halachic agenda by making it look holy. It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality that predates this entire debate. When the egalitarians want to try and read their ideology back into Jewish history, they often do so with things like Rashi's daughters laying tefillin, a fiction which is accepted as fact by Conservative and Reform Jews, but has absolutely no historical basis. There is a legitimate argument to be made that those on the side of tradition are afraid of change. But not that they are *only* afraid of change. Casual change of halakhic norms has caused enormous damage in recent history, and wariness or even fear of such things is both rational and reasonable. Again, there may even be something admirable about trying to equalize the two sides the way you're doing here, but it doesn't match the reality. One has only to listen to the types of arguments that are used by the two sides to see that they are operating on the basis of vastly different paradigms, where one *starts* with the Torah and one *starts* with egalitarianism. > (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about > fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" > a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos > that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, > etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or > resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and > general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha. The words of the Ramchal and Rabbenu Bachya are not as rigorously chosen as those in the halakhic areas of the Torah, and are far more easily "adapted" to foreign ideologies. I don't say that they are unimportant, but let's not let the tail wag the dog here. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 27 20:44:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 23:44:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: To quickly review an old question: If Rus and Orpah converted at the *beginning* of the story, then how could Naami send Orpah back to her people? But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews? Some answer this question suggesting that there was a sort of "conditional" conversion at the beginning, and while Rus later affirmed her conversion to be sincere, it was revealed that Orpah's was never valid to begin with. I have never understood this answer, because of the ten years that elapsed from the supposed conversion until it was retroactively nullified. (By analogy, suppose (chalila) that Jared and Ivanka would split up, and Ivanka would claim that she was only putting on a show all along. Who would believe her? Those who currently accept her geirus as valid, would anyone accept such a bitul of it?) Today I came across a different approach to the question. Like any other area of halacha, hilchos geirus has its share of halachic disputes. For example, which parts of the process require a beis din; perhaps a beis din is needed only l'chatchila, or is it me'akev? Or: If the conversion candidate admits that he/she has mixed motivations (such as being interested in a Jewish spouse, but also sincerely l'shem Shamayim), is this acceptable or is it posul even b'dieved? Pick either of those questions, or make up another one of your own. Let's say that both Orpah and Rus converted at the beginning of the story. Let's also say that everyone was up-front and sincere about whatever they claimed their motivations to be, such that no one was surprised ten years later. In other words, there was no disagreement about the facts of the situation. But there WAS a machlokes among the poskim of the time, about the halacha to apply to that situation. Machlon, Kilyon, Rus and Boaz all held like the poskim who said that the conversion was a valid one, at least b'dieved. But Naami held like the poskim who ruled it to be invalid, even b'dieved. Thus, Machlon and Kilyon were able to marry these women in good conscience. For ten years Naami held Orpah and Rus to be non-Jewish, but there wasn't much she could do about it, because their husbands held that they *were* Jewish. When the husbands died, Naami finally had the opportunity to express the view of her poskim. Orpah accepted Naami's advice (for whatever reason), but Rus was committed to continuing her new religion (for whatever reason). At this point, perhaps Rus had a second geirus to keep her mother-in-law happy, or maybe not. Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to speak of. A possible hole in my suggestion appears in pasuk 2:20, where Naami explicitly admits that Boaz is one of "OUR" relatives, and one of "OUR" redeemers. This would not make sense if Naami rejected the validity of the original conversion. However, this occurs AFTER pasuk 2:11, in which Boaz tells Rus (I am paraphrasing): "I know your whole story. Don't worry. I hold your geirus to be valid, and I hold you you be a relative." In the final analysis, Naami goes along. Maybe she decides to accept Boaz's shitah l'halacha, or maybe she merely goes along as a practical matter, given the fait accompli that both Boaz and Rus hold that way. Have I left any loose ends here? Previous approaches have focused on uncertainties of intention. This approach says that everything that happened in Moav was clear, and the only gray part was a machlokes haposkim, but we know which shitah was followed by each character of the story. I invite all comments. advTHANKSance Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 09:16:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 12:16:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0789e301-2374-0dd3-0f9e-8befc1c1052c@sero.name> On 27/05/17 23:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was > valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to > speak of. There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. What is the point of this mitzvah? It's to pay off his obligations and redeem his good name; Ruth -- whether Jewish or not -- was also his obligation, and had to be redeemed. Thus Boaz need not have believed that the initial conversion -- if there was one -- had been valid. But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:51:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:51:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Rut converted when Naomi tried to send her back, while Oprah chose not to convert. Ben On 5/28/2017 5:44 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without > Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 10:50:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 17:50:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> >From last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should always follow the local custom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:16:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:16:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mezonos After Kiddush Message-ID: <1495995457275.89387@stevens.edu> >From Friday's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. Must Kiddush be followed by a meal with bread, or is it sufficient to make Kiddush and then eat mezonos? A. There is a halacha that Kiddush may only be recited at the place of one's meal. This requirement is known as Kiddush b'makom se'udah (Pesachim 101a). If one does not eat a se'udah after Kiddush or recites Kiddush in a location other than where he eats the meal, he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of Kiddush and must make Kiddush again when and where he eats. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch (OC 273:5) quote the Ge'onim who hold that one can fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush without actually eating a full meal at the time and place that he makes Kiddush. Rather, a person can consume a mere ke'zayis of bread or even drink an additional revi'is of wine as his Kiddush-time "meal" to fulfill the requirement of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. The Magen Avraham (273:11) and Aruch Ha-Shulchan (273:8) explain that, according to the Ge'onim, one can eat Mezonos food (e.g. cookies, pastry, or cake), after Kiddush to satisfy the rule of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. This view has become widely accepted, and many poskim permit partaking of Mezonos foods after Kiddush but ideally advise against satisfying the mitzvah by merely drinking an additional revi'is of wine (see MB 273:25). Some halachic authorities, including the Chasam Sofer, as quoted by Rav Moshe Shternbuch, shlita (Teshuvos V'Hanhogos 5:80), have ruled that if one makes Kiddush and then eats Mezonos foods, he must make Kiddush again later at his actual se'udah. This was also the opinion of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l. In the next Halacha Yomis we will discuss whether cheesecake is a proper pastry for one to fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. For more on this topic please read Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer's excellent article "Eating Dairy on Shavuos" featured in the 5777 - 2017 Shavuos Consumer Daf HaKashrus. After eating pungent, strong-tasting cheese one should wait before eating meat, the same amount of time that one waits between meat and milk, regardless of the cheese's age. The following chart shows which cheeses require waiting: Aged Cheese List - Kosher -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:59:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:59:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros Message-ID: <1495998054786.63765@stevens.edu> I received the following response to my earlier email about this topic Sadly, you will always find 1 or 2 people in every shul who "sit" while the entire tzibbur stands. This strikes me as downright arrogant, and IMHO is done more to make a "statement" than to follow a minhag that might be prevalent in some communities. C'mon; if 100 or 200 people are standing, should someone stick out and sit because that's the way he was taught.....? To this I replied Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. And in light of this, may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed. I bet this never occurred to you. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:15:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:15:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> References: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> Message-ID: Some people look at this as purely a matter of minhag, and so criticize those who do not follow the local minhag, calling them arrogant. Well, the Rambam thought this was an issue of an incorrect hashqafa, and worth ignoring any minhag started in ignorance. Part of the problem with modern Jews is that everything to them is an issue of minhag. They do not understand that sometimes there are really important hashqafa issues from teh Torah involved. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels at ou.org ________________________________ From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 1:50 PM To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? >From last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should always follow the local custom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:34:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:34:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to : reality... It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem. ... : It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as : being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality : that predates this entire debate... True, as I wrote : >(My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about : >fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" : >a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos : >that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, : >etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or : >resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and : >general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) >From this perspective, those who are in favor of change are advocating a definition of Torah that includes only black-letter law. ... : It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of : Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha... Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that halakhah must conform to and the law itself. Not "primacy over halakhah", but a voice in resolving between two positions when black-letter law could be drafted to support either. It may only get a quieter voice, it still must have its say. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:16:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 16:16:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the rituals above the menshlichkeit. There's a story I've heard many times. This version comes from Rav Frand at https://torah.org/torah-portion/ravfrand-5755-naso/ > At the eulogy of R. Yaakov Kaminetzsky, zt"l, one speaker > related the following: There was a nun in Monsey, New York > who complained about the way the Jewish population related > to her: Everyone used to walk right past her... The "correct" > people ignored her, and the "super correct" people spat. This > nun then related that there was, however, one old Jew with a > white beard that used to say "Good Morning" every single day. > (That Jew was R. Yaakov.) That?s Kiddush Hashem and "looking > the other way" is Chillul Hashem. Such stories are NOT hard to find. The "frum" newspapers and magazines and parsha sheets are full of them. I don't know why so few people greeted that nun pleasantly. I hope that it changed when that story started to get around. If I write any more, I'll get even more depressed than currently. Suffice it so say that the only reason I'm posting this at all, is to clarify the point that I think RMB was trying to make, and to agree with it. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:52:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:52:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as kedoshim tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in the sense of being like aggadeta. Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos would be incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give the value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan pesukim and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos. Most often that's implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the gemara of value based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the expense of what looks otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular dracheha darchei noam is cited. I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic. Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not operate in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how the value system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We ignore meta-halachic pesukim at our peril. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:18:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:18:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Ben Waxman wrote: > I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their > very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, pages 48-52. R' Zev Sero wrote: > There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the > mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. > But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than > being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why > put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether > it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only > applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk > literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging > such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves. Good question, especially since my post explicitly allowed for "an unknown machlokes". The problem is that the machlokes would have to be one where Machlon, Kilyon, Ruth, and Boaz all held that Ruth's marriage was valid, with only Naami holding it to be not valid. My understanding is that Avoda Zara 36b allows for the *possibility* that it is muttar *d'Oraisa* to marry an Avoda Zara woman who is not from The Seven Nations. And Ruth, being from Moav, was *not* from those seven. But at the very most, that gemara would allow (on a d'Oraisa level) sexual relations, and even doing so "derech chasnus" - as a marriage. It does NOT go so far as to consider Ruth as part of the extended family such that Boaz would have any responsibility to her. I would want a source for that. Granted that there might be some "unknown machlokes" which would consider Ruth to be part of Boaz's family, even if she did not convert at the beginning of the story. But I think such a suggestion would be venturing into fantasyland. Here's why: Even if it is mutar d'Oraisa for a Jewish man to publicly marry an Avoda Zara woman (who isn't from the Seven Nations), the children from such a marriage would not be Jewish, and that's d'Oraisa. In other words, even if the marriage is legitimate, the children are not part of the man's family. And if the children are not part of his family, then kal vachomer, Boaz is certainly not part of his family. So unless you can show a valid source that Boaz held (or even *might* have held) by patrilineal descent, then I can't see RZS's suggestion as reasonable. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 15:07:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:07:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: "And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying, 'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them: May HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers 6:22-26] The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins between man and his fellow man. Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his or her face towards the offender. So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is equally important. Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 15:27:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: <4EECF03B-E505-4324-B37E-96A99F67F0A9@cox.net> "And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying, 'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them: May HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers 6:22-26] The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins between man and his fellow man. Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his or her face towards the offender. So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is equally important. Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 16:14:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 19:14:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170528231426.GD6467@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:16:38PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : : > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of : > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without : > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot : > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... : : I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and : more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly : does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But : for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the : rituals above the menshlichkeit. : This is why I wrote that the hashkafah is necessary in order to observe halakhos like qedoshim tihyu. But I realized the language problem, which is why when I replied to Lisa I used the idiom "black-letter halakhah", to refer to the kind of laws that can be codified in the SA. Which isn't only ritual. Eg the limits of ona'as mamon is black-letter halakhah. One of the saddest things about the writings of the CC (other than the MB) is that they represent the realization that shemiras halashon and ahavad chessed were going to continue to get short shrift unless someone made black-letter halakhah out of them. When in reality, HQBH would be "Happier" -- I am guessing, of course -- if we would do things things simply because ve'ahavta lerei'akha kamokha. At the Alter of Slabodka put it: I don't love mtself because there is a mitzvah to do so. So too, the mitzvah is to develop of love of others, and therefore all these things would come naturally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:31:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 14:31:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: It seems to me that the opponents of ordination of women are hiding behind conflation of terms. What is first needed is an understanding of what ordination is in this day and age. The plain meaning of the Shulchan Aruch YD 242:14 is that it is permission from a teacher to a student to instruct in issur v'heter. it is perhaps more instructive to go through the process step by step and see where those who object have a problem. 1. women learn the subject matter 2. the teacher thinks they are capable 3. if the teacher dies, according to SA YD 242:14, nothing further is needed 4. the teacher gives the student permission(to avoid transgressing on the prohibition of moreh l'fnei rabo) So, if there is a problem, which step is the problem and why? is it that a teacher cant give a women permission to be mora l'fnei raba? what is the source for that? Essentially what we use the term semicha today is a teacher giving the student immunity from transgressing a particular prohibition. If the issue is that of a woman giving hora'ah, then it is necessary to establish exactly what that is in this day and age. Is it just 'mareh mekomot'? is it more formal hora'ah? we should keep in mind that R. Schachter, in defining terms for converts, writes that hora'ah in issur v'heter is NOT serarah, and that according to some opinions, judging dinei mamanot is not serarah. Furthermore, he writes of a difference of opinion whether semicha is a din in dayanus, or a din in hora'ah. So, if semicha is a din in dayanus, and not hora'ah, then there is no reason to bring the restrictions from dayanus over to hora'ah. and, if semicha is a din in hora'ah, then the restrictions on dayyanus don't apply to semicha. I would add that the entire basis for the claim that women cant get semicha starts with the restriction on women being witnesses, then that being extended to judges, and then being extended again to semicha. It is not necessarily a given that these extensions should be made. We should note that there are a number of others who are prohibited from being witnesses- those who lend with interest, deaf, blind, etc. The internet reports that there are those who were deaf that recieved orthodox semicha. I dont have any information on semicha for the blind. However, it does not appear that the OU has taken a position on these, nor has anyone accused the deaf and the blind who are seeking semicha of being heretics nor have they been threatened with being kicked out of Orthodoxy. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 17:00:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:00:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529000002.GA17436@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:01:37AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Areivim wrote: : 'that a pesaq is by definition someone eligable to be a dayan,' : Which surely most community rabbis are not, since most have yoreh yoreh but not yadin yadin. 1- Eligable, not qualified. 2- Who said one has to have Yadin Yadin to serve as a dayan? Yes, to judge fiscal matters, we need someone who knows CM, but for someone to decide questions of YD? On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:21:20PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Areivim wrote: : I was thinking along very similar lines. In which case, the main : (only?) difference between the yoetzet and the community rabbi is that : the rabbi's job also includes "masculine" roles like leadership, while : teaching and paskening are neutral and shared. As I wrote in every other iteratrion of this question, there is a difference between teaching halakhah pesuqah and applying shiqul hada'as. Someone who follows a rav's pesaq is obeying lo sasur, and therefore did the right thing even if the rabbi's shiqul hada'as was faulty. Any hypothetical qorban chatos would be the rabbi's. If the person is not among those covered by mikol asher yorukha, then the qorban chatas is yours for listening to her, not the Maharat's. On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 02:31:52PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that the opponents of ordination of women are hiding : behind conflation of terms. What is first needed is an understanding of : what ordination is in this day and age. The plain meaning of the Shulchan : Aruch YD 242:14 is that it is permission from a teacher to a student to : instruct in issur v'heter... I cwould use the word "hora'ah" rather than the misleading "instruct". One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in the same town as one's rebbe. ... : 3. if the teacher dies, according to SA YD 242:14, nothing further : is needed : 4. the teacher gives the student permission(to avoid transgressing on : the prohibition of moreh l'fnei rabo) I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. IOW, we have no indication that when the Rama says that if the rebbe was niftar, nothing else is needed that he is talking about anything more than needed to satisfy kavod harav ONLY. IOW, one of these two criteria is necessary, but -- even assuming competency is a given -- are they sufficient? Semchiah could well be hetero hora'ah plus. Both R/Prof Saul Lieberman and RHS argued they are not. And so it appears from Taosafos. And since we have no indication that the Rama is disagreeing with Torafos... For that matter, since the form "yoreh yoreh" is peeled off of the formula for ordaining a member of sanhderin -- "Yoreh? Yoreh! Yadin? Yadin! Yatir bekhoros? Yatir bechoros!" -- there is sme connection to dayanus as per Tosafos implied in the traditional ordination text itself. ... : I would add that the entire basis for the claim that women cant get : semicha starts with the restriction on women being witnesses, then that : being extended to judges, and then being extended again to semicha. : It is not necessarily a given that these extensions should be made. We : should note that there are a number of others who are prohibited : from being witnesses- those who lend with interest, deaf, blind, etc. : The internet reports that there are those who were deaf that recieved : orthodox semicha... Deaf? To you mean cheireish, a caegory we rule refers to the uneducable and thus does not mean today's deaf mutes? Blind? Chalitzah has a special gezeiras hakasuv, "l'einei", specifically because a blind man is allowed to serve as a dayan. (And as RHS points out, geirim can be dayanim for other geirim, so we see their disqualification to serve in most courts is not athat they are outside of lo sosuru, but another issue.) But I do not think those who lend with interest are kosher rabbanim. Refardless of social ills which may cause that din to be largely ignored in practice. Our discussion here should not be about whether you or I agree with the OU's priorities, but whether the shitah they are supporting in the particular question at hand is well-founded in principle. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 16:53:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 19:53:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg cited a story with an apparent contradiction, and resolved the contradiction this way: > Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between > man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can > show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But > when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His > face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his > or her face towards the offender. > > So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the > Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately > towards other human beings is equally important. It seems to me that although religious or ritual behavior is important, Rebbe Yossi HaKohen is teaching us that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is EVEN MORE important. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 17:18:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:18:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 07:53:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that although religious or ritual behavior is : important, Rebbe Yossi HaKohen is teaching us that behaving : appropriately towards other human beings is EVEN MORE important. Look at the list of holidays in parashas Emor. 23:21-22 describe Shavuos. Look which mitzvos are associated with Shavuos. Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which mitzvos are listed specifically? Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice of Shavu'os reading. To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani. We really need a flavor of O that takes Hillel's "de'ealh sani", or R' Ariva's or Ben Azzai's kelalim gedolim, or for that matter the oft-quoted medrash "derekh eretz qodma ... leTorah" as one's actual first principle for life. And not just a platitude for the early grades, a truism repeated unthinkingly to get nods during the rabbi's sermon. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:11:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:11:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Someone who follows a rav's pesaq is obeying lo sasur, and > therefore did the right thing even if the rabbi's shiqul > hada'as was faulty. Any hypothetical qorban chatos would be > the rabbi's. If the person is not among those covered by > mikol asher yorukha, then the qorban chatas is yours for > listening to her, not the Maharat's. L'halacha, I totally agree. L'maaseh, it is critical to determine who is a "rav" and who isn't. That is, who is "covered by mikol asher yorukha" and who isn't. It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these teachers, because, after all, *Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! > I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. > IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that > anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. I agree that YD 242 is about kavod harav. And if the rav is niftar, then that permission is no longer necessary, but that's not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about who is covered by mikol asher yorukha. So why wouldn't the semicha place a musmach into that category? In other words: Suppose a certain person *is* in that category, and then gives semicha "yoreh yoreh" to another individual. Doesn't the semicha announce to the world that the second individual is now covered by mikol asher yorukha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:15:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 05:15:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> If "black letter law" is the criteria, then issues like womens Megila readings and women dancing with a Sefer Torah disappear. All the opposition because these practices are not "Torat Sabba" doesn't even begin if all we do is ask "Muttar? Yes? Fine". Ben On 5/28/2017 9:34 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of > : Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha... > > Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black > letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that > halakhah must conform to and the law itself. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:20:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 05:15:03AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : If "black letter law" is the criteria, then issues like womens : Megila readings and women dancing with a Sefer Torah disappear. All : the opposition because these practices are not "Torat Sabba" doesn't : even begin if all we do is ask "Muttar? Yes? Fine". I am totally at lost as to your intent. Megillah reading or dancing with a sefer Torah are reducible to black-letter law. In contrast to, for example, deciding how to triage my tzedaqah donations. Wehther that reduction can be done within vanilla halachic process or by appeal to metahalakhah, or by appeal to the general "feel" of halakhah -- like the Rambam's "li nir'eh" -- is a different question. But either way, the question exists. So, what do you mean? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:06:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:06:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat/R. Micha Message-ID: R. Micha, thanks for the response. so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah. And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't necessarily apply to anything else. But the OU authors claim that some of YD 242 is based on classic semicha, and therefore all the restrictions of classic semicha should apply. But that makes no sense of you are claiming that YD 242 ONLY applies to the teacher/student relationship. So your own argument works against your claim. There is not a single hint that anything else about classic semicha applies to what we currently call semicha. (Incidentally I wonder when the first claim of more extensive connections were made, and why, if there is such a close connection, we dont mandate that semicha be done only in Israel, and all the other attributes of classic semicha, it seems that the ONLY aspect of classic semicha that is being brought forward is the prohibition on women). You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much against that possibility. It states: ??????? ???????????? ??????????? ????????? ??????, ?????? ??????????? ???? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ????? ??????????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ???????????, ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????????. ????? ??????????? ?????, ????????? ?????????????? ??????, ????????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????????.(???''? ?????? ??''? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ?' ?????? ????????). ?????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ???????????, ???? ???????????? ???????, ?????? ??????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????, ??? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????. (???''? ?????? ??' ?' ?????''? ??' ?''? ???''?). ?????? ????????? ???????????(?????????? ???''? ?????''?). ?????????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????????, ????? ??? ????????? ?????, ???? ????????? ???? ?????????? ???????, ???? ?''?. ?????? ?''? ?????????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???????????? ????????, ????? ??? ???? ??????????? ??????????? ????????????? ????????????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????, ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????????? ????????. specifically, semicha IN THIS TIME, so that people know that....he has permission. So if his teacher died, there is no need for semicha. The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general" It is very forced to claim that there is more here. You basically have to read things into it that are not there. I am not sure if you are claiming that women cant have semicha? or that they cannot be moreh hora'ah. because it seems very clear here that those who can be moreh hora'ah can get semicha b'zman hazeh..And there is a long list of poskim who agree that women can be moreh hora'ah. Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable. And also, that even though the Talmud specifically states that someone in a particular category cant be a judge or witness, when the understanding of that person's abilities changes, there is potential for them to be witnesses and/or judges- essentially in some cases, where the understanding of the Talmud was at variance with what we know now, the restrictions on some categories is not fixed. If I am reading correctly, R. Herschel Schachter in b'din ger dan et chavero (available at YUTorah August 2002), seems to state that hora'ah in issur v'heter is NOT a issue of serarah. and, according to some opinions, being a dayan for dinei mamanot is similarly not an issue of serarah. Perhaps more to the point, In 'Kuntrus HaSemicha"(published in eretz hatzvi and it seems to be the basis for a talk given at an RCA convention- the talk is available at YUTorah(1985) Smicha in the talmud and today), if I understand correctly, R. Soloveitchik made a distinction as to whether Smicha was a din in dayanus or in Hora'ah. It would seem that such a distinction would indicate that restrictions on dayyanus via semicha do not automatically apply to hora'ah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 00:14:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:14:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 5/28/2017 10:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >: And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to >: reality... > It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are > other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem. I'm not sure that the views of Avodah's LW are the point. To the extent that they argue in favor of those with "other, less defensible, ideologies", it's reasonable to argue against those "other, less defensible, ideologies". And I would be willing to supply examples of where members of Avodah's LW do appear to see it that way, but I suspect such examples would be bounced as "adding more fire than light to the discussion". On 5/28/2017 11:52 PM, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of > Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' > I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as > kedoshim tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in > the sense of being like aggadeta. I don't see that. They are halakhic in the sense that they are commandments. > Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos would be > incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give the > value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are > part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan > pesukim and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos. Most > often that's implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the > gemara of value based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the > expense of what looks otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular > dracheha darchei noam is cited. There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what can be done today. When members of the left claim that brachot should be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old. > I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic. > Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not > operate in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how > the value system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We > ignore meta-halachic pesukim at our peril. The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum". If you mean that the system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to respectfully disagree. The ethics must themselves come from within our own cultural framework, based on our own traditions. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:32:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:32:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:11:37PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least : equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, : because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has : not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself : included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these : teachers, because, after all, *Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! I do not think the typical yo'etzet is qualified under mikol asher yrukha regardless of how capable she is. The term only applies to be elegable to recieve full semichah -- if the chain hadn't been lost, or could be restored. THat's the thesis of what I'm pushing here; that even the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services. And, since this seems ot be turning into a full reprise, even though we should all know the other's position by now, my third problem is with egalitarianism in-and-of itself. It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah. By justifying finding worth in this way, we are indeed teaching girls their traditional role is inferior and they can't reach equality. Rather than trying to find equal meaningfullness without egalitarianism. Second, the fact that we can't reach full eqalirianism implies something about the anature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely consistent with our religion. It should mean that we should really think through our even wanting to make halakhah more egalitarian, and how to balance that with the clear message of laws like davar shebiqdushah, talmud Torah, esrog, sukkah, shofar... Again: 1- Who can pasqen 2- Who was shul designed to serve 3- Trying to accomodate agalitarianism is both strategically and in terms of values, a bad idea. Notice the absense of the word "serarah". Trying to minimize or eliminate the role of serarah in our conversation won't do much to sway me, as it has little to do with my arguments to begin with. Now, back to R/Dr Stadlan's email: :> I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. :> IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that :> anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. : I agree that YD 242 is about kavod harav. And if the rav is niftar, : then that permission is no longer necessary, but that's not what the : discussion is about. The discussion is about who is covered by mikol : asher yorukha. So why wouldn't the semicha place a musmach into that : category? It could or couldn't -- I believe couldn't. (Following R/Prof Lieberman and RHS.) But SA 242 can't be cited on the topic either way, since the se'if is not on topic for our discussion. R/Dr N Stadlan brought it as the defintion of the role of semichah, so I wanted to dismiss taking this siman that way.` "Mikol asher yorukha" is written in the context of dayanim. The only reason why we say it applies to today's musmachim, despite the lesser kind of semichah and the lack of sanhedrin is that "yoreh yoreh" is framed as a splinter of dayanus (which is where the phrase "yoreh yoreh" comes from) and that they are appointed to act as the surrogate of the last (so far) sanhedrin. None of which pro forma can be applied to women. Only someone who could be a dayan, if the situation were such that they could become qualified and real semichah were available can serve as their fill-in. On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:06:06PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah. : And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't : necessarily apply to anything else. But the OU authors claim that some of : YD 242 is based on classic semicha... They note that the Rama in 4-5 is drawing from the Mahariq, and then explain that the Mahariq tells you he is basing his conclusion on the idea that what's true for classic semichah should be true for our current Yoreh-Yoreh (YY). They also cite the AhS 242:30, who assumes that only those eligable for classic semichah can be ordained YY. Those are the ony two mentions of siman 242 in the paper, neither of which refer to the se'ifim you did. And what you are attributing to the OU is actually the Mahariq and the Ah -- a source and an interpreter (who is for us a source in his own right) of the SA -- not their own take. : You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly : where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much : against that possibility. It states: ... : The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the : ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general" YD 242:14 isn't trying to define semichah. It's in a siman about kevod harav, not a siman about semichah. You are nit-picking in the wording about se'ifim that are only tangentially related, and ignoring the Rama's stated source. I disagree with how you read the se'if, since his "only" would be about kevod harav, not "semichah is only". But really that's tangential. Your read of the Rama contradicts one of the sources he names. ... : Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be : witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable... I do? Where do I say that? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 22:01:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 01:01:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the entire aliya in which the dibros appear. For those who feel the dibros merit standing, they are indeed standing. For those who feel that the dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria of the dibros begins. Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since their end is always the end of the aliya. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:04:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 23:04:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/05/17 15:18, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Ben Waxman wrote: >> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their >> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. > > Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that > Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent > introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, > pages 48-52. Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation that has such "gedolim". > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the >> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. > > It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it > something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus > and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus > then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. On the contrary. If it were a matter of yibum then it would depend on whether there was an original marriage. But then why would it be connected to redeeming the field? It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations would not be settled. Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz agreed with them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 00:10:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:10:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/28/2017 10:18 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Ben Waxman wrote: >> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their >> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. > Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that > Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." Yes, but the dor in question was one where "each man did what was right in his own eyes". So their being gedolei hador doesn't mean they were any better than, say, Yiftach. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:23:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:23:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation : that has such "gedolim". According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah Neustadt , this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam. Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim". But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el... If this is the Rambam's intent, it would fit a number of gemaros which refer to various shofetim as amei ha'aretz. See the article. OTOH, Tosafos's treatment of the question of how Devorah could serve as shofetes presumes the role includes being a dayan in the halachic sense (and then explains why Devorah is neither role model nor eis-la'asos exception), rather than only the serarah question of her being a civil leader. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:17:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:17:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29/05/17 01:01, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his > minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not > to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two > different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the > entire aliya in which the dibros appear. For those who feel the dibros > merit standing, they are indeed standing. For those who feel that the > dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up > specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria > of the dibros begins. Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since > their end is always the end of the aliya. Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. (Personally I stand for the whole leining so it's not an issue for me, but this is what I've seen.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:33:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:33:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <10c1c9ed-6b4e-cb90-8297-cdeb5a507e94@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <13c3a1e0-26da-f70b-7b13-b80c95bf5d1d@zahav.net.il> <58F44DE5-8AE0-4CF7-BC79-7048F752624D@sibson.com> <10c1c9ed-6b4e-cb90-8297-cdeb5a507e94@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: > Ok let's accept your presumption-Who that has the authority to determine which changes are with in the halachic system and which aren't. Can I say libi omer li if I have smicha and that's good enough? If not , how do you draw the line? ------------------------ I can't say that I can draw a clear line. Certainly someone who passes a 2 year smicha program (a change, BTW) shouldn't be doing this type of thing. It seems that change doesn't require unanimous agreement and very possibly it can be done even if the greatest rabbis disagree. My example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher. Ben ----------------------- Yup, as said, the wheel is still in spin with regard to this and the other current thread Maharat/smicha. Now "everyone knows" it was obvious that Chassidus would be accepted and Conservative not (see Kahnemaan Tversky on how we all do this) Anyone who thinks these or those are simply matters of black letter law discussions (hat tip R'Micha) IMHO is fooling themselves. Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 06:09:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 09:09:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in > the same town as one's rebbe. If the shiur-giver is very careful to merely read and explain the QSA, then I'd agree with you. But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require require semicha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 06:12:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 13:12:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] (no subject) Message-ID: "Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. And in light of this, may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed." Do you also sit for the musaf amidah on Rosh Hashana and Ne'ilah on Yom Kippur? And since there are those who cannot and do not stand for those because of physical infirmities, would you suggest that everyone sit for those teffilot so as not to embarrass the ones who truly must sit? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 09:41:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros Message-ID: <33c01f.93b651f.465da93b@aol.com> From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. YL >>>>>> I want to thank RYL for the reminder we all need -- myself very much included -- not to be too quick to assume we know other people's motives. Sitting during the reading of Aseres Hadibros may indeed be an indication not of arrogance but of arthritis. Let us be kind to one another, even in our thoughts. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 07:26:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 29/05/17 08:23, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation > : that has such "gedolim". > > According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP > beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah > Neustadt, > this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam. > > Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim > of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim". > > But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers > of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past > that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el... I actually had that article in mind, but was not taking Rashi's side. Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel Bedoro". So even if Machlon & Kilyon were considered "gedolei hador" that wouldn't seem to be sufficient reason to assume that they acted properly, even in the sense that they had an opinion which is one of the shiv'im panim and followed it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 09:46:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:46:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum," or you call it something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. Akiva Miller >>>>>> There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events in Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 13:01:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 20:01:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <92dae2a6-a1ea-f563-f350-cddd9a9fbade@starways.net> References: , <92dae2a6-a1ea-f563-f350-cddd9a9fbade@starways.net> Message-ID: 'There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what can be done today. When members of the left claim that brachot should be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old.' No argument there at all. The point was really to buttress the truism that halacha and Torah are not synonymous. Halacha works within the larger structure of Torah and is guided by principle and values. Your point that this idea is mangled and misused throughout heterodoxy is well taken though. I was not suggesting that someone can pick a favourite value, decide that it doesn't shtim with a particular halacha and proceed to mangle the halacha into submission. Not for a moment. 'The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum". If you mean that the system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to respectfully disagree. The ethics must themselves come from within our own cultural framework, based on our own traditions'. Again, agree 100%. Don't think I suggested otherwise. I'm a neo-Hirschian after all. What I was taking issue with was your contention that it is 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' That's true for the heterodox tendency to sidestep halacha (or worse) due to what they consider to be ethical issues. But it doesn't take into account the centrality of of values in the whole system of Torah, including underlying TSBP. Just for example, Pirkei Avos is not halachic but it's vital and has implications for halacha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 12:38:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:38:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> References: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> Message-ID: <2ba3e007-8860-37d6-2941-c41f1aac13bf@sero.name> On 29/05/17 12:46, RTK wrote: > There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events > in Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no > mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was. 1. How could anyone hold there was a mitzvah of yibum, when the Torah explicitly limits it to brothers? 2. If he held as a matter of halacha that Boaz was wrong, then he should have insisted on redeeming the field without marrying Ruth. The fact that on being informed of this requirement he backed out of the whole deal shows that he acknowledged Boaz's point. Therefore that point was not about yibum but about mitzvas geulah. Boaz pointed out that Machlon had an obligation to Ruth, and so long as it remained outstanding the mitzvah to discharge his obligations would remain unfulfilled. Ploni agreed, and since he could not do that he waived his rights. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 12:51:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:51:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel : Bedoro". The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah". Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so? Yes, it's dachuq. But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include the generation's gedolim. I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology, but that doesn't mean I share it. However, given Chabad's linking HQBH medaber mirokh gerono shel Moshe to Moshe bedoro keShmuel bedoro to yield the notion that every generation has a Yechidah Kelalis, a single tzadiq who is uniquely that generation's person in that role, I would think the notion that Yiftach as that person but not one of the baton-passers of mesorah to be even harder to fathom than within my own hashkafah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 13:25:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:25:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <46edbb0e-6394-3e98-a574-f1c53410f0bf@sero.name> On 29/05/17 15:51, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the > : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the > : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel > : Bedoro". > > The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing > Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah". Yes, precisely. And yet he was the "gadol hador". > Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our > obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring > whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so? > > Yes, it's dachuq. > > But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but > not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm > not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include > the generation's gedolim. Your unstated but clear assumption is that "gedolei hador" means "gedolei *hatorah* shebador". I am challenging that assumption. I am saying that when Machlon & Kilyon are described as "gedolei hador" it does not mean that they were talmidei chachamim, any more than it means that when Yiftach is described as "kishmuel bedoro". It just means they were the generation's leaders, and thus if they did wrong everyone else would follow their lead. Meanwhile Pinchas was still the gadol hatorah. Remember, "Yiftach bedoro" is an explicit gemara, so the Rambam can't dispute it. So how can this machlokes between Rashi & the Rambam, that the article posits, exist? This is how. The Rambam accepts Yiftach bedoro, that Yiftach was indeed the "gadol hador", but that is irrelevant to his topic; he is listing who passed the Torah down from that generation to the next, and that was not Yiftach but Pinechas. > I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I > think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology, Wow. Just wow. No, it has nothing to do with Chabad *or* theology. It's an explicit pasuk and gemara. Yiftach was the one and only gadol hador, because the pasuk says so, and he had the same authority as Shmuel because the gemara says so. But one wouldn't ask him a shayla about "an egg in kutach". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:03:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing. Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R. Micha's interpretation: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/ Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to understand the Rama, but one of them is: " The first and simplest view, drawing the logical conclusion from the above depiction of semikhah and adopted by Rama in both the Darkhei Moshe and Shulh?an Arukh, concludes that anyone is eligible to receive semikhah when their teacher certifies they have acquired requisite knowledge and licenses them to issue halakhic rulings. The scope of this license may be limited to certain areas of law (depending on the studentVs actual knowledge and qualifications) and may be granted to one who is ineligible to receive Mosaic ordination that was present in Talmudic times. As such, basic contemporary semikhah is based on oneVs knowledge and competence to answer questions of law". the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have sources to rely upon. I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong with semicha for women. The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 05:08:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 08:08:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am going to revise and restate my original post, which got sidetracked onto issues of marriage to a non-Jewess, and of the role of a "redeemer", which I confess to knowing very little about. But it is very clear to anyone who has looked at it (again, pages 48-52 of ArtScroll's Ruth is an excellent summary) many of Chazal were uncomfortable with the possibility that Machlon and Kilyon would marry women who had not been converted at all. At the same same, they are also very uncomfortable with Naami telling women who *had* converted that they should leave. Some have tried to resolve this by suggesting some sort of "tentative" conversion, but I cannot imagine that we'd allow such a conversion to be cancelled after ten long years. Instead, my solution is that there was a genuine halachic machlokes involved, such that Machlon and Kilyon held the conversion to be valid (at least on some minimal b'dieved level), while Ruth held it to be totally invalid. This simple approach answers all the problems listed above. (It also allows you to think whatever you like about the level of Machlon's and kilyon's gadlus.) I will leave it as an open question whether Ruth reconverted to satisfy Naami's shita, or whether Naami resigned herself to accepting the first geirus. I also retract all my comments about Boaz, as they will turn on topics that I am woefully ignorant about. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:32:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 17:32:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging > Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an > obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he > owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations > would not be settled. > Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages > were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz > agreed with them. I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a related question which is probably simpler: What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then there was no kiddushin. I'll repeat that: Even if it is mutar to marry a woman AZ-nik (not from the Seven Nations) that marriage is one of convenience, maybe even love, but not of kiddushin, and I'm not aware of any halachic obligations that the husband has toward such a wife. I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have towards the husband himself, and we see in pasuk 4:4, that Ploni Almoni was willing to buy the field from Naami in order to meet those obligations to Elimelech. But in 4:5, Boaz pointed out that buying it from Naami would be insufficient. He'd have to buy it from both Naami and Ruth, at which point Ploni declined and Boaz himself accepted the responsibility. My question is: *What* responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid? (I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so, then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech left. Why did they wait ten years?) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:51:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 23:51:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > RMB: the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. > All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and possibly the latter. > > RMB: Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of > shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use > to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi > in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services. > On the one hand, I completely agree with you. One of the things I love about Orthodox Judaism is the all-women spaces - women's shiurim and batei midrash and tehillim groups and ladies' auxiliaries and all-girls schools. I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have comfortable space for women as well. I understand that the "men's club" gets to run the tefillot and be the gabbaim and the ba'alei tefillah and ba'alei korei and rabbi - and that losing that space would not be good for men. But I hope that having an ezrat nashim open for all tefillot (during the week, Shabbat mincha) would not ruin the mens' club atmosphere. Does having a woman give the drasha go too far in this regard? I think it depends on the community. > > > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah.... > Second, > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about > the > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely > consistent with our religion.... > Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. I think you have presented some compelling reasons for declining to endorse or promote the institution of maharats. I see no reason for maharats to be universally accepted. However, I believe that the maharats personally, and the communities they serve, remain clearly within the Orthodox community. We can disagree strongly with another Orthodox sector's practices (Hallel on Yom Ha'Atzma'ut comes to mind) without declaring them out-of-bounds. Finally, a perspective from Israel. Women rabbis/maharats are a particularly contentious issue in the US, because (a) it is similar to changes made by the Conservative and Reform movements, (b) a very common career path for American male rabbis is the shul rabbinate, which is particularly problematic for women, and (c) it seems to have perhaps been instituted in a manner designed to provoke controversy. In Israel, Conservative and Reform are a small minority with little influence. Most male rabbis work in education, writing/translating/publishing, or computer programming - all perfectly acceptable careers for learned women. Full-time shul rabbis are almost unheard of. And I can think of three or four respected, mainstream, dati leumi institutions that are essentially giving women the equivalent of smicha, without a lot of fanfare. Some people think this is great, some people think this is awful, and many people have not really noticed - but there isn't a big brouhaha and questioning of Orthodox credentials. Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it seems to be shaping up as the latter. Chag sameach, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 03:10:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 06:10:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170530101006.GA10791@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have : sources to rely upon... Again, the Rama cites the Mahariq... So, so rule leniently is to read the Rama and ignore his source. : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the : specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. Well, in the case of Maharat in particular, the big bold print in the middle of the certificate reads "heter hora'ah larabbim". http://www.jta.org/2013/06/17/default/what-does-an-orthodox-ordination-certificate-look-like Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 49th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 7 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 goal of perfect unity? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 04:51:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 06:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R Micha. You did not answer my question. When you and/orthe OU panel use the word semicha when you forbid it to women, what exactly does it mean? Heter hora'ah? Something more? Something different? Clarity please. Thank you Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 07:27:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shavuos (Lifeline) Message-ID: <448A28D9-D7AC-47C4-807C-08E3C10A0318@cox.net> The Rabbis tell us the Book of Ruth teaches neither of things that are permitted or forbidden. Why then is it part of Holy Scriptures? Because its subject matter is gemilus chassodim. Along the same line, three times a day we recite ?God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob.? However, we conclude the blessing ?mogen Avraham? ? only with Abraham. Why? In explanation, a Chassidic Rabbi explains that each of the patriarchs symbolizes one of the three essentials as articulated in Pirkei Avos 1:2). Jacob represents Torah; Isaac, Avodah; and Abraham, gemilus chassodim. Though all three principles are vital, kindness is sufficient to stabilize the world (how we need it now more than ever!). An interest in the performance of good deeds was the quality that marked Abraham ? a quality which can be a shield and support to us even when other qualities in our nature are weak ? hence, MOGEN AVRAHAM. Ruth was no ordinary convert. Her name gives us a clue to her essence. In Hebrew, Ruth's name is comprised of the letters reish, vav, tav, which add up to a numerical value of 606. As all human beings have an obligation to observe the seven Noachide commandments ? so called because they were given after the flood ? as did Ruth upon her birth as a Moabite. Add those seven commandments to the value of her name and you get 613, the number of commandments in the Torah. The essence of Ruth, her driving life force was the discovery and acceptance of the 606 commandments she was missing. Another lovely aspect is the meaning of the name "Ruth." In Hebrew the name is probably a contraction of re'ut, ' friendship,' which admirably summarizes her nature. The meaning in English is also very apropos: ? Compassion or pity for another ? Sorrow or misery about one's own misdeeds or flaws. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 15:46:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 01:46:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Naso In-Reply-To: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> References: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos > 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which > mitzvos are listed specifically? > > Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice > of Shavu'os reading. > > To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms > of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of > observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani. > Barukh shekkivanti. I made exactly this comparison in a Tikkun Leil Shavuot this time last year, and a parallel observation in a shi`ur last Shabbat: when the Zohar needs an example of how Basar veDam can make a hit`aruta dil'tata which will cause a hit`aruta dele`ela and kickstart the process of atzilut shefa from the upper to lower worlds, it typically says something like "hoshiv ani al shulhanecha". Because for Hazal, the Torah is above all Torat Hesed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 06:06:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:06:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. ---------------------------------------------------- Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the debate on black letter law? KT Joel Rich (full disclosure-kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-not everything that is permitted to you should be done) THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 07:22:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:22:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Probably the best and most succinct historical analogy I've seen for this question. Ben On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > > Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women > rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the > vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it > seems to be shaping up as the latter. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 13:59:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:59:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation. Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. How can this be? Dare we imagine that he did such things unauthorizedly? Certainly he must have had/received some sort of Heter Hora'ah. If so, then when and how did he get it - and without getting semicha at the same time? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 10:22:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] matched soldier and praying for them In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014801d2d969$41c5c800$c5515800$@com> A while ago on Avodah, a well known (chareidi) Baal machshava was quoted as disagreeing strongly with the concept of matching frum people with a nonfrum soldier in order to pray for them. "we have no brotherhood with secular Israelis" Recently, I posted to Avodah a link to a collection of 1400 short tshuvot from HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlitah (of Toronto) On the above topic, he writes there.. #600 Pray As They Go Q. There are two organizations here in Eretz Yisroel, one called; Elef LaMateh, and the other; The Shmirah Project. Basically, their intent is to match Israeli soldiers with Avreichim and bochurim learning. Each Avreich and Bochur who volunteers, receives the name of a specific soldier (his name and his mother's name) that he takes responsibility to daven for and learn specially for so that in the merit of the tefillos and learning, that soldier will merit to return home alive and well. (Is this a good idea) A. HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is a great mitzvah to pray, learn Torah and accomplish mitzvos for the benefit of all our brethren B'nay Yisroel in times of peril and need, especially for those who put their life in harm's way to save and protect others. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 00:39:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:39:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should be identical for each community and each generation? - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 20:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: . I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start farming? I suppose it was pretty desolate after a ten-year famine, but did she even try? She must have at least gone there to see the place, if for no other reason than to be sure that no squatters took over while she was gone. Without making sure of such things, how could she even hope that anyone (even a goel) would buy it? Maybe she expected to get a better profit from Boaz than she'd get from farming it herself, but maybe there are other answers? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 20:05:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:05:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the distinction? When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on this. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 02:14:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (ADE via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:14:59 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are still being machshiv some pesukim over others. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk > *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:32:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:32:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <510d4fd4-6c91-fb85-0c23-f6cdfa7ffcbf@sero.name> On 02/06/17 05:14, ADE wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one >> pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this >> reason. > Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are > still being machshiv some pesukim over others. There is no requirement to treat all pesukim exactly the same. One is entitled to stand or sit during KhT as one wishes, and has no obligation to choose one policy and stick to it. The problem is only with standing up for special pesukim, such as Shma or the 10D. Since there's nothing special about the pasuk before the 10D, there's no problem with deciding to stand for it. And when the special pesukim come along one is already standing, so one has no obligation to sit down. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 18:46:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:46:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> In our personal religious commitments there are those among us scrupulous in performance of the ceremonial mitzvot but at the same time displaying reckless disregard of our elementary duties towards our fellowman. Halacha embraces human life in its totality. One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social trait from our behavior! A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 08:31:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:31:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought In-Reply-To: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> References: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170602153131.GA15356@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made : a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study : of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social : trait from our behavior! Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, among the aphorisms of his listed in R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 21:28:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:28:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4dd6e4f1-2d00-a274-ace0-e5d2a803039a@sero.name> On 01/06/17 23:05, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I only see four instances of "Ruth Hamoaviah", three in ch 2, and only one in ch 4, in Boaz's description of the situation to Tov. Since his purpose was to scare him off, it made sense to mention her origin, so Tov would be reluctant to risk his future. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:20:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:20:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/2/2017 6:05 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I can't cite a source for it, but I remember once reading that Ruth HaMoaviah was intended to praise her, since she gave up her position in Moav to join us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:31:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:31:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Actually if the land had lied fallow for 10 years, it should be in good shape. Granted it needs weeding but the soil should be good. It only requires a relatively small amount of rain for grass to grow and re-invigorate the soil. Maybe she was too old to work the land and figured that a sale would provide her with enough money to live out the rest of her days in dignity? Ben On 6/2/2017 5:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 00:04:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 09:04:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? They came back on Pesach, at the beginning of the barley harvest. Nothing was growing on their land, presumably. Planting is after Sukkot, at the beginning of the rainy season. If they planted, it would be a full year until they could harvest the first barley. As we see from Megillat Rut, the barley then had to dry and wasn't threshed or winnowed until after the wheat harvest (early summer?). When they come back, they have nothing. They need to eat. And two women alone will not be able to do all the work of planting and cultivating in the fall. They would need money to hire workers and probably buy or rent an animal to help with plowing. And to buy seed. They didn't have the capital to go back into farming, or the means to support themselves until the first crop. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 21:17:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:17:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <272b8698-d5c1-55a1-560b-2bc6d0c39b74@sero.name> On 01/06/17 23:01, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? It seems to me that finding a buyer for the property was not at all important to her, and in fact she had shown no interest in doing so until she saw how she could use it to get Boaz to marry Ruth. It was Boaz who spun the story out for Tov in order to scare him off; first he drew him in with the prospect of an easy transaction for Naomi's portion of the field, but then he threw in the Ruth monkey wrench. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:18:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:18:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/2/2017 6:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the > halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I > think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: > > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? In the set of priorities that we had back then, the principle of yerusha was more important than simple economics. As I understand it. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:21:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:21:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22efff8f-5ee7-d47e-8701-b1541a7a8e41@zahav.net.il> And of course the irony is even greater in that many yeshiva rabbis will tell their guys to go to a community rav because they, the yeshiva rabbis, don't deal with shailas. Ben On 5/29/2017 4:11 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least > equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, > because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has > not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself > included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these > teachers, because, after all,*Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:16:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:16:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> On 6/1/2017 10:39 AM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly > egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the > experiences of women and couples and families and communities to > affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian > direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. > > RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument > is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically > permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically > forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without > asking whether HKB?H prefers it? > > Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should > be identical for each community and each generation? > I'm not sure that's the question. The problem is, as I see it, that when one adopts an external -ism as an ideal, and try and "move in a somewhat more -ism-friendly direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted", they're essentially saying that their motivating principle is that -ism. That halakha isn't the motivating principle, but merely bookends. Limits to how far they can push the -ism that's important. It's the difference between a static principle and a dynamic one. What you're describing has egalitarianism as the dynamic force, and halakha as a static one. A fossil. And there's no way to maintain that worldview for long without starting to chafe against the static limits. At which point, people put their shoulders into it and *push* those limits a little bit further. And then a little further than that. And they feel frustrated by those limits. That's probably the biggest problem. It turns halakha into shackles and frustration. And you only have to read articles written by certain YCT teachers and grads to see the hostility that comes out of that. Yes, there are people who can manage to walk the tightrope and not fall into that kind of frustration, but they are few in number, and not representative of the "movement", as such. And many of them, in my observed experience, eventually fall off. Permit me to illustrate this mindset with something that just happened *as* I was writing this. My 17 year old daughter was reading a comic book from the early 1990s. In the comic, the hero (Superboy) is 16, but all of the women he dates are in their 20s. Today, we call that statuatory rape, and have little to no tolerance for it. But if you recall the early 90s, that idea was rather new, and while the writers of the comic gave lip service to the idea, even having characters laughingly calling Superboy "jailbait", it wasn't nearly as taboo as it is today, at least when the younger person was male. But my daughter is livid about it. Appalled. And she isn't able to imagine a world in which that was the way people thought. Similarly, people immersed in the egalitarian ethos so prevelent in the Western world today cannot *imagine* a world where that isn't the universally accepted ideal, except for barbaric and backwards societies. It's a given that egalitarianism is the more advanced worldview. The more civilized worldview. That to the extent that a worldview is less egalitarian, it is less civilized. More backwards. So now consider what it means to say, "I want to be as egalitarian as possible, within the bounds of halakha". It means "I want to be as civilized as possible, within the bounds of the less civilized and more backwards system of halakha." How can that help but breed disrespect, discomfort, and eventually contempt for halakha? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:50:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:50:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> Message-ID: > > LL: The problem is, as I see it, that when one adopts an external -ism as > an ideal, and try and "move in a somewhat more -ism-friendly direction > WITHIN what is halachically permitted", they're essentially saying that > their motivating principle is that -ism. That halakha isn't the motivating > principle, but merely bookends. Limits to how far they can push the -ism > that's important...... > > Similarly, people immersed in the egalitarian ethos so prevelent in the > Western world today cannot *imagine* a world where that isn't the > universally accepted ideal, except for barbaric and backwards societies. > It's a given that egalitarianism is the more advanced worldview. The more > civilized worldview. That to the extent that a worldview is less > egalitarian, it is less civilized. More backwards. > > So now consider what it means to say, "I want to be as egalitarian as > possible, within the bounds of halakha". It means "I want to be as > civilized as possible, within the bounds of the less civilized and more > backwards system of halakha." How can that help but breed disrespect, > discomfort, and eventually contempt for halakha? Yes, if one defines one's ideology and worldview primarily as feminist, one is going to struggle with halacha. Some people struggle and still maintain Orthodox practice. Some become "halachic egalitarian." But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah live in an increasingly egalitarian society. Even women who would never dream of making a women's zimmun (range of psak on this goes from obligatory to optional to assur) have their own credit cards and vote in elections and choose whom they want to marry. Halachic psak does not exist in a vacuum; it applies to a particular metziut in a particular time and place. I can certainly see room to argue that the institution of maharat is an example of an attempt to "push" halacha to evolve artificially to conform to feminism. But to some extent, increased involvement of women teaching and learning all areas of Torah, at all levels, is a natural halachic development in response to changing reality. Each posek will draw his own line as to what is a positive development (maharats? yoatzot? Rebbetzin Heller?), and what needs to be reined in. Halacha is dynamic. (This is true even if the Conservative movement also says it!) Obviously, there are boundaries, but there is also plenty of room for different opinions, and for development over generations. I am not advocating always choosing the most feminist interpretation possible within the bounds of what is mutar. I am pointing out that increasingly egalitarian psak within halacha reflects the reality in which we live. Shabbat Shalom, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 10:00:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Martin Brody via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:00:09 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat etc. Message-ID: "R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation" Did the Chazon Ish have semicha?.I think not -- Martin Brody -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 11:35:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:35:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <960df966-7387-baf7-202b-5a6624127fed@sero.name> On 30/05/17 16:59, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura > did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the > ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite > involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send them to the rav. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 11:46:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:46:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37d489e2-09cc-d836-f973-74d1b831ec0a@sero.name> On 29/05/17 17:32, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging >> Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an >> obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he >> owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations >> would not be settled. >> Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages >> were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz >> agreed with them. > I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to > respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too > complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a > related question which is probably simpler: > > What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then > there was no kiddushin. I don't see how this matters. Machlon was shacked up with this woman for ten years, and left her high and dry. She was now in Beit Lechem living in poverty, and everyone who saw her would say "there's Machlon's widow, poor thing". Thus seeing her settled was an unsettled obligation that Machlon had left behind, so taking care of it was part of the goel's duty, just like paying off his credit cards and returning his library books, so that nobody should be left with a claim against his memory. > I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's > relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have > towards the husband himself [...] My question is: *What* > responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might > be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid? Yes, the goel's duty is to his relative, not to the relative's creditors. But that duty *is* to discharge the relative's obligations, which he is himself unable to discharge, whether because of poverty (as in the Torah's example) or death (as here). Neither Tov nor Boaz owed anything to Ruth, but Machlon did. > (I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the > family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we > want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be > paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so, > then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech > left. Why did they wait ten years?) Redeem it from whom? At that point it still belonged to Elimelech. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 12:55:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 15:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170602195535.GA7359@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 09:09:10AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this : other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that : question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require : require semicha? Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also not an open question that requires decision-making rather than just reporting the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:51:26PM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: : > the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore : > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. : All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to : offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not : sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and : possibly the latter. I am missing something. My assertion was that "the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur" for the same reason that she could never give hora'ah as a dayan either. I wasn't denying the reality that there are women who know enough for their knowledge not to be a barrier to their pasqening. ... : I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the : other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have : comfortable space for women as well... I think there should be comfortable space for women too, and that it makes sense for it to be in the same building. Our topic was women rabbis. My first point was my belief that the Mahariq holds like Tosafos, the Rama like the Mahariq, and therefore we cannot ordain a poseqes. In this, my 2nd point, I was arguing that since shul and minyan as Anshei Kenses haGadolah invented them are men's spaces, we shouldn't want women speaking from the pulpit or otherwise making it a co-ed experience, a second element of the rabbi's job. : > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for : > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be : > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah.... : > Second, : > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about : > the : > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely : > consistent with our religion.... : : Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that : is highly egalitarian... And this was my third point. That the notion doesn't fit the gestalt built of numerous halakhos. I don't think our living in a world where opportunity is increasingly egalitarian changes that. The disjoin poses a challenge, not a license. : And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the : experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect : religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction : WITHIN what is halachically permitted. I tried to explain why that can't happen. You're not moving into a setting of greater equality; you are aiming women toward hitting a glass cieling. The implied message of "as much egalitarianism as allowed" is that it's the role traditionally given to men that is meaningful, and women can't fully take on that role. To my mind the long-term outcome, once there is little room for further innovation left, will be worse that trying to find different but equally valuable roles. Aside from the "minor" problem that that message about male roles is simply sheqer. On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 01:06:28PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that : as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted : (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by : r'mb's black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether : HKB"H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all : or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the : debate on black letter law? I don't think that's fair. We all learn in the early grades that derekh eretz qodmah laTorah, but we'll talk about frum theives, but not frum shellfish eaters. Our culture's focus on those mitzvos and dinim that can be reduced to black-letter is a problem we need to work on, and not a given to be leveraged further. On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:50:32AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: : But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah : live in an increasingly egalitarian society... Egalitarianism as metzi'us, the fact that gender roles are progressively becoming more similar, is different than eqalitarinism as a value -- the notion that they should. At the very least, halakhah is telling us there are a number of greater values that override egalitarianism. I argued that some of them actually impact who enters the rabbinate. But really the burden of proof lies in the other direction: It is change that needs justification. One has to prove that whatever those conflicting values are -- and I guess this would require identifying them -- they are not issues that impact the desirability of ordaining women. So, to get less abstract, here's an example. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting : R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing. : Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid : muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R. : Micha's interpretation: : http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/ But lemaaseh he wrote a letter against ordaning women that held up JTS changing policy until after R/PSL's passing. has a complete translation by Rabbi Wayne Allen. The issue isn't how RGS read the letter, but the letter itself. And I understood your father-in-law differently than your (and your wife's, judging from her choice of subject line) take. He writes: Professor Lieberman might have been opposed to any clerical role for women. Nevertheless, he only cited the classical sources that indicate that only men may be dayyanim or even serve on a bet din as laymen (hedyotim). Since Yeshivat Maharat is careful to remain within the bounds of Halakhah by not ordaining women to roles that are proscribed by Halakhah, Professor Liebermans responsum does not apply to the yeshivah or to any of its graduates. So he agrees with RGS that R/PSL was opposed to orgaining women as rabbi. After all, most of the letter is about what we mean today by "Yoreh Yoreh", and how it's NOT dayanus. It was about admitting women to JTS's semichah program, to "being called by the title 'rav'", not "dayan". It would seem that minus the political pressures within JTS, R/PSL's letter would at most permit "Rabbah uManhigah". Your FIL writes that R/PSL only cites sources about dayanus, not that his point was only about dayanus. And as we saw, there is a connection made between who can become a dayan and who can give hora'ah. His only mention of the political dynamics at JTS at the time is to explain his own position -- why he was against ordaining women when he was among those starting UTJ, but is in favor of Yeshivat Maharat. His letter to your wife does not speak of this issue in terms of his rebbe's position. For that matter, his description of R/PSL's lack of proving his point WRT non-dayan rabbanim reads as explaining why his own position was justified despite R/PSL's letter, rather than justified by that letter. He doesn't say RGS is wrong, he says it's "beside the point". : Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and : Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to : understand the Rama, but one of them is: But the burden or proof is on the innovator. You can't simply say your read is possible -- and given the aforementioned citation of the Mahariq, I don't see how this se'if can be, you would have a self-contradictory siman. But in any case, you have to prove your read is the Rama's intent; saying "it's possible" is not enough to justify a mimetic rupture. ... : the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have : sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have : sources to rely upon. I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and : Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong : with semicha for women. "Rather than nitpicking"? How do we learn a sugyah without nitpicking? In any case, you jumped from "could be read as someone to rely upon" to "someone to rely upon". : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the : specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. Sorry I made you wait long enough that you felt a need to re-ask this question. Semichah today may well be a heter hora'ah, but that doesn't mean that it's the only barrier to hora'ah. And if one's rebbe passed away, there is no need for heter hora'ah -- and yet still other barriers could exist. Tosafos, and the Mahariq cited by the Rama link the authority for hora'ah with being eligable to gain the qualifications and become a dayan. That's a barrier to hora'ah even if someone's rebbe wrote them a "qlaf" or passed away. We would have to find another shitah about hora'ah, show it's not dekhuyah -- and given we're talking about an opionion that disputes 3 pillars of Ashkenazi pesaq (if I include the Rama's se'if 4), for someone of Ashekazi background, that's a tough row to hoe. And then there are my other two problems.... Both of which would also reflect on Rabbah uManhigah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 3 20:23:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 23:23:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . Is semicha required for hora'ah? To illustrate the possibility that it is *not* required, I wrote: > Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura > did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the > ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite > involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. R' Zev Sero responded: > Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, > and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send > them to the rav. And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression of his personal opinion. Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"? I had written that a non-semicha person could give a shiur in Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, provided that he is careful to merely read and explain the text, but ... ... > But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this > other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that > question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require > require semicha? R' Micha Berger responded: > Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also > not an open question that requires decision-making rather than > just reporting the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community. "Black-letter halacha" is often not as black as we might think. Who gets to decide which shita is the dominant one? If the community has a recognized rav who issued a ruling on this exact question, then I can quote that. But in the great majority of cases, there are two or more shitos, and I have no idea which is "dominant". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 3 22:51:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 07:51:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c3c1e25-04b7-878e-d93b-d6b5edc10a0f@zahav.net.il> My intent, or my desire, is to reduce the number of issues on which we decide to break Torah community into even more pieces. If these issues are meta halachic, or have a bad feeling, then let's take the argument between the RWMO and LWMO down a notch or two. Let's lower the tones. For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi community consider to be kefira. If so, than kal v'chomer many of the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in getting hung up on multiple non-issues. Ben On 5/29/2017 4:20 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I am totally at lost as to your intent. Megillah reading or dancing with > a sefer Torah are reducible to black-letter law. In contrast to, for > example, deciding how to triage my tzedaqah donations. > > Wehther that reduction can be done within vanilla halachic process or > by appeal to metahalakhah, or by appeal to the general "feel" of halakhah > -- like the Rambam's "li nir'eh" -- is a different question. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 04:36:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 07:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a0d51cd-f693-b8a0-f2bd-a23a15a3e44a@sero.name> On 03/06/17 23:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > >> Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, >> and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send >> them to the rav. > And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to > find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim > wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us > which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other > expression of his personal opinion. > > Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"? AIUI no, it is not. Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a specific shayla for a specific person. Writing books does not involve any shikul hada`as, it merely involves setting down the halacha as one understands it, including, if applicable, the range of options available to a moreh hora'ah when applying his shikul hada`as. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 09:40:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 12:40:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170604164052.GA8050@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 11:23:05PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to : find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim : wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us : which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other : expression of his personal opinion. Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone know what has been said in the years since the standardization of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh. I argued that the difference between the AhS and the MB was not that one was a mimeticist and the other a textualist, but that the AhS was out to justify accepted pesaq, and the other is a collection of texts, a tool for the poseiq -- not pesaq. The personal opinion is just that, advice, not hora'ah. Or, other assumed you need to dismiss the MB's self-description as reflecting the CC's anavah, and not to be taken at face value. But then one has to explain the numerous stories of the CC personally not following the MB's conclusion -- the size of his becher, his tzitzis were tucked in, he supported the building a a community eiruv, etc... (Something is broken on my blog right now. It may take a 3-4 refreshes before getting anything but the AishDas "page not found" page.) In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable. And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving R Ploni answering questions. (The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the model.) This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads -- or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her rebbe's license? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 08:48:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:48:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you understand the OU panel as defining it. Otherwise you are just using a nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning. The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here: http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah ). There was a period when leaders did not have semicha, The Tzitz Eliezer points out that Sephardim for a long time did not have semichah, yet communities had religious leaders. So one does not need semikhah to be a communal religious leader(in keeping with the Rama in 242:14). Furthermore, R. Lichtenstein points out(Leaves of Faith vol 2 293) "originally a samukh would pronounce a decision that was binding by don't of his authoritative fiat. ...Now, he essentially serves as a reference guide, providing reliable information about what the tradition and its sources, properly understood and interpreted, state; but it is they, rather than he, that bind authoritatively." (quoted in the name of the Rav, in the name of his father, Rav Moshe.) Furthermore, as R. Lichtenstein points out, the Rambam viewed that Smikhah applied to hora'at issur v'heter as well as din. However, as R. Schachter himself points out, (see Kuntrus Ha semicha in Eretz Hatzvi chap 32) the other Rishonim hold that Semichah is a Halacha in beit din, NOT Hora'ah. AND, there are lots of authorities who clearly state that women can give Hora'ah. So you really need to define exactly what you mean by Semicha and how you are using it So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that apply to beit din. That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist. The semikhah for that type included wearing a specific garment, only being given in Israel, and according to most(but not all), prohibited to women. According to most Rishonim, that category did not apply to Hora'ah, just beit din. And, R. Lichtenstein illustrates that there is a clear and gaping difference in authority. There have been many years and many communities where leaders did not have any formal semikhah. But obviously there was some sort of Hora'ah going on. So it is clear that Hora'ah doesn't require semikhah, unless you want to argue that they were doing it all illegitimately. granting a degree of ordination was re-established(perhaps in response to universities, perhaps other reasons, see "The Emergence of the Professional rabbi in Ashkenzic Jewry by Bernard Rosensweig in Tradition, especially references in note 6) and the word Semikhah was used(although not always and not always exclusively). But you are arguing that somehow someway the restrictions from ancient Semikhah still apply- well, actually you are only arguing that the restrictions on women still apply, you have conveniently neglected to argue for the restriction of semikhah to Eretz Yisrael, for the wearing of special clothing, and all the other restrictions that were in place on ancient Semikhah. I have not had a chance to see the Maharik inside. But just because he applies halachot of relationships between teacher and student doesn't seem to be a reason to generalize that everything that applied to ancient Semikhah applies to today's neo-semikhah. That logically makes no sense. Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus tradition trope. It is a false dichotomy. First of all, as R. Shalom Carmy wrote, the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism. More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of our Masoretic values has changed over time. We don't value slavery or polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more. And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah. Furthermore, our Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a women. L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 07:40:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:40:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is becoming increasingly clear to me that I need a very basic lesson in the concepts of "redemption" and a "redeemer's" responsibilities. In my experience, we find two different sorts of redemption in Judaism. (I was going to write "in Halacha", but it seems that Boaz's actions were more sociological and ethnic than halachically mandatory.) One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and "redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many others. The other sort of kedusha has nothing to do with kedusha, but rather ownership of land. If I'm not mistaken, we find this in Shmitta, Yovel, and ordinary land sales in a walled city (and maybe elsewhere too?). In these cases, land has been sold outright, but under certain circumstances, the original owner has a right to buy it back from the new owner. AFTER WRITING THE ABOVE, I remembered another sort of redemption, that of the Goel Hadam. That seems irrelevant, because even though Naomi is now destitute, and her husband and sons are dead, no murder was committed. I also found yet another kind of Goel, described in Vayikra 25:47-54: If a person became poor and sold himself, then close relatives are obligated to redeem him and purchase his freedom. Although Naomi and Ruth did not reach that level (slavery), I can easily imagine that a social sort of redemption would require Tov or Boaz to help them out. I would call this "tzedaka" (not geula) but I suppose this might be the origin of the rule that one's primary obligation in tzedaka is to relatives. Many thanks to all who wrote to me (both on- and off-list), who put so much effort into helping me learn this subject. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 03:01:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:01:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= Message-ID: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a commentary how do you read it? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 02:59:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 09:59:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] support? Message-ID: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah restrictions are generally not observed (e.g., hello includes a social hug between the sexes), although Reuvain is meticulous in his observance of them. He is in his office in a conference with two colleagues when Miriam, the wife of a third tier social friend, also well past childbearing age, comes to the office door and says with a tear in her eye, "Reuvain, I hate to do this to you." Reuvain quickly asks his colleagues to excuse them, and Miriam blurts out, "David (her husband) just passed away," and she begins to slump, crying. Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to comfort her and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not make any request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but she did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion of the community which did not presume a social negiah restriction. Was Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, what should he have done? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:23:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 15:23:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:01:10AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a : commentary how do you read it? I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq venimtza qal" were written out. That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:43:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 22:43:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?va=E2=80=99v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <30b106b1-2a2d-f8dd-e692-4af1979063c9@starways.net> v'doke On 6/4/2017 1:01 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a > commentary how do you read it? > Kt > Joel rich > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:33:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 15:33:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] support? In-Reply-To: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170604193342.GA24739@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 09:59:23AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a : Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah : restrictions are generally not observed... A real maaseh shahayah, which would liely garner the same thoughts. One day, around 10am, the woman sitting in the cubicle next to mine gets a call on her cell, and after a few moments had her screaming and crying. It was the Salvation Army, where her son volunteered and lived. He didn't wake up that morning. Another co worker of ours, a yehivish guy who grew up in Israel but lives in Lakewood, got us a conference room, dialed some phone calls for her -- the coronor's office and the like. He was clearly cfrom communities in which persumed social negi'ah restrictions are fully observed. But when our co worker broke down in a fresh round of crying, he put his arm around her. I think to do anything else is to be a tzadiq shoteh. But I never asked a she'eilah; that was just my gut reaction at the time. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:01:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 23:01:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Noam, It's not a "trope". While there can be situations in which egalitarianism vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them. Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not. It seems a poor argument, as well. I don't believe there is anyone who, without the impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical concepts of justice demand that we ordain women." Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Distinctions are one of the hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and non-Jews or men and women. We have never viewed having different roles as indicating superiority and inferiority. That judgment is foreign to our tradition. Foreign to halakha. Foreign to the Torah. Please note that I'm not talking about whether, given the assumption that having different roles conveys inferiority, one could argue in favor of equalizing roles in the name of justice. I am talking about that assumption itself. It is an assumption that comes from egalitarianism, and cannot be found in Jewish tradition, which is not subject to Brown v Board of Education. Different does *not* necessarily mean unequal in Judaism. Polygamy was never a "value". To Mormons, perhaps. Not to us. It was simply something permitted. Slavery is out of the question purely on dina d'malchuta dina grounds. Were that not the case, we might still engage in it. We certainly haven't changed the halakha pertaining to either kind of avdut (K'naani or Ivri). You say that modern values have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in our Mesorah. Can I ask where the need for such a re-evaluation comes from? It was my understanding that we value all of our Mesorah, and do not sift through it, deciding what parts of it we value and what parts we do not. Also, please note that I have specifically referred to egalitarianism, and *not* to feminism. I don't believe that feminism requires egalitarianism, and the moves by the left to try and force Orthodox Judaism into an egalitarian framework have nothing to do with the basic idea that women are fully competent adult human beings, which is what feminism was originally about. On 6/4/2017 6:48 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus > tradition trope. It is a false dichotomy. First of all, as R. Shalom > Carmy wrote, the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to > Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism. > More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of > our Masoretic values has changed over time. We don't value slavery or > polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more. > And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for > us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah. Furthermore, our > Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna > in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a > women. L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:53:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:53:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . I wrote that the Mishneh Berurah, despite a lack of semicha, > frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the > ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression > of his personal opinion. R' Micha Berger responded: > Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed > this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone > know what has been said in the years since the standardization > of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh. Yes, he does self-describe as a summary and teaching/learning tool. But he does *not* specifically disclaim being a posek for halacha l'maaseh. The Igros Moshe and many other recent seforim do that, but I do not see it in the Mishneh Berurah. As an example, let's open to the very first page. He writes in MB 1:2 (near the end) about Netilas Yadayim upon waking in the morning: "Some say that for this, the entire house is considered like four amos. But (4) do not rely on this except in a shaas hadchak." Let's analyze that: He cites an unnamed lenient opinion, and clearly tells us not to rely on it. Note 4 leads us to his own Shaar Hatziun, where he gives his source, the Shaarei Teshuva. The Shaarei Teshuva, fortunately, is printed on this same page, and I direct your attention to the last four lines of #2, where the lenient opinion is named as being the Rashba. It is not clear to me whether the psak to *not* rely on that Rashba comes from the Shvus Yaakov, or whether it is from the Shaarei Teshuva himself. But either way, it is clear to me that the Mishne Berurah is taking sides, and IS PASKENING TO US that we should be machmir unless it is a shaas hadchak. > In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in > every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, > which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise > unreachable. Then we need to figure out what *is* required for hora'ah. Because it seems clear to me that the Chofetz Chaim felt that he met the criteria, and (perhaps more importantly) Klal Yisrael agreed. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:58:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 19:58:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2F566ED7-C27E-4141-9BAA-E81C69F30CE1@sibson.com> > > I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq > venimtza qal" were written out. > > That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. > > HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" > -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. ------------ I had always been taught the latter. The bar Ilan data base uses the former. I suppose one could rationalize one person's try and it will seem easy is another's it's a bit of a stretch. Then again Kuf lamed could be kal lhavin or kasheh li. :-) Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 15:56:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 17:56:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > It's not a "trope". While there can be situations in which egalitarianism > vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them. > Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to > the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not. It seems a poor > argument, as well. I don't believe there is anyone who, without the > impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical > concepts of justice demand that we ordain women." > Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Distinctions are one of the > hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and > non-Jews or men and women. We have never viewed having different roles as > indicating superiority and inferiority. That judgment is foreign to our > tradition. Foreign to halakha. Foreign to the Torah. Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" It isn't an issue of being like men, it is an issue of fairness and justice. Regarding 'modern values' and Mesorah. please read Rabbi Walter Wurzburger, regarded as one of R. Soloveitchik's most prominent students here: http://download.yutorah.org/TUJ/TU1_Wurtzburger.pdf Since chazal owned slaves and the Gemara didn't outlaw them, obviously owning slaves was not seen as odious as it is now. I doubt that current rabbis have the same positive view of slavery as you do. in fact, one published author does not. see R. Gamliel Shmalo here: http://download.yutorah.org/2013/1053/798326.pdf Similar to polygamy, I doubt that any current rabbinical authority thinks that polygamy should be instituted(except in the very rare situations of heter me'ah rabbonim when in practicality there is only one wife) Many authorities, including Rav Lichtenstein, R. Nachum Rabinovitch(and see R. Wurzburger's article for citations to classic authorities of the past) and others state clearly that encountering 'modern values' helps us figure out which how to better balance the values already in our Masorah. And, as I pointed out, our Masorah has already moved towards egalitarianism, as demonstrated that most MO poskim don't hold by the Mishna in Horiyyot. And who was denying that there are different roles? no one denies that there are different roles for the genders. But Halacha should be the determinant of what those differences are. Not someone saying, "well, there have to be differences, and I am going to tell you what those differences should be." If there are no good Halakhic arguments against women's ordination(and there aren't), then claiming that there should be different roles for different genders is not a coherent argument. Basically you could use the same argument for everything and anything, since there is no Halachic basis for it. You could say that women shouldn't ride bikes because gender roles have to be different. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:47:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <6736acd1-ba2d-c1bc-1762-d8e55bb8e473@sero.name> On 04/06/17 06:01, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a > commentary how do you read it? Vest du velen kvetchen, kadoches vest du vissen On 04/06/17 15:23, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. > HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" > -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. Or "vedayeq vetimtza qashe" -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 20:38:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 23:38:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605033858.JVPC32620.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a >specific shayla for a specific person. I guess the question is: is that related to semicha? Note the following (by Joel B. Wolowelsky, from that Tradition issue last year that focused on women's leadership issues) The standards of the semikha might vary from yeshiva to yeshiva even though the text of the klaf certificate is generally the same. I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters of grave import. Very few rabbis are viewed as posekim, and their authority surely does not rest on any formal semikha they were awarded at an early stage in their professional career. Most rabbis even most pulpit rabbis are relied upon to relate what the accepted halakha is, not what it should be. They are not assumed to be posekim. Rabbi Menachem Penner, Dean of RIETS, recently made this clear when he stated that: not all individuals given the title of rabbi are entitled to serve as decisors of Jewish law... Following the halakhic opinion of a scholar or rabbi who is not recognized as a posek would represent a fundamental breach in the mesorah of the establishment of normative halakha... Musmakhim of RIETS, along with all learned individuals, are entitled to their personal opinions on halakhc matters and the halakhic system as it functions today and may publicize their views as opinions that are not halakhically binding. If this is true of musmakhim of RIETS, who have completed many serious and demanding years of study, all the more so for the myriads of rabbis who earned their semikha by simply sitting for a less-demanding final exam after self-study or learning in a beit midrash up until their wedding, at which time they received semikha. We should quickly note that this is not intended to imply a diminution of the value of semikha. Rather it reflects an unprecedented expansion of Torah study in our community. Which raises the obvious question: if so many men have semicha that shouldn't engage in hora'ah, what's the problem of having a woman in a similar position? [Email #2.] Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that in Israel, this doesn't seem to be so much of an issue. May I recommend an utterly fascinating article on this: A VIEW FROM THE OTHER SIDE By Rachel Levmore, Ph.D. - Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 05:42:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 12:42:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" ----------------------------------------------------- As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question (chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", on what basis are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" I'd say the debaters on this issue would be well served to read J Haidt's The Righteous Mind https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj_nMSM3abUAhUG7CYKHRfcAJgQFghZMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Frighteousmind.com%2F&usg=AFQjCNH2OB9Ny75lbVswde2ndpkNKXvilQ&sig2=hBXRmEu1I6x-J0radUdXqA to better understand why they aren't convincing each other KT Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 12:00:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lo Taamod In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605190033.GD3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:54:06AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Asher Weiss discusses in parshat Vayeitzeih on lo taamod al : dam reiacha that one would have to give up all his assets to save a : single life if he is the only one who can do it. However, "it's pashut" : that if others can also do it, that he doesn't have to give up all his : assets. Why is it so pashut if others refuse? (i.e. why isn't it a joint : and several liability?) I am not sure halakhah has the concept. The nearest I can think of is a zeh vezeh goreim, such as if a shor tam pushes another ox into a third party's bor bereshus harabbim. SA CM 410:32 rules that the baal habor must pay 3/4. Hezeq by a shor tam need only be reimbered 50%. So, the owner of the shor tam only has to pay 50% of his half of the guilt -- 25%. The baal habor therefore would cause the loss of the other 75%, so he has to reimberse it. But there is a machloqes about what happens when one of the two doesn't have the money -- does the other have to pick up the difference, or not? If not, then wouldn't that mean halakhah doesn't have a notion of joint and several liability?" But even if he does have to pay what the other can't... One may still be choleiq between someone who did something that incurs a fine and a chiyuv to spend money. It's not really a "liability". And this is beyond the usual limits of a chiyuv.... If there are others who can save the guy, RAW says I'm not chayav to spend all my money, but what about spending up to a chomesh, like for any other chiyuv? Maybe even if there is joint and several liability, it stops at 1/5 rather than 100%. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 12:33:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:33:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? In-Reply-To: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim : b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman : shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? The SA says "yekhavein lehispalel besha'ah shehatzibur mispallelim". Your question is why the Rama -- or is the Semag, I couldn't find the citation -- doesn't mention minchah. I think the MB s"q 31-32 *implies* that the emphasis is on Shacharis and Maariv since the solar landmarks vary the most, and therefore the minyan is more likely to have their own idiosyncratic time -- late Shacharis or early Maariv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The waste of time is the most extravagant micha at aishdas.org of all expense. http://www.aishdas.org -Theophrastus Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 11:49:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:49:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170605184905.GC3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 10:00:22PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : Can I burn something that was hefker without acquiring it? If I declare : something hefker (I'm not sure the legal implication of batel), and then I : burn it, wouldn't that imply I'm koneh it? Which makes things much worse. We might argue whether bitul chameitz means something other than hefqer. But even if it does, how can a formula that ends "vehefqer ke'afrah de'ar'a" not render it *also* hefqer? I am not sure what kind of qinyan burning would be. (Shinui? but shinui to something worthless is back to not having anything shaveh perutah to own.) Taking from hefqer means there is no maqneh, does that mean there is no qoneh? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 11:37:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:37:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a : conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of : YaVY... Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because there is no actual issur la'avor. : Since when is conversation : hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes : the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation : carries the din YvAY. I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from hirhurim. And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA: : That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, : causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of : hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and : certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? : : The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya : due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the downward character spiral. Tie'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:13:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? In-Reply-To: <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> References: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5424769a-057e-b1d6-87b8-130dad06850d@sero.name> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > : S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim > : b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman > : shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? It seems to me that "shacharit v'arvit" here may not mean the tefillot but the times: they should daven each morning and evening when they know the minyan in the city is davening. The city minyan presumably does mincha and maariv together in one evening session, so that's what individuals should do. This is so especially if this is from the Smag, and we know from Rashi and Tosfos Brachos 2a that the minhag in France at that time was to daven maariv immediately after mincha, while it was still daylight. We also know from elsewhere that minhag Ashkenaz at a later time was similarly to go straight from the Kaddish Tiskabel after Mincha to Vehu Rachum and Borchu, with no Aleinu or Shir Hamaalos/kaddish (or Ledavid in Elul) in between. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:55:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:55:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:40:56AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and : "redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually : to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many : others.... I think that bringing up pidyon and temurah just cloud the issue. IMinsufficientlyHO, it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that strikes me as a progression): - the go'el hadam - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) - and of people (ibid v 48) - the end of galus To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on its nachalah. But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first -- "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why there are different words in lh"q. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 14:06:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:06:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605210617.GB23709@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 03:18:13PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that : Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent : introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, : pages 48-52. Which ties to the other thread about how we're to view Yiftach or Shimshon -- baalei mesorah or amei ha'aretz? It's possible that at the nadir points in the days of shofetim, being the gadol hador didn't rule out also having fundamental flaws. : R' Zev Sero wrote: :> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the :> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. : It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it : something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus : and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus : then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. If it was some general Semitic notion of ge'ulah, then perhaps being common-law spouses in a 7 Mitzvos b' Noach sense would be enough to trigger ge'ulah, even if yibum would require real qiddushin. After all, the basis for ge'ulah was likely that the woman came to depend on the family for her support, and it would be wrong to let her down. Which is true of a Moaviah intermarrying into a Jewish family, even if the marriage only seemed real to her. I am also reminded of the Rambam IB 13, discussed hear repeatedly ad nauseum. Shimshon's and Shelomo's wives were p[resumed Jewish until their actions showed that they not only had ulterior motive, they lacked a true motive (qabbalas ol mitzvos) altogether. Geirei `arayos all are in that boat -- if we think they were mequbalos al mitzvos along with wanting to convert to marry, we presume they're kosher Jews but suspect and watch whether behavior matches presumption. Rus would be in a similar situation, no? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 14:55:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:55:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> References: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4674ee8c-5f5e-c740-051a-00191c18b4fb@sero.name> On 05/06/17 16:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > IMinsufficientlyHO, it pays to just stick to trying to find a common > theme to all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that > strikes me as a progression): > > [...] > > - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's not an > actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) Where is the word found in this context? My position is that the use in Megilath Ruth is an instance of the next meaning. > - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) - and of people (ibid v 48) This one. AIUI the underlying theme of this mitzvah is discharging ones own obligations, or those of a relative who is unable to do so himself. When one has sold the family patrimony, one must buy it back so that people will no longer look at one as someone who had to do that. If one can't, then whoever in the family can afford to do so must buy it back, to clear ones name. Included in this is a sub-obligation that if one is aware that a relative has to sell family land, and one can afford to buy it, one must offer to do so, so he is never subjected in the first place to the ignominy of selling it out of the family. (That, as near as I can tell, is what was happening in Ruth. Naomi and Ruth, having claimed Elimelech's property for their ketubot, were now purportedly looking for a buyer, and turned to the family to give them first refusal.) By extension this also includes discharging other obligations, not to do with the family land, such as ones obligation to a woman whom a relative has left destitute, so that her state will not be a disgrace to the family. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:56:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 20:56:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to comfort her > and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not make any > request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but she > did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion > of the community which did not presume a social negiah restriction. Was > Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, > what should he have done? I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to include any contact in any social situation in addition to more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly consistently not included are professional scenarios where your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors, nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says there that even in his generation he was unique in being able to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for this situation. But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei aveira then there is no issur of negia. I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred option. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 03:08:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 10:08:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? I heard from Rav Matis Weinberg that the final reference to Ruth Hamoavia emphasises that, despite the way we usually think of geirus, and despite everything she's gone through, she remains a Moavia. Meaning that she retains her Moavi roots and personal context, and brings the positive from that into Klal Yisrael. I understand him as polemicising against the tendency to destroy ones previous identity, consciously or otherwise, in order to join the Jewish world either as a ger or a baal teshuva. Ben ________________________________ From: Avodah on behalf of via Avodah Sent: 02 June 2017 03:34 To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 72 Send Avodah mailing list submissions to avodah at lists.aishdas.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org You can reach the person managing the list at avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." A list of common acronyms is available at http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms Avodah Acronyms ? The AishDas Society www.aishdas.org Here?s a hopefully useful but incomplete list of acronyms that are standard to Avodah, but aren?t in common usage. I marked each either ?A? for those specific ... (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) Today's Topics: 1. Re: Maharat (Rich, Joel via Avodah) 2. Re: Maharat (Ben Waxman via Avodah) 3. Re: Maharat (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 4. matched soldier and praying for them (M Cohen via Avodah) 5. Re: Maharat (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) 6. Elimelech's land (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 7. Ruth Hamoaviah (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 8. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (ADE via Avodah) 9. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (Zev Sero via Avodah) 10. A Holiday Afterthought (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) 11. Re: A Holiday Afterthought (Micha Berger via Avodah) 12. Re: Ruth Hamoaviah (Zev Sero via Avodah) 13. Re: Ruth Hamoaviah (Lisa Liel via Avodah) 14. Re: Elimelech's land (Ben Waxman via Avodah) 15. Re: Elimelech's land (Zev Sero via Avodah) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:06:28 +0000 From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" To: 'Ilana Elzufon' , "'The Avodah Torah Discussion Group'" , Micha Berger , "Akiva Miller" , Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05 at VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. ---------------------------------------------------- Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the debate on black letter law? KT Joel Rich (full disclosure-kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-not everything that is permitted to you should be done) THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:22:13 +0200 From: Ben Waxman via Avodah To: Ilana Elzufon , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Micha Berger , Akiva Miller , Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Probably the best and most succinct historical analogy I've seen for this question. Ben On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > > Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women > rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the > vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it > seems to be shaping up as the latter. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:59:33 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation. Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. How can this be? Dare we imagine that he did such things unauthorizedly? Certainly he must have had/received some sort of Heter Hora'ah. If so, then when and how did he get it - and without getting semicha at the same time? Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:01 -0400 From: M Cohen via Avodah To: , Subject: [Avodah] matched soldier and praying for them Message-ID: <014801d2d969$41c5c800$c5515800$@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A while ago on Avodah, a well known (chareidi) Baal machshava was quoted as disagreeing strongly with the concept of matching frum people with a nonfrum soldier in order to pray for them. "we have no brotherhood with secular Israelis" Recently, I posted to Avodah a link to a collection of 1400 short tshuvot from HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlitah (of Toronto) On the above topic, he writes there.. #600 Pray As They Go Q. There are two organizations here in Eretz Yisroel, one called; Elef LaMateh, and the other; The Shmirah Project. Basically, their intent is to match Israeli soldiers with Avreichim and bochurim learning. Each Avreich and Bochur who volunteers, receives the name of a specific soldier (his name and his mother's name) that he takes responsibility to daven for and learn specially for so that in the merit of the tefillos and learning, that soldier will merit to return home alive and well. (Is this a good idea) A. HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is a great mitzvah to pray, learn Torah and accomplish mitzvos for the benefit of all our brethren B'nay Yisroel in times of peril and need, especially for those who put their life in harm's way to save and protect others. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:39:53 +0200 From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah To: "Rich, Joel" Cc: Avodah , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Micha Berger , Akiva Miller Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should be identical for each community and each generation? - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:01:50 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" . I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start farming? I suppose it was pretty desolate after a ten-year famine, but did she even try? She must have at least gone there to see the place, if for no other reason than to be sure that no squatters took over while she was gone. Without making sure of such things, how could she even hope that anyone (even a goel) would buy it? Maybe she expected to get a better profit from Boaz than she'd get from farming it herself, but maybe there are other answers? Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:05:01 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the distinction? When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on this. Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:14:59 +0100 From: ADE via Avodah To: Zev Sero , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are still being machshiv some pesukim over others. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk > *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:32:23 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: ADE <9006168 at gmail.com>, The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: <510d4fd4-6c91-fb85-0c23-f6cdfa7ffcbf at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 02/06/17 05:14, ADE wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one >> pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this >> reason. > Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are > still being machshiv some pesukim over others. There is no requirement to treat all pesukim exactly the same. One is entitled to stand or sit during KhT as one wishes, and has no obligation to choose one policy and stick to it. The problem is only with standing up for special pesukim, such as Shma or the 10D. Since there's nothing special about the pasuk before the 10D, there's no problem with deciding to stand for it. And when the special pesukim come along one is already standing, so one has no obligation to sit down. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:46:10 -0400 From: Cantor Wolberg via Avodah To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50 at cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In our personal religious commitments there are those among us scrupulous in performance of the ceremonial mitzvot but at the same time displaying reckless disregard of our elementary duties towards our fellowman. Halacha embraces human life in its totality. One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social trait from our behavior! A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:31:31 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Cantor Wolberg , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <20170602153131.GA15356 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made : a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study : of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social : trait from our behavior! Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, among the aphorisms of his listed in R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I. :-)BBii! -Micha ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:28:00 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Akiva Miller via Avodah , "akivagmiller at gmail.com >> Akiva Miller" Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: <4dd6e4f1-2d00-a274-ace0-e5d2a803039a at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 01/06/17 23:05, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I only see four instances of "Ruth Hamoaviah", three in ch 2, and only one in ch 4, in Boaz's description of the situation to Tov. Since his purpose was to scare him off, it made sense to mention her origin, so Tov would be reluctant to risk his future. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:20:16 +0300 From: Lisa Liel via Avodah To: Akiva Miller , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 6/2/2017 6:05 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I can't cite a source for it, but I remember once reading that Ruth HaMoaviah was intended to praise her, since she gave up her position in Moav to join us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus [https://static2.avast.com/11/web/min/i/mkt/share/avast-logo.png] Avast | Download Free Antivirus for PC, Mac & Android www.avast.com Protect your devices with the best free antivirus on the market. Download Avast antivirus and anti-spyware protection for your PC, Mac and Android. ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:31:41 +0200 From: Ben Waxman via Avodah To: Akiva Miller , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Actually if the land had lied fallow for 10 years, it should be in good shape. Granted it needs weeding but the soil should be good. It only requires a relatively small amount of rain for grass to grow and re-invigorate the soil. Maybe she was too old to work the land and figured that a sale would provide her with enough money to live out the rest of her days in dignity? Ben On 6/2/2017 5:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:17:52 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Akiva Miller via Avodah , Akiva Miller Subject: Re: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: <272b8698-d5c1-55a1-560b-2bc6d0c39b74 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 01/06/17 23:01, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? It seems to me that finding a buyer for the property was not at all important to her, and in fact she had shown no interest in doing so until she saw how she could use it to get Boaz to marry Ruth. It was Boaz who spun the story out for Tov in order to scare him off; first he drew him in with the prospect of an easy transaction for Naomi's portion of the field, but then he threw in the Ruth monkey wrench. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/avodah http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org ------------------------------ End of Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 72 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 04:24:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:24:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <545028A09009CEB1.0C33F862-E0BD-4F09-B72B-2B14A928A471@mail.outlook.com> I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter, the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat, is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin and relay the answer. We have fine female educators like Shani Taragin etc and we have Yoatzot Halacha as above. I consider this ordination movement as a Western valued and inspired institution. Indeed, these days I know Shules look for husband *and* wife teams. The Rebbetzin occupies an increasingly important place. This is most certainly also true of successful Chabad Houses, and here I speak of people like Rivki Holtzberg hy'd whom I knew well personally and I watched as the women gathered around her and the men around her husband. This is the mimetic tradition not withstanding exceptions. That, I believe is the thrust of the OU proclamation and it is dead on the money. Judaism certainly adapts but it is not the plasticine for Western values and aspirations. Even at a funeral, where one expects little hope for Yetzer Hora, the Halacha mandates the Shura to be separate for males and females. This category of notion underpins our Mesora and always did; right back to the days when our tents were arranged with Tzniyus in mind. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 07:26:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:26:41 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap Message-ID: can anyone explain and show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from non-Kosher fat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 07:23:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:23:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh Message-ID: regarding Chamets buried under a collapsed building where we remain the owner - we intend to salvage it after Pesach but are not transgressing BY and BY without needing to make Bittul I explained that Halachic ownership is determined by ones perception of control and explained this is the reason that YiUsh means one is no longer an owner for example you forget your wallet holding your ID and some money in a restaurant even though you go back in the HOPE of finding it or are HOPING an honest person will return it this is nevertheless YiUsh you no longer believe you are in control although RaMBaM encourages that the finder return it Halachically the finder is entitled to tell you Once upon a time this was yours - but you were MeYaEsh so it is no longer yours and I picked it up AFTER you were already MeYaEsh This is the foundation for the Pesak of R Y E Spektor that money lost by a woman at a trade fair MUST be returned because there was NO YiUsh the money had been found and taken to the local Rav it matched perfectly the description given by the woman who lost it but the finder insisted he wants to keep the money unless he is obliged to return it even though the woman had Simanim Muvhakim there was no doubt the money found was the money she lost she was certainly MeYaEsh she is not the owner Reb Y E Spektor Paskened that there was no YiUsh her husband is the owner and he, sitting many miles away was unaware of the loss of the money so there was no YiUsh R Micha argues that this is not correct he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost so there is no YiUsh however if they would know it is lost they would be MeYaEsh I would suggest that there is no problem the Machlokes is simply a dispute about ACTUAL belief one is in control versus POTENTIAL belief one is in control for example walking behind a fellow Yid you notice a diamond fall off his ring he would be unaware of his loss if we say YiUsh requires DaAs then there is no YiUsh yet you would have to wait until you see the fellow stop and look around for something then you can take your foot off the diamond and take it home [BTW is such a person a Rasha? or worse, not a Mentsch?] If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs then you can take the diamond straight away because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 10:48:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:48:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> , <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a : conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of : YaVY... Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because there is no actual issur la'avor. I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where there's an issur involved? That's why I'm suggesting that since it's on pain of yeihareig then we know there must an issur la'avor so the point of the sugya is to work out what that is. The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below. : Since when is conversation : hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes : the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation : carries the din YvAY. I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from hirhurim. >From hirhurim? Chazal were gozer yeihareig on hirhurei aveira? If that were true we'd find the same din in a lot of other places. Which is why is seems to me we must be dealing with something else here. And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA: : That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, : causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of : hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and : certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? : : The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya : due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the downward character spiral. Me'heicha teisi that we're dealing with Hilkhos De'os here? Where do you find a din of yeihareig in Hilchos De'os? Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does. Your partially stated assumption is that this din in both man d'amrim is d'rabanan. Rambam strongly implies otherwise. Kol tuv Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 09:19:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha wrote: "In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable. And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving R Ploni answering questions. (The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the model.) This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads -- or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her rebbe's license?" me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using. They are hiding behind ambiguity. if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do hora'ah. AND, you cant use the model of semicha to prohibit women from hora'ah, becuase in the Venn diagram of the topic, there is hora'ah outside the lines of semicha. So R. Micha et al need to provide some other basis for their issur of hora'ah, AND, address all those who write that a woman can provide hora'ah. AND, address the quote from R. Penner that the semicha for REITS graduates is not one to pasken(or perhaps even to give hora'ah). AND, address why(rather than simply say) the Rabbanut semichah test system, perhaps the most popular semicha in Orthodoxy, does not undermine his entire thesis. One can give a woman 'heter hora'ah l'rabbim' because there has not been a cogent argument presented not to do so, and there are many poskim who write that a woman can give hora'ah. The argument regarding 'what would HKBH' want is interesting. Does he want us to restrict women from doing things just so that we can say there are differences between men and women? Or, did He establish Halakha to help us sort out those that He wants, rather than ancient ones that and are gradually being re-evaluated, similar to how we have gradually moved away from embracing slavery, polygamy(in the vast majority of instances), restrictions on the deaf/dumb, the devaluation of women(see Mishna in Horiyyot 'men's lives are saved prior to women....), the idea that a women's wisdom is only with the spindle, one who teaches his daughter Torah has taught her tiflut, etc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 11:28:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:28:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/6/2017 7:19 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all > those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to > clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using. They are > hiding behind ambiguity. if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then > saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do > hora'ah. Are you suggesting that the burden of proof is on those *opposed* to a radical change in Jewish practice? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 11:18:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:18:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> (And also some "Re: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim".) On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:48am CDT, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you : understand the OU panel as defining it. Otherwise you are just using a : nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning. To me, "semichah" is a secondary concept. My focus was to assert whose halachic decision-making can qualify as hora'ah. That question involves semichah in the discussion. We were discussing the Rama YD 242:14. The Mechaber writes in strong terms that a higi'ah lehora'ah is obligated to actually provide hora'ah. The Rama there adds that this is only if there is no barrier of kevod harav -- his rebbe passed away, gave him semichah, is a rebbe-chaver, or the like. He doesn't make semichah a definition of magi'ah lehora'ah, but only a removal of a barrier, a necessary condition in the usual circumstances. Not a defining feature. If we look at the Rama in se'ifim 5-6, he tells you he is basing himself on the Mahariq (113.3, 117 [and the OU panel adds, cf 169). The Mahariq's position is based on assuming that what was true for classical semichah is still true for modern day semichah. The Rambam (Sanhedrin 4:8) agrees with that comparison -- he derives the need today for netilas reshus from Mosaic semichah. IOW, who needs reshus for hora'ah? Someone who is magi'ah lehora'ah and has kevoad harav issues in giving hora'ah without one. A magi'ah lehora'ah can only be someone eligable to sit on a BD of [Mosaic] musmachim (or according to the Rambam, other mumchim). Not because "rabbi" is defined by "has semichah", but because "yoreh yoreh" or Yesivat Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim" declares someone to be a hegi'ah lehorah. I find the OU's argument compelling, fits the words of R/Prof SL's letter and is probably his intent, and how I understood the sugyah in general before the notion of an O woman as rabbi became a topic people would seriously discuss. I am interested to know if you asked R/D Novak which one of us understood his intent. Did he mean to explain R/Prof SL's position or explain why he differs with it in ways that makes Yeshivat Maharat an option? Agreed that few rabbis pasqen, and that we could have female clergy that avoid this first issue that I have even if a Maharat's semichah read "Rabbah uManhigah" instead of "heter hora'ah lerabbim". : The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship : between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah : to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here: : http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah ... : So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that : apply to beit din. That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist... And yet the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama all think that one continues enough of the other that we can draw conclusions across that bridge. It's not me doing the category taking, it's the Rambam and the SA. What greater authorities do you need? While on the topic of magi'ah lehorah... On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 11:24am GMT, Isaac Balbin wrote: : I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his : students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the : aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was : a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter, : the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat, : is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is : 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin : and relay the answer. There is a difference. Hopefully, someone who get "Yoreh Yoreh" is first magi'ah lehora'ah. But that's a sliding scale. They could get reshus to pasqn because there are less weighty or less involved questions they can and should be answering, while still being aware when they are in over their heads and should call RMF. Whereas the impression I got from RYHH's posts here on Avodah is that a Yo'etzet isn't supposed to ever be giving pesaq; only answering questions that the community has definite answers for -- reporting halakhah pesuqah. But then there's the second and third issues.... 2- How do we know shul is no supposed to be a men's club? Men's clubs work, or at least the Rotary and the Masons have for centuries. Movements that went egalitarian now have issues getting male participation in shul; this is a big topic in Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs (C umbrella organization) discussion. And more fundamentally, how do we know that this social dynamic was not Anshei Keneses haGdolah's intent? I would assume indeed it was. This would rule out having a woman for much of the congretational role of rabbi. 3- Halakhah is inherently non-egalitarian: a- Importing an external value over those implied internally. And more functionally, we are telling women that indeed, the traditionally male role is the better path to holiness -- let us help you run at that glass ceiling. b- This is bound to lead to greater frustration as soon as LWMO has gone as far as it could up to that halachic limit. and c- It is making a claim that is false. One is sacrificing Judaism's model of equal worth despite hevdel for the sake of egalitarianism and erasing havdalah. The last being more of a perceptual issue. And this may explain why you can get a bit further not using the word "rabbi". It's not merely a word game, there is an issue at stake; are we trying to be egalitarian, or to accept a system in which kohanim not only defy egalitarianism, but apparently start out holier than I am. Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW. On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 7:51am IST, Ben Waxman wrote: : For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community : that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like : Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi : community consider to be kefira. Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'" (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not! : If so, than kal v'chomer many of : the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are : some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in : getting hung up on multiple non-issues. There are two possible sources of division here. 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators, and therefore in practice will be a separate community. Comfort zone isn't only a psychological issue. it nostalgia, mimetic tradition, Toras imekha or minhag Yisrael sabba, communal continuity is a big issue. 2- The ideological problem isn't in the bottom-level issues but in how they highlighted the loss of common language. The opposition to these changes are talking about Mesorah, values, etc... and the proponents just see the issue as "if it's halachically allowed, why are you giving us a hard time?" This lack of common language, more specifically, the lack of a notion of metahalakhah* is disconcerting. So to my mind the schism-level battle isn't over ordaining women, Partnership Minyanim, or whether Document Hypothesis is a viable option without O as much as these decisions are apparently being made by a different set of rules. And that could quite validly be a schismatic level issue. (* In this sense of the "word" "metahalakhah". We on Avodah have also used "metahalakha" to refer to the halachos of making halakhos, even when the rules are more black-letter. Such as discussions of when we say halakhah kebasrai, or whether there is acharei rabbim lehatos in this post-Sanhedrin era.) Back to R/Dr Noam Stadlan... I believe in a role for women in the clergy that isn't that of poseiq, part of minyan, nor claiming to be egalitarian. The OU thinks that categorizing the resulting role set as "clergy" is itself too egalitarian. Again, I see that as a perceptual issue. But they too end calling for finding more venues for women to contribute communally and to be visible role models. (An Areivim-esque tangent: It would be interesting to see if the OU acts on these closing remarks as rapidly as they did about the 4 member shuls that already have Maharatos.) But then, the only difference between the position now taken by Aish or Chabad kiruv today and the actual permission granted in the driving responsum is perception as well. In terms of dry facts, both were premitting causing the non-observant to drive on Shabbos rather than let them remain disconnected. They only differed in how they let the person perceive his own driving. And yet one was a major part of a broad collapse of observance, and the other is apparently increasing observance. Presentation and perception matter. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:03:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:03:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606150330.GB26549@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:23:51AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : R Micha argues that this is not correct : he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control : then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs : i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost : so there is no YiUsh : however if they would know it is lost : they would be MeYaEsh Rather, I was saying ownership hinges on responsibility, which I suggested was both a consequence of and license for having actual control. : I would suggest that there is no problem : the Machlokes is simply a dispute about : ACTUAL belief one is in control versus : POTENTIAL belief one is in control It would help if you can find a case where somone has potential of believing they control an item for reasons other than having actual control, and has the din of ba'al, OR someone has potential to believe they lost control of an item for reasons other than actually losing control, and does not have ba'alus. Yi'ush is giving up on finding it again, not knowledge of loss of control, real or potential. Let me use your example to explain how I see it: : for example : walking behind a fellow Yid : you notice a diamond fall off his ring : he would be unaware of his loss ... : If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs : then you can take the diamond straight away : because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss But this is a case where he loses actual control. The yi'ush shelo mida'as is more of an expectation not to regain it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:06:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606150633.GC26549@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:26:41AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : can anyone explain and : show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim : to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from : non-Kosher fat "Preferable"? Because we make a point of using dish soap that is ra'ui la'akhilah. So, using a treif one means taking a position on akhshevei. I believe the OU knows they are just pandering to the market when they give such a heksher, though, and don't lehalakhah require it. (But you did say "preferable", and avoiding even a shitah dechuyah could be deemed preferable.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:55:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 09:53:30PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil : Siman 199, the Maharil writes: ... :> And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive :> commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we :> should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut ... :> And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible :> to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules :> and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in :> our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and :> hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by :> way of tradition from outside, I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather than knowledge of abstract ideas. However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. There I ass more promise. he quotes the Rambam (which you already discussed) and the Sema"q's haqdamah (from near the end). There the Maharil talks about oseiq beTorah as in kol ha'oseiq beparashas olah kei'lu hiqrivu qorban, and that this should apply even to mitzvos in which they are NOT obligated (like qorbanos). Is this exclusively TSBK? It might; the Maharil talks about men saying birkhos haTorah before reading pesuqim they do not understand. Ayin sham. : And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in : Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous : generations: :> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their :> upright fathers. Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. Which the Maharil you cited appears to be doing as well. I place more hope on the second Maharil. Which is why I disagree with: : But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the : ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach : women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was : taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in : the form of the Mishna?... Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an example to imitate. (Tosafos believe Rabbe compiled the mishnah; writing down didn't happen for centuries. So what the mishnah was to the amora'im was an official text to memorize and repeat. As in "tani tana qamei deR' ..." Not that it really touches on our discussion.) : So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what : the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women : to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al " peh... True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask why, etc... but it's not an "education" setting. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 16:57:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men gather. Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis. So that women can gather around women rabbis. certainly it is not an argument against women rabbis. And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals does not apply either. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 18:50:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:50:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: - R' Shalom Simon wrote: > I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value > as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters > of grave import. No one?!? I imagine this might be true about people who are relatively learned, and relatively savvy in the ways of certain yeshivishe circles. But I can testify that it is certainly not true of a typical less-learned nominally-Orthodox person. Towards the end of my first year in yeshiva in Yerushalayim, as I made my plans to returns back to the USA, my friends were nudging me to stay for a second year. I felt that the proper thing for me to do was to return, as per my plans. But their annoying reached a certain level, and I felt the most effective response would be to ask my gemara rebbe (who I was very close with), and then I'd be able to tell them to keep quiet. Surprise! He answered me honestly, that leaving the yeshiva would be a mistake, I needed a second year of chizuk, etc etc etc. I was devastated, having to choose between his p'sak and what *I* felt to be right. In the end, I wasn't strong enough to follow Hashem's halacha. I left the yeshiva, returned to YU for the one remaining year to get my degree, and then returned to my yeshiva in Yerushalayim. All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha. Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 19:25:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 22:25:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support? Message-ID: - R' Ben Bradley wrote: > I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur > derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what > consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to > include any contact in any social situation in addition to > more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly > consistently not included are professional scenarios where > your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors, > nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who > can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like > the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says > there that even in his generation he was unique in being able > to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for > this situation. > > But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively > certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei > aveira then there is no issur of negia. I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses, physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her, she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia. But in the case at hand, the physical contact is not incidental. It is the goal. Nay, I would argue even more strongly: The mere physical contact isn't the goal -- The EMOTIONAL RESPONSE to the contact is the goal! The whole point of hugging this person is for emotional support. I certainly agree that this sort of hugging is on a lower level that the sort of hugging that leads to sexual relations. But at the same time, it *IS* more intimate than the examples you cited. A person will choose a doctor, nurse or therapist, based on their medical ability -- but the sort of hugs we are discussing here are valued more when from a friend than from a stranger. > I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And > preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in > sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved > in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred > option. "The need to comfort the bereaved..." Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor" regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this "needed" comfort from someone else. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 20:28:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 03:28:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R Meir Rabi asked for mekoros. I suggest Yechaveh Daas 4:43 Although Chacham Ovadya is Meikel he does bring Rishonim who would hold its an Issur Derabonnon as in Pesach for 'off' Chametz. This is probably the place to look but I don't have the Sefer in front of me at the minute. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 03:38:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 06:38:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607103838.GC10990@aishdas.org> There are also sources in RAZZ's column in Jewish Action https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_kosher_soap (He sent me the link privately. Perhaps R/Dr Zivitofsky wanted to spare me being corrected in public.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 06:35:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:35:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> >Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed >incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis >are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community >in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to >do so?" >----------------------------------------------------- >As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question >(chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", >on what basis >are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a >Halachic reason to do so?" But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no? We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni or Tzlophad's daughters. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 06:49:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 08:49:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maharat Message-ID: R. Micha- if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL). It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is one of them. You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get semicha. You obviously hold that a woman cant be a judge, and the barrier to the woman is actually not semicha, but her not being qualified to be in the category of hl. Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness. There are others in that category. Since there is no reason to differentiate between those in the category, you are saying that all those others in the category also are forbidden, not from semicha, but from being in the category of HL. We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be dayyanim in some cases. So, the disqualification of women from HL actually wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot. So your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not claiming to be eligible for semicha. I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive lomdus. Is there a source that specifically states that women are forbidden from being HL? The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age. It seems that you may be distinguishing between hora'ah, and HL, there being hora'ah that is not in the category of being given by someone that is HL(if not, you have to deal with the myriads of sources that state specifically that women can give hora'ah). So you and the OU authors may be referring to HL in the mosaic understanding, and moderns, including YM, are using it in a different fashion, to refer to non-formal HL. Because if there is hora'ah that is not part of the formal HL, there is no restriction on women. And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? what is the basis for that? It seems that even assuming that you are correct(for which I have not found any support in any references), there is no basis for excluding women from having non formal hora'ah, someone acknowledging that they are capable of that non-formal hora'ah, and them functioning as a rabbi and doing what rabbi's do in shuls and elsewhere. Your restriction only keeps them from occupying a formal title which is not neccessary or needed for the job description. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 07:05:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 14:05:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> References: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> Message-ID: <94258eaf26e94a0ea0c49de3630ef2ce@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no? We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni or Tzlophad's daughters. ========================= So just to complete the loop-the question is who gets to answer this request for whom Kt Joel rich _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rn0JnHwKAKxEU5lYbmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGWm5q4mhsFBBsamlgbGDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAF5osAg&Z THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 09:38:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607163850.GA12495@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:49:45AM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL). It's not me positing it. Look again at YD 242:13-14, warning against the talmid shelo higia' lehora'ah against giving any, and the chakham who did higi'ah lehora'ah and was not moreh, applying condemnatory pesuqim to each. The SA is based on R' Abba amar R' Hunah amar Rav on AZ 19b. : It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can : give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is : one of them. So yes, it is clear. The SA says so outright. : You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get : semicha... Again, not me, Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq all assume comparability between the two. A Mahariq the Rama then cites (se'if 6) as the basis for his concluding how a musmach should behave toward the rav who gave him semichah, when not his rebbe. So it would seem the Rama buys into the notion that our "semichah" of declaring someone a hegi'ah lehora'ah (and in the case of a rebbe, implicitely that he has permission to be moreh) follows the rules of Mosaic semicha for beis din. So, thinking you are arguing against me, rather than centuries of dissentless precedent, you propose a line of reasoning at odds with the Rambam and Tosafos: : Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for : those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness... The Sema and Be'eir heiTev (on CM 7:4) does say yalfinan lah mei'eidus. See Nidah 49b But see the Y-mi, Shevuos 4:1 (vilna 19a) brings several derashos. One of them (R' Yosi bei R' Bun, R' Huna besheim R' Yosi) does learn is from a gezeira shava from eidus. ... : We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be : dayyanim in some cases. So, the disqualification of women from HL actually : wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot. So : your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not : claiming to be eligible for semicha. One thing at a time. Eligability for true Mosaic semichah and how it reflect on who can give hora'ah is what's relevant now. Not who can serve in other judicial roles that did/will not require semichah. : I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive : lomdus. Is there a source that specifically states that women are : forbidden from being HL? There are numerous sources that say women can't get real Mosaic semichah, and numerous sources that say that the laws of today's "semichah" are derived from those. The fact that I don't know anyone before the current dispute actually connect the two to deny something no (O and pre-O) observant community considered a plausible question even as recently as the late 1990s (including a statement by R' Avi Weiss) really doesn't make the argument less compelling. If you have A =/= B and B = C, do you really demand a source telling you that A =/= C? : The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara : and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age... No, that HL in the SA is the same. ... : And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the : requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? ... Never claimed that. I separated my problem with declaring a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" for women from my problem with a woman serving during services and from my 2 or 3 problems with giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings in halakhah. You have only responded to the first. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 10:33:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:33:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607173338.GB9596@aishdas.org> As I see it, the question WRT hora'ah is whether we follow the Rama's lead and hold like the Mahariq, or the Birkei Yoseif CM 7:12 a viable shitah -- and then, does "viable" mean "advisable"? (We aren't heter shopping, after all.) The Birkei Yoseif says Af de'ishah besulah ladun, mikol maqom ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah basing himself on one of the opinions in Tosafos (Yevamos 45b "mi", Gittin 88b, ve'od) about what it means that "Devorah melamedes lahem dinim". (Devodah vs. ishah asurah ladun is the topic of 11.) It seem to me that "melameid lahem dinim" is a different use of the word "hora'ah" than the SA is using in YD. And thus it seems to me that Birkei Yoseif would explicitly permit a yo'etzet, who is teaching established halakhah and defering questions that require shiqul hada'as to a rav. But he is not describing hora'ah as assumed in a Maharat's heter hora'ah lerabbim and the YD 242 sense of magi'ah lehora'ah and who needs such a heter when he does. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 10:12:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:12:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607171230.GA2858@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:25:57PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses, : physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a : "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one : will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so : too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked : her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her, : she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia. "Melakhah she'inah tzerichah legudah" is specific to the 39 melakhos, so "sort of" indeed. Besides, might be more of a pesiq reishei. In any case, when a professional violates negi'ah, the heter is ba'avidteih tarid (BM 91b). And it's specifically to professionals and the air of professionalism. (As well as the lowered odds of a problem for someone who has a license at risk.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 12:22:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 21:22:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/7/2017 3:50 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I > will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I > *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for > disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi > Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha. > > Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar > things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent. I would agree that this is an extreme example. I don't know you so I can't say anything about you in particular (not that I would anyway, not on a forum) but I would expect a yeshiva guy who had been learning with a teacher/rav for a year to take the teacher/rav's words much more seriously than the average ba'al habayit. The first thing a ba'al habayit would do is say "Well, I went to him for advice, not psak, so I don't have to listen to him". >I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value >as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters > of grave import. I don't know what constitutes grave import - an abortion? learning Biblical Criticism? Marrying someone of questionable yichus? Whether or not a particular business maneuver constitutes fraud in the eyes of halacha (or if it isn't but is illegal)? Accepting charity from criminals? Would the average MO Jew speak a rav and get his psak on these issues? Or do people limit themselves to strict Orach Chayim issues like eating on Yom Kippur? Are there issues that people will do whatever the rabbi says and ignore what he has to say about other things (obviously people ignore what rabbis have to say about a lot of issues, but I mean a straight psak)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 11:57:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maharat Message-ID: R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress. You are engaging in a theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls. (they were not arguing against specific wording on a claf, they were arguing against holding a specific position). Given what you wrote, we both agree that the OU argument against does not hold water. Even if they are technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are capable of doing so(even if according to you they actually do not need permission from their rav). Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R. Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and others. Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav) have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and the authority is in the sources, not the person. You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments. You have admitted that the issue of women semicha has not been considered until recently. So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong. (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an arguement, that it be consistent. So if you are claiming that the reason women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot. you cant have it both ways). Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.' Please read the article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier. He makes it very clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that external 'modern values' are an important part of that. Modern values are neither positive nor negative. Those that find resonance in the Mesorah are elevated. R. Nachum Rabinovitch and R. Lichtenstein point out that our goal is to make moral progress. You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'. It isn't about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion. As R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice. I happen to be married to a Maharat student and personally know many of them and their teachers. It is the ultimate in hubris and mansplaining for you and the others to claim to know what their motivation is. It was reprehensible of the OU panel to claim to know what the motivation is when they failed to talk to anyone actually involved in the enterprise. Even if we incorrectly grant that it is due to 'egalitarian yearnings,' is that wrong? I suggest that our Mesorah has incorporated egalitarian yearnings. The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way, and those that would probably would give all sorts of apologetics and rationalizations for it. (I am aware of the different shitot, and know that RSZA for example gave so many other rationales to decide that even though l'halacha he held this, there were so many other bases for deciding ahead of gender that practically it never would have been applicable.) Even the OU panel said that we value women the same as men. Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women. The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large or as small as possible? Because as we have decided above, if we go by strict halacha, there is no problem with women serving as shul rabbis. is it a value to have differences, and because you want to have differences, you are going to prohibit women from doing things? Just to have differences? There are differences between Jews and Converts. Is it a Halachic value to maximize the differences, or minimize the differences between Jew and Gerim? R. Moshe wrote that a convert can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah is not a problem. Would he have agreed that a women can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah is also not a problem for her? (rosh yeshiva does not require semicha). Mishpat echad yehiyeh lachem, ka-ger ka-ezrach. The OU paper brought up tzniut. I do not think that the MO community thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a violation of tzniut. So there is no violation of tzniut when women or men perform the functions of clergy on their side of the mechitzah(one could designate a man to take of things on the men's side of the mechitzah if you were worried about interactions across the mechitzah). if you are claiming that this is a tzniut problem, then it applies to every interaction of women and men, inside the shul and outside. The OU paper claimed that a synagogue required greater tzniut, and therefore women cant perform rabbinical duties. That is a non-sequitor. First of all, it hasnt been demonstrated that appropriately dressed and acting people are a problem with tzniut. and, why is this particular action the one picked to fulfill the mandate of more tzniut? perhaps the men fulfilling EH 21 would be a better starting place. I understand you and others not being comfortable with ordination for women. no one is asking for you to be comfortable with it. If you dont think it is a good idea(halacha v'ain mori'in kein), that is fine to say. But it isn't fine to say that Halacha bans it when it doesn't, and it isn't ok to try to kick people who are shomrei Torah u'mitzvot out of the tent because of your comfort or lack of comfort. I would hope that you are at least as uncomfortable with some of the people on the far right wing. No one is asking for you to go to their shul, ask them a shailah, or learn their Torah if you dont want to. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:10:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:10:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:57:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress. You are engaging in a : theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU : rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls... Well, my first point is a discussion of hora'ah, and consequently for whom is semichah meaninful. But my argument on this point is a subset of the OU's argument on that point. See their paper, pp 8-9 : Given what you wrote, we both agree : that the OU argument against does not hold water. Even if they are : technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give : hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are : capable of doing so (even if according to you they actually do not need : permission from their rav). HOW do you get from what I wrote an implication that we have agreement on that? I think it's firmly established by aforementioned rishonim (plus others in the OU's footnotes) that if someone is ineligable for Mosaic semichah they are ineligable to give hora'ah and therefore have no use for today's yoreh-yoreh. Or the Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim"? : Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch : who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R. : Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a : later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't : invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and : others. Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav) : have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and : the authority is in the sources, not the person. Asked and answered, although in a post after the one to which you replied. Some use the word hora'ah to mean "melameid lahem dinim". Which is not hora'ah as the Rama is discussing it. I pointed you to the Birkei Yoseif. The Chinuch is similar; his : You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments... Another? What's the first? : So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only : poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong. The OU paper doesn't make that argument. Not that I see everything the way the OU panel does. (But halakhah lemaaseh, I would be more likely to follow their opinion than my own.) Nor did I find RJF's analysis of this claim in neither (his general position on ordaining women) nor the only place where I saw him discuss the OU panel on Lehrhaus. As an activist on the subject, I'm sure you've spent more time reading up on it than I. Could you kindly provide more specific references? But let me deal with what you wrote: IOW, you are saying that because our ancestors thought the idea was absurd, we ought to go ahead? What such an argument would say is that we historically had numerous women capable of being rabbis and even so no one even considered making any of them one. The OU's section on mesorah should explain why such attitudes have precedential authority. But again, none of this reflects on what I myself was arguing : (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an : arguement, that it be consistent. So if you are claiming that the reason : women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from : being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including : that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot. you cant : have it both ways). I argued the opposite causality. Lo sosuru mikol asher YORUKHA refers to dayanim. So, someone who is excluded from becoming a dayan can't be the subject of the pasuq, and their decisions don't fall under the halakhos generated by this pasuq. Their decisions are not hora'ah, in the pasuq's sense. (YOu had me saying: Can't give hora'ah implies can't be dayan. I am really saying: Can't be dayan implies can't give hora'ah.) : Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.' Please read the : article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier. He makes it very : clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that : external 'modern values' are an important part of that. Modern values are : neither positive nor negative... Not because they're modern, no. But obviously some are positive, some negative. We can judge them. Mesorah and its values are logically prior to modern values. Numerous halakhos are unegalitarian. Even if egalitarianism is a good idea for benei noach, as a perspective it is inconsistent with that the Torah expects of Jews. : You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'. It isn't : about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers : to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion. As : R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice... The motive I attributed, really echoed back from what I heard in prior iterations, is not that anyone is about making halakhah more egalitarian, but a desire to make halakhah fit a more egalitarian reality. So I don't know what you're rebutting. I argued that some realities reflect values that must be resisted rather than accomodated. We can talk about the end of inequality in the workplace as a good thing, but can we talk about reducing the differences in avodas Hashem, differences that can't be eliminated because halakhah demands they're there, as a good thing? Good point here to address RSSimon's post. On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 09:35:14AM -0400, Sholom Simon wrote: : But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight : halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's : education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent : this", no? To avoid making this a false dichotomy, you have to define halakhah broadly, to include the obligation to live according to the values and general guidelines of aggadita -- mitzvos like qedoshim tihyu, vehalakhta bidrakhav, ve'asisa hayashar vehatov (a/k/a Chovos haLvavos or Hil' Yesodei haTorah and Hil' Dei'os). I think this is what the OU is trying to get to with the concept of "Mesorah". But if I may be frank, they are handicapped in their ability to discuss the aggadic by too many of them seeing the world with Brisker eyes. Back to R/Dr Stadlan... In addition to the question needing to be asked about the Torah's evaluation of a modern value before we simply adopt it (rather than tolerate, limit the scope, or entirely reject).... Second, I do not think justice is served by telling women to find their religious meaning in a headlong rush toward a glass ceiling. I think it's more just to teach them how to find meaning in ways that aren't dead-ended for them. More equal, if less egalitarian. ... : Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women. : The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large : or as small as possible?... That decision should be made by starting with "why does halakhah have those differences"? And what do our aggadic sources say? As I said above, we judge whether to adopt, tolerate or resist new values based on TSBP. : The OU paper brought up tzniut. I do not think that the MO community : thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a : violation of tzniut... Tzenius isn't about clothes. I don't agree with their argument, but don't fight strawmen. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 13:55:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:55:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a > woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken > that way I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:21:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 23:21:05 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB writes: >I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" >in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather than knowledge of abstract ideas. No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these were not "textual" sources - how would you translate ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? better though, to keep the flow and that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? >However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult to understand them as having been written by the same person. Indeed the Birchei Yosef, who seems to have only seen the first one inside, and seen the second one referred to in other sources, particularly the Beis Yosef,( who himself seems to have had the second on but possibly not the first) challenges the quotations from the second teshuva on the basis of the first, and seems to suggest (in the politest possible way) that the Beis Yosef got it wrong, because they just do not match. I do not know any real way to reconcile these two, and can only note that the two compilations of teshuvos were compiled by different students of the Maharil . : And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in : Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous : generations: :> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their :> upright fathers. >Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk, it is about actively teaching (albeit oral). Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting up of schools), but it is a strange pasuk to use if he was talking purely about mimeticism. >Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at all the experiential aspect. When the gemora cites a ma'aseh rav, is this *not* TSBP because it would seem to be mimetic? >I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an example to imitate. The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two types of TSBP. And the other alternative would seem to be to write this kind of teaching out of TSBP. But is not a lot of TSBP, even though by no means all of it, this kind of teaching. Is not the gemora etc filled with this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. : So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what : the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women : to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al " peh... >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting. But the Rambam doesn't say either - "but with regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she ba'al peh taught in a formal educational setting, but that not taught in a formal education setting is fine". And note of course that one cannot just observe Mum taking challa, one also needs to be told about the correct shiur. It is highly unlikely that anybody would necessarily conclude, by watching week after week, exactly what the correct shiur for taking chala and the bracha is by mere observation. That has to be communicated as a form of rule. Ok a situational rule, - taught in context, but the tradition would be lost in a generation if it was left for every generation to guess the correct shiur by watching closely enough week after week. >-Micha Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:53:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:53:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we have now is historically completely wrong. From "b'inyan semichat chachamim' published in Or Hamizrach: 'At this time when semicha is batel, all the mishpatim from the Torah are battel..based on lifneihem- and not lifnei hedyotot. And nowadays we are all hedyotot. And the only way it works is that we act as shlichim of Mosaic beit din' So everyone is a hedyot. More to the point in section five there is a detailed examination of semicha included what was required in various areas. 'The Chatam Sofer writes...that this semicha of morenu and chaver has NO BASIS IN SHAS but is a ashkenazi minhag and does not contain anything real'. 'They issue of semicha that they estabkished(tiknu), according to the Rivash, because it is forbidden for a student, even one who is hegiah l'hora'ah, to give hora'a or to establish a yeshiva(note that this obviously is not hora'ah)while his teacher is alive....therefore they had the PRACTICE of semicha...that he is no longer a student but can teach others(the word is l'lamed, not hora'ah)' There is a lot more. But it is quite clear in the sources brought in this article that the historical record clearly shows No connection between Mosaic semicha and what was begun in the Middle Ages. Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:53:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 22:53:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> References: , <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> Message-ID: <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 7, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > >> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: >> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way > > I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this Not really. They basically say either that there are other tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why.specific citations available upon request Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:07:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:07:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> References: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> Message-ID: On 07/06/17 18:53, Rich, Joel wrote: >> I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that >> this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this > Not really. They basically say either that there are other > tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it > would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why. That's what I thought too. I was surprised to read RNS not only insisting otherwise but deducing an entire shita from this supposed fact. In practise I doubt it was ever meant to be implemented kipshuto, because even on its own terms it applies only when all else is equal, and it rarely is. But it seems to me that when all else *is* equal, i.e. when we have no other information so all else is zero, and we are free to set our own priorities without fearing negative consequences (that too constitutes additional information which makes all else not equal), then the halacha must still apply. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:51:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:51:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170607225122.GA14289@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 05:48:13PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : > Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because : > there is no actual issur la'avor. : : I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on : pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where : there's an issur involved? Red shoelaces? : The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that : yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below. No, it could be preservational and still deOraisa. Like my example of a ben soreier umoreh, who Chazal say dies al sheim ha'asid -- we're also preventing the continuing deteriation in a downward spiral. This "downward spiral" was what I was calling Hil' Dei'os. Hirhurim and hana'ah -- devarim sheleiv in general -- aren't even punishable altogether, how could they allow a court to decide yeihareig? Most dinei nefashos don't even qualify. : Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context : of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must : be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as : issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does. And qiddush hasheim could involve avoiding something that is not assur either. (Agian: red shoelaces.) That too is death to preserve an attitude. I am just saying that your desire to make this yeihareig ve'al ya'avor is putting an overly formal halachic box. Whether or not something is a qiddush hasheim or otherwise worth dying for is not necessarily reducible to a Brisker chalos-sheim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:17:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:17:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we : have now is historically completely wrong... And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah? The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up to imitate the other with no continuity between them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:58:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> Message-ID: The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way, and that saying that modern semicha was set up to imitate ancient semicha(to such an extent that the same prohibitions apply) is a distortion of history and Halachic history. Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources. The Rama makes more sense when read in the context of the quotes that I provided from the Chatam Sofer et al. The Rambam, could well be discussing ancient semicha in the sources you describe........ On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun > 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: > : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we > : have now is historically completely wrong... > > And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based > on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical > study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah? > > The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up > to imitate the other with no continuity between them. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 23:40:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 09:40:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> References: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> Message-ID: <5938F16E.9010705@biu.ac.il> the topic is addressed in this article: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0048-0068.pdf ?A MAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER from Tradition in 2014 Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > >> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a >> woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken >> that way > > > I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this > is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? > What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument > is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the > question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O? > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 06:14:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:14:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check Message-ID: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> [RJR poses these questions at the start of his Audio Roundup column on Torah Musings . I prodded him to share them here as well, as questions work better in an actual discussion venue. But I didn't think he would do so without plugging his column! So, here's my plug: Worth reading, and if you have one -- pointing subscribing to on your news agreegator / RSS reader. -micha] A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled the commandment to wear tfillin. In fact, many pasul tfillin were pasul from the start (e.g., missing a letter). The Rav later reported that a listener heard the shiur and had his tfillin checked and found such a psul, even though he had bought the tfillin from a reputable sofer and had them checked earlier by another reputable sofer. The Rav was pleased with this result. Two questions: 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status) appropriate? 2) As a societal issue, how should current rabbinic leadership view the tradeoff of now requiring (suggesting) frequent checks? We will have some who will have the listener's result. OTOH, we will also have those whose tfillin will more likely become pasul due to uncurling the klaf and the increased costs of checking. BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan checking be appropriate? Kt Joel rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 06:15:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:15:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Parenthesis Message-ID: <1c9fcdd2c38f43e7af59d24ffe246c8b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> [See my plug of RJR's column in the previous post. His question about a distraught new widow and negi'ah as well... And that's just the column's *padding*! Extra credit if you answer the question about parenthesis while "vayehi binsoa'" and its upside-down nuns is still in parashas hashavua. -micha] 1. In the Shulchan Aruch -- who is the author of the statements in parenthesis in the Rama like print that don't start with Hagah? 2. In Rashi (or Tosfot), who decided to put certain words in parenthesis and why? (e.g., differing manuscripts, logic, etc.) Kt Joel rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 04:31:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 07:31:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . I would like to start a new thread to discuss exactly what we mean by "redemption". I will begin by quoting most of R' Micha Berger's recent post from the thread "Elimelech's land": > ... it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to > all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that > strikes me as a progression): > > - the go'el hadam > - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's > not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) > - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) > - and of people (ibid v 48) > - the end of galus > > To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even > something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on > its nachalah. > > But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more > to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first -- > "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of > redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why > there are different words in lh"q. Several years ago I tried working on this as part of my preparations for Pesach. The first obstacle I encountered was (as RMB mentioned in the last line here) that there are so many interchangeable synonyms. The first two that came to my mind are "geulah" and "pidyon", such as in Yirmiyahu 31:10: > Ki fadah Hashem es Yaakov, > Ug'alo miyad chazak mimenu. I agree that a good starting point, as suggested by RMB, is "restoration". This carries over to English as well, and I could cite several pieces of literature whose theme is "the chance to redeem myself," where someone suffered a significant loss of status (justified or not) and is trying to correct that loss, and restore himself to his prior status. This is very much what Naomi was trying to accomplish. But I'm not so sure how relevant it was to Mitzrayim, where the problem was not merely social status, but physical danger. And that brings more synonyms into the mix: yeshuah and hatzalah. A useful tool for distinguishing synonyms is when they occur near each other in the same context. I brought an example of pidyon and geulah above from Yirmiyahu, and here is a case of hatzalah and geulah: Shemos 6:6-7: "V'hotzaysi... V'hitzalti... V'gaalti... V'lakachti..." On this, Rav SR Hirsch explains: "Whereas hitzil is deliverance from a threatening danger, gaal is deliverance from a destruction which has already occured." In Shemos 8:19, RSRH seems to say that "padah" refers to redemption when "anything has fallen into the power of someone else, to bring it out of that power." I suppose that relates to kedushah (Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, etc) because the redeemed object is no longer encumbered by the halachos that applied before. On the other hand, Vayikra 25:24-54 teaches about using money to redeem land, or a house, or an eved. In those pesukim, the word "redeem" appears as some form of geulah 17 times, but as pidyon not even once. How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? Looking forward to your thoughts Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 04:49:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:49:29 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500 From: Noam Stadlan via Avodah > R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men > gather. Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis. So that women > can gather around women rabbis. I'm sorry this does not compute halachically or logically. The men don't gather around the Rabbi either, and I have never seen a problem when the Rav who has been directing everything requests women on one side and men on the other. > certainly it is not an argument against > women rabbis. It was a comment that even in a place where the Yetzer Horah is least likely to have an influence, we are asked to be separate from each other. > And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like > the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly > dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual > immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals > does not apply either. Ger does not make that their focus. They have Gedorim for their own wives even if dressed Tzniusdikly etc One doesn't have to be modern orthodox to encounter women in the workplace either. It would be good if there were more women asking shaylos period. For Nida shaylos there have always been ways to treat a matter discretely. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 07:30:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of > any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even > punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of > the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? Yes, it's what the victim's blood needs and deserves, and the victim is unable to provide it for himself, so as the closest relative it's his duty to provide it for him. The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. Ya`akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because Kel Nekamos Hashem. We are commanded to love our fellow Yidden so much that we forgive them and *forgo* our natural and just desire for revenge, just as we would do of our own accord for someone we actually loved without being commanded. Even the neshama of a murder victim is expected to forgive his Jewish killer, and Navos was punished for not doing so. But we can't forgive on someone else's behalf, especially on our father's behalf, or assume he's such a tzadik that he must have forgiven his killer. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 09:13:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:13:39 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Psak of a Musmach Message-ID: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> The Maharat thread got me thinking about this, but it is a bit of a tangent, hence the new thread. It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don?t recall that it is mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 07:23:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 10:23:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170608164150.ETSG4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> At 09:43 AM 6/8/2017, via Avodah wrote: > >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather >than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she >noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask >why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting. Surely, *some* of it is. Rn Ch L gave the example of a shiur, but there's an awful lot that goes on in the kitchen, and I would guess (I don't know, as I've never been a mother or a daughter) that the mother would be almost negligent if she didn't actually explain some various rules. (I'm using a slotted spoon here, but in cases x, y, z, I can't use a slotted spoon; or: when I do this it's not considered borer because x, y, z; or: if I want to return the pot to the blech, I have to have in mind x,y,a; or: this is how you make tea, and this is how you make coffee, and this is why I can't melt the ice in a cup, and this is why you can defrost the orange juice, etc etc etc). I have a teacher who told me that any women who is doing a competent job in the kitchen has to have learned TSBP. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:28:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:28:47 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> Message-ID: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of >> any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even >> punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of >> the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? > > The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like. Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:45:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 14:45:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <3c673353-b5e9-d704-9cb0-52aff2f213c7@sero.name> On 08/06/17 14:28, Daniel Israel wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not >> Jewish. > An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. > Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos > chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an issur on doing so againstyour own people, because you are commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in itself does not come from any Jewish source. > That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like. > Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam > should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise > above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes. He's not go'el ha'emes, he's go'el hadam. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 13:43:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 20:43:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? ------------------------- The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an extension of the beit din. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:40:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 18:40:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Psak of a Musmach In-Reply-To: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> References: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <70d0ce58d48443a8a6b7fb558f001745@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From: Daniel Israel via Avodah Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 12:14 PM > It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, > then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying > on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or > her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not > obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don't recall that it is > mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha. Good starting point is first Mishna in horiyot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 14:01:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:01:33 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> References: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2D819FCB-5A0D-497C-8E21-EE99A6A9069A@kolberamah.org> A few points that have been swirling around my head reading through this thread. 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? Let?s concede, for sake of argument, that there are halachically permissible ways for a woman to do much of what communal rabbis actually do in practice. Not everything that is mutar is advisable. I don?t see why we should be embarrassed that community policy is being set by Torah principles which are not purely halachic. And while we are all entitled to our own opinions, community policy must be set by gedolei Torah of a certain stature. I don?t believe any of the Rabbaim who are supporting these ventures, with all due respect to their legitimate scholarship and accomplishments, are among the select few who a significant portion of the Torah world look to for answers to these kinds of questions. They were never among those who set gedarim for the community before they become involved in this issue, and so it should be no surprise that their taking the initiative on this issue is widely not accepted. 2. As far as hora?ah, we are discussing it like there is a clear line: halacha p?sukah and hora?ah. (And some comments make a third distinction, between what a local Rav can pasken, and what requires phone call.) But every case requires some amount of shikul hada?as. Sometimes it is so trivial we don?t notice it (?is this specific package of meat marked ?bacon,' treif??). But there are lots of questions we essentially MUST pasken for ourselves. Things like, ?is my headache painful enough to justify taking asprin on Shabbos??. OTOH, most of the questions we ask a Rav (?is this spoon okay??) aren?t really about shikul hadaas, they are more about his knowing all the relevant sugyos. I.e., they are topics that we could (should?) learn enough to answer for ourselves. Note also that any responsible Rav is continually evaluating which questions he feels capable of answering on his own. Just to be clear, I?m not saying there is no distinction to be made. Given that hora?ah lifnei Rabo is assur, clearly there is such a category. But what it is is not so clear cut. Also, I?m not pointing this out to support Rabbanus for women (although one could formulate such an argument), rather to suggest that hora?ah is not this place this needs to be argued out. 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher.? I think this is a good model. First, I would note that there are definitely still circles which strongly disagree with aspects of the chassidic approach. What has changed is that no one is seriously concerned that it will degenerate into widespread k?firah. (Keep in mind there was precedent. Chassidus arose soon after exactly that happened with regard to the Sabbateans.) That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, much as happened with the Conservative movement. Fifty years from now, if that happens, the question will be answered. If it doesn?t happen, then those who are still opposed may be willing to make their peace with it as part of Orthodoxy, even they don?t themselves hold that way. Given this long term view, perhaps the vehement opposition is an important part of the processes (as it may well have been with regard to chassidus). 4. Related to the prior point, RnIE (I think) suggested that this is less of a big deal in E?Y. And RSS posted a link to an article by Dr. Rachel Levmore that concludes with a list of reasons the situation may be different in E?Y and the US. For myself, WADR to those involved, who I am sure really feel they are acting l?sheim shemayim, I share RMB?s concern that they are aiming at a glass ceiling (extremely well put!). And, consequently, I suspect that there will eventually be a schism with at least some of that camp transforming into a neo-Conservative movement. After reading the above mentioned article by DrRL, perhaps another reason for the difference is that in E?Y these developments are fundamentally a response to a need. That is, there are specific issues having nothing to do with female clergy which are creating a need, and in some natural way it has come out that the best solution is the creation of these new roles for women. Whereas, in the US, the driver seems to be a conviction that there should be some form of female clergy, in and of itself. Which leads to a concern I?ve long had about many issues where people point to historical halachic change to justify contemporary changes. Perhaps certain changes are okay if they happen on their own, but we really shouldn?t be pushing for them to happen. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 14:25:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 17:25:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170608212546.GB25737@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 06:58:57PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam : Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way... But you neither explain 1- If it is a "distortion of history and Halachic : history" to claim that current yoreh-yoreh is an imitation of the elements of true Mosaic semichah that are still meaningful, how and why the Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq the Rama quotes lehalakhah all derive laws of yoreh-yoreh from Mosaic semichah for dayanus? Nor 2- How the CS's claim -- citation would be helpful -- that today's semichah is "merely" an Ashkenazi minhag means that this minhag was not set up to certify who is standing in the shadow of the true Mosaic musmach? Don't we need something explicit from the CS before we can just assume he would not deduce the rules of the minhag from the rules of true semichah. After all, you're setting him up against the precedent of doing just that (in Q #1). See the AhS YD 242:29-30. He explains that contemporary "semichah" is to announce to the nation that (1) he is higi'ah lehora'ah, and (2) his hora'ah is by permission of the ordaining rabbi. (He also requires a community to have a rav ha'ir, and others need the RhI's reshus to pasqen in his town as well.) This is much like what you said the CS says, as well as the Rivash. And the Rivash, which appears from your quote is the CS's source, talks about hora'ah -- just as the AhS does. In any case, I am looking for the Tzitz Eliezer's discussion of Sepharadim and their not accepting the notion of contemporary "semichah". Because IIRC, his discussion about semichah, not higi'ah lehora'ah. Recall, AISI the real question isn't the nature of a semichah, but how can be higi'ah lehora'ah. Semichah is only a good belwether, because it's not meaningful to say yoreh-yoreh to someone who can't give hora'ah with or without that permission. And it's semichah the CS dismisses as minhag; the extra gate can be minhag without changing who is allowed to enter. The discussion of semichah doesn't touch on who can give hora'ah, it is just out one precondition before actually doing so. : Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of : the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the : Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources... I don't know what you mean. Does the Rambam derive halakhah from dayanim musmachim with Mosaic semichah to today's morei hora'ah or not? Does Tosafos? Do they not take it for granted that the laws are consistent between the two, without which those derivations would not work? What exactly is your other understanding? (To reword Q #1.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 19:36:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:36:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will bow out. A few details: I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look up the underlying sources to be sure. The article is in Or HaMizrach 44 a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski(I hope the transliteration does him justice). There are other sources on the the Halachic/ historical aspects of semicha including one by R. Breuer in the journal Tziyon. and many others. I do not have time to find and read them all, but I think the point is clear in the article cited above. In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may explain my difficulty in finding it. I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot both of which are not applicable(or have not been applied) to modern semicha. So it is a stretch to state that this Rambam implies anything about current Hora'ah or semichah. I have not found any specific statements that a woman is not qualified to reach the state of 'hegiah l'hora'ah', and certainly not in the modern(non-Mosaic) context. I am not arguing that some of the sources cant be read to come to this conclusion, but it seems to be a novel halachic statement(similar to the OU rabbis making a new halachic category of "stuff that a shul rabbi does") and the only characteristic is that women are forbidden from it. I suggest that if someone on the left had made a similar claim, they would be accused of pretzeling the Halacha to support a pre-existing mahalach. I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable understanding of the Halacha. And perhaps even that those who oppose are the ones who are trying to find arguments when a fair reading of the sources indicate that there really is none specifically applicable to the issue at hand. Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical Ethics on the topic of triage. thanks Noam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 20:55:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 05:55:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Cherlow's Post Message-ID: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> https://www.facebook.com/RabbiCherlow/posts/1442987509096046 In response to a question regarding a psak that supposedly allows women to recite Sheva Brachot and an accusation that certain rabbis are distorting the halacha because of feminism, Rav Cherlow wrote a response. I am summarizing a few points. Full text is in the link above.. Introduction: Your words are a perfect example of how someone can break the Torah's most serious commandments and yet act as if he is a yirei shamayim. 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah. 2) Never mock rabbis (or anyone) because you disagree with their opinions. Mocking people publicly is one of the most serious aveirot. 3) Never use a nickname for others, in this case "Dati Light". 4) Always be careful about generalizing. 5) Never accuse someone of being guilty of what you assume to be their hidden motivations. You don't know and accusing someone violates "M'devar sheker tirchaq". More importantly, you're assuming that you're a tzaddiq and don't have an agenda. 6) Never use a group name to mock someone. The Torah world owes feminism a great debt for things its done (Talmud Torah for women, leading the fight against sexual harassment, etc) along with strong criticism for other things done in its name. 7) Always try and live according to Halacha as it is written. Don't have other gods, like opposition to chiddushim. 8) Bring halachic arguments to halachic discussions. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 02:15:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:15:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: On 6/8/2017 9:28 PM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah > > wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. > > An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. > Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos > chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. > Where is there any issur on taking revenge? Against fellow Jews, yes, of course. But generally? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 04:21:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:21:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Cherlow's Post In-Reply-To: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> References: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <9f3eaf48-0c03-fc88-cc90-e84a27b77ea9@sero.name> On 08/06/17 23:55, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in > Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to > do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you > guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah. And yet in this case the newspaper seems to have got it right, and R Cherlow's correspondent simply hadn't bothered to read it before fulminating. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:06:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:06:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption Message-ID: Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it. Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time before they went into exile was simply waiting time? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 07:32:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 17:32:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern > day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? Who says it was? > What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin > (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah > tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work > to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It > doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it. Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite. But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. I don't think their much more lengthy exile was a punishment. I think it was simply necessary. Had they rejoined us, by which I mean all of them, and not just those who Jeremiah brought back, and we had been exiled as a single nation, things would have been different. But viewing themselves as a separate nation from us, how would you envision things having worked in the ancient world? I don't think it would have been significantly different from what happened with us and the Samaritans. In fact, the Samaritans called themselves Israelites; not Samaritans. (That's the root of the mistake in the Christian "good Samaritan" story, btw.) > Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time > before they went into exile was simply waiting time? Not at all. Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 07:50:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:50:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 09/06/17 11:06, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern > day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? Assuming that it was, and that Yirmiyahu didn't bring them back. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:20:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:20:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <019f7de8-108b-d533-3e11-4556470c1c43@sero.name> On 08/06/17 22:36, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is > that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the > time of the Gemara. I think that is obvious, and it didn't occur to me that this could be what R Micha was referring to. I thought there must be some other Rambam, perhaps a teshuvah, where he discusses "modern" semicha to whatever extent such a thing even existed in his day and place. BTW I have seen it suggested that the original semicha was kept alive at the yeshivah in Damascus (they would cross into the borders of EY to confer it) until it was destroyed in the 2nd Crusade, which, if true, would mean there may still have been living musmachim in the Rambam's day. > Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. > That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar > statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical > Ethics on the topic of triage. But that article doesn't support the claim you made, that there exist poskim -- and in fact that it is the unanimous position of MO poskim -- that this halacha is no longer operative. The article cites sources relevant to the entire topic of triage, in all circumstances, including the mishneh and gemara in Horiyos, and I didn't see any suggestion that they are less authoritative or applicable today than they ever were. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:00:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1af6febd-3d16-f901-472d-92f0a5cd66e7@sero.name> Another idea: To expect a redeemer from the House of David one must first subject oneself to that House. Those who reject its sovereignty can't (by definition) expect one of its members to save them, so on being exiled they would naturally assume that this would be their new home and these their new neighbors, with whom they must assimilate. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 11:08:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 05:32:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: :> Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any :> modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? : Who says it was? First, I think we concluded among ourselves that the 10 lost tribes are really 9+1 lost tribes, with Shim'on, living in Malkhus Yisrael, being a separate case. With, perhaps, it's own spiritual malais. They lived amongst sheivet Yehudah; is it likely their culture was more like Yisrael than their own neighbors? With that tangent out of the way... It's a machloqes tannaim in Sanhedrin 10:3 (110b), no? "The 10 shevatim are not destined to return, 'Vayashlikheim el eretz achares kayom hazah' (Devarim 29) [derashah elided]... divrei R' Aqiva. "R' Eliezer omer: [his own derashah] ... even as the 10 shevatim went through the darkening, so too it will grow light for them. The gemara's discussion focuses on the previous part of the mishnah's machloqs -- their olam haba. But Rebbe says they do have olam haba and seems to be implying that the kaparah is total -- so they will return to EY. The Sifra (Bechuqosai 8:1) has R' Aqiva saying they won't return, but based on (Vayiqra 26:38), "vavadtem bagoyim..." And it has R' Meir as the one disagreeing with R' Aqiva. In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman, we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim. Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. R' Chaim Brisker uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. Which R' Aharon Lichtenstein uses as a snif not to support giving them Israeli citizenship in "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity." :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:19:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:19:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema Message-ID: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in the famous midrash about Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry halacha guide demands that they be sourced? Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 09:39:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:39:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170609163954.GA24832@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:36:08PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will : bow out. A shame, as we went in circles on one issue and didn't touch the others. Including my assertion that the Chinuch (142) speaks "ishah chokhmah hare'uyah lelhoros" and "assur lo leshanos letalmidav" -- whether someone who has the skills to give hora'ah shouldn't be teaching when drunk. No mention of hora'ah, but ra'ui lehora'ah and teaching. Because, he explains, their teaching will be accepted by those who look up to them, as if it were hora'ah. Similarly the Chida (Birkei Yoseif, CM se'if 7:12) rules out ordaning women, following the example of Devorah. People can voluntarily listen to Devorah (or, it would seem, to a yo'etzes), but she cannot be appointed a rabbi nor ordained as one because her opinion could not be imposed. Picture the town hiring a rabbi that any chazan can say, "Well, I don't follow him" and therefore can break from the shul's norm, or even "I don't follow him on this one." But more to the point, following the Chinukh (who is cited), he says "deDevorah haysah melamedes lahem dinim." R' Baqshi Doron mentions this problem in his letter, which RGS has scanned at http://www.torahmusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Rav-Bakshi-Doron-on-Women-Rabbis.pdf#page=2 REBD concludes that because of this, women should not be tested or given semichah, as that would be an appointment rather than voluntary acceptance of a particular teaching. And, while the Chida (and thus REBD) says "ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah", he is defining this as teaching law, not interpresting law -- nidon didan. Which is consistent with the Chinukh the Chida is building on. Nor did we get to my non black-letter-halakhah concerns. Including my concern that the whole project reflects a misrepresentation of Judaism's demands by thinking that anything that can fit the black letter of the law is in compliance with the Torah. That there is none of the more nebulous side of the law; an obligation to pursue a given value system and ethic. The fact that "Mesorah" is dismissed as political rather than a real Torah issue is to my mind a blunder; and your disinterest in discussing this aspect actually hightened those concerns. Nor the question of telling women that they are correct to seek value in a manner that has a glass cieling for them. Nor the question of whether a woman belongs in shul service, or whether it was designed to be a Men's Club. And if not designed, whether its function as a Men's Club is too useful to be sacrificed. As one example, but not the whole problem: Will male attendance lessen if we lose that character; will Tue, Wed and Fri (workdays with no leining) Shacharis attendance among O men go the way of Shabbat attendance among their C counterparts? But on, the topic we did discuss... : I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing : certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look : up the underlying sources to be sure. The article is in Or HaMizrach 44 : a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski... But having a reference in the CS itself would have been more ... : In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of : the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may : explain my difficulty in finding it. It's the Rama who says 113. (It's either that the copy in OhC is idiosyncratic, or, the OU copied a typo in the Rama and didn't check. I know that's what I did.) : I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he : is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the : Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz : Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot ... Limnos ledavarim yechidim is not always to be a dayan. One can get reshus lehoros be'issur veheter or lir'os kesamim but not ladun. It's the same process as geting reshus ladun or ladun dinei kenasos, or... Do you think "lir'os kesamim" was ever limited to dayanim? The fact that the Rambam treats reshus lit'os kesamim and reshus ladun as one topic that's the whole point! (And that addresses Zev's recent post, which I approved while this one was sitting around mid-edit.) Now that you found the Mahariq that the Rama se'if 6 says he bases himself on, I would have like to have heard if you disagree that he too is treating the rules for yoreh-yoreh and the rules for Mosaiq semichah as one topic. And Tosafos? : I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the : discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very : least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of : women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable : understanding of the Halacha... I haven't heard a complete defense, but I didn't see at all a positive case for. After all, the burden of proof is on the innovator. We didn't touch the whole conversation of proving that the innovation is positive enough *in Torah values* to justify settling for just what could be read as a not 'beyond the pale' understanding. On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 03:01:33PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? ... : 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My : example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were : huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are : today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher." ... : That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two : camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that : this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically : okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, : much as happened with the Conservative movement... My own concern is (as Avodah long-timers should expect) more meta. Why is the only quesiton that of black-letter halakhah? Why the ignoring of -- what do I call it, "gray-letter halakhah"? -- laws that don't codify cleanly, that require a feel for what seems in line with the Torah, that which RHS calls "Mesorah"? (Although "mesorah" has become an ill-defined concept, including both Torah-culture values and mimetic practice. For that matter, I find that R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's use of "mimeticism" also blurs both, as both are transmitted culturally.) To me, that's a critical meta-innovation that warrants asking if we're still all playing by (evolving our practice with) the same rules. I am not worried about a slippery slope to C. To my mind, that's worrying about when the problem, if there is one, becomes symptomatic. To me the question is whether procedurally, the process R/D NS is defending is already unlike the rest of O IN A DEFINITIONAL WAY. After all, once you define MO to include an openness to modern values, following the Torah becomes just using the halakhah as a test -- can this new idea fit black-letter law or do we have to do without? But also our test itself changes. Deciding which shitah to follow depends in part on our priorities, and in LWMO, those modern values also define the priorities. As R/Dr Stadlan put it: : ... I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very : least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of : women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable : understanding of the Halacha... Thinking something is okay to do as long as one can find understandings of shitos that can combine to show the idea is plausible and not "beyond the pale" is to my mind itself beyond the pale. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 12:07:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:07:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> On 09/06/17 11:19, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in the famous midrash about > Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem > Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a > source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry > halacha guide demands that they be sourced? > > Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice? I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. When we say the Rambam doesn't give his sources, we mean that he doesn't tell us where in the gemara he derives the halachos. He doesn't expect his audience to be familiar with the gemara, and he's not interested in convincing those who are, or in defending himself to them. But he always gives the pasuk where a mitzvah or halacha is stated, or tells us that it comes "mipi hashmuah", or was instituted by chazal or by the geonim. When he gives a psak which doesn't come directly from the gemara he says "ken horu hage'onim", "ken horu rabosai", or "ken nir'a li". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 12:51:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:51:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> On 09/06/17 14:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman, > we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim. Only if he's from the countries where they were taken. > Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his > day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact; the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. As for the men's descendants by nochriyos, according to the first lashon Shmuel derived from the pasuk that they're nochrim, and according to the second lashon it's a halacha pesukah ("lo zazu misham"). But according to either lashon the problem of the women was solved. Also, there's no "by his day". Either the problem was solved within one generation, or it was never solved at all. Not by his day. By at latest the 2nd BHMK. Either Yirmiyahu brought them back, so they're not there any more, or the first generation had no children so they died out then and there, or the Sanhedrin decreed them to be goyim. > R' Chaim Brisker Where is this R Chaim? > uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not > halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. On what basis? Unlike the ten tribes' descendants, these children exist. How can they not be Jewish? Even if you want to say the second lashon applies to both the men and women, and it means they lost their Jewish status, this was not a gezera, it was derived from a pasuk, that Hashem took away their Jewish status, so in the absence of any pasuk about other people how can it be extended? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:03:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:03:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >In Yevamos... : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. : : Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke; he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...") : the : women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there : never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. That's Ravina. Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu". Which is inconsistent with Ravina. Whom I forgot about entirely. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 11:31:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:31:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check In-Reply-To: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 01:14:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is : needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without : knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled : the commandment to wear tfillin... : Two questions: : 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha : by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status) : appropriate? We're discussed variants of this question before. Usually WRT whether a person in the same situation buit with their mezuzah will get less shemirah. My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was really cheilev. And if that is true of cheilev and timtum haleiv, why not the protection of mezuzah or the effects of wearing tefillin? But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely, are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome. And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... If someone is doing everything they're supposed to, and we're not talking about the teva necessary to allow for human planning, then why wouldn't Hashem just give a person as per their deeds. Why have a whole metaphysical causality if it doesn't aid bechirah, nor Din, nor Rachamim? .... : BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has : changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan : checking be appropriate? I take this as evidence of the "Litvisher" answer. If it were really a problem, why wouldn't halakhah reflect a greater need to check? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:33:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:33:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 12:15:04PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos : >chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. : Where is there any issur on taking revenge? Against fellow Jews, : yes, of course. But generally? "Revenge is bad" is not the same as "revenge is assur". The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim. In which case, he would hold that only lo siqom would hold for them, whereas only lo sitor would apply to a yisra'el chotei. But Shabbos is coming, so I can't check about "chaveirim". But in any case, the notion that hene'elavim ve'inam olevim shome'im cherpasam ve'einam mashivim, aleihem hakasuv omeir, "ve'ohavav ketzeir hashemesh bigvuraso" (Shabbos 88b) has nothing to do with who the counterparty is. Not a chiyuv or issur in and of itself. But the person who doesn't take offense nor act on taking offense is among "ohavav". Similarly, the Rambam (ibid) talks about lo siqom in terms of "ma'avir al midosav al kol divrei ha'olam", not just offenses by chaveirim. This appears to be included in his "dei'ah ra'ah hi ad me'od". :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:26:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check In-Reply-To: <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> References: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <781fc94e-241d-e738-5060-522eeeb4f325@sero.name> On 09/06/17 14:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When > something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell > the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about > the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was > really cheilev. But if it's nisbarer afterwards that it really was chelev the kelim need to be kashered. Ditto if it's nisbarer after someone toveled that the mikveh was pasul all the taharos he touched since then are retroactively tamei. In fact if a mikveh is found to have been pasul all the taharos touched by all the people who used it since it was last known to be kosher are retroactively tamei. > But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely, > are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk > to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the > case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome. That's not a mystical position, it's a plain rational Litvisher position on risk assessment. > And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... Now *there's* mysticism! To a Litvak that shouldn't be a consideration. The din is the din, and it's not up to us to justify it. But IIRC you never deal with the explicit gemara about mikvaos. A gemara that explicitly distinguishes the case of kohanim who were found to be pesulim from *every other case* in the Torah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:40:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:40:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <81e3d31e-aa58-5f1a-fefb-bdc0297298a2@sero.name> On 09/06/17 16:03, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : >In Yevamos... > : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his > : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. > : > : Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact > > "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke; > he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the > issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...") No, he wasn't. Lo zazu misham has no connection to finding a solution to any problem, and there's no indication that "they" were even thinking of this problem. It's simply a statement that it was agreed upon by all that the pasuk makes the ten tribes (or at least their men) nochrim. No connection to any practical problem. > : the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there > : never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. > > That's Ravina. No, it isn't. It's Shmuel himself, answering why the womens' descendants are not a problem -- they didn't have any. Ravina is the one who says the halacha we all know, that the child of a nochri and a Yisre'elis is a Yisrael. > Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu". > Which is inconsistent with Ravina. It's irrelevant to Ravina, because in this lashon he isn't citing the general halacha about the child of a Yisrael and a nochris being a nochri, but instead says those children (of the men with nochriyos) were ruled to be nochrim from the pasuk. The women's children still aren't a problem, because there weren't any. But even if you say that according to the second lashon Shmuel didn't say the women were sterile, and he meant the pasuk to apply to both the men and the women, still it's specifically about them, not meshumadim in general. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:51:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:51:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: > The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any > Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different objects. > I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only > those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim. I don't believe so. The only non-Jewish "chaverim" I can think of are the sect that ruled in Persia in the Amoraim's times -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 15:36:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 18:36:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not > Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, > but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min > ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world. Me'am Lo'ez (R' Aryeh Kaplan's The Torah Anthology, pg 293) explains: "You must realize that your brother is suffering very much because he has no place to go. If his soul comes to heaven, it will be all alone, since no one else is here. If it comes down to earth, it feels great anguish when it sees its body's blood spilled on rocks and stones." > Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source? > And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because > Kel Nekamos Hashem. I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples, but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than "yikom". In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean it's appropriate for us. RZS continues in another post: > But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an > issur on doing so against your own people, because you are > commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want > revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in > itself does not come from any Jewish source. Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 14:07:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:07:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> Message-ID: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other places. I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? This one stands out. On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and > sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the > previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons > for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third > parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha > four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 14:16:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:16:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' AM wrote: 'Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor" regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this "needed" comfort from someone else.' Halachos of contact between husband and wife are more strict than with strangers, vis all the harchakos during nidda which are unique to a spouse, due to the familiarity of pas b'salo. So I wouldn't be as surprised. Although just to return my theme for a moment, If I'm right then the act is one of outright mitzva, probably including kiddush hashem. If I'm wrong, then the act is one of aveira lishma. Now I realise that we don't hold with aveira lishma these days, but when the overall cheshbon is as stated, I think I'd be willing to chance it. Especially when you add the possibility, as R'MB mentioned, that if you don't do it you're a chasid shoteh. Because then the cheshbon becomes tzadik or chasid shoteh for not doing it vs big mitzva or aveira lishma for doing it. Given that in any given circumstance we wouldn't be able to be clear about which of these would apply, I think the worst of those four options is probably the chasid shoteh. If this was on Areivim I'd sign off with :) Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 19:04:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:04:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170611020429.GA20848@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: : >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any : >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. : : Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase : with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei : amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different : objects. See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. Gut Voch! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 20:45:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:45:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <720f24ed-7e17-74ae-afc7-3e7d2a0f3a7b@sero.name> On 10/06/17 17:07, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and >> sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the >> previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons >> for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third >> parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha >> four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. > Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the > Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other > places. > > I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he > often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat > haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? > This one stands out. He has to give the source, explain why we do this, and he uses as few words as he needs to. He says mesorah hi beyadeinu; what else could he say? How could he express that any more concisely? BTW he cites medrash all the time; that's where halachos come from, after all. But here he doesn't mention any medrash, just this mesorah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 22:39:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 07:39:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Who says it was? As was stated in other posts on this thread, it is a machloqet in the Gemara if they will or won't come back. That more or less proves my point - their return, if it happens will be something completely different than what happened with the rest of the tribes. Even if we take the claims of various people claiming to be descendants seriously, they still have to convert. Their return will be tipot-tipot, individuals, that have to be re-integrated and not whole groups. > > Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of > assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where > they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite. But > even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . . Not at all. > Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were people from the > northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first > posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two separate exilic > populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our exile to have ended successfully? The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, it doesn't speak well of our history. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 23:54:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 09:54:49 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03c78b43-410c-30ec-c2bf-33691b72f348@starways.net> On 6/10/2017 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > > R' Zev Sero wrote: > >> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because >> Kel Nekamos Hashem. > I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. > Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is > intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. You're mistaken about the Hebrew. Yikom is not "uphold". That would be yakim. Yikom has a dagesh in the quf because of the dropped nun. There is literally no question whatsoever that Hashem yikom damo means may God avenge his blood. > It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples, > but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an > experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh > apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem > mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 > hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both > numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than > "yikom". Yinkom is a mistake. Just like the future of nosei'a is yisa and the future of nofel is yipol, the future of nokem is yikom. > In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean > it's appropriate for us. Consider Bamidbar 31. In the second verse, Hashem tells Moshe: Nekom nikmat bnei Yisrael me-ha-Midyanim. Take the vengeance of Israel against the Midianites. In the next verse, Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael latet nikmat Hashem b'Midyan. To take the vengeance of Hashem against the Midianites. Moshe isn't arguing with Hashem here. When we take vengeance upon our enemies, it *is* Hashem's vengeance. I recommend that you watch the video of Rabbi David Bar Hayim debating Jonathan Rosenblum at the Israel Center back in 1991 (I think). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYefNy1D0DY They both bring sources for their arguments on the subject, and rather than repeat all of them here, have a look. > RZS continues in another post: > >> But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an >> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are >> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want >> revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in >> itself does not come from any Jewish source. > Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo > sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) It doesn't just say lo tikom v'lo titor. It says lo tikom v'lo titor *et bnei amecha*. Do not take vengeance or hold a grudge *against* your own people. Detaching the first part of that from its object is unjustifiable. It would be like taking lo tochal chametz, dropping the object, and saying that we're forbidden to eat. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 02:02:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:02:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. > Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is > intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. > "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will avenge". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 20:40:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:40:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68dacd1f-f6c7-8792-daad-b5b21531f3bc@sero.name> On 09/06/17 18:36, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not >> Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, >> but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min >> ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. > Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in > pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world. Interesting, I'd never heard that. But in that case why "eilai"? That implies wanting something from Me. >> Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. > I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source? Yismach Tzadik ki chaza nakam, pe`amav yirchatz bedam harasha. When Chushim knocked Esav's head off, his eyes fell onto Yaakov's feet and Yaakov sat up and smiled. >> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because >> Kel Nekamos Hashem. > I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. Yikkom does *not* mean uphold, it means avenge. There's no such word as "yinkom"; the nun disappears into the kuf and becomes a dagesh. Perhaps you are thinking of yakim. > experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh > apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem > mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 > hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both > numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than > "yikom". For a non-existent word that's pretty good. I'm relieved that it doesn't outnumber the correct word :-) > In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean > it's appropriate for us. It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not something to be ashamed of. >> But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an >> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are >> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want >> revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in >> itself does not come from any Jewish source. > Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo > sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) Es benei amecha. [Email #2. -micha] On 10/06/17 22:04, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: >: >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any >: >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase >: with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different >: objects. > See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. > This doesn't answer the question. Lo sikom has the same subject as lo sitor. It's not even the identical object, it's literally the *same* object. So how can we pry them apart? Beside which, if netira is forbidden against a Jewish non-chaver, then how is nekama against him even possible? Netira would seem to be a necessary prerequisite for nekama (which is why the pasuk lists them as lo zu af zu). [Email #3 -mi] On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" > (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will > avenge". Is yinkom even a valid form? AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that have it in Av Harachamim are in error. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 09:11:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:11:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <83aef0cf-edbb-3ac8-3727-cc086f348ffa@sero.name> References: <83aef0cf-edbb-3ac8-3727-cc086f348ffa@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > >> >> "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" >> (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will >> avenge". >> > > Is yinkom even a valid form? AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that > have it in Av Harachamim are in error. > > It's irregular, but I would hesitate to say it's a mistake: there are a few exceptions to the rule that the initial nun assimilates, e.g. yintor in Yirmiahu 3:5; yinkofu in Yeshayahu 29:1; or tintz'reni in Tehillim 140:2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 11:29:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <2f8fdb3a-11ac-11d2-eea8-d064a7265bda@sero.name> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> <20170611020429.GA20848@aishdas.org> <2f8fdb3a-11ac-11d2-eea8-d064a7265bda@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170611182926.GA20138@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:56:06PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase : >: with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei : >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different : >: objects. : : >See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. : > : : This doesn't answer the question... But you didn't ask the question. You asserted that what I said was "not true". Since the Maharshal and Avodas haMelekh said it, and I don't know of a dissenting interpreter of the Rambam, I would assume it is indeed true. This was a bit of a hasty judgement on your part. But you said a great question, and worth exploring. Doesn't change that the Rambam apparently does hold what I said he did: > The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any > Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 12:32:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 22:32:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> References: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 6/11/2017 8:39 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of >> assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point >> where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were >> Israelite. But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . >> . Not at all. Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were >> people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards >> that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two >> separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been >> disastrous in very many ways. > That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our > exile to have ended successfully? Why harsh? Causes have effects. > The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of > (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them > (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal > with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this > feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, > it doesn't speak well of our history. Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind. And we don't gloat over their downfall. Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, which they were. And what kind of attempts would you have wanted? Jeremiah brought some of them back. I'm sure others joined us in Bavel after we were exiled. But their exile was their own doing. Though it affected us as well. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 16:18:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:18:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170611231815.GA29585@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:32:22PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind. And we don't gloat over : their downfall. Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, : which they were. (Quibbling about the orogin of the word "Jews" and whether or not Malkhus Yisrael and their descendents qualify aside. We all know we mean "Benei Yisrael", right?) Actually, one of the topics raised was whether the descendents of Malkhus Yisrael exist, bdyond the refugees absorbed into Malkhus Yehudah. And if they do, R Chaim Brisker takes the gemara as concluding the descendents are not part of the community of Beris Sinai. Yes, but in either case, as we cited numerous source showing in the past, "binfol" is not only about the fall of fellow Jews... Which I then collected into a blog post : The most common reason we pass around [for spilling wine at the mention of the makkos at the seder], however, is that we're diminishing our joy out of compassion for the suffering of other human beings, even the Egyptians. This reason is relatively new, but it is found in such authoritative locations as the hagaddah of R' SZ Aurbach and appears as a "yeish lomar" (it could be said) in that of R Elyashiv (pg 106, "dam va'eish").... ... The Pesiqta deRav Kahane (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a) gives us a different reason [for chatzi hallel (CH) during the latter days of Pesach]. It tells the story of the angels singing/reciting poetry at the crossing of the Red Sea... ... This is midrash is quoted by the Midrash Harninu and the Yalqut Shim'oni (the Perishah points you to Parashas Emor, remez 566). The Midrash Harninu or the Shibolei haLeqet ... The Beis Yoseif (O"Ch 490:4, "Kol") cited the gemara, then quotes the Shibolei haLeqet as a second reason... Sources from RAZZivitofsky (same blog post): The Taz gives this diminution of joy as the reason for CH on the 7th day (OC 490:3), as does the Chavos Ya'ir (225). The Kaf haChaim (O"Ch 685:29) brings down the Yafeh haLeiv (3:3) use this midrash to establish the idea that we mourn the downfall of our enemy in order to explain why there is no berakhah on Parashas Zakhor (remembering the requirement to destroy Amaleiq). Amaleiq! R' Aharon Kotler (Mishnas R' Aharon vol III pg 3) ... Then I listed others' suddestions here: ... R' Jacob Farkas found the Meshekh Chokhmah ... R' Dov Kay points us to the Netziv's intro to HaEimeq Davar... (Since we're going from Maharat was to ethics wars, might as well play the game to its fullest...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 16:27:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:27:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170611232725.GB29585@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 06:36:45PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" : actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is : often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. : Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is : intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. : Hashem yiqqom damam does indeed refer to revenge. : In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean : it's appropriate for us. Keil neqamos H'. (A little obvious this discussion didn't span a Wed yet.) But the whole point, to my mind, for sayibng HYD is a longing to see Divine Justice in the world. HYD undoes the chilul hasheim of the wicked prospering. Hinasei shofit ha'atzetz... Ad masair recha'im ya'alozu... If we were to take neqamah (qua neqamah; pre-empting a repeat attack is a different thing) we rob most of the possibility of that happening. Even the Six Day War gave people the opportunity to say it was luck or human skill -- "Kol haKavod laTzahal" Implied in HYD is that revenge is G-d's, not ours, to take. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 19:49:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 22:49:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . When I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong. I was wrong, and I thank all the chevreh who pointed out my error. "Yikom" does mean to avenge. Thank you all. But the main question is our attitude towards revenge in general. R' Zev Sero wrote: > It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not > something to be ashamed of. He seems to feel that there's nothing wrong with wanting to take revenge in general, except that we're not allowed to do it if the object of the revenge is a fellow Jew. I suppose he might compare vengeance to eating meat: right and proper in general, but sometimes forbidden. (Pork in the case of meat, and Jews in the case of revenge.) Exactly *why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew? RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct source. But either way... I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be in the "Ribis" category. There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a non-Jew.) Setting Nekama aside for a moment, does anyone know of a source which goes through the various Bein Adam L'chaveiros, and categorizes them in that manner? (I can easily imagine that most people would avoid publishing such a list, to avoid supplying the anti-Semites with ammunition, but I figured I'd ask.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 20:07:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 20:07:35 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists Message-ID: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into hashem's business. And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the future even though they were right. One surmises he would not have been surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land... Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 22:57:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:57:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> References: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9b2f0d53-8794-4b0d-43b7-3bb0ee4d6e3c@zahav.net.il> On 6/6/2017 8:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW. > > Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'" > (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL > Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not! However one defines the Chareidi opposition to Zionism and Zionists, the former wrote book after book justifying it and explaining why Zionism is so awful and why it is so wrong to participate in the Zionist enterprise. It is still going on today. Back in the 20s, people used extremely strong language about Rav Kook, language which was much worse than anything used today, not to mention what the Satmar Rebbe wrote about RK. > There are two possible sources of division here. > > 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were > only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My > predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply > de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators, > and therefore in practice will be a separate community. Here I have a couple of questions. 1) Like my wife always tells me, if someone is triggered by something he has to ask himself why. I know people who would walk out of shul if a woman gave the dvar Torah on Friday night. Yet the same people are perfectly OK having a Rosh Hashana tefilla that incorporates a lot of Sefardi piyuttim. Completely different prayers, tunes, flavor. But in order to have an experience of "b'yachad" we do it. 2) What what exactly would change? Does one see more women in shuls that have a maharat? Do the maharats come to Tuesday afternoon Mincha? If they do they're behind the mechitza, yes? What changes are people talking about? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 03:09:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 06:09:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:49:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" : only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of : morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be : in the "Ribis" category. : : There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even : to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed : against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. : (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a : non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I : admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B : or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, : things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a : non-Jew.) IOW: (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited. (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition when you do them against your sibling. (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito neshekh vesarbit". As for neqamah, I argued from quotes like kol hama'avir al midosav and ne'elavim ve'eino olvin that it's in (B). I would add now that this is implied by the Rambam's inclusion of these two issurim (lo siqom velo sitor) in Hil' Dei'os p' 7 that he is considering the middah bad, not only the act wrong. Interesting to note, the Rambam puts them after LH. Also, I noted that the only commentaries on the Rambam that I could find that discuss his change in terminology between Dei'os 7:7 and 7:8 explain that he is prohibiting neqamah against all chaveirim but netirah "mei'echad meYisrael". Meaning you now need a B' and C' where the category is only observant Jews. (And I still have a nagging recollection that the Rambam's "chaveirim" in general includes geirei toshav and other observant Noachides.) And neqamah is in one of those. So, (B'). How you get such a distinction in two issurim that are written in the pasuq as verbs sharing the same object is a good one. But the Avodas haMelekh says that the Maharshal reaches the same conclusion in his commentary to the Semag, and I see the Semag uses the same difference in nouns. Lav #11 - "[Lo siqom.] Hanoqeim al chaveiro". #12 - "Kol hanoteir le'echad miYisrael". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 03:53:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:53:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> References: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> On 6/13/2017 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > IOW: > > (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited. > > (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition > when you do them against your sibling. > > (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family > nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito > neshekh vesarbit". I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews. Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 04:37:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal > judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C (Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 04:33:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:33:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> References: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170613113340.GA11269@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:53:18PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: ... : >(B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition : >when you do them against your sibling. ... : : I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an : outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly : doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against : non-Jews. Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal : judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. But there are things that are morally wrong and yet not prohibited. "Stretch goals" like the Rambam's take on ego and anger in Dei'os pereq 2, the Ramban's "hatov vehayashar". Here, the gemara talks about (1) a ma'avir al midosav, (2) taking insult and not responding, it even says (3) a tzadiq is one who never takes revenge -- which, if it were about neqamah when assur, would be heaping overly high praise on someone for just keeping the din. So, two or three times that I am aware of, the gemara talks positively of the middos that would avoid ever taking revenge. It seems neqamah in particular is a moral wrong even when the black-letter halakhah allows the act. The Torah does manage to relay to us goals beyond those it prohibit or demand in black-letter halakhah. (Something Chassidus and Mussar were each founded on...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 06:44:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:44:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] restaurants Message-ID: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From the OU: Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example, one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility. Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food. Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based? For example, in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in a treif restaurant, what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % threshold for concern? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 07:16:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 10:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6388500a-9329-9367-9de2-e75ed55d6022@sero.name> On 12/06/17 22:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Exactly*why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew? > RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that > "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct > source. But either way... It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. > There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even > to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed > against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh *re`ehu* basater". > (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a > non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I > admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B > or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, > things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a > non-Jew.) Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 19:11:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shelach Message-ID: " We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." (Numbers 13:32-33). One of the greatest teachers of Torah of our age, Nechama Leibowitz, zt'l, in one of her essays on this parsha, asks an important question: how did the spies know what the "giants" thought of them? If they really were giant beings, then one could understand the feeling that "we seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes," but how did they know if the "giants" even noticed them? Unfortunately, although Nechama Leibowitz posed this great question, she didn't give any hint as to an answer. The following is a Midrash in which God rebukes the spies: "I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11). On the other hand, Rashi says that the spies reported overhearing the giants talking to one another, saying that "there are ants in the vineyard that resemble human beings.? (Rashi is also quoting an ancient midrash from the Talmud). Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities and an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties. Harry S Truman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 09:10:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:10:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/13/2017 2:37 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R"n Lisa Liel wrote: >> Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal >> judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. > My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category > A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C > (Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)? I would have to say that, by definition, if it's permissible to speak LH against non-Jews, it isn't immoral. But of course there are numerous subcategories of LH, and it'd be interesting to see if all of them are mutar against non-Jews, and if so, why? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 10:49:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:49:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shelach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170613174946.GA24674@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 10:11:31PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The following is a Midrash in which God rebukes the spies: : "I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to : ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to : them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? : Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11). ... : Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear : not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies : but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon : His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, : and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). Good -- is the yeitzer hatov, *very* good -- is the yeitzer hara. But in any case, the spies are an imperfect example, because they had G-d's promise that this specific mission would succeed. We don't have such reason to be optimistic. Related: I wonder if the difference between Chassidic or the Alter of Novhardok's view of bitchon is related to history. The AoN said that sufficient bitachon generates success, to the extent that he felt that being a "baal bitachon is an objective reality provable by experience and he signed his name with a B"B without fear of it being bragging. The CI's view is that bitachon is not prognostic, but the attitude that everything is happening according to Hashem's plan. I may fail and suffer, ch"v, but knowing it is all for a purpose makes it easier to cope. The history that I think divides them -- the CI's Emunah uBitachon was written in the shadow of the Holocaust. (It was published in 1954, a year after the CI's passing.) Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:57:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:57:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists In-Reply-To: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> References: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> Or they were part of a self fulling prophecy. Instead of going in confident in themselves and in God's ways, they chose to second guess God. The Bnei Yisrael who had actually seen Yitziat Mitzrayim would have gone into Israel. Instead a weakened Bnei Yisrael went in and almost immediately got trapped in the lure of the local idol worship. Ben On 6/13/2017 5:07 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into hashem's business. And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the future even though they were right. One surmises he would not have been surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:53:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:53:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Does it make a difference that the woman in the hypothetical scenario is - unfortunately - no longer an eishet ish, and presumably at her stage of life also not a niddah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:22:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:22:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. Can one enter a non-kosher establishment to buy a can of soda or use the bathroom? Message-ID: <1497385351309.31544@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. Can one enter a non-kosher establishment to buy a can of soda or use the bathroom? A. Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example, one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility. Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 18:09:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:09:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists In-Reply-To: <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> References: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170614010904.GA6321@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:57:19PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Or they were part of a self fulling prophecy. Instead of going in : confident in themselves and in God's ways, they chose to second : guess God. The Bnei Yisrael who had actually seen Yitziat Mitzrayim : would have gone into Israel... Or not. After all, Hashem didn't pick that generation for a reason. Apparently they didn't just sin, but they sinned in a way that made working with them a bad idea. And even before that Vayehi beshalach Par'oh es ha'am velo nacham E-lokim derekh Eretz Pelishtim ki qarov hu, ki amar E-lokim, "Pen yinacheim ha'am bir'osam milchamah veshavu Mitzrayim" Remember, they were also stuck with a slave mentality. But I agree with your point, about the self-fulfilling prophecy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 18:33:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:33:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special > consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah > of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not > hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend > him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip > about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. I would think that killing and stealing are in this category too. But you would then point to the phrase "special consideration". In other words, there is a particular shiur of consideration. Some actions are below that shiur; they are so basic that they apply even to non-Jews. And other actions are above that shiur; it is "special" consideration that we extend to family, but not to outsiders. I would accept such a response, but it isn't very helpful. Exactly what is that shiur? Where do we put the line? I have always thought that *all* these things are basic menschlichkeit, and apply to everyone, Jewish or not. > Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? > The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh > *re`ehu* basater". That's just two pesukim. Sefer Chofetz Chayim brings a lot more than that - 31 if I remember correctly. Granted that one doesn't violate these particular mitzvos if the object of the Lashon Hara isn't Jewish. But the others aren't so simple. At the very least, you're gambling that the Lashon Hara will remain secret and not result in a Chilul Hashem. > Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. True. I have always thought of ribis in a class of its own, for the simple reason that the entire world considers it to be a generally acceptable business practice. This includes Chazal, who felt it important to find a way to structure certain business activities in ways that would skirt this issur. The point is that ribis is NOT inherently immoral. It *can* be abused and thereby *become* immoral. But if done properly, it is a neutral (or even benevolent) business tool. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 21:17:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:17:28 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Anyone have access to HaRav Sh Goren's Terumas HaGoren? Message-ID: Anyone have access to HaRav Sh Goren's Terumas HaGoren? I am looking for 3 pages to be copied [pictured?] and sent to me - meirabi at gmail.com Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 21:02:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:02:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ac357ec-2fb0-c5c8-e187-ccbd26cd60f9@sero.name> On 13/06/17 21:33, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special >> consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah >> of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not >> hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend >> him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip >> about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. > I would think that killing and stealing are in this category too. No, those are inherently wrong, no matter who is the victim. You don't need to love someone in order not to kill them, hit them, steal from them, damage their property, etc. They have the right not to have these things done to them, so you may not do so even if you actively hate them. They have the right to be treated with common decency. Or, in the lashon of libertarianism, non-aggression, i.e. not to have you initiate force or fraud against them. Whereas they have no right to any favors from you; you have no duty to lift a finger to help them or to give them anything. Doing favors for people is a gift which you naturally give only to those you love; the Torah therefore commands you to give it to those whom it wants you to love. > But > you would then point to the phrase "special consideration". In other > words, there is a particular shiur of consideration. Some actions are > below that shiur; they are so basic that they apply even to non-Jews. > And other actions are above that shiur; it is "special" consideration > that we extend to family, but not to outsiders. No, it's not a matter of degree but of kind. > I would accept such a response, but it isn't very helpful. Exactly > what is that shiur? Where do we put the line? I have always thought > that *all* these things are basic menschlichkeit, and apply to > everyone, Jewish or not. No, they are not. >> Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? >> The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh >> *re`ehu* basater". > That's just two pesukim. Sefer Chofetz Chayim brings a lot more than > that - 31 if I remember correctly. The hakama to CC is mussar, so he piles on pesukim, but it you look at them they all pretty much flow from a very few sources, all of which specify "re'echa" or "amecha", etc. > The point is that ribis is NOT > inherently immoral. It *can* be abused and thereby *become* immoral. > But if done properly, it is a neutral (or even benevolent) business > tool. So are all these other things. They're normal and natural behaviour between people who don't necessarily like each other, but one would never treat someone one genuinely loved like that, so the Torah tells us that we must not treat our fellow yisre'elim like that. [Email #2] Google produced this: http://www.havabooks.co.il/article_ID.asp?id=1046 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 00:50:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 10:50:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 241) explains the prohibition of lo sikom as follows (my rough translation): "A person should understand in his heart that everything that happens to him good or bad is caused by Hashem and between people there is nothing but the will of Hashem. Therefore when someone bothers or hurts you, you should know that your sins caused this and whatever happened is a gezera from Hashem. Therefore, you should not think about taking revenge because the other person is not the cause of your troubles, rather your sins are the cause. " Based on the Chinuch's explanation there should be no difference between taking revenge on a Jew or a Goy. In either case they are not the cause of your suffering they are just the instrument of Hashem and therefore there is no reason for revenge. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 06:44:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:44:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/06/17 03:50, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 241) explains the prohibition of lo sikom > as follows (my rough translation): > > "A person should understand in his heart that everything that happens to > him good or bad is caused by Hashem and between people there is nothing > but the will of Hashem. Therefore when someone bothers or hurts you, you > should know that your sins caused this and whatever happened is a gezera > from Hashem. Therefore, you should not think about taking revenge > because the other person is not the cause of your troubles, rather your > sins are the cause. " > > Based on the Chinuch's explanation there should be no difference between > taking revenge on a Jew or a Goy. In either case they are not the cause > of your suffering they are just the instrument of Hashem and therefore > there is no reason for revenge. That is the basis for Chazal's dictum that "Whoever gets angry [over *anything*] is as if he serves idols", but there is no actual mitzvah against anger. Obviously one who truly believes in and fully accepts what we on Avodah have dubbed "strong HP" has no need for either of these two mitzvos, because it will never occur to him to hold a grudge, let alone to take revenge; but one who *does* gets angry or upset at what a fellow Jew does to him, but doesn't hold a long-term grudge against him over it is not violating a mitzvah. One mitzvah is that even if you *do* feel upset you shouldn't hold it against the person who did it, and another mitzvah is that even if you do hold it against him you shouldn't punish him for it. Therefore despite the Chinuch's relating this mussar idea to these two mitzvos, it cannot be the actual reason. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 09:16:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:16:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Akiva Miller wrote: 'I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be in the "Ribis" category. There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a non-Jew, such as Ribis.' I think this categorisation may need refining. It assumes that the Torah doesn't want us to do unethical things to non Jews either by black letter law or by unlegislated preference. The problem with this is that the Torah assumes that non-Jews are ovdei Avoda Zara and some mitzvos are specifically intended to malign them as such. Take Lo Sechaneim - The gemara learns that we can't even praise a non Jew, never mind be kind in a more concrete way. Gerei Toshav don't have this prohibition but the pshat din of the Torah is that it applies to non-Jews stam. In other words the mitzvos of the Torah treat non-Jews as transgressors and so it's likely that at least some of thing the otherwise unethical things we are allowed to do to them are due to this status. So we need at least to distinguish between what is allowed to any non-Jew and what is prohibited to a Ger Toshav. For example Ribis is clearly allowed even to a Ger Toshav. It's not unethical per se, just prohibited to a family member viz a Jew. So we need possibly, categories of: A) forbidden to everyone B) Forbiden to Jews and Gerei Toshav but totally allowed to Ovdei Avoda Zara C) Technically allowed to non-Jews of whichever category but best avoided as a bad midda D) Forbidden to Jews but totally allowed to all non Jews Re nekama, I think, subject to correction, that it is only ever positive when by Hashem or on his behalf. The nekama on Midian is 'nikmas Hashem m'es HaMidianim'. We needed to be commanded in order to do it. Hashem is 'El nekamos Hashem' in Tehilim. If anyone has a source for it being a positive thing to take personal revenge then let's hear it. Not sure the agadeta of Yaakov waking and smiling fits that bill. Otherwise the Rambam's placing of nekama in De'os as a bad midda should tell us what we need to know about it. That would be consistent with nekama being forbidden against Gerei Toshav, although we haven't found a source for that (yet). Lisa Liel wrote: 'I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews. ' The Torah clearly allows things which it considers morally wrong - Shivya Nochris for example. And the gemara says that's assur to bring one's wife as a Soteh, yet it's a whole parsha in the Torah. And the Ramban's naval birshus haTorah. Seems to me the Torah sets a floor, not a ceiling, and prompts growth through the mitzvos. Isn't that the whole thrust of Hilchos De'os? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 12:45:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:45:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish optimism [was: Shelach] Message-ID: <23c6ce.6a161a0e.4672ec49@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah ... : Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear : not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies : but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon : His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, : and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). [--Cantor Wolberg] RMB wrote: >> ...But in any case, the spies are an imperfect example, because they had G-d's promise that this specific mission would succeed. We don't have such reason to be optimistic.... ....Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? << Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> I once heard a powerful and inspiring talk given by R' Joseph Friedenson a'h. He had survived a number of different concentration camps in hellish circumstances, and had lost all or most of his family. He said in his talk that the last time he ever saw his father, his father said, "I don't know if you and I will survive this war, but no matter what happens, remember this: Klal Yisrael will survive!" R' Friedenson said that he never saw his father again but he went through the war with an unshakeable optimism. That's what he called it, optimism. He underwent horrendous suffering, but nevertheless he had a firm conviction that the Nazis would ultimately fail. He always held onto his father's words, "Klal Yisrael will survive." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 13:25:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:25:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shoah Message-ID: <842320B8-8657-4A22-98E8-76CAA22765DC@cox.net> R? Micha wrote in regard to the Shelach posting: Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? Along the same lines there was a fascinating book written many years ago by a legitimate, authentic, respected orthodox rabbi who wrote that someone who was not a victim in the holocaust has no right to say there is no God. Here is what was really an astonishing and somewhat shocking statement he made: if someone was actually in the Concentration Camp, this person has the right to deny God. I can see many raised eyebrows, but I would greatly appreciate someone remembering this book. Since it was rather revolutionary to be coming from a musmach who is respected by other orthodox rabbis. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 15:39:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:39:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: <20170614223903.GA14026@aishdas.org> In some, more Zionist, circles, the Satmar Rebbe's position that Israel is a maaseh satan is often left not understood. Many of the RZ camp have summarily dismissed it as overly polytheist for their liking. However, it is possible -- even if I or you do not find it plausible -- that Zionism was a challenge to the Jewish People. To see if after the Holocaust we would be so desperate for political relief that we would stop working toward true ge'ulah. As per the title of the SR's response to the mood after the Six Day War -- Al haGe'ulah ve'Al haTemurah (About the Ge'uilah and about the Replacement; perhaps "Decoy"). And, there is a particular mal'akh charged with posing spiritual challenges for us to grow through overcoming -- the satan. Thus, such a temurah would be a maaseh satan. Pretty conventional metaphysics, even for those who find the other religious positions bothersome. I mentioned this because of R' Gidon Rothstein's latest column in TM on the Ramban. "Ramban to Re'eh, Week Two: Avoiding False Prophets, Hearing From Hashem" http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/06/avoiding-false-prophets-hearing-hashem Along the way, RGR writes: It Might Actually Be From Hashem In the last verse in this passage, Moshe warns that this false prophet is a nisayon, a test, from Hashem. Ramban points out that back inBereshit, he had already dealt with the question of why Hashem "tests" us (doesn't Hashem know the future, and therefore know the outcome of the test? There are many answers, this is Ramban's). It's only a test from our perspective, he said. Hashem indeed knows the outcome, and is engaging in it to bring our potential into actuality (that implies that everyone always passes these tests, which works well for figures like Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov. It seems to me less convincing about the nisayon here, since the Jewish people have in fact occasionally followed such false prophets). Still, that's the less surprising part of this Ramban, since it is the face value of the verse, that the wonder did in fact come through the Will of Hashem, Hashem showed him this dream or vision to test our love of Hashem. Ramban doesn't say more, but I think he means--and this is the part that is more surprising and a bit challenging- that all people involved must realize that this is not what Hashem wants. I think he means the prophet him/herself was supposed to refrain from giving this prophecy (the other option is that Hashem was commanding and condemning this person to be a false prophet, to forfeit his/her life in doing so, and that someone we would put to death as a false prophet is actually a hero of Hashem's service. I find that unthinkable, unless the prophet said "I had this vision, but you clearly shouldn't listen to because we're not allowed to ever worship any power other than Hashem." But it's logically possible). The prophet aside, anyone who hears that prophecy, even if it's supported by uncannily accurate predictions, must both refuse to obey and react to this person as a false prophet. That is what true ahavat Hashem would lead us to do, a reminder that acting on our love of Hashem sometimes means doing that which under other circumstances should be distasteful. Putting someone to death for sharing his/her vision is not usually conduct we applaud. Here, it would still be upsetting, but necessary for those whose love of Hashem fills their beings. If the Ramban could say that there could be a navi sheqer who gets his message from Hashem for the sould purpose of challenging us, is it such a far stretch to the SR's anti-Zionism? IMHO, it's easier to understand Satmar or Munkacz anti-Zionism than Agudah's classical position of non-Zionism. The former agrees with the RZ that the Medinah is a huge event of vast import, but disagree about what the import is. The Agudist (at least classically, there were exceptions in the early years of the state, and things seem to be wearing down now) believe that Jews can regain sovereignty over EY for the first time in 2 millenia without it being religiously significant. (I am not talking about those of Neturei Karta who protest with the Palestinians and their supporters, or who visit Iranian gov't officials. They pose a whole different and perhaps even more fundamental set of problems. The SR's anti-Zionism included praying for Tzahal, as these were Jews led to danger through a horrible (in his opinion) error; an error that exists in part for the purpose of putting Jews in danger.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: RGR -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 18 10:59:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:59:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Korach Message-ID: <2943596C-CE9C-488B-B333-D25328C619BD@cox.net> 1) 16:1 "Vayikach Korach...." "And Korach, the son of Yitzhar, the son of Kehoth, the son of Levi took, and Dathan and Aviram, the sons of Eliav,etc.? The question is what did Korach take? The verb has no object. Resh Lakish said: "He took a bad 'taking' for himself" (Sanhedrin). Rashi said: "Korach...separated [lit.,took] himself. Korach placed himself at odds with the rest of the assembly to protest against Aaron's assumption of the priesthood." Ibn Ezra said it meant: "Korach took men..." 2) In the Ethics of the Fathers 5, 17 it states: "Every controversy that is pursued in a heavenly cause, is destined to be perpetuated; and that which is not pursued in a heavenly cause is not destined to be perpetuated. Which can be considered a controversy pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And that not pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Korach and his congregation." An analysis of this by Malbim explains in quite a compelling fashion why the Mishnah was not worded as we would have expected it to be: "A controversy pursued in a heavenly cause...that is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. That not pursued in a heavenly cause is the controversy of Korach and Moses." Instead it reads: "Korach and his congregation." As Malbim explains-- they would be quarreling amongst themselves, as each one strove to attain his selfish ambitions. The controversy therefore was rightly termed "between Korach and his congregation." They would ultimately fight among themselves. And the denouement would be their self-destruction. 3) "Korach quarreled with peace, and he who quarrels with peace quarrels with the Holy Name." (Zohar, Korach 176a [ed.,Soncino], Vol. V, p.238). The bottom line here is "Don't Mess with Hashem." In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves. Buddhal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 18 17:07:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 17:07:22 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: the aguda made a very practical decision-- to not make a halachic decision, but rather to seek support economically and non-military . the only halachic issue was to determine that the State's money is muttar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 01:17:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shalom Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:17:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shoah Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg's reference to the Orthodox Rabbi who wrote about who has the right to disbelieve after the Holocaust is most likely Eliezer Berkovits in his Faith After the Holocaust. Shalom Rabbi Shalom Z. Berger, Ed.D. The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education Bar-Ilan University http://www.lookstein.org https://www.facebook.com/groups/lookjed/ Follow me on Twitter: @szberger NETWORK*LEARN*GROW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 09:40:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:40:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. I am required to attend a business meeting at a non-kosher restaurant. How do I avoid the issue of maris ayin? Message-ID: <1497890418438.2614@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. I am required to attend a business meeting at a non-kosher restaurant. How do I avoid the issue of maris ayin? A. The general rule regarding maris ayin is that one can avoid the prohibition of maris ayin if there is a heker (sign) that indicates that the action is permitted. For example, Rama (YD 87:3) writes that one may not cook meat with almond milk, since this gives the impression that one is violating the prohibition of cooking milk and meat together. This would constitute maris ayin. However, this situation is permitted if one places almonds near the pot, since the almonds will alert a bystander that the milk comes from almonds and not from an animal. Therefore, if one must enter a non-kosher restaurant, one should do so in a manner that makes it clear that one is entering for business and not for pleasure. For example, one should enter carrying a briefcase or a stack of papers. Rav Schachter, shlita said that in such an instance it would be preferable to wear a cap instead of a yarmulke. Rav Schachter also said that once seated, one may order a drink -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 12:56:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:56:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur Message-ID: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> This is a comment on R Yaakov Jaffe's article at http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2017/6/13/get-your-hashkafa-out-of-my-chumash Since the Lehrhaus doesn't take comments, I thought we could discuss it here. (CC-ing RYJ.) He writes: Lehrhaus Get Your Hashkafa Out of My Chumash! [R] Yaakov Jaffe ... It has become commonplace in Modern Orthodox circles to lament the lack of alignment between the beliefs of the movement and some of the editions, translations, and versions of ritual texts that members of the movement use. These critiques are often welcome, such as Deborah Klapper's[13] recent excellent essay about the Haggadah for Pesach, and tend to frame ArtScroll Publishers as the almost villain who has taken the ideologically open, natural, innocent, uncorrupted foundational texts of Judaism and colored them with an Ultra-Orthodox translation, skew, or commentary.... Okay, that's the general topic. Here's the point I wanted to discuss: For me, there is a more grave concern when Modern Orthodox Jews flock to a different ritual text because it aligns more purely with their own ideology, and that is that the ritual text ceases to be important for its own sake (as a Siddur, Humash, or Hagaddah), a vehicle for transmitting sacred texts and values through the generations, but instead becomes a mere bit player in a larger drama about movements and self-identification. ("I use this Siddur because in many ways it demonstrates that I am a proud Modern Orthodox Jew.") This carries the risk that readers will stop reading the text of the Humash or being taken by the poetry of the Siddur and instead become hyper-focused on ideological markers that appear in those ritual texts. And for reasons that we will demonstrate below, the subordination of prayer within the mind of the person at prayer, beneath the selection of outward identifiers of ideology undermines the very purpose and notion of prayer itself. In 1978, Rabbi Soloveitchik authored a[15] short essay entitled "Majesty and Humility" in Tradition, in which he poses a dichotomy critical for Jewish religious experience and prayer. He describes one pole as majestic humanity, striving for victory and sovereignty, as "Man sets himself up as king and tries to triumph over opposition and hostility." The other pole is humble humanity, full of "withdrawal and retreat," which appreciates the smallness of human beings in the scope of the cosmic order. In the essay, prayer is an example of man in the mood of humility, of withdrawal, who finds the Almighty not when humanity triumphs over the forces of nature, or in the scope of the galaxies, but when humanity recognizes its own limitations, and, as a result, causes that "God does descend from infinity to finitude, from boundlessness into the narrowness of the Sanctuary," or: All I could do was to pray. However, I could not pray in the hospital... the moment I returned home I would rush to my room, fall on my knees and pray fervently. God in those moments appeared not as the exalted majestic King, but rather as a humble, close friend. While at prayer, the individual is constantly focused on his or her own inadequacy compared to the Divine Creator and his or her own limitations. The individual cannot be engaged in the battles of denomination supremacy, as he or she is paralyzed by his or her own smallness while attempting to pray. Moreover, prayer is generally a uniquely unsuited vehicle for conveying specific, unique, or modern ideologies and beliefs. It focuses on requests and aspirations, not on statements of creed. The text of the Siddur also serves as a unifying tool for the Jewish people (given the enormous general similarity despite centuries of division and dispersal) and highlights what we have in common and not what we have apart. 13. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-haggadah-without-women-2/ 15. http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2017/No.%202/Majesty%20and%20Humility.pdf 16. http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/?author=5886cfaabebafbcb2d43550f My problem is that tefillah is all about ideology, and the siddur runs from statement of creed to statement of creed -- Yigdal to Ani Maamin. (Not saying AM is mandatory, but it's there...) For example, RYBS's is one approach to prayer. It's different than that of Nefesh haChaim, where the focus of baqashos are what the world needs for G-d's sake, not our own needs for our sake. Curing the sick because His Presence is enhanced when people are healthy. Etc... It's different than RSRH's approach to berakhos, where they are declarations of personal commitment. So that we ask for health so that we can contribute to His Say in the world -- "berakhah" lashon ribui, after all. Etc... (I think I dug up 7 different theological resolutions to how to undertand "barukh Atah H'" given that ribui and HQBH don't mix.) This is taking a specific hashkafah's side in order to argue that tefillah shouldn't be taking a specific hashkafah's side. As for Tanakh... It is true that in one community, maximalist positions that magnify G-d's Greatness -- whether it's a description of qeri'as Yam Suf or Rivqa's age at meeting Yitzchaq -- have a near-exclusive currency. Saying that the sea simply split vehamayim lahem chimah miyminam umismolam is seen as the product if ignorance; of course it split into 13 tunnels, each providing all of our needs, ready to be grabbed out of the walls. Whereas the other prefers more rationalist positions, and in any case there is a broader array of Chazal's statements taken as possibly true. Or, does an MO Jew relate to a chumash in which the only topic of footnotes on the berakhos of Yissachar & Zevulun is their possible precedent for kollel life? (Despite there never having been an entire community where kollel was the norm until the past century.) In a community where wearing hexaplex (the snail formerly known as murex) dyed strings is a significant minority, isn't there more interest in sefunei temunei chol than in a community where it's unheard of? Then there is just different communities having different tastes in what kind of Torah thought they find more appealing / satisfying / moving. People who gravitate to the words of the Rav like the ideas in Mesores haRav for that reason. Just as Chabadnikim are more likely to find things to their taste in the Guttenstein Chumash than in the Stone Edition. Shouldn't, then, all these options exist? And is that any less true when thinking of how to relate to some complex poseq in Tehillim or a line composed by Anshei Keneses haGdolah (or the typical Ashkenazi paytan) to be a palimpsest of meanings? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 03:25:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:25:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: <> R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah poisition basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful but is against the wishes of G-d. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 06:19:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yaakov Jaffe via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:19:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Hi, Regarding the first point that "This is taking a specific hashkafah's side in order to argue that tefillah shouldn't be taking a specific hashkafah's side." I confess that I am guilty as charged. But one approach to tefilah (let's call it the one that resonates with me) is that it is purely a communication between the speaker and his or her Creator, and that consequently, it is not the time and place to be focused on proclaiming our ideologies. Obviously others may argue, and there are numerous siddur options for them. But we shouldn't pretend that this is the only approach to prayer, or that every Jew must use ideology in chosing a siddur. Regarding the second point, which I understand to be saying "each occasion of Torah study involves someone chosing an approach they prefer to understand the text, so they should chose a Chumash that furthers the approach that they prefer" I also tend to agree as well, but here my post focuses on the reductio ad absurdum problem of splitting hairs and hyper-focus on details hashkafa. I did not conduct a comprehensive study of the stone Chumash, but wonder whether the troubling explanations are ubiquitous, occasional, or somewhere in between. The problem with a "Modern" chumash, is that there are many "modern" explanations that could be equally troubling, depending on how modern the chumash and conservative the reader. Did Bilaam's donkey talk or was it a dream (Ramban versus Rambam)? If Artscroll said he spoke, and for example a new chumash says that he did not - then which one most accurately reflects my hashkafa? And if you imagine 100 different texts that can be each read multiple ways, how do we find the chumash that on all 100 provides the perfect match? Hope this makes sense, happy to continue the conversation further, Yaakov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 08:07:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:07:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Shmitta fund Message-ID: <2A3CAC10-A501-4AF5-A666-AB7B0D35E90C@gmail.com> http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2017/06/proposed-law-shmitta-fund.html?m=1. Is that the general psak, that heter mechira is no better than nothing? Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 15:02:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:02:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] restaurants In-Reply-To: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170620220230.GB29839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:44:00PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From the OU: : Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher : restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would : be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness : the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad : (giving the appearance of impropriety)... A question about that "and"... I agree with their parenthetic definition, but I will rephrase to show why I think it's rare-to-impossible for something to simultaneously be both mar'is ayin and cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone who sees the action will assume it's mutar, or at least informally "not so bad". Cheshad is where someone who sees the action is sure it's assur, and therefore think less of the person doing it. How many actions involve two conflicting default umdenos? So, being confused, I looked up the Igeros Moshe. The teshuvah is primarily about a frum minyan in a room in a non-O synagogue. The last paragraph begins "Ubedavar im mutar le'ekhol berestarant..." ("Restaurant" transliterated in Yiddish or hil' gittin style.) The line is "yeis le'esor mishum mar'is ayin vecheshad". But if someone is mitzta'er tuva, so that these gezeiros do not apply, they could eat betzin'ah something that has no actual kashrus problem. Does "ve-" here have to mean both? Or could it mean that between the two, it is assur in all circumstances? Like "lulav hagazul vehayaveish pasul" doesn't refer only to a lulav that is both stolen and dried out. Chazal's "ve-" is more complex than "and". (I am tempted to discuss de Morgan's laws and ve-, but I will just leave in this hint rather than detour into a class in symbolic logic.) If it does have to mean both mar'ish ayin and cheshad, can someone : Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based? I am not clear how they could NOT be. : For example, in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in : a treif restaurant, what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % : threshold for concern? In NYC, if you see two people, only one of which in O uniform, entering a restaurant, it's common to just assume this is a business meeting and accomodations were made. Restaurants in Manhattan routinely take delivery for a kosher meal when catering a group; it's a matter of the minimum size of the group they'll make such accomodation for. (I have been one of three, and got Abigails delivered double-sealed.) In such a climate, I don't think people would assume you're there to eat treif even if it's just two people meeting and no kosher could possibly be brought in from the outside. It's just a known thing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 16:11:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 19:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170620231132.GC29839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:33:00PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. : : True. I have always thought of ribis in a class of its own, for the : simple reason that the entire world considers it to be a generally : acceptable business practice... According to the Rambam, it's a mitzvas asei. The SA (YD 159:1) holds like the Tur, it's mutar de'oraisa, and usually prohibited derabbanan "shema yilmod mima'asav". Bikhdei chayav, tzurba derabbanan and if the profit is only defined derabbanan as ribbis are three exceptions. (Charging ribis from a mumar shekafar be'iqar is also mutar, because we are not obligated lehachayaso; but paying ribis to him is not.) The Levush says "shema yilmod mima'asev" doesn't apply in the current economy. Chazal assumed a primarily Jewish economy where we have a few exceptional deals with non-Jews. So for us, ribis is always mutar lemaaseh. I wonder whether this heter of the Levush would apply to Jews in Israel today. In any case, halakhah pesukah (assuming the reader isn't Teimani) doesn't mention any mitzvah asei. In terms of the taam being because their own economy is based on interest... Would you argue that it's wrong to lend a Muslim or an Amish person money with interest? (Even in the Levush's opinion?) Particularly in a Moslem country. where they have their own parallels to heter isqa , and the person's whole culture (I presume) reviles interest. So is it whether or not ribis is considered immoral by the person being charged, or whether or not kelapei Shemaya galya ribis is moral? I argued the latter, but your wording left me wanting to articulate the chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 13:49:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:49:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting Message-ID: What would you like the first thing that HKB"H says to you at 120 when you report to the beit din shel maaleh(heavenly study hall)? Kt Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 13:50:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban Message-ID: What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:53:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:53:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 11:21:05PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : > I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi : > haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, : > like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" : > in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather : > than knowledge of abstract ideas. : No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these : were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi : haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and : that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? "They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..." :> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. : These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult : to understand them as having been written by the same person... Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position. ... :: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in :: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21... ::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us ::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the ::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers ::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their ::> practice on their upright fathers. :> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. : Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the : pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] : and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk... But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write: : Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the : context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting : up of schools)... Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's derashah. I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with "chadash assur min haTorah".) :> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. : Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas : etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody : define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at : all the experiential aspect... Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect? :> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when :> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an :> example to imitate. : The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is : as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with : Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her : ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." : The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard : to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, : excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of : Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily : in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education. After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior? In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49. : And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they : could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward : etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two : types of TSBP... Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah. : Is not the gemora etc filled with : this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it occuring... So I am toally lost here. Maybe the "this" has been stretched further than I can follow. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 19:00:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Message-ID: The gematria for Rosh Chodesh is 813. In the whole of tanach there is only one verse with the gematria of 813. It is B?reishis, Chapter 1, verse 3. ?Vayomer Elohim ohr, vay?hi ohr? ?And God said: Let there be light and there was light.? Music is moonlight in the gloomy night of life. Jean Paul, Author From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:42:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:42:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170621234200.GF18168@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 09:19:46AM -0400, Yaakov Jaffe via Avodah wrote: : But one approach to tefilah (let's call it the one that resonates with me) : is that it is purely a communication between the speaker and his or her : Creator, and that consequently, it is not the time and place to be focused : on proclaiming our ideologies. Obviously others may argue, and there are : numerous siddur options for them. But we shouldn't pretend that this is : the only approach to prayer, or that every Jew must use ideology in chosing : a siddur. But if a person wants to approach tefilah as a pure communication, then shouldn't they pick a siddur whose ideology is that tefillah is a pure communication? Having a siddur of a given ideology is not necessarily about proclaiming that ideology. (But if you want to rail about the fact that too often this call for an MO siddur /is/ about proclomation, there is room to do so.) It is about having a siddur that aids the kind of prayer you want to do. Which is why I never understood why people assign value to having "their siddur". I have a collection, as I go from more cerebral to more experiential moods, and want different siddurim depending on where my head is just then. For example, the as-yet-unpublished RCA siddur has something in it about shelo asani that would say something that a Mod-O Jew is more likely to be concerned about saying than someone who is less engaged with the more egalitarian west would feel a need to say. ... : I did not conduct a comprehensive study of the stone Chumash, but wonder : whether the troubling explanations are ubiquitous, occasional, or somewhere : in between... In my experience, occasional. But the rationalists are under-represented, given the chareidi tendency toward more maximalist approaches. That's not troubling, but it's promoting one worldview and not allowing the other to reach the market-share it deserves. : or was it a dream (Ramban versus Rambam)? If Artscroll said he spoke, and : for example a new chumash says that he did not - then which one most : accurately reflects my hashkafa? ... My ideal chumash would present both, or if space requires, inform me that both possibilities are discussed without full presentation. If two hashkafic ideas are viable, why should I let an editor choose between them for me? But that's a different story. The problem the MO nay-sayers have with the absence of a vaiable alternative to ArtScroll is less that there is a specific problem with a comment. As I wrote, those are rare. But that without variety, without a survey that includes ideas current and popular outside the Agudist community, those ideas will cease being thought of as normative. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:20:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:20:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170621222015.GB18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:50:41PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? #1 Qedoshim Tihyu -- naval birshus haTorah #2 The end of Bo (although you didn't ask for a runner-up) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:28:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:28:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170621232850.GE18168@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:07:45PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : >I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons : >and sources, and this chapter is a perfect example... In the Bavli "Mai ta'ama?" is a request for a reason. In the Y-mi, it is a request for a pasuq as source. Reasons and sources are different things, and I think the difference helps clears up the question. : Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites : the Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than : in other places. Zev was saying that the Rambam usually opens or close with a reason, a ta'am hamitzvah. (And, as he explains in the Moreh, he only expects these to cover the generalities.) Usually, these are unsourced. But, kedarko, when he can paraphrase a source he does. Which is what he is doing here. : I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he : often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or : "pashat haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a : Midrash? This one stands out. This paragraph addresses the Rambam's not spending much time on sources, not about reasons. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:16:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:16:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170621221634.GA18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:49:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What would you like the first thing that HKB"H says to you at 120 when : you report to the beit din shel maaleh(heavenly study hall)? (After introducing me to my daughter...) "I'm proud of you, son!" "I would help you get used to this, but techiyas hameisim will be underway..." "So THAT'S why I did that..." But according to Rava (Shabbos 31a) I should expect, "Nasata venatata be'emunah?" Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:24:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:24:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170621232402.GD18168@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 08:43:42PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : > How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of : > any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even : > punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of : > the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? : : The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an : extension of the beit din. Perhaps according to the Rambam (Rotzeiach 1:2), who says "mitzvah beyad go'el hadam..." and if the go'el doesn't want to or there is none, "BD memisin es harotzeiach besayif". Rashi al haTorah appears to hold that "ein lo dam" means the go'el is killing an already dead man, and therefore bears no guilt. Not a mitzvah, but a reshus. (But see below.) And if the go'el only has reshus, it's hard to say he is operating as beis din's appointee. Sanhedrin 45b says "mitzvah bego'el hadam", but if there is no go'el, BD appoints one. There is no sayif. BUT, Makos 2:7 has a machloqes: R Yosi haGelili says that if the killer is found outside the techum, it is a mitzvah on the go'el hadam and a reshus for everyone else to kill him. (According to the beraisa on 12a, if there is no go'el, there is reshus...) R' Aqiva disagrees, saying it's a reshus for the go'el and a non-punishable issur for anyone else. (According to the beraisa, they are chayav.) And here's the weird part -- despite what I quoted above from the Yad, the Rambam on the mishnah says halakhah is like R' Aqiva. Rashi on Makkos 12a says about Bamidbar 35:27 "ika leferushei lashon tzivui ve'ika leferushei lashon tzivui. In sum, I think RJR is understating it. It's not "only" the pesuqim that are unclear. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 01:29:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:29:00 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: : No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these : were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi : haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and : that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? And RMB replied: >"They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..." I like "the root principles and the general rules .." - thanks, that is better than my use of source - but I think "osmosis" is not quite right either. I don't think "osmosis" as we understand it would necessarily have been within the Maharil's conception, and that it is not a great translation for "al pi hakabala" - maybe "from tradition" - but osmosis isn't right. The girls in question probably learnt how to speak the local language by osmosis (even if eg Yiddish was spoken in the home), but you would not say that is "al pi hakabbala". There is a big difference. :> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. : These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult : to understand them as having been written by the same person... >Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position. I don't think you can say that. First of all, the second one, ie the one from Maharil HaChadashos, made it into the Shulchan Aruch, - it is quoted by the Rema - and you can't just dismiss that. And the first one was in the possession of the Birchei Yosef, who is very influential in a whole host of ways in terms of psak. I think rather you have to treat them as two different rishonic teshuvot, and give them weight on that basis. It may well be that they were influenced by, or even possibly penned by, the student of the Maharil who collected them (hence my note that they came from two different collections) , and we may never know which one was really the Maharil's opinion and which one was in fact that of his student or some other rishon from around that time and attributed to the Maharil, but they are both rishonic source material, and I don't think we can ignore either of them. ... :: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in :: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21... ::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us ::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the ::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers ::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their ::> practice on their upright fathers. :> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. : Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the : pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] : and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk... But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write: : Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the : context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting : up of schools)... >Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's derashah. Yes, but even in terms of pshat, it seems very difficult to come away from the idea of transmission of tradition from father to children when using this process. "Asking" is not about osmosis - it is about an attempt at formal learning, and answering in response to an ask is exactly the process of formal learning in pretty much all contexts (it is why we still have teachers even in Universities, and not just books). If you have system where you are supposed to "ask" and somebody else is supposed to then answer, you have formal education. This is a step up from where you are expected to learn by watching (but not asking) - but where at least sometimes the educational aspect is clear - eg, I want you to watch and see how I go to place X, so you can find it yourself next time, is a less formal process than asking, but it is still a form of education, which is a step up from osmosis, where nobody on either side necessarily realises that something is being learnt, it just seeps in (language is a classic case, or how about accent - kids pick up their accent from school by osmosis, it is not a conscious process, and maybe the parents would in fact prefer, and maybe even they would prefer, that they talk with the parent's accent, rather than that of their peers, but it doesn't happen that way, you send a kid to school, they start talking like the locals in their school). >I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with "chadash assur min haTorah".) Because the proof text resonates, it does even in the pshat. In the pshat it is clearly linked to "vshinantam l'vanecha" - ie is the flip side of it (which is why the extension into drash makes sense, just as v'shinantam l'vanecha is the basis of the command for Torah study, this is the basis of the need to listen to the master of Torah). And if you know the drash, even when you use it in the pshat form, you will get the resonance. "V'shinantam l'vanecha" is the pasuk from which the obligation for boys to learn is learnt (banecha v'lo banotecha) - with the emphasis then on the father's teaching - the formal school process came later, when the father's obligation was delegated to a school teacher. Ask you father (in the masculine) is similarly in the pshat about a boy's obligation to learn. Applying it to girls is an odd stretch in the first place. What you are saying is that the proof text when applied to girls suddenly doesn't mean what it means when applied to boys, in either pshat or drash, that to me seems odd. :> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. : Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas : etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody : define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at : all the experiential aspect... >Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect? Well the CC is explaining the Rambam. The Rambam says: ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????, ???? ??? ??????, ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????, ???"? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????, ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????, ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man, because she is not commanded and all who do a thing that they are not commanded to do, there reward is not like the reward of one who is commanded and does rather [their reward] is less than these, and even though she gains a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning, and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut. So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav (note that the Rambam himself in Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 Halacha 11 - says a man is required to divide his time into thirds, a third in Torah shebichtav, a third in Torah sheba?al peh, and a third in understanding and weighing - what he calls Gemora, so there he seems to have three categories, but the third requires a knowledge of the other two, and presumably cannot be taught). So, in terms of your question "does anybody force the CC to define the set of TSBP that was classically prohibited as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including the experiential aspect" - it seems to me that the Rambam does. Ie given that the CC is explaining the Rambam, and the Rambam has only two categories of Torah, then either the experiential aspect is Torah shebichtav or it is not Torah at all. But saying that the experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase. I therefore think it very difficult to say that experiential teaching, especially when linked with the formality of "asking", as the CC does, can be defined as not Torah at all. So that leaves Torah shebichtav. I did try and say that was the Tur's point, what you are should not teach are the laws as written down, but to say that the experiential is Torah shebichtav seems to me a very difficult assertion. :> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when :> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an :> example to imitate. : The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is : as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with : Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her : ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." : The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard : to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, : excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of : Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily : in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". >I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education. >After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior? Yes he does, the minute he is "asked", or if he says "watch what I do" (similar to when I take my children somewhere to show them how to get there on their own, eg a new school, including pointing out the landmarks, that is most definitely active teaching, despite the fact that it is experiential, and not done from giving them a map and teaching them to map read). >In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49. And "look, let me show you how ..." is formal teaching, whether it is a maths problem or it is how to bake chala. And if that particular aspect of teaching falls within the definition of Torah, then one is teaching Torah, albeit informally. And the danger with understanding "lelameid" to only mean formal teaching, not informal teaching, is that you then write out of a father's obligation to a son an awful lot, as it is not within the mitzvah. You can't have it both ways, either when a father teaches a son informally (eg shows him how to put on tephillin, as that seems very difficult to learn from a book) he is teaching him Torah or he is not. Which is it? : And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they : could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward : etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two : types of TSBP... >Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah. So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect, showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn?t take the bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid? Isn't that the consequence of what you are saying? That the only Torah that men are obligated to learn as Talmud torah are the formal abstract rules and regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially? : Is not the gemora etc filled with : this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. >The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it occuring... I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules. If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? -Micha Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 06:27:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:27:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> On 22/06/17 04:29, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: >> The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or >> memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it >> occuring... > I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the > formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the > formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules. > > If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of > the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? Indeed, it's an explicit gemara: "*Torah* hi, velilmod ani tzarich". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 09:32:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:32:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170622163247.GA19841@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:27:07AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: :>If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of :> the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? : Indeed, it's an explicit gemara: "*Torah* hi, velilmod ani tzarich". I am excluding informal education from "lelameid bito", not excluding the acquired info from "Torah". When the R' Eliezer (as quoted by the Rambam) talks about learning or teaching, is he thinking about mimetic osmosis and the like or is he referring only to formal education? It is indeed a key way to learn how to practice. In many cases -- eg milah, safrus, mar'os, tereifos, etc... -- it's the /only/ way to learn the necessary Torah. "Mimetic osmosis *or the like*" is my acknowledgement that Chana managed to convince me that my dichotomy is really a spectrum from the informality of unconscious imitation to raw text study. And therefore there will be gray are that is more or less likely to be included by R' Eliezer or the Rambam rather than a yes-or-no. My talk of mimeticism and osmosis overstates where I am going, and created needless problems with the CC's use of "she'al avikha". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 06:26:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:26:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Letter from Europe Message-ID: <84dd8782469149f99c23cf85a031e37b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I seem to remember a letter from a European (German) Jewish community to someone/thing in Eretz Yisrael with the general message that their hometown was where they intended to wait for Moshiach whether moving to Eretz Yisrael was possible or not. Does this sound familiar? If so, do you know the source? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 07:06:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:06:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple Message-ID: <20170623140615.GB17536@aishdas.org> SA EhE 62:11 says that if the benei hachupah have to divide up into chaburos, they all make sheva berakhos. Even if the locations are not open to each other nor is there a common server -- none of the normal things that combine a zimun. The AhS #37 adds that they each make their own 7 berakhos. Does this mean that if a man needs to leave a wedding early, he should really invest the effort to find 9 others and not just 3, not only because zimun requires trying, but also because the 10 of you would be passing up a chance to bentch the chasan & kallah! To add more weight to the idea, earlier in the siman the AhS discusses the function of panim chadashos at 7 berakhos. In #23-24 he says that the Rambam (Berakhos pereq 2) implies that the reason why we need panim chadashos for 7 berakhos is that the whole thing is to fulfill *their* chiyuv to bentch the chasan & kallah. As guests of the couple, they have a chiyuv to give them a berakhah, which is fulfilled at the minimum by their amein. Whereas if everyone there already fulfilled that obligation, the berakhos are levatalah. Then in #35 he gives besheim "rov raboseinu" the usually quoted reason (at least in my circles) that it's their addition to the simchah that legitimizes the berakhah. Which is why the neshamah yeseirah and Shabbos meal can serve in the same role. (However, he warns, this only works for a real se'udah shelishis. A yotzei-zain shaleshudis lacks that requisite simchah.) So, it could be that according to the Rambam, walking out of the se'udah without 7 berakhos is neglecting one's chiyuv to give the couple a berakhah! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 10:46:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:46:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> <20170621234200.GF18168@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170623174657.GA20760@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:00:14PM -0400, Yaakov Jaffe wrote: : Thank you for your perspective. I understand your argument - rather than : my three-options (hashkafa a, hashkafa b and hashkafa c), you suggest a : fourth with a & b side by side, for the reader to chose. I hadn't : considered it - but it does have a lot to offer! We need to distinguish between a specific commentary -- R' Hirsch's Pentateuch, Mesoret haRav works, Divrei Moshe -- and an anonymous collector of footnotes as in the Stone Chumush, the ArtStroll or RCA siddurim, etc... And I want to acknowledge the gray areas. R/Lord Sack's siddur can be either, depending upon whether someone bought it out of esteem for R' Sacks and wanting to know his position, or it's as just Koren's contender in that market. I am only talking about the latter category, the anonymous shul chumash or siddur. Chareidism is founded on the need to protect ourselves from the modern. And only after dealing with the thread, one considers the opportunities. And part of that defense mechanism is deffering decisions to those more knowledgable. In contrast, Mod-O embraces the West's admiration of autonomy. Thus leaving a gap between the communities about when one turns to gedolim for answers, and when not. A side-effect of how "daas Torah" is formulated is that it has little tolerance for plurality. "The gedolim hold" is an oft-repeated idiom, in my hometown of Passaic, even by people who -- if you made them stop and consider the question -- know "the gedolim" often disagree. Because if we need to choose between valid answers, we could run the risk of choosing wrongly, a dangerous variant of one, the other, or in combination. A comparative unknown yeshivish rav or collection of avreikhem providing such commentary, choosing a consistent style of comment over others is perceived from that mindset. As promoting one position as the sole truly normative approach. The same often happens with Rashi. We think of Rashi's position as the default, because it's girsa diyenuqa, and another rishon is seen as the machadesh. Did the brothers sell Yoseif or did they find the pit empty after the Moavim got there first and selling him? There is a machloqes tannaim about Rivqa's age when married, but Rashi quotes one, and that becomes the default in some circles. In other circles, peshat is more likely to trump medrashic stories. With the position of numerous rishonim and acharonim (are there cholqim?) that medrashic stories are repeated for their nimshalim, not the story itself. Which brings me to a second effect of daas Torah... The more one takes pride in deferring to authority the more likely one is to embrace the maximalist position, to accept that which is further from rationalist, from what the autonomous decision would have been. A second reason why Rivqa must have been 3 when married, not 15. Yes, many people know both, but isn't there a clear emotional attitude about one position being normative rather than the other? I therefore think that giving a survey of opinions is itself an inherently MO way of doing this kind of text. It allows someone to choose autonomously between rationalism, mysticism, maximalism, etc... without the relatively-unknown rabbi -- or anyone but my own rav, his rav, his rav's rav... ("my gadol" is a much more MO view than "the gedolim) -- setting himself to tell large numbers of the observant community what to view as the mainstream, and what is an acceptable but avant-gard alternative, even if they ever learn of the other options. If we want RYBS's position to be viewed as part of the mainstream, or R' Herschel Schachter's (which is far closer to yeshivish but still not something ArtScroll would quote too often) or R' Aharon Soloveitchik or RALichtenstein, R' Amital, R CY Goldvicht or any other rosh yeshivas hesder, R' Kook, etc... there has to be chumashim that put these ideas in the hands of the common people, the ones who aren't spending spare time hanging out in the sefarim store or following e-zines, blogs, email lists or even FB groups that discuss (usually: argue) such things. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 15:56:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:56:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d2ec73$fba1e110$f2e5a330$@gmail.com> R' Joel Rich: What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? ------------------------ The one about being a naval b'rshus haTorah. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 14:04:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 23:04:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: <2a88576c-335d-3d30-a014-301f177029c1@zahav.net.il> References: <2a88576c-335d-3d30-a014-301f177029c1@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <297327dc-ba39-c064-1bd4-0a61c750d11f@zahav.net.il> Mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisrael, including conquering it. Ben On 6/21/2017 10:50 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? > KT > Joel Rich > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 06:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 16:10:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple Message-ID: "Does this mean that if a man needs to leave a wedding early, he should really invest the effort to find 9 others and not just 3, not only because zimun requires trying, but also because the 10 of you would be passing up a chance to bentch the chasan & kallah!" Actually, even without regard for Sheva B'rochos, the din of zimmun requires that one not who has eaten with a minyan not bentsch with less than a minyan. There is mention on OC 193:1 that only where there would be difficulty in a minyan hearing, thus necessitating the bentsching calling attention to itself and thus offending the host, that it can be done in groups of three; it would seem to be a kal vachomer that gathering ten and saying Sheva B'rochos would be even more noticeable, and thus more hurtful. It would also seem that if one person has to leave, he should not request two others to join him in zimmun unless they, too, must leave early, since otherwise they should not violate their obligation of proper zimmun so that the one leaving have an incomplete fulfillment of his obligation. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:01:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 01:01:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: . R' Eli Turkel wrote: > R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He > understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah position > basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a > state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful > but is against the wishes of G-d. Could you please explain to me what the Agudah position is, and *how* it denies that G-d affects history? Personally, I do not know what the Agudah position is about the Medinah. I'm not convinced that they even *have* a position. Over the years, I have gotten the impression that they have deliberately avoided publicizing their views, because at this point in history it is so difficult to be sure of such things. You yourself concede that the state "APPEARS" to be successful. Who knows? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:21:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:21:57 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] perhaps not such a well-known RaMBaM, but ... Message-ID: in his intro to Sefer Shemos Matan Torah was just a device employed to re-attain the standards that had already been accomplished by the Avos when they came to Mount Sinai - made the Mishkan and HaShem returned His Shechinah amongst them, that is when they restored their status to be like their Avos .... and that is when they were deemed to be redeemed [from the servitude in Egypt] Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:42:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:42:05 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] redemption - The GoEl HaDam Message-ID: the family can come to terms with the killer. when circumstances are such that the killer is deemed too negligent, he can not seek refuge in the Ir Miklat and they MUST come to terms, of the aggressor lives his life in constant fear of being executed. Lo SikChu Kofer LeNefesh RoTzeach Hu - is a warning [to BDin] NOT to take redemption money, NOT to avert the death penalty, NOT to come to terms; but in other circumstances it seems we ought to seek strategies to come to terms. That may include but is not limited to offering money - it probably has more to do with Teshuvah, which is the need to persuade the victims that the regret is sincere, which is why BDin cannot provide a ruling, it can only be negotiated through direct communications, and finding friends of the victims and persuading them of the sincerity and getting THEM to intercede - this is the Shurah that is described in Halacha and RaMBaM. Why are they defined as the GoEl the redeemer? It is a redemption for the society - an evil [negligence of this magnitude, especially when Chazal indicate it is a reflection of other misdeeds, is an evil] of this magnitude leaves an impression on the collective mind of the community, the Eidah, those whose lives is a testimony to HKBH, and if it goes unpunished, the community is tainted. So the community requires redemption. This too feeds into the coming to terms with the aggressor - it is not only the friends of the victim who are impressing upon their traumatised consciousness the need to forgive to accept that the aggressor truly regrets [and that the victim is also as Chazal say, a contributor to his untimely own end] but the community is a sort of spectator to these negotiations and the aggressors feel a need to be accepted by the community and not be seen as being too harsh and vengeful or rapacious in their demands for compensation. This is a very redeeming experience for everyone Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 10:10:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:10:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] most famous ramban Message-ID: <000b01d2edd5$f855df80$e9019e80$@actcom.net.il> First Ramban in Yayera-polemic with the Moreh Nevukhim. After that, 'Kedoshim tihiyu', (which many people are horrified by or completely misunderstand and yes, the Ramban was an ascetic and makes a brilliant case for asceticism) but we could probably have a whole lot of fun on this list making a list of Rambans that everyone should know. In fact, we may actually have done this already. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 10:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:05:14 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting from God Message-ID: <000601d2edd5$3d08f5a0$b71ae0e0$@actcom.net.il> I'd be thrilled to hear: "It's okay-don't worry about it" but I'm not counting on it. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 07:06:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:06:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170626140643.GD29431@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 04:10:45PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : hurtful. It would also seem that if one person has to leave, he should not : request two others to join him in zimmun unless they, too, must leave : early, since otherwise they should not violate their obligation of proper : zimmun so that the one leaving have an incomplete fulfillment of his : obligation. OTOH, if they have an obligation to bless the chasan and kalah, perhaps the threshold for "must leave early" has to be raised. After all, there are cases of need where we do break a zimmun, but we would never (e.g.) walk out on a beris milah over the same motivation. "Need" is a relative term. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 09:15:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 12:15:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> On this thread, did any of us mention birkhas ge'ulah? "Ufdeih khin'umekha Yehudah veYisrael" expresses our expectation that Hashem will redeem both malkhios. Or is there another way to talk separately about Yehudah and Yisrael. So I would think the siddur pasqens, and this is in all traditional nusachos, that the 1- tribes are not permanently lost. I am assuming since this is a birkhas shevakh rather than baqashah, this is an expectation "you will surely redeem", and not a request. Requesting the impossible is a tefillas shav. So... As a baqashah, the berakhah would only prove they could be redeemed; as shevakh (which is, I believe, the correct category), the berakhah is expressing our faith they will be redeemed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 14:51:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:51:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Talmud Torah vs Mitzvah Maasis Message-ID: <20170626215120.GA8220@aishdas.org> Another data point... AhS EhE 65:4 says "mevatlin talmud Torah lehakhnasas kalah lechupah", even toraso umenaso. But limited to someone who sees them going to the chupah. If you just know of a wedding in town, you aren't obligated to stop learning to go. For sources, the end of the se'if cites 1- Semachos 11[:7], which RYME summarizes as "dema'aseh qodem leTT". The mishnah itselces cites both Aba Sha'ul and Rabbi Yehudah, that "hama'aseh qodem letalmud". (Rabbi Yehudah would enjoin his talmidim to participate as well.) 2- Qiddushin 40b which discusses whether talmud gadol or ma'aseh gadol. R' Tarfon: ma'aseh R' Aqiva: talmud "Ne'enu kulam ve'amru: talmud gadol" because talmud leads to ma'aseh. (And so on, discussion elided.) This gemara concludes that talmud is greater. 3- And for exaplanation of how to resolve Semachos vs Qiddushin, he points you to Tosafos BQ 17[a] "veha'amar". The gemara there says "gadol limud Torah shemeivi liydei ma'adeh", much like Qiddushim. Rashi says "alma ma'aseh adif". R' Tam asks on Rashi, from the gemara in Qiddushin. Tosafos then explains the gemara's distinction between learning and teaching in two opposite ways: 1- It's teaching which has priority, because it brings the masses to action. Whereas one's own learning or acting are one person either way. 2- It's learning, which tells one how to act, that has priority. But since teaching doesn't inform the teacher how to fulfilll a mitzvah, it does not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 08:22:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:22:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chukas Message-ID: <9B3AD7FA-3712-4F5A-B2FC-BAC8F688CD87@cox.net> Rashi picks up on the juxtaposition of the consecutive sentences where we first read of Miriam?s death and immediately following ? of the lack of water. This would indicate some connection which Rashi points out that the existence of the water was on the z?chus of Miriam. Nonetheless, the question of the Sifse Chakhamim is also quite valid. Weren?t Aaron and Moses worthy enough to warrant the existence of the water on their z?chus? As a chok has no rational explanation, so, too, there is no logical explanation as to why as long as Miriam was there, offering her inspired leadership, the waters of the be?er, the wells of Torah, flowed ceaselessly and with her death, the waters stopped; whereas, the greatness of Aaron and Moses paled in comparison. This shows the error of those who downplay the role of women in Judaism. Remember, it?s the mother who determines the child?s religion and it?s the mother who plays a major role in her children?s development. The dedication and devotion of the exemplary Jewish mother are a shining example to all who would seek idealism in a Jewish woman. "The Lord gave more wit to women than to men." Talmud - Niddah ??And the Lord God built the rib which teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, endowed the woman with more understanding than the man.? Niddah 45b ?A beautiful wife enlarges a man?s spirit.? [adapted from] Talmud, Berakhot 57b -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 15:15:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:15:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <78965e20-72ab-5232-fd11-bfbe6b3a4ee2@sero.name> On 26/06/17 12:15, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On this thread, did any of us mention birkhas ge'ulah? "Ufdeih > khin'umekha Yehudah veYisrael" expresses our expectation that Hashem > will redeem both malkhios. Or is there another way to talk separately > about Yehudah and Yisrael. > > So I would think the siddur pasqens, and this is in all traditional > nusachos, that the 1- tribes are not permanently lost. It is not in all traditional nuschaos. TTBOMK it's found only in Nusach Ashkenaz. Sefarad substitutes the pasuk "Goaleinu", Italians substitute "Biglal avot...", I don't know what other traditional nuschaot do. (Modern Nusach Ashkenaz and some versions of the Chassidic "Sfard" combine the old Ashkenaz and Sefarad endings; this was originally Nusach Tzorfat, back when that was distinct from Ashkenaz.) (The reason for the Sefaradi ending with the pasuk rather than the other two versions is that the bracha is about Geulat Mitzrayim, not the future Geulah, hence the chatima "Ga'al Yisrael" as distinct from "Go'el Yisrael" in the 7th of the 18, so ending with a prayer for the future Geulah is off topic. I don't know how the other two nuschaot would respond, but maybe that's why NA ended up adopting the Tzorfati combination.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 22:08:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:08:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Agudah [was: Support for Maaseh Satan] Message-ID: <15180d.31f3d54b.4685e552@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <> [--I don't know who is being quoted here] R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah poisition basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful but is against the wishes of G-d. -- Eli Turkel >>>>>> All through Tanach there are examples of reshaim who succeed (if only for a while). Obviously it is Hashem's wish that they succeed, even if it is not His wish that they sin. What is remarkable and miraculous about the last century of history in Eretz Yisrael is how Eretz Yisrael has been built up, the growth of agriculture, cities, the economy, the Jewish population, and most of all the amazing growth of Torah living and learning -- despite secular socialist Zionism. The Medinah gets some credit but what is most remarkable is that so much good has happened despite the Medinah or even very much against the will of the secular government. There is so much ohr vechoshech mishtamshim be'irbuvya. Nevertheless it is impossible /not/ to see the Yad Hashem in the overall course of events over the past century. How many prophecies are coming true before our very eyes! A thriving economy grew up under the very feet of the socialists! Is that not a miracle?! Has such a thing ever happened in any other country?! :- ) So what is the Agudah's position? In November 1947, when the UN voted for the establishment of the Jewish State, the Agudah made the following declaration: --begin quote-- The World Agudas Yisroel sees as an historic event the decision of the nations of the world to return to us, after 2000 years, a portion of the Holy Land, there to establish a Jewish state and to encompass within its borders the banished and scattered members of our people. This historic event must bring home to every Jew the realization that ***the Almighty has brought this about in an act of Divine Providence*** [my emphasis] which presents us with a great task and a grave test. We must face up to this test and establish our life as a people, upon the basis of Torah. While we are sorely grieved that the Land has been divided and sections of the holy Land have been torn asunder, especially Yerushalayim, the holy city, while we still yearn for the aid of Mashiach tzidkeinu, who will bring us total redemption, we nevertheless see the hand of Providence offering us the opportunity to prepare for the geula shelaima if we will walk into the future as G-d's people. --end quote-- [quoted in __To Dwell in the Palace: Perspectives on Eretz Yisrael__ edited by Tzvia Ehrlich-Klein, 1991] The above is still fairly representative of the hashkafa of broad swaths of Klal Yisrael who are charedi or charedi-leaning, yeshivish or chassidish, neither Satmar nor Dati Leumi. That is, the majority of all frum Jews in America and Eretz Yisrael. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 22:31:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:31:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? Message-ID: <151979.a3a1c08.4685eabc@aol.com> From: Chana Luntz via Avodah I Well the CC is explaining the Rambam. The Rambam says: --quote-- A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man, ...and even though she gains a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning, and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. --end quote-- That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut. So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav ... ....But saying that the experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase.... .....So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect, showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn't take the bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid? Isn't that the consequence of what you are saying? That the only Torah that men are obligated to learn as Talmud Torah are the formal abstract rules and regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially? Regards Chana >>>>> I think that different uses of the word "Torah" are being confused here. The very word "Torah" has many meanings, depending on context. It can refer to just the Chumash -- the Torah shebichsav -- about which the Rambam says "but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." Some chassidishe schools to this day do not teach girls Chumash. The word Torah can mean both Chumash and Gemara. "The Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut." There is universal agreement that "Torah" in this context means Gemara. NO ONE thinks that teaching halacha to girls is tantamount to teaching tiflus. The word "Torah" can refer to the vast corpus of everything that has ever been written by or about the Tanaim and Amoraim, Rishonim and Achronim. The word can refer to halacha, to hashkafa, to everything that makes up Jewish life and thought. "Torah" can also refer to that which is taught and learned by example, or by osmosis, or by a mother's tears when she bentshes lecht and davens for her children. "Al titosh Toras imecha." Every language has words like that, words whose precise meaning depends on context. Certainly in the Gemara itself there are many such words. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 29 06:18:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:18:11 +0000 Subject: What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem’s name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? Message-ID: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem's name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, HY"D the Av Bais Din of Shomloy in Hungary, once wrote a letter on this subject. It reads in part, "We have a tradition in our hands from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty, that the reading of the honored and awesome name of Hashem is AH -- DOY -- NOY (AH-DOE -- NOY or AH-DOW-NOY) using the vowelization of Chataf Patach for the Aleph, a Cholam for the Daled and a Kamatz for the Nun..." "Our master the Chasam Sofer and the author of the Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah, zt"l and a whole group of Geonim and Kedoshim have already warned us that unfortunately there are many mistakes concerning this. One needs to be very careful about this matter for a common mistake has spread among the masses and even among those with fear of Hashem. Through a lack of concentration, the Daled (of Hashem's pronounced name) is said with a Sheva as "AHD-ENOY." It is certain that whoever pronounces Hashem's name this way has not said Hashem's name at all and must repeat the bracha again, and so did the Chasam Sofer rule." Rav Shimon Schwab, zt"l in his classic work on Siddur, Iyun Tefilla (p. 25), adds that one should also be careful not to say AH -- DEE -- NOY. He writes: "One must pronounce the Daled with a Cholam (DOY, DOE or DOW) and the Nun with a Kamatz, and not use a Chirik under the Daled (DEE) as is the custom of some who are mistaken and think that they are pronouncing the Name properly... This is a disgrace of the honored and awesome Name. One who pronounces Hashem's name with a Chirik even a hundred times a day is not transgressing the prohibition of saying Hashem's name in vain." Rav Pinchas Scheinberg, zt"l was once asked if Ahd-enoy or Ahdeenoy are acceptable be'dieved, after the fact. His response was a resounding "No!" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 29 06:30:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zalman Alpert via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:30:39 -0400 Subject: What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem’s name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? In-Reply-To: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> References: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 29, 2017 10:18 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > From today's OU Halacha Yomis > > *Q. What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem?s name in Shmoneh Esrei > and other brachos?* There are different ways in Ashkenazi hebrew to pronounce many vowels like cholom zeira segol etc so this answer isof little meaning Galicianer Lithuanian German Ukrainian Hungarian and Central Polish jews each have their own pronunciation See Michtvei Torah by Gerer rebbe Imre Emes where opines different than what is written here Rabbi Heschel of Hamodia several yrs ago discussed this issue in a very cogent manner Although many American college educated frum Jews believe there is only 1way of halachic practice that is absurd,there are many authentic practices to the chagrin of a group of yedhivashe people seeking to impose uniform practicr namely their own Nehare nehare upishteh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 30 06:56:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:56:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Forgotten Fast Days Message-ID: <650c141a32674be8bd8ee65a52bc1d83@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see the article at https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5929 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 30 09:04:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:04:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Authority of Cherem deRabbeinu Gershom Message-ID: <20170630160442.GA20546@aishdas.org> AhS EhE 1:23,25 etc... refers to taqanos or gezeiros passed by Rabbein Gershon meOr haGolah and his contemporaries. Not the idiom I heard in the past, "cheirem deR' Gershom" -- not even the same last letter on the name. Since this was well after the last beis din hagadol / Sanhedrin (so far), we have discussed in the past where the authority to pass such laws came from. My own suggestion revolved around them being charamim for anyone who... rather than direct issurim. But the AhS would be more medayeiq to call them charamim if he thought that was a critical part of the mechanism. But here is something that had me wondering all over again. AhS EhE 119:17... The question is how a gett given without the wife's agreement would be valid if one holds "i avid lo mahani" (like Rava). And yet the Rama says "avar vegirshah ba"k" he is an avaryan (and thus in nidui) until she remarries. One it can't be fixed, because he cannot remarry his gerushah anymore, the nidui is removed. But the AhS writes, if this is true for a derabbanan (Kesuvor 81b) *kol shekein* dChdR"G hu kemo qarov le'isur Torah. Without explaining why. And I can't even figure out how it has the authority to be more than minhag altogether... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 13:45:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:45:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Aruch HaShulchan was not happy with the minhag that the baal haseder has his wine poured by someone else. He writes that it's a bit haughty to order his wife to pour for him and that in his city it was not the minhag. Aside from the interestingly contemporary sound of his concern, it seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for everyone to pour for everyone else, which would avoid the concern of the ArHaSh. 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? 2. If so is it a) based on the poskim, b) an old practice without formal endorsement, or c) a new-fangled sop to modernity? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 17:49:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzav: "As Long As The Soul Is Within Me, I Will Give Thanks Unto Thee, O Lord, My God And God Of My Fathers" Berakhot, 60b Message-ID: <476D9522-69B8-43D1-9E77-D0491911541D@cox.net> Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the korban todah, Thanksgiving Offering. The Medrash (Lev. R., 9.7) tells us that in the future all the sacrifices will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering. Rashi (Leviticus 7:12) states (paraphrased): A man offers a thanksgiving offering (in the Temple) when he is saved from potential danger. There are four types: sea travelers, desert travelers, those released from prison and a seriously ill patient who has recovered. As the verse says in Psalms (107:21), "They should give thanks to God for His kindness, and for His wonders to mankind.? Interestingly and providentially, the mnemonic for this group of four is Chayyim, which stands for [Chavush (jail), Yisurim (illness), Yam (sea), Midbar (desert)], (Shulchan Aruch 219:1). In our times, we fulfill this concept with the recitation of the blessing, HaGomel ("He who grants favors..."). There is a beautiful insight in the Avudraham on laws and commentary on prayers. The author was student of Ba'al HaTurim (R. Yaakov ben Asher) and was a rabbi in Seville. When the hazzan says Modim, the congregation recites the "Modim d'Rabbanan" (The Rabbis' Modim). Why is that? The Avudraham says that for all blessings in the Sh?moneh Esrei we can have an agent. For 'Heal Us', for 'Bless Us with a Good Year' and so forth we can have the sheliach tzibbur say the blessing for us. However, there is one thing that no one else can say for us. We must say it for ourselves. That one thing is "Thank You". Hoda'ah has to come from the individual. No one can be our agent to say 'Thank You.' (This is similar to asking for forgiveness. You must obtain it from the individual wronged. Not even the Almighty can forgive you for wronging a fellow human being). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 20:28:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:28:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: <5101c.42bfc52f.460fb895@aol.com> References: <5101c.42bfc52f.460fb895@aol.com> Message-ID: > "The Halachic Adventures of the Potato" ? by R' Yitzchak Spitz > https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5184 > [...] > In fact, and this is not widely known, the Chayei Adam does actually > rule this way, Sigh. This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location, but do *not* cheat by copying a citation from some secondary source; I will not accept it, because I know very well that there are many secondary sources who claim this, but none of them give a *valid* reference to where he wrote it. What I *have* seen in the Nishmas Adam is an aside, in the course of writing something different, that by the way in Germany they treat potatoes as kitniyos. In fact I'll go further: I don't believe that there has ever been a posek of any stature who forbade potatoes as kitniyos, nor any community that ever accepted such a practice. I have seen many sources claiming that someone else, somewhere else forbade it, or that some other community far away treats it as kitinyos, but never any first hand acccount. When the Rosh writes that in Provence they said Tal Umatar from Marcheshvan 7th I believe it, because he was there and saw it with his own eyes. But I have never seen anyone report having seen with his own eyes a community that forbids potatoes, or a psak din to that effect. It's always someone else somewhere else. Until I see a first hand account I don't believe it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 20:30:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:30:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked about guests in a shul where the guest's practices differ from the shul's. I am bothered by the question, and even more so by the responses. What has happened Porush Min Hatzibur? What has happened to Derech Eretz and simple good manners? (Previous discussions here on Avodah have claimed that some poskim actually hold that a visitor who davens Nusach Sfard should use that text even if he is in the tzibur of a Nusach Ashkenaz shul. Ditto for responding to Kedusha, so I will not discuss those particular examples.) But: > Would your shul allow a guest to say 13 middot aloud > by Tachanun (if local practice is not to)? We're not talking about a few words here, but approximately a whole page worth, that the tzibur would be forced to say. It's not clear from the question whether this guest is the shliach tzibur or not, but I think it is safe to say that in my shul, a shliach tzibur who tries this would be quickly informed of his error, and if it came from someone in the seats he'd simply be ignored. > Would your shul allow a guest to read his own Aliya? >From your use of the word "guest", I am presuming that this was not arranged in advance. If the guest had approached the gabbai a few days in advance to make this request, I don't know what the answer would be. But it sounds like the guest was called up, and at that point he asked the koreh, "May I read it myself?", as in the story that R' Josh Meisner told. I am horrified by the lack of consideration that this guest has toward the time and effort that the baal koreh put into preparing the laining. In RJM's story this happened on Rosh Chodesh, and I do concede that RC is by far the most frequently read parsha of all. But the question as posed was more general, applicable to any laining whether weekday or Shabbos. I am particularly surprised by the reaction of RJM's rav, who <<< insisted ... that the next two olim also read their own aliyos so as not to directly draw a distinction between those who read their own aliyah and those who do not. >>> While I appreciate the sensitivity involved, I am really surprised that this shul has such a large pool of people who can be called upon to lain properly, even for Rosh Chodesh - literally at a moment's notice. How common is this? Are there shuls where any randomly chosen person is able to lain? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 03:40:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:40:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chazkah that changed Message-ID: <> I would venture that according to everyone chazakot in financial matters can change. The famous case is a borrower who denies everything (kofer ba-kol) according to the Torah he doesn't pay anything and is not required to swear since no borrower would be brazen to completely deny a lie. The gemara says that "today" people are brazen and so we require a "shevua". I would guess that other financial chazakot for example that someone doesnt repay a loan ahead of time would depend on the current situation. If today there would be some reason for people to pay back a loan early that I would guess that the halacha indeed would change. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 04:01:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:01:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Visiting a Shul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJRich asked: > Visiting a shul questions-actual practices and sources appreciated: > * Would your shul allow a guest to read his own Aliya? > * Would your shul allow a guest to say his own nussach of kaddish (not as shatz)? > * Would your shul (in galut) allow the shatz not to say baruch hashem l'olam in maariv? > * Would your shul allow a guest to say 13 middot aloud by Tachanun(if local practice is not to)? > * Would the answers be different if requested before prayer (vs. gabbai intervention at time of event)? Me: In all those cases, in our shul, local minhag trumps the wishes of the guest, though we won't jump at anyone for adding vekooraiv mesheechay or werewa'h weassalah. Sometimes the reading of one's own aliya may be tolerated. When I was an avel, I mostly davvened in shuls that did not adhere to my minhag (though I layer "converted" to one of those other minhaggim), and as shaliach tzibbur, always followed their respective minhaggim. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 06:15:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:15:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked about guests in a shul where the guest's practices differ from the shul's. I am bothered by the question, and even more so by the responses. What has happened Porush Min Hatzibur? What has happened to Derech Eretz and simple good manners? ----------------------------- I have seen them all occur. What triggered the question was a shiur on yutorah where a pulpit rabbi mentioned that a visiting guest sfardi scholar asked in advance and was granted the right to read his own aliya. I was surprised and then thought of other situations that I had a similar reaction to. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 19:16:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 22:16:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Poisoning in Halacha Message-ID: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> Tonight my chevrusa and I learned the sugya in Bava Kamma 47b of one who puts poison in front of his friend's animal. A brief synopsis and application of the sugya is at http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/infected: ?A person put some poisoned food in front of his neighbor?s animal,? Rabbi Dayan said. ?The animal ate the food and died. The owner sued the neighbor for killing his animal. What do you say about this case?? ?I would say he?s liable,? said Mr. Wolf. ?He poisoned the animal.? ?I?m not so sure,? objected Mr. Mann. ?The neighbor didn?t actually kill the animal. Although he put out the poison, the animal chose to eat the food.? ?Animals don?t exactly have choice,? reasoned Mr. Wolf. ?If they see food, they eat! Anyway, even if the neighbor didn?t directly kill the animal, he certainly brought about the animal?s death.? ?But is that enough to hold him liable?? argued Mr. Mann. He turned to Rabbi Dayan.?The Gemara (B.K. 47b; 56a) teaches that placing poison before an animal is considered grama,? answered Rabbi Dayan. ?The animal did not have to eat the poisoned food. Therefore, the neighbor is not legally liable in beis din, but he is responsible b?dinei Shamayim. This means that he has a strong moral liability to pay, albeit not enforceable in beis din (Shach 386:23; 32:2).? It struck us that it follows that if one poisons another human being by, say, placing cyanide in his tea, which the victim then drinks and dies, the poisoner is exempt from capitol punishment. It would seem that such a manner of murder falls into the category of the Rambam's ruling in Hilchos Rotze'ach u'Shemiras Nefesh 3:10: Different rules apply, however, in the following instances: A person binds a colleague and leaves him to starve to death; he binds him and leaves him in a place that will ultimately cause him to be subjected to cold or heat, and these influences indeed come and kill the victim; he covers him with a barrel; he uncovers the roof of the building where he was staying; or he causes a snake to bite him. Needless to say, a distinction is made if a colleague dispatches a dog or a snake at a colleague. In all the above instances, the person is not executed. He is, nevertheless, considered to be a murderer, and "the One who seeks vengeance for bloodshed" will seek vengeance for the blood he shed. (translation from http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1088919/jewish/Rotzeach-uShmirat-Nefesh-Chapter-Three.htm) Perhaps this was a davar pashut to everyone else, but for me, tonight, it was a mind-boggling revelation! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 06:05:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:05:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hilchos Chol HaMoed Message-ID: <1491224727245.62311@stevens.edu> >From the article at http://tinyurl.com/l8ll4lf The following is meant as a convenient review of Halachos pertaining to Chol-Hamoed. The Piskei Din for the most part are based purely on the Sugyos, Shulchan Aruch and Rama, and the Mishna Berurah, unless stated otherwise. They are based on my understanding of the aforementioned texts through the teachings of my Rebbeim. As individual circumstances are often important in determining the psak in specific cases, and as there may be different approaches to some of the issues, one should always check with one's Rov first. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 12:50:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:50:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> > RZS: > In fact I'll go further: I don't believe that there has ever been a > posek of any stature who forbade potatoes as kitniyos, nor any community > that ever accepted such a practice. I have seen many sources claiming > that someone else, somewhere else forbade it, or that some other > community far away treats it as kitinyos, but never any first hand > acccount. When the Rosh writes that in Provence they said Tal Umatar > from Marcheshvan 7th I believe it, because he was there and saw it with > his own eyes. But I have never seen anyone report having seen with his > own eyes a community that forbids potatoes, or a psak din to that > effect. It's always someone else somewhere else. Until I see a first > hand account I don't believe it. > This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade potatoes. David Riceman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 09:15:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 12:15:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: <7f1aa7e091a1468c8cc6c5df61f610ac@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <7f1aa7e091a1468c8cc6c5df61f610ac@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <29.EA.10233.B3572E85@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 11:57 AM 4/3/2017, Ben Bradley wrote: >The Aruch HaShulchan was not happy with the minhag that the baal >haseder has his wine poured by someone else. He writes that it's a >bit haughty to order his wife to pour for him and that in his city >it was not the minhag. > >Aside from the interestingly contemporary sound of his concern, it >seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for everyone to >pour for everyone else, which would avoid the concern of the ArHaSh. > > >1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? In my home the children poured my wine once they were big enough and now my older grandchildren do this. And they pour for my wife also. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 10:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:10:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bourbon no Longer an Automatic, Faces Kashrus Issues Message-ID: <1491239439011.48127@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/kh92xxv "Companies that once distilled just a few barrels of bourbon every year are now churning out dozens of other drinks-Sherries, brandies, flavored vodkas-which might not be kosher. They can contaminate the bourbon, Rabbi Litvin said, if the liquors are run through the same pipes or tanks." The Litvins, a family that lives in Louisville, "have taken it upon themselves to keep bourbon kosher." Despite the fact that Jews are proportionately poor Bourbon consumers (it is an $8.5 billion industry), there has been a dramatic increase in demand in recent years, particularly by younger kosher consumers. "Alcohol consumption has definitely increased manifold," said one kosher wine and spirits expert. Heaven Hill, one of the largest liquor companies in the world, is owned by a Jewish family, but only a few of the bourbons-Evan Williams, the company's largest brand, and the high-end single-barrel whiskeys-are still guaranteed to be kosher. The others are run through the same pipes and storage tanks as other products, including untold flavors of vodka, spiced rum and mint whiskey. ______________________________________________________________ I guess that I have been ahead of the trends, because I have been drinking bourbon for decades and never liked Scotch. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 12:21:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:21:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Good manners will open doors that the best education cannot. Clarence Thomas Message-ID: <708AB73F-9427-468E-AAEE-C0DD97D63B94@cox.net> One of my doors recently broke and I?m having a new one installed Wednesday. It brought to mind a MIdrash I once learned telling of the basic distinctiveness of the Jewish door and the secret of its architectural design, which served as a protection against annihilation. ?And strike the upper doorpost through the merit of Abraham, and the two side-posts, in the merit of Isaac and Jacob. It was for their merit that HE saw the blood and would not suffer the destroyer? (Midrash Rabbah XVII - 3 Exodus). It set me to thinking. Aren?t the doors to a home indicative of the nature and character of those who live beyond them? I began to think of doors with various emblems displayed upon them. Some say: ?We have given.? ?No Beggars or Peddlers Allowed.? ?Nobody lives here,? etc. But next Monday evening, the Jewish emblem on the entrance door will say: "Let all who are hungry, come and eat." On this Festival of Pesach, let not Judaism pass over our doors. When we open our doors to welcome Eliyahu Hanavi, let us keep it open wide, to welcome all that is positive, invigorating and creative in Jewish life. Let our doors be indicative of proud Jewish occupants. Let us display our Mezuzot not as mere adornments but as emblems which proudly proclaim for all to see: ?We are proud to be the sons and daughters of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and we are determined to carry on in their tradition. Grief is a room without doors but Passover?s power not only changes that situation but it sends Eliyahu Hanavi right through. Truncated clich?, rw From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:11:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> References: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> Message-ID: On 03/04/17 15:50, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: >> > This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a > friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly > gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one > ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. > Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras > kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade > potatoes. That comes close, but not close enough. If the name of the town were given, so that one could track down other families from that town and verify it, then I'd accept it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:17:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:17:00 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach Message-ID: *<<*This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location >> *Nishmas* *Adam*, *Hilchos* *Pesach*, Question 20 (from the article on Potatos) mentions retzke that are called tatarka which are used to make flour are kitniyot My yiddish is very limited I saw one place that translated this as corn while another used buckwheat later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called erdeffel which I saw a translation as potatos. If this translation is accurate then the Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that allowed potatos on Pesach in case of a major famine. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:43:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:43:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170403204335.GC6792@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:17:00PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not : true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or : whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location >> : : Nishmas Adam, Hilchos Pesach, Question 20 (from the article on : Potatos) mentions : retzke that are called tatarka which are used to make flour are kitniyot It's Kelal 119, Q 20. : later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called erdeffel which : I saw a translation as potatos. If this translation is accurate then the : Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that allowed potatos on Pesach : in case of a major famine. And so, as Zev pointed out, it is untrue that the CA advocated this position. Which is what is commonly retold. (At least, in my experience.) The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:47:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:47:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 01:15:37PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What triggered the question was a shiur on yutorah where a pulpit : rabbi mentioned that a visiting guest sfardi scholar asked in advance : and was granted the right to read his own aliya. I was surprised and : then thought of other situations that I had a similar reaction to. Isn't there a problem that the second you let those who are able to lein for themselves, you destroyed the minhag of leveling the playing field with a baal qeri'ah? Along thse lines, my father -- who certainly doesn't have to -- reads the berachos from the card on the bimah. The whole procedure is built around avoiding embarassing those less educated Jewishly. And today, where so many who get aliyos may be newer baalei teshuvah who don't know the berakhos by heart, shouldn't everyone read the berakhos, just the way everyone has a shaliach do the reading? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 14:34:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:34:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> References: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 03/04/17 16:47, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Along thse lines, my father -- who certainly doesn't have to -- reads > the berachos from the card on the bimah. The whole procedure is built > around avoiding embarassing those less educated Jewishly. As I understand it, the purpose of reading the brachos from a card is to make it clear that one is not reading them from the Torah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 14:30:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:30:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> On 03/04/17 16:17, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not >> true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or >> Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the >> location > Nishmas/ /Adam/, /Hilchos/ /Pesach/, Question 20 (from the article > on Potatos) Yes, I'm obviously aware of this reference, which *does not say* what so many people cite it as saying, because they saw it cited to that effect somewhere else, and have not bothered looking it up. This is frankly getting up my nose, which is why I specified that I am not interested in citations that the poster has not looked up himself and verified that they actually say what they are represented as saying. > mentions retzke that are called tatarka which are used to > make flour are kitniyot My yiddish is very limited I saw one place > that translated this as corn while another used buckwheat Retchke, or Gretchke, means normal buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum). Tatarke means Tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum). > later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called > erdeffel which I saw a translation as potatos. Yes, bulbes are potatoes. as in the famous song "Zuntik bulbes, Montik bulbes". > If this translation is > accurate then the Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that > allowed potatos on Pesach in case of a major famine. He reports having heard that in 1771-72 there was a famine and the community of Frth convened a beis din which permitted potatoes and kitniyos, but not buckwheat. His purpose in citing this is simply to demonstrate that buckwheat is worse than kitniyos, since even in this extreme case they refused to permit it. Of course this immediately causes the reader to wonder why they'd need a heter for potatoes, so he throws in the explanation that in Germany they don't eat them on Pesach. Of course anyone who sees this can see immediately that (a) he reports this practise neutrally, without expressing any support for it, and (b) he doesn't claim first hand knowledge that it even exists, but merely repeat a rumour he'd heard about some other place. Somehow, in the hands of irresponsible people, this seems to have transformed into the received wisdom that he forbade potatoes, or wanted to forbid them, or thought they ought to be forbidden, etc, none of which has the slightest tinge of truth, and it's perpetuated by lazy and dishonest people who repeat it as fact, complete with a fake citation which they have not bothered to verify. This, in turn, by exaggerating the extent of gezeras kitniyos, is used to make it seem ridiculous, onerous, impractical, and ripe for reform. On 03/04/17 16:43, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. and did so merely as a rumour. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 20:11:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:11:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder Message-ID: R' Ben Bradley wrote: > it seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for > everyone to pour for everyone else, which would avoid the > concern of the ArHaSh. > > 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? The ArtScroll Haggadah says (in the instructions for Kiddush), "The participants fill each others' cups", without mentioning any minhagim to the contrary. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat, in Halachos of Pesach, on pg 468, cites Haggada Kol Dodi (Rav Dovid Feinstein) 7:2, writing: > The Ramoh (473;1) specifies that the leader of the Seder > should not fill his own cup, but should allow others to pour > for him, as this displays cheirus (freedom). > > Although the wording of the Ramoh seems to imply that this > requirement only applies to the host and leader of the Seder, > the general custom is to do this for all the participants. > Most people therefore pour the wine for each other at each > juncture of the Four Cups. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 03:40:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 06:40:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> References: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170404104004.GA3715@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 05:30:34PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. : and did so merely as a rumour. What he repeated was a story about someone making an exception to their minhag. The explanation as to why the minhag was needed isn't given as part of the story. And if the CA puts the story into writing and uses in halachic argument, he obviously thought it was more than mere rumor. Still, not his own position, not even something he advised in theory, even before ein hatzibur yakhol laamod bah considerations. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 05:52:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 12:52:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman Message-ID: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> There is a shiur about this at http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 19:29:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 22:29:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Isn't there a problem that the second you let those who > are able to lein for themselves, you destroyed the minhag > of leveling the playing field with a baal qeri'ah? Yes, that's what MB 141:8 says. Actually, that MB goes a bit farther, and points out that "harbeh" such people *don't* know the laining so well, and the result is that the tzibur isn't yotzay. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 06:42:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:42:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato Message-ID: "This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade potatoes." This has nothing to do with potatoes but I was talking to the wife of a Moroccan this morning and she said that he told her (third-hand again) that many Moroccan towns had their own minhagim. For example, in one town they didn't use sugar because it was stored in bags near grain. So it's certainly possibly true about potatoes as well. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 06:23:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:23:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: from an OU bulletin My grandparents, may they rest in peace, would be startled to discover that I can purchase OUP kosher for Passover items such as breakfast cereals, pizza, bread sticks, rolls, blintzes, waffles, pierogis and farfel. OTOH the OU has many chumrot on what is kitniyot I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily be mixed up with chametz. It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 08:58:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:58:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> On 04/04/17 09:23, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer > makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as > kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. > > To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and > bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our predecessors made. Thus the machlokes acharonim about newly discovered legumes and pseudo-grains: was the original gezera only on certain species, or was it on the entire class? Most acharonim seem to say it was on the entire class, but then argue about how to define that class, and thus how to decide what it includes. But very few if any say zil basar ta`ma to include new things that definitely don't fall in the original definition of the banned class. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 09:45:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 19:45:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> References: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> Message-ID: <6bd3ddad-9fb6-b9ae-d7e5-edded0b2f267@starways.net> On 4/4/2017 6:58 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 04/04/17 09:23, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> >> It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer >> makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as >> kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. >> >> To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and >> bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. > > It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no > authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our > predecessors made. I was under the impression that gezeirot weren't something that could be instituted after the Sanhedrin. Even Rabbenu Gershom only instituted his rules as chramim, rather than gezeirot. And the minhag (not gezeira by any stretch of the imagination) was made by local rabbis for local conditions and local situations. Conditions and situations change. I realize that the reason we differentiate between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan law is because there's a meforash commandment of bal tosif. But we can learn out from that on some level that we shouldn't be jumbling up gezeirot and takkanot and cheramim and minhagim and siyagim and treating them like they're all the same. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:43:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 20:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58ee56f4-ffb7-2f3d-6cf8-93f18c2d7746@zahav.net.il> See my post a week ago in which I cited Rav Yoel Ben Nun and Rav Yosef Rimon as both taking the position that we need to ban flour substitutes and relax on kitniyot. Ben On 4/4/2017 3:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals > and bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:13:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:23:37PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer : makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as : kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. : : To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and : bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. In this era of packaged foods and heksheirim, the whole minhag makes no sense. People aren't deciding on their own whether quinoa is qitniyos. Or whether some sack contains pure peas with no wheat from the bottom of the silo. Or would eat a porridge based on a guess about whether it was pea or oatmeal. (The fact that I get my *unflavored* gourmet whole-leaf teas without a KLP symbol -- something little different than buying any [other] vegetable -- makes my wife nervous.) The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:58:06AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no : authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our : predecessors made... Well, they lacked that authority too. This is minhag, not gezeira. And the notion that we should be bery mimetic and work with what our ancestors actually did rather than what their rationale would imply in our context works even better with minhagim than with gezeiros. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:01:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman In-Reply-To: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> References: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170404180132.GB8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : There is a shiur about this at : http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz So, I am listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on YUTorah at this link. He opens by saying that the afiqoman (epikomion) must be before chatzos, and very likely the 4th cup too. So, kol hamarbeh means adding to the END of the seder, not having a longer Maggid that will push past chatzos. (Eg tzeis is 8:12pm in NY, as MyZmanim computes it -- 36 min as degrees, and chatzos is 12:56. So, we're talking Qadeish to the end of Hallel in 4 hr 44 min. Unhitting pause...) The Avnei Neizer (R Avrohom Bornsztain, the first Sochatchover Rebbe, descendant of both the Ramah and the Shach) argues that if you are finishing by chatzos to fulfil R Gamliel's shitah, then you could eat other foods after chatzos. And if you are not eating the rest of the night, that's because you're worried that if the mitzvah is indeed alkl night (unlike RG), ein maftirin achar hapesach would also be all night. So, the AN suggests that a moment before chatzos, eat a piece of matzah al tenai that if the halakhah is like Rabban Gamliel, it will be your afiqoman. Then, don't eat the minute or two until chatzos -- for R' Gamliel's en maftirin. Then, go back to eating (as long as you finish before alos), concluding with another afiqoman, also al tenai -- thus fulfilling the other ein maftirin. (BTW, note that the seder in the hagadah that went until zeman qeri'as Shema didn't include Rabban Gamliel.) R Meir Arik in Kol Torah uses this to answer a problematic Rashbam (Pesachim 121). The Rashbam says you're allowed to bring qorbanos todah or nedavah on erev Pesach. But you're not allowed to bring a qorban where you are mema'et the zeman akhilah, and the zeman akhilah for these qorbanos is until the morning. So how could you bring them on a day where ein maftirin achar hapesach will limit the time in which they could be eaten? But according to the Avnei Neizer, you can fulfill ein maftirin for both shitos and only limit eating for a moment before chatzos, by eating that 2nd afiqoman at the last possible time. However, there is a lot of opposition to the AN's chiddush. RALebowitz says there are 6 questions, but he's running out of time. 1- The Baal haMaor and the Ran's explanation for why ein maftirin would work with the AN. But the Ramban says the problem was that having so many people needing to eat their kezayis qorban pesach bein hachomos before chatzos, there was a worry that people would eat early, when still famished. (Which is assur derabbanan, gezeirah maybe they'll break bones. The question of why ein maftirin wouldn't then be a gezeira al hagezeira was not raised in the shiur.) Which means that even if the zeman for the qorban is until chatzos, if people could still plan a late dinner, they could rely on that and still eat their pesach while very hungry. 2- RMF (IM OC vol 5, pg 123) brings several objections. One basic one: even the AN says he never saw anyone do this before. RMF found it tamuha to rely on a sevara be'alma to change so many generations of mimeticism. (An argument that touches on some hot topics today.) 3- RMF adds that one needs to prove that the zman akhilah and the zeman ta'am are the same. Maybe the chiyuv of having the taste in your mouth happens to run longer? 4- The Chasam Sofer writes against doing a mitzvah mitoras safeiq. Similar to Rabbeinu Yonah's (on Berakhos) explanation for why an asham talui is more expensive than a chatas. Because we need to correct the "I probably didn't do anything wrong" attitude. If you never know when you're fulfilling the mitzvah, kavah will be lacking. RALebowitz then gives eidus from R Wolf that R Willig finishes his 4th kos right before chatzos. And timing then becomes a central theme during the seder. R' Avraham Pam said on many occations that we have to be aware of those who spent all that time making the seder. (Typically the wives and mothers.) Sometimes we spend so much time on Magid, that we then rush through the beautiful se'udah they made to get to the last kos on time. RAP thought that this bein adam lachaveiro issue is sufficient to justify relying on the Avnei Neizer. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 12:21:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 21:21:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <496ab467-1c33-a721-97d2-48512539e648@zahav.net.il> Rav Rimon's Hagaddah specifies that the minhag is to pour the wine/grape juice of the ba'al habayit alone. He also notes that there are those who don't follow the custom. In the footnotes, he cites that when people put water in their wine, it wasn't derech cheirut for the home owner to do it himself. Today, that isn't the case and it is common for everyone to pour his own wine/grape juice. He also cites the AHS' opposition. Ben On 4/4/2017 5:11 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? > > The ArtScroll Haggadah says (in the instructions for Kiddush), "The > participants fill each others' cups", without mentioning any minhagim > to the contrary. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:21:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:21:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Fungibility of Mitzvos Message-ID: <20170404182125.GD8762@aishdas.org> As y'all know, I'm obsessed with this topic. The notion of metaphysical causality that interferes with "you get what you deserve / need" bothers me. So I appreciated RNSlifkin finding these sources. http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2017/04/can-you-do-mitzvos-to-benefit-others.html Tir'u baTov! -Micha Can You Do Mitzvos To Benefit Others? April 03, 2017 Can you do mitzvos in such a way that the merit for them will benefit other people? Can you designate them to receive the reward for your mitzvah in their mitzvah bank account, such that they receive more Divine favor? A friend of mine recently forwarded to me a request on behalf of someone who is tragically unwell. The community was requested to pray for his recovery, which is certainly a time-honored Jewish response. But there was also a request to do mitzvos on his behalf, as a merit for God to heal him. My friend wanted to know if there was any classical Jewish basis for this. In my essay "What Can One Do For Someone Who Has Passed Away?" I noted that classically, one's mitzvos are only a credit to those people who had a formative influence on you. One's mitzvos cannot help the souls of other people. Rashba cites a responsum from Rav Sherira Gaon on this: "A person cannot merit someone else with reward; his elevation and greatness and pleasure from the radiance of the Divine Presence is only in accordance with his deeds." (Rashba, Responsa, Vol. 7 #539) Maharam Alashkar cites Rav Hai Gaon who firmly rejects the notion that one can transfer the reward of a mitzvah to another person and explains why this is impossible: "These concepts are nonsense and one should not rely upon them. How can one entertain the notion that the reward of good deeds performed by one person should go to another person? Surely the verse states, 'The righteousness of a righteous person is on him,' (Ezek. 18:20) and likewise it states, 'And the wickedness of a wicked person is upon him.' Just as nobody can be punished on account of somebody else's sin, so too nobody can merit the reward of someone else. How could one think that the reward for mitzvos is something that a person can carry around with him, such that he can transfer it to another person?" (Maharam Alashkar, Responsa #101) The same view is found explicitly and implicitly in other sources, as I noted in my essay. There is simply no mechanism to transfer the reward for one's own mitzvos to other people. It seems that only very recent mystical-based sources claim otherwise. Now, I don't see any reason why there should be any difference if the person that one is trying to help is deceased or alive. Nor do I know of any source in classical rabbinic literature that one can do a mitzvah as a merit to help someone that is sick. Prayer, yes. And Tehillim are also a form of prayer (though it may depend upon which Tehillim are being recited). But I know of no classical source that one can honor one's parents or learn Torah or send away a mother bird as a merit for somebody else. (The most common example of people attempting to do this may be the custom of women to separate challah on behalf of a sick person. Here too, though, it appears that the classical basis of this is not that the mitzvah of separating challah is crediting the sick person, but rather that the person separating the challah thereby has a special time of power/inspiration, which makes their prayer more powerful.) If I'm wrong in any of the above, I'll be glad to see sources showing otherwise. But so far, I have found that while people are shocked when one challenges the notion that you can learn Torah on behalf of someone who is sick, nobody has yet actually come up with any classical sources demonstrating otherwise. Furthermore, if this indeed was a part of classical Judaism, we would certainly expect it to have prominent mention in the writings of Chazal and the Rishonim. We appear to have another situation of something widespread that is believed to be an integral and classical part of Judaism, and yet is actually a modern innovation that has no basis in classical Judaism whatsoever. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:33:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:33:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> References: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we > start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system > will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. > > Mehila, but aren't you being rather Chicken Little (or is your tongue somewhere in the direction of your cheek?) We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other minhagim that people are so set against any change? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 12:22:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 19:22:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot Message-ID: > The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we > start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system will > collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and many modern oils RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and cottonseed oil and this is being expanded by many I don't see this as destroying a Mimetic tradition the reason to include canola oil is that it is similar to Kitniyot even though it or even corn oil did not exist at the time of the generation So the question is why extend the minhagim to canola oil when the problem of the confusion doesn't exist but we don't extend it to non chametz cereal or breadstick where the possibility of mistakes is greater As previously mentioned rsza was against these chametz look a like products as are several contemporary rabbis OTOH the outside is nachman in lecithin in candies where there are many reasons to be making and they are making in chametz looking and tasting products where many are machmir From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 13:15:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170404201511.GI8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:33:22PM +0300, Simon Montagu wrote: : We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha : hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other : minhagim that people are so set against any change? Sorry if this will sound like circular reasoning, but it isn't because of the time lag: Minhagim that are *currently* treated very seriously can't be broken *going forward* as readliy simply because of the psychological / experiential impact of bending or breaking something that is so vehemently held. Since my argument is about mimetics, halakhah-as-culture, you can't necessarily get a textual / theory-based answer. On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 07:22:32PM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote: : We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them : My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and : many modern oils RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and : cottonseed oil and this is being expanded by many .. Well, RMF didn't actively permit peanut oil as much as report that back in Litta, peanuts were commonly consumed on Pesach. According to R/Dr Bannet, within my lifetime peanut oil was THE go-to oil for Pesach. But that's Litta. Minhag Litta didn't expand qitniyos to legumes found in the New World, after the original minhag formed. (Although they did take on avoiding New World grain -- maize / corn.) Minhag Litta was also lenient on mei qitniyos, and a far broader range of the northern half of Eastern Europe (I don't know what Yekkes hold) were lenient on shemes qitniyos in particular. Yes, by my minhagim, there are two reasons not to need a special formula for KLP Coke. If we could get anyone to give a hekhsher to certify there is nothing "worse" than mei New World qitniyos in it. But other parts of Europe went by reasoning, and did have stringencies including liquids and oils. That's their minhag, and it always was their minhag. Which gets me to my point: It's not really that any rav is expanding minhagim. It's that the heksher industry is going to be cost efficient. Heksheirim that say something is okay for 2/3 of their audience don't survive. Causing a lest-common-denominator approach to the spread of minhagim. Like trying to find reliable non-glatt meat in the US; the larger hekhsheirim don't even try. And so, as more move into the area whose minhagim exclude using peanut oil on Pesach, it becomes harder to find KLP certified peanut oil, and all too quickly people forget what was once the norm. I think that framing it as pesaqim and machloqes is imprecise. It's more like watching the evolution of new minhagim as our new communities from mixtures of the old ones. Not necessarily in directions we would like, but at least that's the framework in question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:11:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:11:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/17 15:22, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them We have no more authority to limit them than to eliminate them altogether. > My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and > many modern oils What people do has no relation to what they have the right to do. > RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and cottonseed oil RMF (almost alone) holds that the original gezera was on particular species, and peanuts were never included. The machlokes about cottonseed oil is precisely about whether it is a kind of kitnis or not. > the reason to include canola oil is that it is similar to Kitniyot > even though it or even corn oil did not exist at the time of the > generation Whether the oil existed then is lechol hade'os irrelevant. If the species is included in the ban then all forms are included. RMF however would presumably say that since rapeseed was not an edible species at the time, it was not included. Most acharonim, who hold that the ban was on the whole category, would presumably include it. > So the question is why extend the minhagim to canola oil when the problem > of the confusion doesn't exist but we don't extend it to non chametz cereal > or breadstick where the possibility of mistakes is greater Once again, because no individual rav or group of rabbanim have the authority to permit what is already forbidden, or to forbid for the entire people what is currently permitted. > As previously mentioned rsza was against these chametz look a like products That he was against something doesn't make it assur. > as are several contemporary rabbis OTOH the outside is nachman in lecithin > in candies where there are many reasons to be making and they are making in > chametz looking and tasting products where many are machmir But what authority do they have for this? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:33:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 17:33:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman In-Reply-To: References: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <0A.54.10233.A4114E85@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:01 PM 4/4/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via >Avodah wrote: >: There is a shiur about this at >: http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz > >So, I am listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on YUTorah at this link. >R' Avraham Pam said on many occations that we have to be aware of >those who spent all that time making the seder. (Typically the wives >and mothers.) Sometimes we spend so much time on Magid, that we then >rush through the beautiful se'udah they made to get to the last kos on >time. RAP thought that this bein adam lachaveiro issue is sufficient to >justify relying on the Avnei Neizer. Rav Schwab in his shiur on the seder (to be found in Rav Schwab on Prayer) suggests eating very little during the Seder besides the required amounts of Matzah and Moror, so that one will have room and appetite for the Afikoman and not have to "force" oneself to eat it. I do not know what Rebbetzen Schwab prepared for the Seder meal, but I assume it was not an elaborate meal based on what she knew Rav Schwab would eat. I know that R. Miller would not allow his children or grandchildren to read from the sheets that they came home with from Yeshiva. He told them to save it for later, probably the next day. And since I mentioned all of the material that the kids come home with from school, let me say that IMO the schools "spoil" the seder. To me it is clear from the Gemara in Pesachim that the children are not supposed to be "primed" with all sorts of knowledge about the Seder. The things we do are supposed to be new to them so that they will ask questions. My children when they were young and my younger grandchildren now know enough to conduct the Seder themselves! There is nothing new for them. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:59:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:59:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah Message-ID: I understand that one cannot use Egg Matza for the mitzva of Achilas Matza, but I'm not sure exactly why. I'm aware of two different reasons, and they seem mutually exclusive. 1) The Torah requires that this mitzva be done with "lechem oni" - poor bread, plain and lacking the richness that it would have if it were made with eggs, juice, oil, or the like. 2) Matza must be something that could have become chometz, but was baked before chimutz could occur. According to those who hold that flour and pure mei peiros will not ever become chometz, "matza ashira" isn't really halachic matza at all. I suspect that I am conflating various shitos, and that according to any individual shita, one reason or the other will apply, but not both. Can someone help me out? Thanks! Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:27:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:27:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I understand it, the purpose of reading the brachos from a card is to make it clear that one is not reading them from the Torah. I believe that's the reason for turning one's head to the side, haven't seen that as the reason for using a card. And that's only according to the opinion that the oleh leaves the Sefer Torah open while making the brachos. The opinion that the Sefer Torah should be closed is for the same reason if memory serves, and then of course no card would be needed at all. So I presume the reason for the card is simply for people who need it. Given that the whole reason for having a designated baal koreh in the first place was to save the embarassment of those who can't read their own aliya, I'm bemused by the permission for someone to decide they'd like to read their own aliya. Unless you say that a well known talmid chacham, or a guest of honour, would not embarrass the other olim by reading his aliya since he's known as a scholar. It does seem that avoiding the chashash of embarrassment was more important to chazal than to many contemporary kehillos. Maybe it needs some chizuk. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 23:41:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 06:41:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot Message-ID: And so, as more move into the area whose minhagim exclude using peanut oil on Pesach, it becomes harder to find KLP certified peanut oil, and all too quickly people forget what was once the norm. Which is a difference between Israel and USA Israel with a large sefardi community has top level hasgacha on kiniyot products also many candies now list that they contain lecithin so that the consumer can decide rather than the hasgacha deciding -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 20:45:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 23:45:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/17 17:27, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > Given that the whole reason for having a designated baal koreh in the > first place was to save the embarassment of those who can't read their > own aliya, I'm bemused by the permission for someone to decide they'd > like to read their own aliya. Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone wants to do his own, why not? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 21:53:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:53:50 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Are Mitzvos Fungible Message-ID: Obviously, and in spite of all the stories of people selling their Olam Haba it is a nonsense - good and evil deeds cannot be redeemed or transferred by a financial transaction or any agreement HOWEVER if anyone is inspired to do a good [or evil] deed or desist doing an evil [or good] deed because of another persons influence clearly that influencing person is rewarded accordingly and so when we learn Torah or do any other other Mitzvah and we are inspired to do it because of an institution or a person be they in Olam HaEmes or in this world a Zechis accrues for that person Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 21:18:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:18:03 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru - We have no authority to decree new gezeros Message-ID: Although it has been said on these hallowed pages Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru - We have no authority to decree new gezeros yet many felt that the new stainless steel Shechitah knives were forbidden machicne Matza was forbidden Ben PeKuAh is forbidden they're even arguing that soft Matza is forbidden for Ashkenazim etc. But it is Kula Chada Gezeira Thus newly discovered foods are Kitniyos And whatever the truth is we are V lucky that potato was not included and not reversed remember when peanuts were KLP? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 03:01:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:01:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pate de Foie Gras Message-ID: <20170405100107.GA16249@aishdas.org> Daf Yomi learners just learned BB 73b. It looks to me like the gemara is condemning, although on an aggadic level, the preparation of pate de foi gras. Since I can't quote the gemara, here's R' Steinzaltz's commentary (from : And Rabba bar bar Hana said: Once we were traveling in the desert and we saw these geese whose wings were sloping because they were so fat, and streams of oil flowed beneath them. I said to them: Shall we have a portion of you in the World-to-Come? One raised a wing, and one raised a leg, [signaling an affirmative response]. When I came before Rabbi Elazar, he said to me: The Jewish people will [eventually] be held accountable for [the suffering] of [the geese. Since the Jews do not repent, the geese are forced to continue to grow fat as they wait to be given to the Jewish people as a reward.] Rashbam ("litein aleihem es hadin"): For in their sins, they delay mashiach. They, those geese, have tza'ar ba'alei chaim because of their fat. Apparently even the messianic se'udah is insufficient grounds to justify torturing geese for their fat. Also implied is that the sin of making the geese suffer in their obesity is not a sin so great at to itself holding up the mashiach's arrival. Otherwise, R' Elazar would be describing a vicious cycle. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 03:51:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:51:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on > kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU > gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be > prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily > be mixed up with chametz. > > It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if > no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the > same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. I am both surprised and confused, by this post and almost all the ones that followed. It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and gebroks. Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right? So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate gebroks. I am not surprised that amei haaretz like myself have trouble understanding the definitions of kitniyos. But one thing is for sure: That our rabanim ought to understand that kitniyos and gebroks are two different things. Some might respond that today's "farfel, bread sticks etc" are being made not of matza meal but of potato and tapioca. I don't see that as relevant. *ANY* definition of kitniyos has to be one that doesn't include matza meal. And if matza meal is excluded, then you can't include potatoes merely because they are so useful. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 05:20:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:20:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <50BEA150-B533-4159-AFEB-ADE8B18EB7E1@sibson.com> > Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone wants to do his own, why not? > > -- Synagogue practices in particular are a very sensitive area, at least according to rabbi Soloveutchik. THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 08:56:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:56:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170405155630.GA29273@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:45:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any : given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, : it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone : wants to do his own, why not? Since when does logic have to do with emotions? Your line of reasoning would work for robots, not people. If everyone else is leining their own aliyah that day, someone who can't may still be embarassed and decline taking an aliyah with the ba'al qeri'ah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 05:57:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 08:57:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Tefillin on Chol Moed Message-ID: R Samuel Svarc wrote on Areivim >This, as it turns out, is a minority view. Not all Ashkenazim hold >that way, nor do Sefardim, nor a nice junk of the Litvishe wing. From http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/tefillinONmoed.htm The Aruch Hashulchan notes that "recently" a practice among some Ashkenazic Jews has developed to refrain from wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. He is referring to the practice of Chassidim, which was also the practice at the famed Volozhiner Yeshiva (as recorded by the Rav, Shiurim L'zeicher Aba Mori Zal p.119) And from http://dinonline.org/2014/04/07/tefillin-on-chol-hamoed-pesach/ The Rema adds that the Ashkenaz custom is to wear Tefillin and recite a berachah, but because of the sensitivity of the topic the berachah should be recited quietly. Later authorities espouse the compromise noted by the Tur, meaning that Tefillin are worn but the berachah is not recited (see Taz 31:2; Mishnah Berurah 31:8). YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 09:29:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:29:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170405162920.GB19562@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 06:51:14AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and : gebroks. I think the conversation works better as is. Gebrochts is a minhag to avoid the possible manufacture of real chameitz from any flour that happened to stay dry when the matzah was made. Qitniyos is a minhag or multiple minhagim to avoid things that either: 1- are stored in the same silos as with chameitz, in which case it's much like gebrochts in function. Or 2- are used in a manner similar to chameitz, and people might eat chameitz thinking it's pea porridge or mustard seed or whatnot. And these could indeed be divergant minhagim, where different explanations became primary drivers in different areas, leading to difference in how practice evolved. But explanation #2 does open the door for the original question. Pretzels made from oatmeal make it possible for someone to accidentally eat real chameitz pretzels. And if your ancestral version of qitniyos includes growing it to include new items that make the same mistake possible, eg corn, then why not all these gebrochts or potato / potato starch products -- not because they're gebrochts (if they are), but because reason #2 applies. : So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever : arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they : were rejected by communities that ate gebroks. No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) This really is a recent development. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 07:48:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:48:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Fungibility of Mitzvos In-Reply-To: References: <002801d2ae0d$a752e040$f5f8a0c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: R? Micha Berger quoted R? Natan Slifkin: <<< I have found that while people are shocked when one challenges the notion that you can learn Torah on behalf of someone who is sick, nobody has yet actually come up with any classical sources demonstrating otherwise. >>> I?d like to suggest a very slight difference between two scenarios: Suppose I say, ?Hashem, I am going to learn some Torah now, and I?d like the s?char for this mitzvah to go to Ploni, instead of to me.? That seems to be the situation that RNS is talking about. But suppose I say, ?Hashem, I am going to learn some Torah now, and I?d like *MY* s?char for this mitzvah to be that You heal Ploni, who is currently ill?, or ?? that You elevate Ploni to a higher level in Gan Eden?, or something similar. My point is that if there is no mechanism to transfer s?char from one person to another, perhaps we can still request that the s?char should take a particular form, and it would result in the same effect. I?m pretty sure that there *are* sources for requesting that the s?char should take a certain form. More accurately, I recall cases where one requests that his *onesh* should take a particular form, such as if it has been decreed that one should lose a certain amount of money, it should occur in tiny amounts over a long time, or some other similar request. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 08:52:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:52:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos HaGadol Message-ID: It is not easy to explain the origin of the Hagadol which is applied to this coming Shabbos. In the Haftorah, the prophet Malachi speaks of a Yom Hashem Hagadol which according to various customs is to be read when the Sabbath before Pesach happens to be Erev Pesach. And yet the term Hagadol as applied to the Sabbath before Passover has been accepted by all whether or not it falls on Erev Pesach. The Midrash offers additional insight as to why this Shabbos is termed Hagadol and tells us something most of us have learned that on the Shabbos preceding the 14th of Nissan (when the Pascal lamb was to be brought as an offering), the Egyptian masters entered into the homes of the Jews and noticed that each family had a sheep tied to its bedposts. The Egyptians asked: ?What are you doing with our sheep?!? The Jews replied: ?We are going to slaughter it as an offering to our God.? The Egyptian masters gritted their teeth in exasperation and walked out. This is another basis for the Shabbos preceding Pesach to be called the ?Great Shabbos.? It is the Shabbos that the Jewish people experienced a miracle ? they were not killed by their masters because of their subordination to the Will of the Almighty and they were not deterred by concern for their personal safety. THAT was ?greatness? and they were, indeed, truly ?great.? It is also interesting that every Shabbos symbolizes complete freedom ? freedom from technology and the mundane. Pesach typifies freedom and redemption. The parallel to Shabbos is profound. May this Shabbos be the ?GREATEST!? "The price of greatness is responsibility.? Winston Churchill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 14:25:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:25:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a5b4365-260b-ab41-7882-0043d896073e@zahav.net.il> On 4/5/2017 12:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone > who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from > gebroks, right? Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can get today which is no different than cake flour? [Email #2. -micha] On 4/4/2017 8:33 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and > halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all > other minhagim that people are so set against any change? If this one is different it is because people have set out to take down this minhag. Whereas something like changing from an Ashkenazi white with black stripes tallit to a more Sefardi all white one wouldn't be such a big deal because no one is making an issue out of it. In my community there is a back lash against the kitni-chumrot so I see it changing, somewhat. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 01:32:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:32:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Food in the desert questions Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: "In the mishkan, a mincha offering was brought. other offerings too. Some : required flour and oil. Where did they come from? " I just saw a Tosafos in Menachos 45b that discusses the question of flour in the midbar. Tosafos quotes Rashi as saying that they did not make the shtei halechem in the midbar because all they had was man (so they had no flour). Tosafos disagrees and says that they bought flour from merchants (based on the Gemara Yoma 75b). I would assume that Tosafos would say the same thing about oil. The Rambam in the Peirush Hamishnayos (Menachos 4:4) agrees with Rashi that they had no flour in the midbar. So to answer your question according to Rashi and the Rambam they had no flour and therefore did not bring anything flour based. According to Tpsafos they bought flour from merchants in the midbar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 22:03:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Meisner via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 01:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > I understand that one cannot use Egg Matza for the mitzva of Achilas > Matza, but I'm not sure exactly why. I'm aware of two different reasons, > and they seem mutually exclusive. > > 1) The Torah requires that this mitzva be done with "lechem oni"... > 2) Matza must be something that could have become chometz, but was baked > before chimutz could occur. According to those who hold that flour and pure > mei peiros will not ever become chometz, "matza ashira" isn't really > halachic matza at all. If matzah is baked with mei peiros and a kol she-hu of water, it would not be lechem oni but would be halachically matzah. Josh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 04:16:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:16:49 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller asked: "It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and gebroks. Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right? So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate gebroks." There is no question that this is a new problem, even 50 years ago no one made things out of matzo meal or potato starch that looked almost exactly like the equivalent chometz item. There has been an explosion of "imitation" chometz products over the last 20 years that look and even taste like chometz. This is more a spirit of the law issue. One of the reasons given for not eating kitniyos is that since kitniyos look like and/or can make things that look like chometz we are afraid that people will confuse them with chometz and come to eat chometz. This concern certainly applies much more to these modern products. If I can get kosher l'pesach cereal that looks exactly like chometz cereal there is certainly a risk of confusion. No one is saying that these things are kitniyos, what they are saying that in the spirit of kitniyos these should be prohibited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 05:06:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those measures should be. I wrote: : So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? : Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 : years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate : gebroks. and R' Micha Berger responded: > No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks > that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) > This really is a recent development. Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my mother made at home? I'm sorry, but I can't buy that. It is true that today's factory kitchens allow an amazing variety of technologies and abilities, including products that are almost indistinguishable from regular bread. But I maintain that this does NOT translate to an increased chance that someone will mix flour and water in their home kitchen, precisely because the factory and home are so far apart - both geographically and sociologically. If someone is enticed by the quality of a store-bought breadstick or pizza slice, I cannot imagine that they would attempt to duplicate it at home nowadays without a recipe. Seeing a breaded chicken cutlet at one's neighbor's home *IS* something that you might duplicate in your own home, and there is great danger there. But I just don't see that happening with factory-made goods. Anyone who is awed by the quality will read the box to figure out how they managed such a feat, and they will immediately see the potato and tapioca listed. (But I am willing to listen to other arguments.) My suspicion is that the anti-potato sentiments may have originated in the non-gebroks sectors. Pesach pizza and pancakes are very new to them, and I suppose I can understand their concern. But among those who have been eating gebroks for generations, I just don't understand why these new products bother them. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 03:35:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:35:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah Message-ID: R' Joshua Meisner wrote: > If matzah is baked with mei peiros and a kol she-hu of water, > it would not be lechem oni but would be halachically matzah. That's true. Theoretically, if one would bake it fast enough, before it becomes chometz, it would be real matza. But because of the mei peiros, it isn't plain matza, but it is "rich" matza - matza ashira, and thus disqualified from Mitzvas Achilas Matza. But as far as I know, no one makes such matza, because (there is a fear that) the combination of both water and mei peiros will allow the dough to become chometz much faster than usual. That's not the case with the stuff on the shelves that's labeled "Egg Matza" or "Matza Ashira" - This has no water at all, and its dough can never become chometz. If so, then it seems to me that the term "Matza Ashira" is a misnomer. It isn't matza at all, because it was incapable of becoming chometz. A better term for it might be "Matza-style squares" (which is the term that the industry has chosen for the potato and tapioca stuff). I suspect that at some point in history, some educator felt that the logic of "the fruit juice makes it rich bread" was more easily accepted by the masses, and the logic of "it can't be chometz and therefore it isn't matza" was too difficult for them. And from that point onwards, it was the go-to explanation, despite the technical shortcomings. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 05:28:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat Message-ID: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I've been thinking (pun intended) about staam daat" . (I have in mind "whatever HKB"H wants me to have in mind without actually knowing what that is [e.g., to be yotzeih the chazan's bracha]). Firstly what is the source of the concept. Secondly, Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal says works, that's what I want to think/occur). [relatrd to daat makneh and koneh issues] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:07:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:07:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru Message-ID: We all assume we can't have new gezerot. Is this really true? At least according to some opinions bicycles and umbrellas are allowed on shabbat. According to RSZA electricity (without a heat or fire) is really allowed on shabbat and certainly yomtov. Years ago many held that electricity was allowed on yomtov. Today we have things like fitbit watches which many feel are allowed on shabbat. Yet in practice the poskim prohibit all these things. Other things are prohbited in davening because it is a slippery slope etc. In essence these are all new gezerot perhaps without the nomenclature -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:21:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:21:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:06:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos : understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect : people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is : acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those : measures should be. Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change a minhag. And if we were talking about gezeiros, then we'd need a Sanhedrin or universal consensus to create one. ("Universal consensus", eg RSZA on electricity.) But we would also need that level authority to modify or repeal one. So there too there is a high barrier to change. So in either case, while I could appreciate R' Aviner's reasoning, I don't know if I would be comfortable applying it lemaaseh. :> No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks :> that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) :> This really is a recent development. : Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in : the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my : mother made at home? While, really I'm suggesting that an environment where -- even a bagel or a loaf of bread -- could be a gebrochts or potato starch replacement poses bigger problems than we faced 50 years ago. Because a person can pick up anything and mistake it for a KLP alternative. Much like one of the reasons given for qitniyos. The same was not true when the only KLP pancakes were rare and homemade. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:41:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:41:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Working on Chol Moed Message-ID: <1491493270335.3143@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If I don't work on Chol Hamoed my paycheck will be much smaller. Is this a davar behaved (irreparable loss)? Am I permitted to go to work on Chol Hamoed? A. A loss of profit is generally not considered a davar ha'avud. As such one cannot automatically assume that it is permissible to work on Chol Hamoed. Nonetheless there are situations where davar ha'avud would apply. For example, if a person will use up vacation days by not working during Chol Hamoed, and there is a preference to take vacation at a more convenient time, this may be considered a davar ha'avud. (See Shmiras Shabbos Kihilchoso, vol. 2, chapter 67, footnote 47.) Furthermore, if a person is struggling financially, and not earning a salary on Chol Hamoed would be stressful, this may be treated as a davar ha'avud. Nonetheless these leniencies are not ideal, and Rav Belsky, zt"l stressed that it is preferable to not work on Chol Hamoed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 09:44:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:44:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat In-Reply-To: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <958e2160-18d0-985e-70d4-9c571dea3a3f@sero.name> On 06/04/17 08:28, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Secondly, Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., > I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal says > works, that?s what I want to think/occur). Isn't that *exactly* what we do when we write in a shtar that we stipulate to having made whichever kind of kinyan is most effective ("be'ofan hayoser mo`il")? We don't know which of the various kinyanim we should be doing so we stipulate that whichever one it is, we did it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 10:01:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 20:01:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/6/2017 6:07 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We all assume we can't have new gezerot. Is this really true? ... > In essence these are all new gezerot perhaps without the nomenclature The nomenclature is vital. As I said in my previous email, we don't blur the distinctions between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan, and we don't blur the distinctions between gezeirot, takkanot, chramim, siyagim, minhagim, etc. Yes, it's forbidden to eat chicken parmesan. And it's forbidden to eat a pork chop. There's no wiggle room. Both are forbidden. So to someone on the outside, those prohibitions might look like the same thing, "perhaps without the nomenclature". But the nomenclature matters, because there are different rules for the two. Just as there are different rules for the various "add-ons". Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:49:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:49:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7c4f2947-d6c6-62b2-40fd-a9b977d026f4@starways.net> > Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy > in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes > that my mother made at home? Matza meal pancakes, which I grew up with as well, are nothing at all like regular pancakes. The difference is clear and obvious. Ditto for cakes. We used to have sponge cake at Pesach. And we thought of it as a Pesach cake. It wasn't something we had all year. I don't have a problem with fake treyf. So I don't really have a huge problem with fake chametz. But to pretend that there's no difference between what we used to have in the 60s, 70s, etc, and today is just silly. The difference is enormous. And while I don't have a huge problem with fake chametz, I see another distinction between fake chametz and fake treyf. You can't ever eat bacon. So making fake bacon is reasonable. But fake chametz? Really? We can't make it a week without waffles and pizza and pretzels? [Email #2. -micha] On 4/6/2017 6:21 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be > mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very > overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change > a minhag. WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be determinative. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 10:54:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:54:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:03:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept : of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be : determinative. Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei For that matter, the topic here is qitniyos -- which is itself a minhag avos, not halakhah. It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the accepted ruling in practice. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 13:59:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:59:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> I am confused by the term mimetic. I understand it in the sense of tradition, We are discussing various situations that didn't exist years ago, My parents didnt use Canola oil because it was not available but they did use cottonseed oil. What is my mimetic custom for lechitin? When I grew up we had mainly macaroon cookies. Any cakes even with matza meal tasted and looked different than chametz items. No one I knew used CI shiurim. In EY on the radio I still hear about the necessity of using CI shiurim at least lechatchila. I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. I recently heard a shiur from R. Aviner attacking much of these chumrot and R. Lior also has many kulot and these are considered right wing DL rabbis. As I stated before one difference between EY and the US is the existence of a large charedi sefardi community, This gives rise to kitniyot products with top level hasgachot. The easy availability of soft matzaot etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 12:10:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:10:26 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder Message-ID: is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a korban pesach? i think we all agree that the matzot to make a korech were soft matzot [and presumably mashiach will rule that's the way we should all be making them ]. if the zaytim were like larger then , would the sandwich have been the size of a big mac? or half a pizza? kiddush would have started the meal . then some form of maggid [ 3 hrs long? would the korban be edible that many hours later?] . so people washed and then what? hamotzi on 3 matzos? but the mitzva matza was to eat the korech no? so the rest of the meal was not matza followed by marror, but rather that of korech. so then the chiyuv-matza was the afikoman matza? or people would have chazon ish'ed it up twice---at the matza they washed on and again on korech? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 07:46:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:46:29 +0000 (WET DST) Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Apr 6, 2017 11:03:15 am Message-ID: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> > > ... This is another basis for the Shabbos preceding Pesach to be > called the "Great Shabbos." > No, it is not. Haggadol is not an adjective modifying Shabbath, because Shabbath is feminine. No one who speaks Hebrew uses masculine adjectives to modify Shabbath, ever (pedantic footnote: except in the fixed expression "Shabbath shalom umvorakh", which is said by people who do speak Hebrew, but which for other reasons is clearly an idiomatic expression that does not follow the rules of grammar, unless you want to call it a mistake, which is also fine with me). It is the same reason why we know that Lshon Hara` and `Eyn Hara` are not nouns modified by adjectives, because lashon and `ayin are feminine nouns. No one who speaks Hebrew would ever use the masculine adjective ra` to modify the feminine nouns lashon or `ayin. They are nouns modified by other nouns, and so is Shabbath Haggadol. (Whether lshon hara` and `eyn hara` are the correct pronunciation turns on whether the smikhuth forms in Rabbinic Hebrew are the same as the smikhuth forms in Biblical and modern Hebrew, a question that is irrelevant to the current discussion. They are unquestionably smikhuth forms, however they should be pronounced.) This alone is not sufficient reason to reject your translation "The Great Shabbos", because languages do not have to be translated literally and word-for-word. I do not reject the translation "the holy tongue" for "lshon haqqodesh", even though "lshon haqqodesh" literally means "the tongue of holiness", because languages do not have to be translated literally. If you want to translate "lshon haqqodesh" as "the holy tongue", fine. But you cannot do that with "Shabbath Haggadol", because we do not say Shabbath Haggodel, or Shabbath Haggdula, we say "Shabbath Haggadol", and gadol is an adjective, albeit a masculine one. As for what it does mean, well, if you want to say that Hagadol is a kinuy for God ("the Great One"), I think that is far-fetched, but I won't post an article publicly saying that you are wrong. It is clear to me that we say Shabbath Hagadol for the same reason that we say Shabbath Xazon or Shabbath Naxamu or Shabbath Shuva. You may disagree. But what you cannot plausibly say is that it means "the great Shabbath". Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:24:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:24:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matzah Meat (was Kitnios In-Reply-To: <728a7944561447f0984b79952cedf5a5@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <728a7944561447f0984b79952cedf5a5@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <86.ED.07959.212B6E85@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:03 PM 4/6/2017, Ben Waxman wrote: >On 4/5/2017 12:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone > > who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from > > gebroks, right? > >Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for >matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can >get today which is no different than cake flour? I must admit that I have no idea what you are referring to when you write about "roughly ground matza meal." Is this what is called cake meal? If so, it is good for making many things. See for example http://tinyurl.com/n6yo95b Also, do a google search for cake meal recipes, and you will see how many recipes come up I use "regular" matza meal to make matzah balls and they come out fine. See http://tinyurl.com/kl5tljs for a recipe for matza balls that calls for matza meal. I have never seen shmura cake meal. Has anyone? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 13:30:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:30:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 4/6/2017 8:54 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:03:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: >: WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept >: of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be >: determinative. > Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel > Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei > > It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering > cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the > accepted ruling in practice. I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:48:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:48:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170406214806.GH26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:30:40PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : >It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering : >cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the : >accepted ruling in practice. : : I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi : is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that : we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea : that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible. You are only discussing the absolutes, the case where the halakhah isn't known, and that where it is, but common practice differs. But in the part I left above, I described the gray area. There are cases where the logic for one position is more compelling than the other, but not muchrach. In fact, this is more common than a case where two rishonim or noted acharonim disagree and one opinion is found to be outright wrong. Between the brilliance of the people involved and the "peer review" as to which ideas reach us, it is very rare for us to find a true incontrovertable mistake, and even harder to know if we really did, or if it is our own assessment that's in error. In that situation, where we have to choose between multiple viable shitos, there are a number of things a poseiq would weigh. Different schools of pesaq may give each different weights. This kind of comparison of apples and oranges requires real shiqul hadaas, and is why pesaq is an art, not an algorithm. This is my usual list of categories of factors that go into pesaq. 1- Textualiam 1a- Logicalness of the rationale 1b- Authority of those who back each postion: majority, expertise (eg the Rambam and Rosh carry more weight than some other rishonim) 2- Mimeticism 3- Aggadic concerns -- whether it's chassidim not wearing tefillin on ch"m or some of RSRH's innovations. My point in #2 is that there are many times that we continue following what we do because it has a sound textual basis -- even though some other shitah may have a stronger such basis. And again, this is minhag, not halakhah. The whole topic of qitniyos rests on mimeticism, not formal halachic reasoning. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] P.O.P. Paradox Of Pesach Message-ID: <5204F12E-00B5-47B0-92DD-2D93AB3E7C87@cox.net> A great ambivalence is to be found in the symbolism of the Seder. On one hand, the white kitel is a manifestation of joy and purity, and on the other hand, it is also the shroud of death. An egg is a token of mourning, but at the Seder it recalls the korban chagigah, the additional sacrifice brought to assure joy on Pesach. The matzah is the bread of affliction as well as the food of freedom baked in haste as our forefathers rushed out of Egypt. The very word individual which refers to a single person ends with DUAL. Pesach brings out the duality of man but through the unity of the family, we are able to live with cognitive dissonance, paradox and conflict. ?We may have different points of arguments from perspectives of belief, faith and religion. But we must not hate each other. We are one human family.? ? Lailah Gifty Akita, (Think Great: Be Great!) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:04:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:04:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406220429.GK26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:59:51PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be :> mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very :> overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change :> a minhag. : I am confused by the term mimetic. I understand it in the sense of : tradition, Mimetic is from the shoresh mime, to copy. (Like a mimeograph.) Mimeticism is Judaism as culture. Things like absorbing that "Shabbos is coming" feeling of the erev Shabbos Jew. The pious Jew of today may be able to work himself up emotionally on Yom Kippur, the mimetic Jew of 100 years ago was simply terrified, without such work. (Both kinds of religiosity have their pros and cons.) Mimeticism evolves because culture evolves. Textualism is also tradition. But it's the formal tradition passed off from rebbe to talmid. RYBS's dialog down the ages that he watched gather around his father's table, or later, in his own shiur room. So the mimetic-textualist axis is not quite the same as the tradition-ideology one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:07:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:07:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> References: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> Message-ID: <20170406220711.GL26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 02:46:29PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote: : Haggadol is not an adjective modifying Shabbath, because Shabbath is : feminine. No one who speaks Hebrew uses masculine adjectives to : modify Shabbath, ever (pedantic footnote: except in the fixed : expression "Shabbath shalom umvorakh", which is said by people who : do speak Hebrew, but which for other reasons is clearly an idiomatic : expression that does not follow the rules of grammar, unless you want : to call it a mistake, which is also fine with me). What about Shabbos morning, and "veyanuchu vo"? The previous night it was "vahh". I agree with your thesis, I am more trying to get from you what the masculine noun "vo" refers to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:27:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav Message-ID: Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik heh under my understanding and also be milera. Is my understanding of the word incorrect? Kol tuv and Chag Kasher v'Sameach to all, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 00:29:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:29:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot Message-ID: from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) BTW the sefer contains 3 sections ; main, dvar halacha and orchot halacha. I am assuming that all 3 are from RSZA or notes of students. I will do my best in the translation but have added some of the notes in Hebrew RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who determines this minhag?) He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat. He adda that PERHAPS there is a reason to prohibit potato flour (serach kitniyot - based on chiddishin of RSZA to Pesachim). Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be prohibited (ie even according to those that eat gebrochs) (yesh ladun behem - Pesachim 40b - Rashi that when people are "mezalzel one should be machmir) In the notes that this was what RSZA said in shiurim and when asked a question responded that one should follow the family minhag. Nevetheless he remarked several times that cakes with matzah flour that look like chametz cakes that he didn't understand the heter when we go to lengths to avoid things that might be confused with chametz -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 23:27:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 06:27:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Afikoman_-_=93Stealing=93_and_Other_Rel?= =?windows-1252?q?ated_Minhagim?= Message-ID: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> Please the article at http://seforim.blogspot.com/2017/04/afikoman-stealing-and-other-related.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 20:28:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:28:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: > ... Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., > I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal > says works, that?s what I want to think/occur). [related to daat > makneh and koneh issues] I think Mishne Berura 649:15 might be exactly what you're looking for. I am paraphrasing him, and he was paraphrasing the Magen Avraham and Pri Megadim. But basically, the point is: >>> Suppose it is the first day of Sukkos, and you want to use someone else's lulav, but you can't, because on the first day you need to own it yourself. So l'chatchila, the best option is make it explicit that you want to acquire his lulav in a "matana al m'nas l'hachzir" (gift on condition of returning) manner. >>> But b'dieved, if you borrowed it in a "stam" manner so that you could be yotzay with it, then we presume that he gave it to you intending to do it in whatever manner would allow you to be yotzay, namely, "matana al m'nas l'hachzir". >>> However, if you explicitly used the word "borrow" rather than "gift", then you would not be yotzay. Also, if the lulav's owner is unaware that a borrowed lulav is pasul, it would not work then either. (End of Mishne Brura.) Here's my commentary: There are two requirements for "stam daas" to help us here. The first is that the conversation must be vague, because if it were explicit we would not be able to assign a meaning to the words. But the second requirement is very relevant to RJR's question: The lulav's owner has to be aware that a borrowed lulav is pasul. If the owner does have that awareness, then we say that his stam daas was to grant ownership to you. But if the lulav's owner is not aware of this halacha, then his stam daas is to *lend* the lulav, which would not be valid. We see from this that "stam daas" is not a magic wand that can be applied conveniently to any vague comment. Rather, it is applied with a lot of care and understand of what the person's likely intention really was. Please read the MB yourself and see what he means. Even better, check out the MA and PM that the MB was summarizing (because I did not go into that much depth. Maybe over Shabbos.) [Press Pause button... Okay, continue...] I have now reread RJR's post, and I noticed that while the MB ruled how the halacha views these two people and the lulav, RJR's post is much more "me"-oriented. He asks about the case where > I have in mind ?whatever HKB?H wants me to have in mind > without actually knowing what that is ..." It seems to me that this is an explicit vagueness. If "stam daas" works where outsiders are trying to figure out what Ploni probably meant, it should certainly work where Ploni himself is being deliberately vague. I never studied Logic to the depth that R' Micha and other have, but even I can see a serious flaw in the above paragraph. In the MB's case of the lulav, the owner had *something* in mind, and we are presuming to know what it was. But in RJR's case, the individual made an effort have nothing in mind at all, and I can easily understand someone who says that this simply won't work. I would suggest this as a practical solution: One should never say simply, "I have in mind whatever Hashem wants me to have in mind," because that is essentially admitting that he really has nothing in mind. Rather, one should use an explicit tenai: "If Hashem wants me to have A in mind, then I do have A in mind; but if He wants me to have B in mind, then I do have B in mind." Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#m_3151624698786785420_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:24:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav Message-ID: > Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH > translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". > Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik > heh under my understanding and also be milera. Upon reviewing the pshat in the word "bushala", it is possible that my understanding was incorrect and the structure would be similar to "yochLUha" where the translation of the suffix in both cases is "it" as opposed to "its" and thus not requiring a mapik heh. Shabbat Shalom, HT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:25:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:25:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67447a90-4764-0dce-4f82-b0f11d5c55af@sero.name> On 06/04/17 18:27, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: > Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH > translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". > > Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik > heh under my understanding and also be milera. It's a verb, not a noun. If it were written as you would have it it would be a noun, presumably meaning "its cooking", but then it would be "bishulah". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 08:46:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:46:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170407154652.GD32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:27:30PM -0400, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: : Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH : translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". : : Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik : heh under my understanding and also be milera. That would make it a posessed noun, "if its cooking was in a copper vessel". RSRH is treating is as a verb. In more contemporary American English, "if it had been cooked in a copper vessel". :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:47:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Afikoman_-_=E2=80=9CStealing=E2=80=9C_and_Othe?= =?utf-8?q?r_Related_Minhagim?= In-Reply-To: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> References: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <0a933758-f6de-9e33-4fd0-33f89b9dc517@sero.name> > http://seforim.blogspot.com/2017/04/afikoman-stealing-and-other-related.html My father gives presents to all those children who *don't* steal. He also explains that if the hidden matzah is stolen he will not pay any ransom for it but will simply use a different matzah. Thus the purpose of the minhag is preserved but the bad chinuch is avoided. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 08:44:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:44:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:10:26PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a korban : pesach? I assume koreikh was the norm. Not that Hillel argued they were necessary and no one else made wraps, but that everyone made a wrap, which is why a machloqes could arise as to whether one is yotzei if not. : i think we all agree that the matzot to make a korech were soft matzot [and : presumably mashiach will rule that's the way we should all be making them ]. One could be yotzei koreikh just putting a tiny lump of meat on a cracker. Not difficult. OTOH, we seem to have proven in numerous years that until the acharonic period, softa matzos were the norm in every community. (Ashkenazim too; see the Rama.) : if the zaytim were like larger then, would the sandwich have been the size : of a big mac? or half a pizza? But they were smaller, so no problem. Another perrennial is whether the growth of the kezayis is halachically binding even after archeology proved the historical assumptions wrong. : kiddush would have started the meal... And Ha Lachma Anya would have been 4 days before, as you can only invite people to join the chaburah BEFORE the sheep is set aside. For that matter, I'm convinced Ha Lachma Anya is not part of Maggid. Maggid ought to begin with questions, so let's assume it does. HLA is an explanation of Yachatz. And then, once we fact out qwhat it's like to have to ration our lachma anya, we express empathy for the dirtzrikh and dichpin. So perhaps Yachatz too would be before picking the sheep. . then some form of maggid [ 3 hrs : long? would the korban be edible that many hours later?]. Sure! How quickly does meat go bad where you live? It looks like there is a fundamental machloqes about the seider. Notice that Rabban Gamliel wasn't present at R' Aqiva's seider in Benei Beraq. OTOH, in the Tosefta at the end of Pesachim Rabban Gamliel hosts big seider in Lod, where they spent the whole night "osqin behilkhos haPesach". (This Tosefta goes with "ein maftirin achar haPesach afiqoman". A whole answer-to-the-chakham vibe here.) Notice that at R' Aqiva's seider "vehayu mesaperim beytzi'as mitzrayim". R' Aqiva held that a seider is all about the story. R' Gamliel -- the mitzvos. Most of Maggid we do R' Aqiva style: 1- We follow R' Yehudah, and tell the story of physical redemption. Avadim Hayinu. 2- Then (after an intermission in which we explain why we're doing multiple versions -- 4 banim, etc...) we follow Rav, and tell the story of spiritual redemption. Betechilah ovedei AZ. 3- And we tell the story using Vidui Biqurim and other texts. 4- Then, at the very end, we make sure to do the least necessary to be yotzei according to Rabban Gamliel. So it would seem we basically hold like R' Aqiva, that the main role of the foods is as aids to the story-telling. But Rabban Gamliel would have Maggid as /during/ the other mitzvos of the seider. We discuss the foods. : washed and then what? hamotzi on 3 matzos? but the mitzva matza was to : eat the korech no? so the rest of the meal was not matza followed by : marror, but rather that of korech. so then the chiyuv-matza was the : afikoman matza? or people would have chazon ish'ed it up twice---at the : matza they washed on and again on korech? The afiqoman was the sheep, all matzos umorerim. Before that was the chagiga, re'iyah and shulchan oreikh. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:48:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Meisner via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:48:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:10 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a > korban pesach? The Rambam in Ch. 8 of Hil. Chametz uMatzah provides a step-by-step description of the seder that includes the eating of the Korban Pesach, which is probably a good start. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 09:32:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:32:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4167b94e-52b7-16a4-0069-0697990750d6@sero.name> On 07/04/17 11:44, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And Ha Lachma Anya would have been 4 days before, as you can only invite > people to join the chaburah BEFORE the sheep is set aside. Not true. One can join or leave a chavurah right up to the moment of shechitah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 09:58:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 17:58:36 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Surely either we'd pasken like Hillel, and eat the full portion of Pesach, Matza and Maror in one sandwich, or else we wouldn't, and there'd be no Korech at all? On 7 April 2017 at 16:44, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > One could be yotzei koreikh just putting a tiny lump of meat on a > cracker. Not difficult. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 10:15:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:15:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170407171523.GI32239@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 05:58:36PM +0100, Allan Engel wrote: : Surely either we'd pasken like Hillel, and eat the full portion of Pesach, : Matza and Maror in one sandwich, or else we wouldn't, and there'd be no : Korech at all? I assume everyone ate koreikh. It's most reasonable to assume that a machloqes over an annual practice kept by everyone is theoretical, not pragmatic. Not that one person is saying what a significant number of people are doing is pasul / assur. For similar reasons, I assume that until the rishonim, people considered both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam tefillin to be kosher. Otherwise, how were both styles in existence and common use since the days of the Chashmonaim until some 1,300 years later when rishonim started voicing preferences? Note my use of the phrase, "I assume". Li mistaber, I have no strong arguments for it. Back to our topic... I figure everyone ate the matzah, marror and lamb in a wrap. Otherwise, how did Hillel come around and argue that what everyone was doing was pasul? And why would it stay with Hillel, wouldn't he have the Sanhedrin vote on it? Rather, the machloqes was whether one was yotzei if they did the weird thing and eat them separately. If this was a rare event, multiple opinions could persist without resolutions. Now when it came time to commemorate, rather than fulfill the mitzvah.... Matzah we have to eat separately from maror, because without the pesach, there may be a problem with our fulfilling the mitzvah of eating matzah without it being the only tast in the mouth. And then there's the question of what are we commemorating -- eating all three in one meal, and the wrap aspect was not a critical facet that needs commemoration, or are we commemorating a wrap? So, we do both. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 10:28:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel In-Reply-To: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> References: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:05:30PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : My son who lives in EY told me that Ashkenazim have to very careful : about the products that they purchase for Pesach, since many products : that are certified for Pesach contain kitnios. The item below reinforces : this. ... : Eretz Yisrael: Strauss Cottage Cheese Contains Kitnios : : April 3, 2017- from the Arutz 7 : : : "Badatz Mehadrin, the hashgacha of Rabbi Avraham Rubin Shlita, alerts... I was wondering about this. Qitniyos is batel berov. Ah, you may say: but they're intentionally mixing in the qitniyos, there is no bitul! So here's my question: If a Sepharadi makes cottage cheese containing qitniyos, he isn't really having Ashkenazim in particular in mind. And for him the qitniyos are mutar. By parallel, a non-Jew mixing 1:61 basar bechalav for his own use or for a primarily non-Jewish customer base isn't bitul lkhat-chilah, as a permitted person's intent doesn't qualify as lekhat-chilah. So, does this Sepharadi man mixing qitniyos in run afowl of the problem of bitul lekhat-chilah? Why can't one argue that as long as the qitniyos is a mi'ut of the cottage cheese, and as long as it's not against the mixer's own minhag or that of the main bulk of people for whom he is mixing, the food is permissible for Ashkenazim too? And does it have to be both the mixer's own minhag AND that of most of the people the cottage cheese if for? After all, this is minhag, not pesaq. It's not like an Ashkenazi holds a Saphradi ought to be holding like us too. What if an Ashkenazi was doing the mixing on a product where most of the target customer base is Sepharadi? (Now, add to that mei qitniyos, and whether corn should have been added to the minhag, the observation that it is primarily NOT made for Ashkenazi Jews, and ask the same thing about Coca Cola.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 15:48:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: <<< I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. >>> Is this only in the DL community? If so, can anyone suggest why this would be so? I can this of two very different possibilities: One is negative, that there is some sort of jealousy to the sefardim, or taavah for the many products that are available. The other is positive, that this is simply a natural development of how minhagim change over the centuries when communities mix. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 13:42:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 22:42:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel In-Reply-To: <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> References: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <43acd44d-c45c-b481-7dfb-2671547565a7@zahav.net.il> This is part of the backlash. People want the labels to read "contains kitniyot", not "for ochlei kitniyot only". Ben On 4/7/2017 7:28 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Qitniyos is batel berov. > > Ah, you may say: but they're intentionally mixing in the qitniyos, there > is no bitul! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 10:44:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:44:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58E92189.9030803@zahav.net.il> [Part 2, a mid-post detour. -mb] And as long as I am writing, a comment on the next posting in the Digest 48. Matza meal is the coarse version and is used for making latkes and kneidlach. Cake meal is the fine ground version for making cakes. Both were on the market and used by my mother in the US some 70- 80 years ago. And R' Micha mentioned a week or so ago that R/Dr Bannet pointed out that in my youth, peanut oil had the most machmir heksher of all Pesach oils. Three comments: It is true that chasidim used only peanut oil made by a Shomer mitzvot Jew. I am neither a R nor a Dr, and my family name ends with two t's. PKvS. David Bannett From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 10:44:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:44:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58E92189.9030803@zahav.net.il> [RCD tried to sneak multiple topics into the same email. For the sake of threading, I split it and fixed the subject lines. -micha] Without commenting on the meaning of Shabbat Hagadol, I'd like to comment on the "fact" that Shabbat is feminine and one would have to say Shabbat Hag'dola. The Rambam in Hilkhot Shabbat 30:2 says Shhabat Hagadol. I then looked in the Bar Ilan Shu"t and found that there are a dozen other sources for a male Shabbat. [End of part 1. Now, part 3. -mb] And then R' Micha on the vayanuchu va, vo and vam in the tefila: There were three nuschaot. One said Shabbat and va, Another said yom haShabbat and vo and the third said Shabbatot and vam. PKvS. David Bannett From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 20:22:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2017 05:22:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If the issue was jealousy of sefardim, people would want to drop the minhag entirely. There is that, but only on the fringe. These chumrot seem like a false imposition, something someone invented. You can only hear "when I was a kid, we ate X, Y, Z" or "I went to a shiur and the rav said X, Y, Z are muttar" so many times before asking yourself "so why don't we eat X, Y, Z"? And yes, intermarriage is a huge factor. On 4/8/2017 12:48 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I can this of two very different possibilities: One is negative, that > there is some sort of jealousy to the sefardim, or taavah for the many > products that are available. The other is positive, that this is > simply a natural development of how minhagim change over the centuries > when communities mix. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:00:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:00:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) > ... > He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak > was never accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat. > He adds that PERHAPS there is a reason to prohibit potato flour > (serach kitniyot - based on chiddishin of RSZA to Pesachim). > Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be > prohibited (ie even according to those that eat gebrochs) ... To me, it seems contradictory to allow gebroks yet forbid matza meal cake. Yet it certainly seems that this is how RSZA held. I think I'm going to have to retract most of my recent posts. Or add least append a big "tzorech iyun" to them. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:22:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimetics [was:kitnoyot] Message-ID: > Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be > mimetically defined, by definition, .... [--RMB] WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be determinative. Lisa >>>>> "Shema beni mussar avicha, VE'AL TITOSH TORAS IMECHA." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:19:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <23551cea-98c2-5446-2323-d0fb7e82cc09@starways.net> On 4/8/2017 1:48 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Eli Turkel wrote: > > <<< I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been > a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. >>> > > Is this only in the DL community? If so, can anyone suggest why this > would be so? I think it's because the DL community is the community that is (a) committed to the Torah and (b) not stuck in fear mode. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 01:16:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 11:16:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller asked why in the dati leumi community there is a backlash against kitniyos? I think there are a number of reasons for this: 1. Theological - The Dati Leumi community views the establishment of the State of Israel as a significant theological event, the beginning of the Geula. They view the state as having significance. Therefore, they view the Jewish people as much more of an organic whole and want to eliminate things that separate the Jewish people into groups. Kitniyos very much does that. There is no question that whan Moshiach comes the division between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no machlokes. The Charedi world on the other hand believes that we are still fully in Galus and nothing has changed. 2. The Dati Leumi community isw much less segragated between sefardim and Ashkenazim. There are no ashkenazi or sefardi yeshivas and there is quite a bit of "intermarriage". If your daughter marries a Sefardi do you suddently not go to her for Pesach because she eats kitniyos? 3. People realize the hypocrisy of not eating kitniyos while eating kosgher l'pesach pretzels. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:31:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:31:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Why can't one argue that as long as the qitniyos is a mi'ut of > the cottage cheese, and as long as it's not against the mixer's > own minhag or that of the main bulk of people for whom he is > mixing, the food is permissible for Ashkenazim too? > > ... What if an Ashkenazi was doing the mixing on a product where > most of the target customer base is Sepharadi? I would like to focus on the words "target customer base". We have to distinguish the manufacturer's customer base from the hashgacha's customer base. The two might be identical for a small brand that markets only to frum neighborhoods, but not for an industry giant like Strauss. We can presume that the manufacturer and their target customer base is mostly not makpid about kitniyos. Therefore, the manufacturer is doing nothing wrong by putting kitniyos into the product, and once they have done so, it is acceptable even for Ashkenazim, exactly as RMB suggests. But the hashgacha cannot put their certification on it. The target customer base of this hashgacha seems to be people who *are* makpid on kitniyos. (If they're not the majority of the hashgacha's clientele, they are at least a very significant minority.) And as such, the hashgacha has accepted the responsibility to act in place of their clientele at the factory. This turns it into a "bittul lechatchila" situation, and the hashgacha cannot grant an official okay to such products without an accompanying warning, which is exactly what they seem to have done. > (Now, add to that mei qitniyos, and whether corn should have > been added to the minhag, the observation that it is primarily > NOT made for Ashkenazi Jews, and ask the same thing about Coca > Cola.) Not just Coca Cola. Weren't we discussing chocolate bars a few weeks ago? Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 23:42:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 02:42:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman Message-ID: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> I tend to agree with the negative aspect of stealing the Afikoman. Very similarly, I feel the minhag to get so drunk on Purim so that you can?t distinguish between blessed be Mordecai and cursed be Haman is a very bad minhag and more offensive than stealing the afikoman. You are encouraging people to get drunk and that also has caused many problems in recent times. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:02:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:02:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman In-Reply-To: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> References: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 02:42:40AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : I tend to agree with the negative aspect of stealing the Afikoman. : Very similarly, I feel the minhag to get so drunk on Purim so that : you can?t distinguish between blessed be Mordecai and cursed be Haman : is a very bad minhag and more offensive than stealing the afikoman. Yeah, I don't see how teaching kids to steal the afiqoman is going to weaken their knowledge that it's wrong to steal. Should kids playing baseball not steal home? Just because the rule of the game is called "stealing"? But there is backlash against the drunk-on-Purim minhag too. The OU and RCA each put out something like annually. Hatzola puts out warnings. There are black-n-white wearing yeshivos that clamped down on their kids getting drunk when doing their Purim fundraising. And there has been backlash to the backlash, by people who value minhag. Really, the treatment of the two has been pretty parallel. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:19:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman In-Reply-To: <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> References: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <621677e8-92b7-ca89-7197-201a3af3f7e6@sero.name> On 09/04/17 09:02, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Yeah, I don't see how teaching kids to steal the afiqoman is going > to weaken their knowledge that it's wrong to steal. Should kids > playing baseball not steal home? Just because the rule of the game > is called "stealing"? That's a different sense of the word: "4. to move or convey stealthily". As in "with cat-like tread upon our prey we steal". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:48:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:48:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > There is no question that when Moshiach comes the division > between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The > Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no > machlokes. This is news to me. There is no machlokes here to be paskened. Everyone agrees that the halacha allows even rice to Ashkenazim. It is all minhag. Even if the Sanhendrin would want to, I don't know where they'd get the authority to do away with minhagim. On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim! > The Dati Leumi community is much less segregated between > sefardim and Ashkenazim. There are no ashkenazi or sefardi > yeshivas and there is quite a bit of "intermarriage". If your > daughter marries a Sefardi do you suddently not go to her for > Pesach because she eats kitniyos? That depends on your posek. By my memory, many poskim, including among the DL, hold that one can eat from the keilim, but to avoid actual kitniyos. And many other shitos in both directions. > People realize the hypocrisy of not eating kitniyos while > eating kosher l'pesach pretzels. I was arguing strenuously against this until a few hours ago, when I was reminded that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach held this way too. Perhaps I have overdosed on inoculations of matza meal cake and matza meal pancakes, and I cannot see myself ever sharing this view. But having seen RSZA's words, I cannot claim that it is only the little people who say this - it's the big guns too. And I would be indebted to any listmembers who would quote other gedolim on this topic. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 15:47:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 08:47:40 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyos - Why do today's Poskim argue with the Mishneh Berurah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can anyone show some Halachic source that argues with the Mishneh Berurah who Paskens that Foods containing LESS THAN 50% Kitniyos that is at the same time not visually discernible Although its taste is certainly discernible, is Muttar during Pesach? Is a Rov permitted to refuse to identify a Kosher product as Kosher (or worse, declare a product not Kosher) because of other considerations? See this article http://www.kosherveyosher.com/chocolate-pesach-lecithin-1001.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 01:45:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:45:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] order of the seder Message-ID: < See "leil haPesach be-taludum shel chachamim" (Hebrew) by David Henshkr who has a detailed discussion -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 01:47:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:47:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Matzah meal Message-ID: <> In Israel it is readily available in many supermarkets -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 02:04:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:04:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism Message-ID: <> Doesn't answer my question of how mimeticism deals with new situations. Sticking to kitniyot by patents used cottenseed oil but knew nothing about Canola oil or Lecitisthin <> Let me use this to sound off. I have a major problem with textualiism. In some circles it means studying a sugya and coming to a conclusion without any regard to the outside world. In regard to shiurim the Noda Yehuda has a question. One doesn't suddenly change minhagim because of a question. In recent years this doubling of shiurim has become popular because of CI. First there is evidence that CI himself did not use his own shiur. It is well known that some descendants of the CC don't use his kiddush cup because it is not shiur CI. However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. Even a slightly smaller shiur would hit various walls making it impossible to walk around while various testimonies make it smaller. There is now a new exhibition of a virtual 3D reality of walking around the bet hamikdash. It is based on aerial photographs of the current Temple mount and supplemented by details in the Mishna and archaeology using the topography of the land. Theis construction places the holy har habayit on the currently raised portion of the Temple mount. This yields an amah of about 38cm (CI=57, CN=44-48) Other proofs included the length of the Siloam tunnel which is documents in amot and can be measured. One of the strongest proofs is based on the meitzah of the cohen gadol which could not possibly hold the shiur of CI (note that if his hands were bigger this would redefine the amah). As to changes over the generations olive pits from the Bar Chocba era are the same size as today. In spite of a preponderous evidence that the shiur of CI is way too large almost all seforim in Israel give the amount of matzah to eat and wine to drink based on CI (at least lechatchila). This is textualism at the extreme in contrast to common sense -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 03:15:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "I have an opportunity to kill the terrorist..." Message-ID: <20170410101557.GA14700@aishdas.org> Anyone want to try this one, with meqoros? RSE raises two issues: killing a neutralized terrorist, and (I guess) dina demalkhusa on the topic. Chag Kasher veSameaich (belashon "lo zu af zu"), -micha The Jewish Press Tzfat Chief Rabbi Was Asked in Real Time whether to Kill Ramming Terrorist By David Israel -- 11 Nisan 5777 -- April 7, 2017 http://www.jewishpress.com/news/jewish-news/tzfat-chief-rabbi-was-asked-in-real-time-whether-to-kill-ramming-terrorist/2017/04/07/ Chief Rabbi of Tzfat Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, who is not known for particularly leftwing sympathies (he encourages his flock to refuse Arab renters, for instance), on Thursday night told a class he was teaching that one of his students had phoned him from the scene of the ramming attack that killed an IDF soldier. The student posed a halachic inquiry: "He told me, I see my buddy here lying down dead," Rabbi Eliyahu recalled, adding that his student had asked, "I have an opportunity to kill the terrorist - should I kill him or not?" Advertisement Around 10 AM, Thursday, an Arab terrorist rammed his vehicle into two IDF soldiers waiting at a hitchhiking post on Rt. 60, outside Ofra in Judea and Samaria. Sgt. Elhai Teharlev HY"D, 20, was killed, and the other soldier was injured. The terrorist was arrested by security forces. Rabbi Eliyahu said that his response was that "this terrorist deserves to die. However, unfortunately, the laws in this country are not well constructed, and so there is no legal way to do to him what needs to be done." "I told him that had he been able to do it while the attack was on it would have been possible, but we were after the event, unfortunately." Advertisement From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 03:39:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed Message-ID: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ > Let me run an idea by you guys... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha > 2. Melacha is forbidden on chol hamoed > 3. One of the permits for doing melacha is for tzorech hamoed, but in this > case, if possible you should do the melacha before the chag > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. > 5. If you find yourself on chol hamoed without pre-torn toilet paper, you > can tear it, however preferably not on the lines. > Am I crazy? :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 04:54:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:54:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> References: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2017 1:40 PM, "Micha Berger via Avodah" wrote... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha > 2. Melacha is forbidden on chol hamoed > 3. One of the permits for doing melacha is for tzorech hamoed, but in this > case, if possible you should do the melacha before the chag > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. > 5. If you find yourself on chol hamoed without pre-torn toilet paper, you > can tear it, however preferably not on the lines. > Am I crazy? Not at all. Please see Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa perek 66 footnote 78. RSZA was machmir for himself, though the author suggests that nowdays it would be unnecessary. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 06:39:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:39:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12e4046f8d104931a3a60fafe99b3947@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > There is no question that when Moshiach comes the division > between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The > Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no > machlokes. This is news to me. There is no machlokes here to be paskened. Everyone agrees that the halacha allows even rice to Ashkenazim. It is all minhag. Even if the Sanhendrin would want to, I don't know where they'd get the authority to do away with minhagim. On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim! --------------------------------------- Aiui there is some debate as to how much practice was/will be standardized-some believe (IIRC R'HS) that the shevet Sanhedrin set local practice and few issues went to great sanhedrin for standardization. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 06:41:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:41:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170410134127.GB29583@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:04:31PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> Mimeticism evolves because culture evolves. : Doesn't answer my question of how mimeticism deals with new situations. It answers your question by implying there is no answer. There is no rule for how common practice will evolve. Rules are textual. But the truth is, halakhah requires both. Not every evolution of a minhag is valid. That way lies Catholic Israel. It has to pass muster against the sources and sevara. :-)|,|ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 07:54:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Misc interesting Halacha questions from R Shlomo Miller shlitah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <035201d2b20a$5ef3d1a0$1cdb74e0$@com> Misc interesting Halacha questions from R Shlomo Miller shlitah http://baisdovyosef.com/rabbi-past-questions/ Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlitah for a printout of all the Q&As (100 pgs) https://www.dropbox.com/s/70y971r0ct2l7x8/RS%20miller%20bartfeld%20questions .doc?dl=0 or email me offline mcohen at touchlogic.com GYT, mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 12 12:45:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:45:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz Message-ID: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy A rav gave over some quick halachot and cited the Shulhan Aruch that if one finds chameitz in one's home, you cover it (if you find it on shabbat/yom tov) and later burn it, or burn it right away (cholo moed). I asked, if one sold one's chameitz, how can you burn it? It now belongs to the non-jew. This rav (and second rav) said that the sale only includes the chameitz that you specify. If you don't have a piece of chameitz in mind, you didn't sell it. OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz, everything in all of his properties. It makes no mention of what you have in mind. If a contract say "ALL" it means all, n'est pas? So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 12 21:09:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:09:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taanis Bechoros - Women? Message-ID: My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros. So I read her Mishne Berurah 470:4, which gives the reason as because there are no halachos in which female firstborns have any such kedusha. That seemed to satisfy her, but it didn't satisfy me. After all, if a boy is his father's first but not his mother's first, then he has no kedusha which would require Pidyon Haben. Aruch Hashulchan 470:2 gives that same logic, but explains that although the father's first doesn't get a Pidyon Haben, he *does* have special halachos about inheritance, and Aruch Hashulchan 470:3 says the same thing regarding a boy who was born after a miscarriage, or a firstborn Kohen, or a firstborn Levi. My question is: So what? Why is the special status of "firstborn for inheritance" more relevant than "would've been killed in Mitzrayim"? (Please note that there is another case that I'm *not* asking about, namely, where none of the people at home was a technical bechor, then whoever was oldest was subject to Makas Bechoros. Since that could vary depending on who was home in any particular year, I can easily understand why it never got included in the minhag.) Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 13 13:24:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 23:24:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefirot Ha`omer Message-ID: Every year I would like to get deeper into the combinations of sefirot (or middot) that appear in siddurim with the counting of the Omer, and every year I get lost and confused. For example, what is the difference between hesed shebigevura and gevura shebehesed? If tiferet is a synthesis of hesed and gevura, how does it differ from either of the above? And so on and so on. There seem to be a thousand books and websites that explain the sefirot and their combinations in modern terms, but I haven't found any that quote or even cite primary sources. Where might one look for such sources? Mo`adim lesimha! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 13 22:56:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:56:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim!" Given the illogic of the minhag of kitniyos I think not. Why would they impose a din that makes no sense in today's world. With regards to visiting children R' AKiva Miler wrote: "That depends on your posek. By my memory, many poskim, including among the DL, hold that one can eat from the keilim, but to avoid actual kitniyos. And many other shitos in both directions." I was saying that facetiously. WADR you missed the forest for the trees. Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child and can't eat all the food. You are looking at this from a pure halachic perspceticve but in truth, there is a non-halachic sociologcal perspective here that needs to be addressed as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 14 01:12:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 11:12:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefirot Ha`omer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71537556-72e6-e4ec-3ea1-61c0f913fb9b@starways.net> Lama li kra? It seems pretty clear on the face of it. Hesed she'b'Gevura means that you're doing Hesed by means of Gevura. Your intended result is Hesed. The way you're achieving that Hesed is by an act of Gevura. So let's take R' Aryeh Kaplan's understanding of the two Middot, where Hesed means going above and beyond what is required, and Gevura is restraining yourself, and here are a couple of examples. You're at the grocery store, and there's one box of Wacky Macs left on the shelf. You see a mother with a bunch of her kids coming down the aisle, and the kids are beginning for Wacky Macs. So you don't take it. You're limiting yourself in order to do something nice (but not required) for the mother. That's Hesed she'b'Gevura. You're at the grocery store, and you've taken the last box of Wacky Macs. You know you shouldn't eat it, because it's all starch and fat, but you can't help it. You're standing at the checkout line, and there's a mother behind you whose kids are giving her a hard time because they wanted Wacky Macs, but the store is out. So you decide that this will help you keep your diet, and you offer the mother the box of Wacky Macs. You're doing something nice (but not required) for the mother in order to limit yourself. That's Gevura she'b'Hesed. It's a thin line, sometimes. Figuring out what the actual action (or inaction) is and what the purpose is. Means and ends. As far as Tiferet, while you can see it as a synthesis of Hesed and Gevura, which is nice if you like the thesis-antithesis-synthesis paradigm, it's really the point of balance between them. Where you aren't refraining and you aren't overdoing. Another term for Tiferet is Tzedek. Meaning doing what you're supposed to do, or what you're allowed to do: no more and no less. I think that one of the reasons there aren't books that cite primary sources about this is simply because there aren't any. There are primary sources about what the meaning of each of the Sefirot mean, but the combination should be fairly clear. That said, I know it isn't. When I was a camper as a kid, we had discussion groups about whether we were "Jewish Americans" or "American Jews". I was 12 the first time we did it, and it was a mess. The next time, I think I was 14 or 15, and I already realized what the problem was, although the counselor leading the discussion didn't. It's a matter of definitions. If you look at it in terms of language, one of those words is the noun, and the other is the adjective. The noun is what you *are*. The adjective just modifies it. So "American Jew" is putting being Jewish first, and "Jewish American" is putting being American first. But a lot of the other kids (and the counselor) were looking at it from the point of view of which *word* came first in the phrase. And theoretically, I suppose, you could interpret X she'b'Y in the opposite way from what I've described above, but I'm not sure there's a real nafka mina, because we cover all the combinations. It just seems to me that the first week, we deal with the concept of *doing* Hesed, with all 7 possible intents, since these 7 Sefirot are fundamentally Sefirot of action (and interaction), as opposed to the first three, which are Sefirot of mind. But can you say that the first week, we talk about the concept of *intending* Hesed, with all 7 possible methods? I suppose. It's not the way I look at it, but absent primary sources to determine which way is right, I suppose it's possible. Shabbat Shalom and Moadim L'Simcha, Lisa On 4/13/2017 11:24 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > Every year I would like to get deeper into the combinations of sefirot > (or middot) that appear in siddurim with the counting of the Omer, and > every year I get lost and confused. For example, what is the > difference between hesed shebigevura and gevura shebehesed? If tiferet > is a synthesis of hesed and gevura, how does it differ from either of > the above? And so on and so on. > > There seem to be a thousand books and websites that explain the > sefirot and their combinations in modern terms, but I haven't found > any that quote or even cite primary sources. Where might one look for > such sources? > > Mo`adim lesimha! > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 14 06:40:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:40:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <491b0760-73a4-cf76-550a-2c2dfb57aeb3@sero.name> On 14/04/17 01:56, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > I was saying that facetiously. WADR you missed the forest for the trees. > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child and > can't eat all the food. If you think that's a problem now, wait till Moshiach comes and you have parents visiting their daughter who married a Cohen. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 11:52:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 20:52:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8fe0a1db-6349-9011-e2d4-ea78a89684eb@zahav.net.il> I've said this before but it bares repeating. I was married to someone with multiple food allergies. Cooking even at home was always a challenge. Going out to eat at someone else's house and giving them the list of what yes, what no made that it even harder. Whenever we had guests, we always asked about food allergies, kashrut requirements, and preferences. Compared to allergies, kashrut stuff was kid's play. More than that, I learned that it is perfectly OK to have food on the table that not everyone can eat. Any vegetarian who came over expecting to be able to eat everything was disappointed. Not being able to eat rice and having to settle for the five other dishes doesn't even make it on my radar. Thinking that one should be able to eat everything is a sense of entitlement that I don't accept. Ben On 4/14/2017 7:56 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child > and can't eat all the food. > > You are looking at this from a pure halachic perspceticve but in > truth, there is a non-halachic sociologcal perspective here that needs > to be addressed as well. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 18:36:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:36:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > Given the illogic of the minhag of kitniyos ... ... > Why would they impose a din that makes no sense in today's world. I could easily argue that avoidance of poultry and milk "makes no sense in today's world." I'd like to hear whether other people think that din to be logical or illogical. (One is a minhag, and the other is d'rabbanan, but that's a side issue. My question is whether one is less logical than the other.) Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 18:22:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:22:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini Message-ID: One of the main areas this portion deals with is kashruth. There is an overriding concept in the laws of kashruth that the characteristics of what we eat somehow have a great influence on the way we behave. We do not want to associate ourselves with cruelty, therefore we are forbidden to eat cruel animals, and in this case certain fowl. Among the fowl that are listed as being non kosher is the chasidah, the white stork. You may ask what cruel character trait does the stork possess. Rashi mentions that the reason it is called a "chasidah" is because it does chesed with its friends regarding the food it finds. On the surface this seems strange. If the stork acts kindly with its food, why is it disqualified as being kosher? A beautiful explanation to this difficulty has been given by the Chidushei Harim, a Chassidic 19th century Talmudic scholar, in which he explains the nature of the stork. He says that the fact the stork only shows its kindness with its friends defines its cruelty. A fowl who is not in the circle of the stork's good buddies is excluded from getting any help from the stork in finding food. In other words, the stork is very selective in its kindness. This type of kindness is misleading. We, as Jews, are commanded to help our foes. If we come across someone we dislike intensely who needs help, we are commanded to help. The stork, on the other hand, helps only his friends. It is this character trait of differentiating between close friends and others when it comes to providing food that makes the stork non-kosher. Chesed means reaching out altruistically, with love and generosity to all. The process of maturing involves developing our sense of caring for others. This is crucial for spiritual health. The Talmud likens someone who doesn't give to others as the "walking dead.? A non-giving soul is malnourished and withered. It is only through unconditional love that our successful future will be built. In the words of King David (Psalm 89:3): Olam chesed yibaneh - "the world is built on kindness.? May we live to see this kindness and care infused in all our lives. Kindness is the language the deaf can hear and the blind can see. Mark Twain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 12:40:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:40:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: <042313fe1c2b495fbe8f8efad437f69d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <042313fe1c2b495fbe8f8efad437f69d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: I was reminded of this question this evening. Our shul is nominally nusach Sefard. However if someone (like moi) does daven Ashkenaz, the gabbi is OK, but insists on things like: Saying Shir Ha'ma'lot in Maariv Saying Keter during Mussaf Ben On 3/30/2017 2:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Visiting a shul questions-actual practices and sources appreciated: > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:45:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:45:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ff40b88-0f88-fb08-9c92-10e44bbdfc3d@zahav.net.il> A bit of perspective here: this is the Orthodox version of a first world problem. 100 years ago how many Ashkenazim and Sefardim even met, much less intermarried or lived in the same neighborhoods? At most, this is a bit of growing pain. Ben On 4/14/2017 7:56 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child > and can't eat all the food. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:34:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:34:27 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: How do we determine when the dough is baked to the point where it can no longer become Chamets? when there are no Chutim NimShaChim When the Matza is torn apart there are no doughy threads stretching between the two pieces. These days this test is not available because so little water is added to the flour that there is no opportunity for the chemical reaction that activates the gluten and even when the Matza, or the batch of dough is torn BEFORE it is put into the oven there are NO Chutim NimShaChim [this is noted by the Chazon Ish] So if one suggests that there is a possibility that some flour within [but not on the surface of] the Matza which is protected from the heat of the oven and does not become baked [as once it is baked, flour can not become Chamets] then the Chashash that this flour might become Chamets if it becomes wet pales into insignificance and is completely eclipsed by the much greater risk that the middle part of the Matza which may not have been baked may actually be Chamets [Gamur] The fact that it is now now dry means nothing that is simply dehydrated dough AKA Chamets, maybe Chamets Nukshe Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:40:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:40:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed Message-ID: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ > Let me run an idea by you guys... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha....... > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. >>>>> It seems to me you are no more obligated to tear toilet paper for the whole week than you are to do all your cooking for the whole week before the yom tov. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:49:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:49:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taanis Bechoros - Women? Message-ID: <63e57.57f1ef36.46246de8@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros. << Akiva Miller >>>>> That's a pretty obscure medrash. It is seemingly contradicted by the Torah itself, which specifies that a pidyon haben is required for a firstborn boy because the firstborn boys were spared makas bechoros in Egypt. Nothing about a pidyon habas. On the other hand, according to Sefer HaToda'ah (Book of Our Heritage), "There are different customs associated with this fast. Some say that every firstborn, male or female, whether from the father or from the mother, must fast on that day. If there is no firstborn, then the oldest in the house must fast.....However others say that only firstborn males need to fast and this is the generally accepted custom." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 21:50:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Martin Brody via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:50:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Fast of the First Born. Message-ID: Akiva Miller posted "My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros etc." Maybe because the fast has nothing to do with the 10th plague at all? They should be celebrating, not fasting! Fasting is for repentance. More likely the Sin of the Golden Calf, when the firstborn lost their priestly status. On the 14th the first born have to watch the Aaronite priests slaughtering the Pascal offering instead of them. Cheers Martin Brody From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 20:55:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:55:38 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen son in law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: when Moshiach comes parents will seek a cohen for a son in law because it's a great investment, they can feed their son in law and his family with their tithes. It's like having the Bechor reinstated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 06:28:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:28:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is > impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har > habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. > ... > This construction places the holy har habayit on the currently > raised portion of the Temple mount. This yields an amah of about > 38cm (CI=57, CN=44-48) > Other proofs included the length of the Siloam tunnel which is > documents in amot and can be measured. ... I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction as well. The minimum shiur for a mikveh is 3 cubic amos, as this is the size that a typical person could fit into. Who among us could fit into a space 38x38x114 cm? (15x15x45 inches)? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 06:41:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:41:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > If you think that's a problem now, wait till Moshiach comes and > you have parents visiting their daughter who married a Cohen. Indeed! And I think an even more common case will be a husband (regardless of shevet) who wants (or needs) to eat taharos, but his wife is nidah. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:28:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:28:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170416212823.GC13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 09:28:13AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Eli Turkel wrote: : > However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is : > impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har : > habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. I pointed out that we know length of the water tunnel in meters and rounded to two digits precision amos. In contrast, the current Har haBayis platform post-dates Hadrian y"sh lobbing off the top of the mountain and dumping it into the valley between the kotel and the current Moslem and Jewish Quarters. So we really only have part of one wall to go on. The floor can't possibly date back to either BHMQ. But that doesn't mean the shiur is impossible. The shiur may indeed be at odds with historical interpretations of the halakhah. Even perhaps by accident. But would that necessarily mean it's not binding? In either case, the CI's ammah is textual. RCNaeh's ammah is a textualist's attempt to formalize a precise number that is basicallhy consistent with the praactice of the Yishuv haYashan. Mimeticism-driven. RAM himself replied: : I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction as well. : The minimum shiur for a mikveh is 3 cubic amos, as this is the size : that a typical person could fit into. Who among us could fit into a : space 38x38x114 cm? (15x15x45 inches)? According to http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13993-stature , in 1906, the average Jewish man was about 162cm high. Let's make his miqvah 165 x 31 x 31 cm. Same volume of water. A maximum belt size of something like 97 cm (39") would fit. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:49:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 10:29:56AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) ... : RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who : determines this minhag?) Well, if it's mimetic, you just watch what people do. And if so, RSZA's statement is descriptive, not descriptive. As in: Lemaaseh, people are nohagim not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach. : He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never : accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason than the one given. ... : Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be prohibited (ie : even according to those that eat gebrochs) (yesh ladun behem - Pesachim 40b : - Rashi that when people are "mezalzel one should be machmir) Who is being mezalzel on chameitz? If he saying that because some people are questioning qitniyos, we should strengthen qitniyos, then what does that have to do with foods not already under that umbrella? And even among those who question the minhag's sanity, is there really a major zilzul going on among Ashkenazim doing less and less to avoid qitniyios? On the contrary, as your translation opens, avoiding shemen qitniyos has spread well beyond the communities that originally had that minhag, to the extent that it's being applied to foods that in the past weren't on the list of qitniyos! The questioning is a counter-reaction to the growth of the minhag. Who is being mezalzel? : In the notes that this was what RSZA said in shiurim and when asked a : question responded that one should follow the family minhag... Ascerting mimeticism over his own textualism. Sevara aside, minhag is whatever is the accepted practice. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:30:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:30:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach - Lecithin does not render chocolate non-KLP for Ashkenasim In-Reply-To: References: <0b78331e-194b-c586-6de0-fc623959e4e3@sero.name> <32449da1-df34-d5e8-7170-a2c8676adf0e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170416213032.GD13509@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 07:25:10AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 2) The prohibition of being m'vateil an issur applies to the super : corporations that run the milk industry? This is a case where buying Chalav Yisrael, which is de rigeur in Zev's Chabad community, would be more problematic. After all, something done for CY milk is being done for Jews. Something done for stam OUD milk would not be. :-)||ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:38:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Poisoning in Halacha In-Reply-To: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> References: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170416213850.GE13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 10:16:10PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: : Tonight my chevrusa and I learned the sugya in Bava Kamma 47b of one who : puts poison in front of his friend's animal. A brief synopsis and : application of the sugya is at : http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/infected: ... : It struck us that it follows that if one poisons another human being by, : say, placing cyanide in his tea, which the victim then drinks and dies, : the poisoner is exempt from capitol punishment. It would seem that such : a manner of murder falls into the category of the Rambam's ruling in : Hilchos Rotze'ach u'Shemiras Nefesh 3:10: It might be similarly true, but I don't know if "it follows". After all, gerama in Choshein Mishpat has a more limited definition than in hilkhos Shabbos. So, it didn't have to be true that the same definitions of gerama and garmi apply in dinei mamunus as in dinei nefashos. Lemaaseh, they are consistent. I would ask the Y-mi-style question: How is retzichah more similar to mamon than it is to Shabbos? :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:10:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:10:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> References: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> Message-ID: <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 2:40am EDT, RnTK wrote: :> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook :> https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ :> Let me run an idea by you guys... :> 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha....... :> 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the :> beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. : It seems to me you are no more obligated to tear toilet paper for the whole : week than you are to do all your cooking for the whole week before the yom : tov. Actually, the heter is that the food tastes better when made closer to eating time. But if one is talking about food that would taste as good if made days ahead (including the logistical limitations of storage), one is actually supposed to be cooking it before YT. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 15:44:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:44:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> References: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> On 16/04/17 17:49, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never > : accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... > > But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod > bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason > than the one given. again, no he doesn't. We just went through this last week. He never proposed it, even as a hava amina, and never gives a reason against it. He merely reports, as a matter of fact and completely without comment for or against it, that he heard that in Germany they forbid potatoes because over there they make flour from them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 15:36:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:36:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> References: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8d50d8fe-f514-fdbf-c460-9971ad347ed9@sero.name> On 16/04/17 17:10, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Actually, the heter is that the food tastes better when made closer to > eating time. But if one is talking about food that would taste as good > if made days ahead (including the logistical limitations of storage), > one is actually supposed to be cooking it before YT. But not before chol hamoed. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 20:00:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:00:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> References: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170419030020.GA29092@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 06:44:54PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 16/04/17 17:49, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >: He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never : >: accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... : >But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod : >bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason : >than the one given. : : again, no he doesn't. We just went through this last week... And given the relatice abilities of RSZA and you to read the Chayei Adam, you're obviously mistaken. : never proposed it, even as a hava amina... He reports the existence of such a minhag, and recommends against its adoption. Close enough. You're setting yourself up as a baal pelugta of RSZA by splitting hairs to crration a distinction without a difference? Really? -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 19:56:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:56:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Isru Chag Message-ID: <68F6CB3B-3D32-4BF0-A68E-3AD77FD7EE69@cox.net> The gematria for Isru Chag is 278, the same gematria for l'machar found in Bamidbar, Ch.11, vs.18. This is in the Sidra, Beha?a'lotcha, where God has Moshe establish a Sanhedrin because Moshe complained that he could not carry on alone. God says to Moshe: "To the people you shall say, 'Prepare yourselves for tomorrow and you shall eat meat..." There is an interesting tie here. The day after a festival is the "morrow" and even though the holiday is over, we must always be preparing ourselves. (Also, in counting the omer, we are preparing ourselves for the climax of our faith in 50 days). A good Isru chag to all. ri ?By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.? Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 21:06:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:06:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: R' Meir G. Rabi explained his logic: > if one suggests that > there is a possibility that > some flour > within [but not on the surface of] the Matza > which is protected from the heat of the oven > and does not become baked > [as once it is baked, flour can not become Chamets] > then the Chashash that this flour > might become Chamets if it becomes wet > pales into insignificance > and is completely eclipsed by the much greater risk > that the middle part of the Matza > which may not have been baked > may actually be Chamets [Gamur] I do not follow this logic. He is comparing two distinctly different risks. For simplicity, I'd like to call one risk "insufficiently kneaded" and the other one "insufficiently baked". "Insufficiently kneaded" means that there might be some flour in the middle of the matza that never got wet and is still plain raw flour, and that if it gets wet it will become chometz. "Insufficiently baked" means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not get baked, and it is already chometz. And RMGR feels that the second of these is a "much greater risk". I don't know where he gets the statistics to say that "insufficiently kneaded" is a small risk (his words are "pales into insignificance"), and that "insufficiently baked" is a "much greater risk". Personally, my opinion is that *IF* one checks his matzos to be sure that they are uniformly thin, *AND* checks to be sure that they have none of the kefulos or other problems that halacha warns us about, then he can be confident that no part of the matza was insufficiently baked, and they are NOT chometz. Thus, there are steps that the consumer can take to minimize the risk that his matzos were insufficiently baked. In contrast, I don't know of any way that the consumer can check the matzos to verify that they were kneaded well enough; who knows if there might be a few particles of flour that never got wet? I guess the consumer has to rely on the manufacturer and hechsher to insure that they are doing a good enough job of kneading the dough. Anyway, my main point is that these two risks are distinct from each other. I don't see any logical connection between them. From the way he worded the subject line, it sounds like RMGR is making a "kal vachomer", that if one is worried about one of the risks, then he must certainly worry about the other one, but I don't see that. (In fact, I can't even figure out which risk he feels leads to the other.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 13:17:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:17:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: I am moving this to Avodah. >From: Ben Waxman via Areivim >To: Simon Montagu via Areivim , areivim > >Why is this even an issue? Meaning, why is it such an issue that people >with a different minhag are davening together*? Or is the issue that >both sides feel that the other is doing an aveira**? > >*Sefardim and Ashkenazim wrap their teffilin differently. That factoid >doesn't stop anyone from praying together. >** Which brings up other issues. >Ben My understanding is that people who wear Tefillen during Cho Moed are not supposed to wear them in a minyan where the custom is that no one wears Tefillen. I know that in a couple of shuls near me they are makpid that those who wear Tefillen and those who do not do wear them do not daven together until after the kedusha of shachris when Tefillen are taken off. In the Kivasikin minyan that I normally daven with, those who were Tefillen are upstairs in what is normally the ladies section. After Kedusha of Shachris, those upstairs join those downstairs for a Hallel. I have been told that in the Agudah in Baltimore those who wear Tefillen are on one side of the mechitza and those who don't are on the other side until after kedusha of shachris. So, apparently there is a problem with having a mix of Tefillen wearers and non-wearers during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 14:17:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:17:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:17:21PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : So, apparently there is a problem with having a mix of Tefillen : wearers and non-wearers during Chol Moed. Lo sisgodedu. The pasuq behind the whole notion of minhag hamaqom altogether. Eg see MB 31 s"q 8. The AhS OC 31:4 is okay with minyanim that are mixed between wearers and non-wearers. Nowadays, when the concept of minhag hamaqom is so weak and has so little to do with our sence of belonging, I think the psychology is the opposite as that assumed by those who apply lo sisgodedu. Having two minyanim is more divided, and certainly if it ends up an argument about which part of the minyan is behind the mechitzah. Look how in Israel, many minyanim ignore the halakhos of having a set nusach for the beis kenesses and just let each chazan use his own minhag avos! And this enables a single minyan to function in spite of diversity; a variety of Jews from different cultures able to daven together! Tir'u baTov! -Micha (PS: "wfb" summarized a nice list of sources about whether they should be worn from R Jacob Katz's article in Halakhah veQabbalah at .) -- Micha Berger Today is the 8th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed for another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 14:41:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:41:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Why would tefillin be any different to the various different practises about who does and doesn't wear a tallis? I have never heard of a non-tallis-wearing post-bar-mitzva boy being banished behind the mechitza at a yekkishe shul, or vice versa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 01:20:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:20:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> I didn't understand the question. My daughter married a sefardi and they eat kitniyot. I was by them for seder and everything served was without kiniyot. BTW I not aware of any shitah that there is a problem with keilim used for kitniyot. BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given modern communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a problem but there might be technological answers to that also. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 01:38:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:38:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kiniyot Message-ID: <<: RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who : determines this minhag?) Well, if it's mimetic, you just watch what people do. And if so, RSZA's statement is descriptive, not descriptive. As in: Lemaaseh, people are nohagim not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach. ... Sevara aside, minhag is whatever is the accepted practice. >> The question is "whose minhag". RSZA is stating what he saw. In my area of New York everyone used cottenseed oil. I recently saw a discussion of women saying kaddish. After a lengthy discussion the author concludes that the minhag is for women not to say kaddish. Well in almost all the shuls in my town women do say kaddish. I understand that even the Rama in SA in quoting minhag means Polish (Krakow) minhag and many other existing minhagim in Russia, or Italy were ignored. Similar things in the Sefardi communities. There are several cases that ROY opposes Morrocan customs as being against (sefardi) halacha but are heatedly defended by Moroccan rabbis. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 05:15:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:15:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Look how in Israel, many minyanim ignore the halakhos of having a set nusach for the beis kenesses and just let each chazan use his own minhag avos! And this enables a single minyan to function in spite of diversity; a variety of Jews from different cultures able to daven together! ---------------------------------- Which gets to the heart of the matter - some see diversity of Minhag as lchatchila (all the shvatim had their own Sanhedrin/practice) while others see it as a result of galut. IMHO this debate will continue ad biat hagoel (may it be very soon) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 05:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41e2d260-e360-8e8e-4d15-6f524b655121@sero.name> On 20/04/17 04:20, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make > sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given > modern communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush > hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a problem but there might be > technological answers to that also. The simplest method of getting word of kiddush hachodesh to the whole world on Shabbos/Yomtov is to have a goy send a tweet, which every Jewish house or shul could be set up beforehand to receive. Amira lenochri is of course midrabbanan, so the Sanhedrin can authorise an exception. But there's an even better solution: Kidush hachodesh (as opposed to notifying people about it) is docheh Shabbos/Yomtov. Eidim can be positioned in advance in places guaranteed to have no cloud cover and a good view of the moon (perhaps Ramon Crater?), and they can then drive to Yerushalayim, arriving in plenty of time to testify as soon as the beit din opens in the morning. They could even be positioned on desert mountaintops in chu"l, and fly in. Thus we could guarantee in advance that Elul will never again have a 30th day, and everyone could rely on that without actually being notified on the day. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 09:38:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:38:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:20:04AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make sense I : vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given modern : communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush : hachodesh instantaneously.... I would like to suggest a different angle on YT Sheini. It's not so much that Chazal were afraid of the same problems might arise in bayis shelishi. After all, the language in the gemara isn't the usual that we find with (eg) chadash on Nisan 16 or other taqanos to avoid that kind of problem. I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh ought to be al pi re'iyah. It is that important to remember that the progression is "meqadesh Yisrael vehazmanim", that people sanctify time, rather than the times imposing themselves on people. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 10:13:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:13:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> On 21/04/17 12:38, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I would like to suggest a different angle on YT Sheini. > > It's not so much that Chazal were afraid of the same problems might > arise in bayis shelishi. After all, the language in the gemara isn't > the usual that we find with (eg) chadash on Nisan 16 or other taqanos > to avoid that kind of problem. The language is "sometimes the kingdom will decree a decree"; therefore in an era when -- according to all opinions -- we will never again be subject to hostile kingdoms, it would seem no longer relevant. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 10:45:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:45:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:13:27PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The language is "sometimes the kingdom will decree a decree"; : therefore in an era when -- according to all opinions -- we will : never again be subject to hostile kingdoms, it would seem no longer : relevant. The language of the azhara to keep the minhag talks about zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah. Rashi ad loc says that the said gezeira would be against studying Torah, the community would lose the sod ha'ibbur and mess up their version of the calculation. But that's not the cause for keeping the minhag going. Because that rationale has nothing to do with where the messengers could arrive on time back when we needed them. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 11:23:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:23:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:58:36PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: :> The language of the azhara to keep the minhag talks about zimnin degazru :> hamalkhus gezeirah. :> Rashi ad loc says that the said gezeira would be against studying Torah, :> the community would lose the sod ha'ibbur and mess up their version of :> the calculation. :> But that's not the cause for keeping the minhag going. : The letter explicitly says that *was* the reason. You don't address my claim, just deny it. What the gemara says the letter read was: Hizharu beminhag avoseikhem! Zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah, ve'asi le'ilqalqulei. This is a motive given for "hizharu". (The letter expliticly says so.) Yes, it could mean that it's the motive for the minhag, which is so strong that that justifies not only keeping it going, but being warned But, given that the potential oppression does not justify the format of the minhag, this explanation must be for the caution alone. :> Because that :> rationale has nothing to do with where the messengers could arrive on :> time back when we needed them. : Those places never had a minhag of two days, so Chazal weren't going : to institute one now. Why not? If the problem is the unreliability of a computed calendar that is done once for centuries ahead without a Sanhedrin, this is new to those in Israel too! I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. Then they add, that one shouldn't say it's not /that/ important, because there is a pragmatic benefit as well. (In any case, Chazal were instituting a derabbanan based on a pre-existing minhag. I don't think you intended to imply that the "one" being instituted now was a minhag.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 11:42:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> On 21/04/17 14:23, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > What the gemara says the letter read was: > Hizharu beminhag avoseikhem! > Zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah, ve'asi le'ilqalqulei. > > This is a motive given for "hizharu". (The letter expliticly says > so.) > > Yes, it could mean that it's the motive for the minhag, which is so > strong that that justifies not only keeping it going, but being warned > But, given that the potential oppression does not justify the format > of the minhag, this explanation must be for the caution alone. No, it's not the reason for the minhag in the first place; we know what that was, and it no longer applies. That's why they wrote to the Sanhedrin asking whether they should abandon it. Hizharu means don't abandon it, keep it going anyway, and the reason for doing so is Zimnin degazru. > : Those places never had a minhag of two days, so Chazal weren't going > : to institute one now. > > Why not? Because that would be an innovation and Zimnin degazru is not enough reason to do so. But it *is* enough reason to continue an already existing practise that has just become obsolete. It takes a lot more to justify changing existing practise than it does to continue it. > I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that > qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices > from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. But there's no hint of this, and the letter explicitly says otherwise. > (In any case, Chazal were instituting a derabbanan based on a pre-existing > minhag. Yes, exactly. It's a din derabanan that behaves *as if* it were a mere minhag, because that's what the rabbanan said it should do. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 12:26:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:26:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421192640.GA20001@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 02:42:49PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : No, it's not the reason for the minhag in the first place; we know : what that was, and it no longer applies. That's why they wrote to : the Sanhedrin asking whether they should abandon it. Hizharu means : don't abandon it, keep it going anyway, and the reason for doing so : is Zimnin degazru. No, hizharu means "be careful", not "keep it going anyway". This is NOT "kevar qiblu avoseikhem aleihem. Shene'emar 'Shemi beni musar avikha, ve'al titosh toras imekha.'" (Pesachim 50b) ... : >I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that : >qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices : >from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. : : But there's no hint of this, and the letter explicitly says otherwise. Again, only once you mistranslate what it means lehazhir. This "explicitly" is not only far from explicit, it's not even there! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 13:37:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:37:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer > make sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside > Israel. Given modern communications, the whole world would know > the time of kiddush hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a > problem but there might be technological answers to that also. Shavuos mochiach. Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. If you can discover all of them, and explain all of them, and explain how Shavuos fits, *then* we can discuss "gezerot that no longer make sense". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 14:21:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:21:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> On 4/21/2017 7:38 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole > taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh > ought to be al pi re'iyah. That's a real possibility. In addition, I suggest that halakha is intended to be feasible without any technology. Just imagine changing something this fundamental to rely on an electronic network that will inevitably be subject to attack by EMPs at some point. I don't think it would be responsible. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 10:35:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 20:35:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole > taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh > ought to be al pi re'iyah. > It is that important to remember that the progression is "meqadesh > Yisrael vehazmanim", that people sanctify time, rather than the times > imposing themselves on people. Even more so once a Sanhredin is reconstituted and there is qiddush hachodesh ougal pi re'iyah.there is no use for YT sheni From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 19:18:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:18:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170423021813.GC19870@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:21:23AM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : That's a real possibility. In addition, I suggest that halakha is : intended to be feasible without any technology. Just imagine : changing something this fundamental to rely on an electronic network : that will inevitably be subject to attack by EMPs at some point. I : don't think it would be responsible. While I get your basic point... What EMPs? Even by Shemu'el's rather prosaic version of the messianic era, ein bein olam hazeh liyamos hamoshiach ela shib'ud malkhius bilvad. Gut Voch! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 00:03:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 03:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: <59924.64874017.462dabd2@aol.com> [1] From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" >> My understanding is that people who wear Tefillen during Cho Moed are not supposed to wear them in a minyan where the custom is that no one wears Tefillen. I know that in a couple of shuls near me they are makpid that those who wear Tefillen and those who do not do wear them do not daven together until after the kedusha of shachris when Tefillen are taken off. << YL [2] From: Allan Engel via Avodah >> Why would tefillin be any different to the various different practises about who does and doesn't wear a tallis? I have never heard of a non-tallis-wearing post-bar-mitzva boy being banished behind the mechitza at a yekkishe shul, or vice versa. << >>>> The difference between the tallis-or-not issue and the tefillin-or-not issue is that the former is in the realm of minhag while the latter is in the realm of halacha. People are not so makpid about differing minhagim in the same shul, but differing piskei halacha in the same shul -- that is much more serious. When you have some men wearing tefillin and others not wearing tefillin in the same minyan on chol hamoed, the presence of each subset implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 00:14:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 10:14:12 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> Hard to imagine that all communication would be lost for 15 days. It certainly is less likely than some problem with lighting fires between mountains. Remember that originally the "entire" galut knew the correct date of Pesach and Succot and so there was only one day of yomtov. Only when there was a deliberate attempt to mislead was the system changed. Also interesting is that there is no discussion of communities beyond Bavel. What was done in Alexandria and Rome? In any case even if locally they kept 2 days it was widespread. BTW I assume it took months to reach Rome. If there was a community in Spain (sefarad) it was even longer. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 12:34:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:34:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tazria Message-ID: <60DB8D20-7368-440D-830C-67A3C69835DD@cox.net> Rabbi Zelig Pliskin, in his book ?Love Your Neighbor,? quotes a hilarious true story about Lashon Hora. Someone asked a cerain woman if she wished to borrow a copy of ?Guard Your Tongue? to study the laws of lashon hora. Her response was: ?I don?t need it. I never speak lashon hora. But my husband really needs it. He always speaks lashon hora." We all know about lashon hora and how speaking ill of others is rather a poor reflection of ourselves. However, taken to another level, it was the S?fat Emes who said that it also can refer to having failed to speak lashon tov. This brings to mind the poignant story of a man weeping uncontrollably at the grave of his young wife. When the rabbi tried to console him by saying how good he was to her, he replied: ?Oh, rabbi, how I loved her so much and once I almost told her.? We have friends who take the time and effort to say nice things, and it would even be nicer if more of us did that. You never know the ripple effect a good word can have. ri After receiving another notice from school about bad behavior, a frustrated father sat to explain to his child the source of each one of the gray hairs in his once black beard. ?This one is from the last time the principal called about your misbehavior. This one is from the time you were mean to your sister. This one is from the time you broke our neighbor?s window,? etc., etc. The father looked at his child for a response to his appeal for better behavior, to which the child calmly replied: ?Oh, now it makes sense why Zaide has such a white beard!? Speech is the mirror of the soul Publilius Syrus, Latin Writer 85BCE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 11:47:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 18:47:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 256 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 25 15:03:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 22:03:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> "When you have some men wearing tefillin and others not wearing tefillin in the same minyan on chol hamoed, the presence of each subset implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment." Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people conscientiously following their family customs and davening together nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. Just a thought from a different perspective. Joseph Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 05:02:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:02:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "Shavuos mochiach. Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. If you can discover all of them, and explain all of them, and explain how Shavuos fits, *then* we can discuss "gezerot that no longer make sense"." The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 04:52:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:52:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Metzorah "LEPERS DO CHANGE THEIR SPOTS" Message-ID: On this, the Shabbos preceding Yom Haatzmaut, we read the Haftarah containing the following verse referring to the four lepers: ?And they said to one another: ?We are not doing the right thing; today is a day of good tidings and yet, we remain silent! If we wait until the light of dawn (until it?s too late), we will be adjudged as sinners; now come, let us go and report to the king?s palace.? Second Kings 7:9 It is fascinating that in our own times, this verse contains a challenging message. It is remarkable how the events of modern Israel ran parallel to the the story told in this Biblical chapter. The Arab armies besieging the Jewish community in Israel, their panic and sudden flight, the great deliverance which followed, and the birth of the State of Israel ? do we not see the hand of Providence in all these events? In one respect we are deeply worried. The lepers of the Haftarah possessed the moral obligation to proclaim the miracle. ?We are not doing the right thing. This is a day of good tidings and it is not proper that we should be quiet about it.? Many of us today (outcasts of yesterday) have still not risen to the moral height of recognizing that a miracle has transpired before our very eyes and therefore our duty to proclaim the greatness of the day! Let us, therefore, proclaim it to our children and to the world. Let us, with a firm belief in the future of Israel, do everything possible to assure its existence, strengthen its foundations, and thus look forward to the day of good tidings, the day of Israel?s total and quintessential Independence! rw John Adams: "I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations? They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews.? John F. Kennedy: "Israel was not created in order to disappear ? Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 13:29:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:03:43PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: :> implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This :> makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look :> bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. : Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly : perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people : conscientiously following their family customs and davening together : nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out : of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that : anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. I think we've lost sight of the original topic. Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. When I was a kid, we tefillin-wearers davened Shacharis in the basement, joining the rest of the shteibl only for the latter part of davening. We are therefore starting with data, the pesaq, and trying to figure out what that means aggadically. Not just blindly guessing about how things look in heaven. If things are as you portray it, the original question is stronger -- what you said doesn't resolve anything. BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos as self-identifications. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 15th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in Fax: (270) 514-1507 harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 14:42:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 21:42:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com>, <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> Lost sight of original topic? If that were a valid criticism we'd hear it at least once if not more in every issue. As to substance. I've been davening in shuls on chol haMoed for more than 50 years and every shul I've davened in, all Modern Orthodox led by rabbis who were well respected talmedei chachamim, had men with and without teffilin davening in one minyan together, sitting next to each other without problems or, I'm pretty sure, thinking of transgressors. That's MY data which I would hope is as valid as shteibl data. And that's what my response to my good friend Toby was trying to deal with. I wasn't the one to raise the perspective of Heaven but I found Toby's thoughtful comment refreshingly interesting and, as always, articulate, so I thought about it a bit and responded. I thought that what we do here on A/A. Joseph Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 26, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:03:43PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: > :> implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This > :> makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look > :> bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. > > : Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly > : perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people > : conscientiously following their family customs and davening together > : nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out > : of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that > : anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. > > I think we've lost sight of the original topic. > > Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in > a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises > evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. > > When I was a kid, we tefillin-wearers davened Shacharis in the basement, > joining the rest of the shteibl only for the latter part of davening. > > We are therefore starting with data, the pesaq, and trying to figure > out what that means aggadically. > > Not just blindly guessing about how things look in heaven. If things > are as you portray it, the original question is stronger -- what you > said doesn't resolve anything. > > BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are indeed > motivated by a consciencous following of family customs and the > perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. And how much > is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification with Litvaks or > Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than identification with the > Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos as self-identifications. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Today is the 15th day, which is > micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. > http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in > Fax: (270) 514-1507 harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 16:11:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:11:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:42:41PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : As to substance. I've been davening in shuls on chol haMoed for more : than 50 years and every shul I've davened in, all Modern Orthodox led : by rabbis who were well respected talmedei chachamim, had men with and : without teffilin davening in one minyan together, sitting next to each : other without problems or, I'm pretty sure, thinking of transgressors. : : That's MY data which I would hope is as valid as shteibl data. And : that's what my response to my good friend Toby was trying to deal with. Those are both anecdotes. (BTW, it was a pretty MO shteibl. We had more professors and other PhDs than you can shake a stick at. R/Dr SZ Leiman, R/Dr David Berger, Rs/Drs Steiner, Rs/Drs Sachat, progessors of Asronomy, Physics (R/Dr Herbert Goldstein, likely author of you physics textbook), Topology...) What is data is that the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed between tefillin wearers and not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 18:24:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:24:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com>, <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB wrote: "What is data is that the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed between tefillin wearers and not." Here's some "data" from R. Chaim (Howard) Jachter: "Nevertheless, in many North American congregations on Chol Hamoed, some wear Tefillin and others do not wear Tefillin in one Minyan. Are all these congregations disregarding the Mishna Berura and the Aruch Hashulchan? One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent authorities. The Gemara (ibid.) states that the coexistence of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad ? two distinct communities maintaining disparate practices in one community ? does not violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 1:158 and 159) notes that in this country Jews have gathered from the various sections of Europe and continue the Halachic practices of their former communities. Subsequent generations continue the practices of their parents. Rav Moshe asserts that American Jewry constitutes ?a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad? and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. The Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan addressed a situation in Europe, which radically differs from the situation in North America, as explained by Rav Moshe. However, it appears that one violates Lo Titgodedu if he wears Tefillin in public in Israel on Chol Hamoed." Joseph Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 22:54:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 01:24:46AM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent : authorities. ... Rav Moshe asserts : that American Jewry constitutes "a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad" : and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) : writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single : community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does : not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of : Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. : The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed... So, that answers the OP. Next question.. How long are we /supposed/ to continue being 2 BD be'ir echad, following the minhagim of our ancestral communities, rather than invoking lo sisgodedu and combining into communal minhagim in our current communities? EY is nearly there WRT tefillin on ch"m, with only a few holdouts like KAJ. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 04:29:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> , <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <36AE5716-00CB-4838-A9CE-5321370B72B4@tenzerlunin.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 27, 2017, at 1:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > > Next question.. How long are we /supposed/ to continue being 2 BD be'ir > echad, following the minhagim of our ancestral communities, rather > than invoking lo sisgodedu and combining into communal minhagim in our > current communities? Considering modern mobility, the world has been made so much smaller that I think the idea of strong communal minhagim imposed on all members of the community may be a thing of the past but not of the future. Joseph From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 16:48:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:48:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. ...<< Akiva Miller >>>>> I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 11:15:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent Message-ID: <20B9894A-31AD-494D-8049-66C38175C660@cox.net> It has been taught that a man must recite 100 b?rachot daily. There are different explanations why 100 and the following are a few: Rabbi Mayer said: a person is obligated to recite 100 Brachos each day. In the Jerusalem Talmud we learned: it was taught in the name of Rabbi Mayer; there is no Jew who does not fulfill one hundred Mitzvos each day, as it was written: Now Israel, what does G-d your G-d ask of you? Do not read the verse as providing for the word: ?what? (Mah); instead read it as including the word: ?one hundred? (Mai?Eh). King David established the practice of reciting one hundred Brachos each day. When the residents of Jerusalem informed him that one hundred Jews were dying everyday, he established this requirement. It appears that the practice was forgotten until our Sages at the time of the Mishna and at the time of the Gemara re-established it. There is an additional hint to the need to recite 100 blessings each day from the Prophets as it is written, Micah, Chapter 6, Verse 8: What does G-d ask of you (Hebrew: mimcha). Mimcha in Gematria is 100. There is also a hint to the need to recite 100 blessings from Scriptures as it is written in Psalms, Chapter 128 Verse 4: Behold, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the Lord (the Hebrew words: Ki Kain appear in the verse. The letters in those words total 100 in Gematria). I?d like to proffer another explanation. In most tests you take in school, a perfect score is 100 or an A+. Hence, when reciting a hundred brachot a day, we come as close to perfection as possible. ?If sin becomes an abomination to you, you will have a hundred percent victory over it.? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 17:35:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:35:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> References: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> Message-ID: <1210e77c-beca-a075-ee6d-2fb9df2cafe8@sero.name> On 27/04/17 19:48, via Avodah wrote: > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the > mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman matan toraseinu. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 18:13:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:13:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> On Areivim we were discussing how some activity could be labeled yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. Along the way I wrote that it couldn't be because the enviroment includes gender mixing. I concluded: : Arayos isn't yeihareig ve'al ya'avor until it's : actual relations. I'm not even sure that yeihareig ve'al ya'avor would : apply to bi'ah with a willing penuyah (who is not a niddah). Two people asked me off list to look at Sanhedrin 75a. In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he could speak to her; at least through a fence. According to either R' Yaaqov bar Idi or R Shemu'el bar Nachmeini, she was even a penuyah. (Peligi bah... chad amar...) But one could learn from that gemara that it would NOT be yeihareig ve'al ya'avor: Bishloma according to the man da'amar she was an eishes ish, shapir. But according to the MdA she was penuyah -- mah kulei hai? Two answers: R' Papa says because it's a pegam mishpachah, R' Acha berei deR' Iqa says "kedei shelo yehu benos Yisrael perutzos ba'arayos". So what's the exchange saying? That it is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor because of the consequent peritzus? Or that bishloma an eishes ish would be YvAY, but a penyah, who isn't, why wouldn't the guy be allowed to speak to her? As I said on Areivim "I am not even sure" which, because the gemara could be taken either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:03:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:03:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: R' Micha Berger concluded: > BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are > indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs > and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. > And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification > with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than > identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos > as self-identifications. That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the MB and AhS were on. By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? Do we really want to accuse the MB and AhS of that? I think there is another way we can look at this whole topic. Let's ask what makes Chol Hamoed Tefillin so unusual. Why is this case different than so many others? Someone else asked why there isn't any enforced uniformity regarding unmarried men wearing a tallis in shul. Why is that different? How about the differing ways of avoiding simcha during sefira? One person will make a wedding during the last week of Nisan, and another person FROM THE SAME SHUL will make a wedding after Lag Baomer. Not only is this tolerated, but the entire shul is allowed to attend both weddings! Why don't we insist that the whole town should go one way or the other, like with the tefillin? Sometimes I feel that our perspective on these issues is so very different than what prevailed in the unified kehilos of yesteryear, that we cannot ever hope to understand it. I think the confusion comes from try to impose one perspective on a differing situation. Perhaps we ought to "agree to disagree". Specifically: *WE* get strength from our diversity; *THEY* got strength from their uniformity. I personally worry about the misfits in those cultures, and the losses they suffered. But perhaps their leaders accepted that as an acceptable price for the chizuk that came to the larger group. We have been trained to be unwilling to accept such a price, and we fight for every single individual. But that too has a price, and we are often unable or unwilling to admit it. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:12:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:12:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement > in the mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. Yes, there is a disagreement over whether the Torah was given on 6 Sivan or on 7 Sivan. And there are lots of cute vertlach about whether Shavuos is about *Matan* Torah, or *Kabalas* HaTorah (and whether or not they happened on the same day). But the bottom line is the the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after Pesach. If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty about Shavuos. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:52:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:52:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025454.YQWS32620.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in >a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises >evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. There's something about this that I've never understood. Suppose a person is having a stomach problem -- isn't he supposed to refrain from wearing tefillin? So, in a shul, a guy is not wearing tefillin -- how do we even know what his reason is? (In fact, I think I recall hearing that R Moshe himself didn't wear tefillin many times towards the end of his life for this reason). So, of all the things regarding lo sisgadedu -- why tefillin? Why not all the other things that daveners wear differently? (E.g., different minhagim via-a-vis wearing a tallis before marriage?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:54:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:54:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Rabbi Mayer said: a person is obligated to recite 100 Brachos each >day. In the Jerusalem Talmud we >learned: it was taught in the name of Rabbi Mayer; there is no Jew >who does not fulfill one hundred >Mitzvos each day, as it was written: Now Israel, what does G-d your >G-d ask of you? Do not read the >verse as providing for the word: ?what? (Mah); instead read it as >including the word: ?one hundred? >(Mai?Eh). IIRC, there's a fun Ba'al HaTurim on this pasek: If you add the alef into the pasuk -- not only does it turn the word into "100" -- but the pasuk will then have 100 letters in it. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:58:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:58:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> > > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the > > mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. Indeed. Machlokes over whether it was Sivan 6 or 7. OTOH, the 50th day could also have fallen on Sivan 5, no? >The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed >calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman >matan toraseinu. Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? (I'm not being snarky -- it's a genuine question) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 21:45:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:45:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170428044535.GC2155@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:58:07PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" : when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? The explanation I like (eg from Maadanei Yom Tov) is that "zeman matan Toraseinu" is not a date in Sivan, but a number of days after Yetzias Mitzrayim or of the omer. Your question is based on the idea that "zeman" is a time on the calendar, not a point in a process (be it redemption or of omer). The MYT I mentioned earlier explains why Matan Torah was on the 7th whereas our Zeman Matan Toraseinu is on the 6th: He (the Tosafos Yom Tov?) notes that omer is both tisperu 50 yom and sheva shabasos temimos. It is 50 days or 7 x 7 = 49 days? So, uusually we think 49 days of omer, Shavuos is the 50th. The MYT says that 49 days of omer and the first day of Pesach is the 0th. Zeman Matan Toraseinu is thus after 50 days of process. For our Pesach, that's day 1 of Pesach + 49 omer, yeilding Sivan 6th. The first Pesach, though, Yetzi'as Mitzrayim was at midnight. So the first full day, usable as day 0, was the 16th of Nissan. Shifting everying off one day, so that process from physical ge'ulah to matan Torah ended on 7 Sivan. But whether you like that vertl or not, the idea that would answer your question is just that "zeman" is not necessarily a date; just as Shabbos is a time based on interval, not date. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:33:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:33:49 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <40e6067e-a5cf-689b-619a-908d5249a8a8@zahav.net.il> When was that prayer written, before or after the calendar was set? Ben On 4/28/2017 4:58 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" > when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 02:33:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:33:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the Exodus. Lisa On 4/28/2017 5:58 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed >> calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman >> matan toraseinu. > > Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" > when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:18:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:18:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428061804.GA19887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : "Insufficiently kneaded" means that there might be some flour in the : middle of the matza that never got wet and is still plain raw flour, : and that if it gets wet it will become chometz. "Insufficiently baked" : means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not : get baked, and it is already chometz. And RMGR feels that the second : of these is a "much greater risk". But... If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently kneeded, would any of the dry flour that went through the oven be still capable of becoming chaneitz if wet? If the dough is now too baked to rise any further, wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be to toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5, which discvusses things not to do because "shelma lo qulhu yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is that possible? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:22:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. Lo zakhisi lehavin. All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty. Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays being of the form of an uncertainty. But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain about the date. What am I missing in the CS's sevara? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 22:03:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:03:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite Message-ID: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> I signed up for something called Carbonite, which uploads everything on your computer to the Cloud where it might be possible to retrieve it all if your computer dies or is stolen. The thing is, either I have way too much on my computer or my computer is way too old and slow, but anyway, Carbonite started uploading on Sunday afternoon and now, Thursday night, it is STILL uploading. It continuously shows what progress it has made, and it is showing me that it has uploaded 43% of my computer. I am no math whiz but I can figure out that if it took from Sunday to Thursday to upload 43% it is not going to reach 100% before Shabbos. I asked the Carbonite tech person what happens if you turn off your computer in the middle, and he said Carbonite will just continue where it left off when you turn your computer back on. Interestingly we had a test case on Monday when my neighborhood lost power for six hours. When the power came back on, Carbonite did NOT resume where it had left off. Instead, I had to call Carbonite and ended up being on the phone for an hour while they told me to do this and that and then they did whatever and finally got Carbonite to resume its weary work. So here is my question for the learned chevra here on Avodah: Can I just leave my computer on all Shabbos, in another room with the door closed where I won't see it and it won't fashtair my Shabbos, and let Carbonite keep running and running? (It looks like it will take a whole nother week to finish.) Or should I sell my laptop to a goy and buy it back after Shabbos? (That was a joke, for those of you in Rio Linda.) Should I turn it off and resign myself to talking to tech support again for another hour to get it working again after Shabbos? Oy, siz shver tsu zein a Yid! Is leaving a laptop on all Shabbos with Carbonite uploading more like [A] leaving your lights, fridge and air conditioning on all Shabbos or [B] leaving a TV or radio on -- dubiously muttar, definitely not Shabbosdik or [C] making your eved Canaani work for you all day Shabbos -- a no-no or [D] giving your clothes to the Greek dressmaker to fix and telling her you need them some time next week, and if she for her own convenience decides to do the work on Shabbos, that's copacetic? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 06:44:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:44:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite In-Reply-To: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> References: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:03 AM, [Rn Toby Katz] wrote: > I signed up for something called Carbonite... > Can I just leave my computer on all Shabbos, in another room with the door > closed where I won't see it and it won't fashtair my Shabbos, and let > Carbonite keep running and running? (It looks like it will take a whole > nother week to finish.) ... What tzurus. I use crash plan. They each have their share of grief. I leave my computer on 24x7 except 2 day yomtov. I turn off the monitor and make sure the keyboard and mouse are secure before Shabbat. Why is it any different than leaving on the A/C? Back in the day, people would set the vcr to record a show over shabbat. That was a bit more dubious but was done. Good Shabbos From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 04:02:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:02:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org>, <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From: Micha Berger Sent: 27 April 2017 13:13 ... > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he > could speak to her; at least through a fence... > Bishloma according to the man da'amar she was an eishes ish, > shapir. > But according to the MdA she was penuyah -- mah kulei hai? ... > So what's the exchange saying? That it is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor > because of the consequent peritzus? Or that bishloma an eishes ish > would be YvAY, but a penyah, who isn't, why wouldn't the guy be > allowed to speak to her? Of note, that gemara is brought in Rambam Yesodei HaTorah in the context of acheiving cure for illness through hana'as issur. Meaning that it's not a halacha of gilui arayos per se, rather hana'as issur. He paskens it's assur even with a pnuya so that bnos yisrael won't be hefker. No mention of pgam mishpacha. (Parenthetically this seems to be an din of yeihareig v'al ya'avor midrabannon (so that bnos yisrael etc..). Any other such cases? I'd assumed YvAY is always d'oirasa, almost by definition) The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought. There is no suggestion that conversation in any normal situation is an issur hana'a per se, so therefore is not assur, certainly not Yeihareig V'al Yaavor. Therefore can't see how this gemara would be relevant to the army issue any more than the familiar dinim of r'eiyas einayim, kirva l'arayos etc which are no less relevant in the workplace and on the street. [Email #2. -micha] On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua. Nonetheless the whole gemara is still only relevant to a case of clear hana'as issur. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 07:57:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:57:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite In-Reply-To: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> References: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> Message-ID: <247ffd82-32aa-3bf1-c6ef-36c008a1a4a3@sero.name> On 28/04/17 01:03, via Avodah wrote: > Is leaving a laptop on all Shabbos with Carbonite uploading more like > [A] leaving your lights, fridge and air conditioning on all Shabbos > or [B] leaving a TV or radio on -- dubiously muttar, definitely not > Shabbosdik or [C] making your eved Canaani work for you all day Shabbos > -- a no-no or [D] giving your clothes to the Greek dressmaker to fix and > telling her you need them some time next week, and if she for her own > convenience decides to do the work on Shabbos, that's copacetic? It's A, shevisas keilim, which is a machlokes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. The halacha of course follows Beis Hillel, that we are not commanded on shevisas keiliim, so it's completely OK. The problem with B is hashma`as kol, which is a species of mar'is ho`ayin; passersby will hear the sound of work being done in your home and will suspect you, if not of actual chilul shabbos, then at least of amira lenochri. It is muttar if there are no Jews within a techum shabbos. C is of course completely out, mid'oraisa, even if the eved sets his own schedule. Avadim are obligated to keep Shabbos. D is amira lenochri, which is completely muttar mid'oraisa, but the chachamim forbade it lest you come to do melacha yourself. Thus it's muttar if the decision to do the work on Shabbos rather than during the week is completely up to the nochri. BTW you don't need to leave it to sometime next week; you can ask to have it ready when the shop opens on Sunday morning, and it's up to the cleaner whether to do it on Shabbos or to stay up all night motzei shabbos to get it done. It's only assur if there are literally not enough weekday hours between now and when you want it, so that the nochri *must* do some of it on Shabbos. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 07:27:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:27:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:14 PM 4/27/2017, R. Micha Berger wrote: >EY is nearly there WRT tefillin on ch"m, with only a few holdouts >like KAJ. This statement does not seem to be correct. See http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x Note the following from there. Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau?er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. and (I do not know what all of the ? stand for.) Here are a few names, a sampling of some past gedolim who wore tefillin on chol hamoed IN ERETZ YISROEL (either betzinoh or otherwise) ? Moreinu HaRav Schach, Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, Rav Michel Feinstein (eidem of the Brisker Rav), Pressburger Rav, and Rav Duschinsky, ????. The ???? ????? was in Eretz Yisroel. In his siddur Shaarei Shomayim, he has tefillin on chol hamoed. Rav Moshe Feinstein ???? writes in a teshuvoh that he knows of thousands of bnei Torah who put on tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel. ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????, ????? of Edah Charedis was heard also taking the position that someone whose minhog is to put on tefillin on chol hamoed cannot just suddenly drop it totally in Eretz Yisroel. The above and previous post is based on what I heard about this inyan ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????, ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????. I think there is an Oberlander minyan in Yerushlayim where they wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed as well, if I recall correctly. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 08:03:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:03:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7af7f734-f777-e833-2997-5d8daf3057af@sero.name> On 28/04/17 02:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos > : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not > : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day > : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a > : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most > : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But > : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the > : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. > Lo zakhisi lehavin. > > All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a > taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty. > > Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the > uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays > being of the form of an uncertainty. > > But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was > like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain > about the date. I think what he means is that even in their days, when most YT Sheni were safek d'oraisa, the 2nd day of Shavuos was a vadai d'rabanan pretending to be a safek d'oraisa. Nowadays that describes *all* YT Sheni (except the 2nd day of RH, which is a vadai d'rabanan not pretending to be anything else, because even in their days this was occasionally the case). So his explanation is merely historical, that what we have is not a new situation, because they had it on Shavuos. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 08:27:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:27:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is > the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the > case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which > we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the > Exodus. Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th day but on the 51st. So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the pseudo-Julian anniversary. Therefore I assume they did *not* say ZMT. In fact I assume they didn't say it even when it *did* fall on the 6th, since that was just a coincidence. Only when it was set to fall on the 6th every year did it take on a new nature as ZMT. This is all, however, on the assumption that we hold like the opinion that yetzias mitzrayim was on a Thursday. This is the basis of the entire sugya in Perek R Akiva Omer that we all know. But right at the end of that sugya, at the top of 88a a new source is suddenly cited, the Seder Olam, that YM was on a Friday, and the gemara seems to say "Aha! Forget everything we said till now, trying to reconcile the Rabbanan's opinion, now everything is simple: the Seder Olam follows the Rabbanan, YM was on a Friday, and MT was 50 days later on the 6th of Sivan, and the sources we've been working with, that say YM was on a Thursday, follow R Yossi, who says MT was on the 7th. So for years I've wondered why it is that we seem to ignore this source and continue to maintain that YM was on Thursday, even though it means accepting the strained explanations the gemara comes up with to reconcile them before it found the Seder Olam. If the SO was enough for the gemara to overthrow its earlier discussion, why isn't it enough for us? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 11:16:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:16:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: <24769a.1d3ee4d4.4634e11b@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> But the bottom line is the the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after Pesach. If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty about Shavuos. << Akiva Miller >>>> In the days when they kept two days Pesach because they didn't know when Rosh Chodesh had been, perhaps you can say that by the time Shavuos rolled around, the messengers had arrived to tell them when Rosh Chodesh Nissan (and therefore when Pesach) had been so by then they knew for sure when Shavuos was. But of course we still keep two days of Pesach until now, as we've been discussing, despite the fact that we no longer have a safeik about the date. So your statement, "If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty" is not really true or maybe is true but not relevant. After all, didn't you start counting Sefira on your [second] Seder Night? Was that not a stira -- counting sefira at the seder? After all, we're supposed to start counting "mimacharas haShabbos" -- the day AFTER yom tov, i.e., the first day of chol hamo'ed. So "fifty days after Pesach" turns out itself to be a slightly slippery concept. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 12:07:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:07:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent In-Reply-To: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> References: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Message-ID: I heard this from the late R Hershel Fogelman, of Worcester MA: The passuk says "ha'elef lecha Shelomo, umasayim lenotrim es piryo". What does this mean? The Gemara (Chulin 87a) says that the opportunity to say a bracha is worth ten golden coins. So we owe You, Melech Shehashalom Shelo, 1000 coins. But on Shabbos we are short 200. Who makes up these 200? Those who keep it with fruit. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 03:17:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 20:17:11 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: "Insufficiently baked" means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not get baked and it is already chometz. RMGR feels that this is a "much greater risk" than the risk of Gebrochts. I hope the following clarifies my argument that G is an utterly fake concern IF one is Choshesh that the baking has NOT reached the central part of the Matza as are Choshesh all those who do not eat G [bcs if it is properly baked then even if some flour remains bcs the dough was insufficiently kneaded that flour which has been baked CANNOT become Chamets] The problem is once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash that the central part of the Matza is not fully baked then never mind the problem of flour which will BECOME Chamets when it gets wet and given time WE HAVE A MUCH GREATER PROBLEM according to the Gebrochts-nicks argument we ALREADY HAVE CHAMETS in the Matza since the dough that is insufficiently baked is ALREADY Chamets -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 19:44:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:44:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently > kneaded, would any of the dry flour that went through > the oven be still capable of becoming chameitz if wet? > If the dough is now too baked to rise any further, > wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be > too toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5, > which discusses things not to do because "shema lo qulhu > yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is > that possible? What's the shiur of "qulhu yafeh"? Maybe roasting flour is more time-consuming than baking matzah? You want to say they're the same, but who knows? If we had a better handle on these things, our Pesach breakfasts could be farina or oatmeal made with chalita, but we have forgotten how to do that correctly. I have a friend who has been a Home Economics teacher at the local public high school for about 40 years. She likes to point out how different baking is from cooking. Cooking, she says, is about flavors, and you can put just about anything you like into a pot, cook it for a while, and it will be okay. "But baking is all about chemistry." You have to get the right ingredients in the right proportions at the right temperatures for the right time, or it will be a disaster. This distinction doesn't show up in Hilchos Shabbos, but it certainly does in Chometz UMatzah. Timing is key. I have no idea what the poskim say about varied situations of "shema lo qulhu yafeh", but it is very easy for me to imagine that if there is some dry flour inside the matza dough, the matza could be adequately baked while that flour is still not yet roasted enough to prevent later chimutz. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 04:10:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 21:10:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe Message-ID: R Micha points out RaMBaM does record the Halacha that we may not cook in water during Pesach toasted grains nor the flour ground from them because Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe perhaps they were not fully toasted and they may become Chamets one assumes this is because over-toasting the Camel grains ruins the taste and it was therefore far more likely that they were under-toasted than over-toasted Furthermore there is no test to apply to toasted grains as there is to baked Matza Matza is tested for being baked by tearing it apart and ensuring there are no doughy threads stretching between the torn pieces -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 19:17:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Acharei Mot Message-ID: Acharei Mot is the only Torah portion with the word ?death? in its title. The two words together are captivating: ACHAREI mot. In other words, we should be focusing on ?Acharei,? AFTER death. As depressing, difficult and mysterious as death is, we must not dwell on it. We must go on with our lives ?Acharei" AFTER. Life is eternal, and love is immortal, and death is only a horizon; and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight. Rossiter Worthington Raymond (April 27, 1840 in Cincinnati, Ohio ? December 31, 1918 in Brooklyn, New York) He was an American mining engineer, legal scholar and author. At his memorial, the President of Lehigh University described him as "one of the most remarkable cases of versatility that our country has ever seen?sailor, soldier, engineer, lawyer, orator, editor, poet, novelist, story-teller, biblical critic, theologian, teacher, chess-player?he was superior in each capacity. What he did, he always did well." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 20:58:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 05:58:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <77074713-e49c-4af3-1f69-39b611caa0e0@zahav.net.il> Read further down on the page: Your exceptions prove the rule. Sorry you are unfamiliar with minhagei eretz yisrael. They are esentially minhagei Hagra, brought here by the famous ?prushim? clan, and these minhagim have been accepted throughout Israel, with some exceptions.In Yerushalayim , they are accepted almost uniformly. The Tukotchinsky Luach for minhagim of the davening is a reflection of this and it is accepted by almost all. True, here and there, as your friend noted, there is a minyan that puts on tefillin. To each his own. But there are thousands of minyanim that don?t, and many of them do not hesitate to unceremoniously throw anyone out that dares put them on, even in the corner or in another room. I have seen this myself. Rav Schach?s custom, and certainly the Erlauer Rebbe indicate that the general custom is not to put on tefillin. None of the yeshivas, including Rav Schach?s yeshiva, adopted his minhag.None of the chassidim here do either except the relatively small numbered Erlauer. Ben On 4/28/2017 4:27 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > This statement does not seem to be correct. See http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x > > Note the following from there. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 20:53:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:53:56 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I had asked whether people had a view on the halachic propriety or otherwise of using a sous-vide machine over Shabbos and received no response. The sous-vide is a method of cooking which one might call very slow cooking. Bags with the food (e.g. meat) are places in a bucket or the like, and the machine is placed inside the bucket together with water which covers the plastic bag(s). It can take a really cheap cut of meat and make it tender and delicious. It?s buttons can be covered if someone is worried about Shehiya, I think the issue is Harmono. It can?t be both. One thing I noticed is that nobody seems to fiddle or touch the bags until the ?given time period?, and then one just pulls the plastic bags out. One can pre-program to turn the machine off, or it can continue keeping the water at the set temperature. There are various scenarios. Where the food is ready on Friday night. Where another bag of the food has a different texture is left till lunchtime on shabbos Where the meat is Mamash Raw (let alone not Maachol Ben Drusoi) on Erev Shabbos but will be good on Shabbos Where the concept of Mitztamek Veyofe Lo has nothing to do with Mitztamek, but rather a quantitative improvement that is still possible without it shrivelling The final issue is whether you say that since it might have had another 12 hours cooking and the temperature does not rise, that the meat is of a different VARIETY as opposed to quality. For example cooked versus roasted steak. Either way, here is a link to the only Tshuva I know of on this issue. I?m interested in reactions. There is a touch of Choddosh Ossur Min HaTorah from Rav Asher Weiss, but in the main, I can?t think of a reason why it?s not Hatmono. Disclaimer: I have not reviewed Hatmono for many years, and started to in dribs and drabs with the Aruch HaShulchan. This is the link to the Tshuva http://preview.tinyurl.com/kvxswnp or http://tinyurl.com/kvxswnp I spoke to Mori V?Rabbi Rav Schachter about it, and interchanged with his son Rabbi Shay, but they haven?t managed to show him the device and he won?t pasken until he has seen it (of course). "It is only the anticipation of redemption that preserves Judaism in Exile, while Judaism in the Land of Israel is the redemption itself." ______________________ Rabbi A.I. Hacohen Kook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 06:34:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:34:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >: The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos >: Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not >: differentiate between holidays... > All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaint[y]... > But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was > like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain > about the date. The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about second day of Yom Tov apply. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 09:48:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:48:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170430164805.GA11800@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 04:34:17PM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: : The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made : b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about second day of : Yom Tov apply. I know. That's my question. He says YT sheini of Shavuos was mishum lo pelug. So, if it's really lo pelug, then how/why would it be different in form than YT Sheini Sukkos, Shemini Atzeres or Pesach (x 2)? If it's lo pelug, then the usual qulos of pretending we're dealing with the old-time safeiq should apply -- or else, there is a pelug. No? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 09:57:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:57:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:02:29AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he : > could speak to her; at least through a fence... ... : The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone : who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as : issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought. ... : [Email #2. -micha] : : On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar : pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned : with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as : arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua. Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy for letting his taavos get so worked up. I see a slight conflict in your answers. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 11:05:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:05:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From AudioRoundup at Torah Musings: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/864540/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-sous-vide-cooking-for-shabbos-(and-through-shabbos)/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-From The Rabbi?s Desk ? Sous Vide Cooking For Shabbos (and Through Shabbos) Sous vide cooking (another thing we?ve lived without but now sounds like it will be the next sushi). If you do it for, or over Shabbat, is there an issue of hatmana or shehiya? FWIW the hashkafa at the end of R?Asher Weiss?s tshuva is well worth thinking about ? we seem to live in an age where any sacrifice is difficult. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 13:50:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> , <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I didn't think I was giving two answers, just clarifying further. So, let's work through it again. I must admit I have looked at neither Rishonim (except Rambam) nor achronim. But here goes: The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of YaVY. The gemara then says that this works fine for an eishes ish, The first question should be why that's obvious? Since when is conversation with an eishes ish YvAY? We answered that by saying, al pi Rambam, that the point of the gemara is to clarify how far we apply YvAY to hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation carries the din YvAY. That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. However, the bottom line for our original reason for analysing this gemara remains that it's not part of the cheshbon governing any standard interactions in which any ben Torah might participate, as it only applies to someone sick enough to have inevitable sexual hana'a from a conversation. R Micha's two correspondents can feel free to challange that whether off or on list. BW Ben Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy for letting his taavos get so worked up. I see a slight conflict in your answers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:22:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:45:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy : ... : OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the : rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very : clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz.... : : So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? I think the "out" is the clause "sheyeish lanu ba'alus alava". So, chameitz that you didn't have baalus on, but was delivered on Pesach wouldn't be included. (And would be a davar shelo ba le'olam, even if you did try to include it.) No, that doesn't cover things you owned since before Pesach and were unware "delo chazisei" that you only found on Pesach. OTOH, wasn't that stuff already mevutal anyway? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:30:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430173012.GB27111@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are :> indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs :> and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. :> And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification :> with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than :> identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos :> as self-identifications. : That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the : MB and AhS were on. : By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they : putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, : ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on : identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? ... I don't see how they are. If someone says there should be a single pesaq for a location and the shul could be consistent is talking about unity. Not about whether our community's minhagim are better or worse than those of another community -- they aren't present to suggest we're comparing. I was contrasting two different motives for breaking that unity: The first archetype is the one who does so because he takes more self-identity from his Litvisher (eg) ancestry than in being in part of the observant community, or Jewish community in general. The second is the one who is motivated by the logic of the pesaq or the hashkafah payoff. Such as someone who is "into" qabbalah for whom "qotzeitz bintiyos" means something and motivates not feeling happy in tefillin on ch"m. I was suggesting that lo sisgodedu only rules out the first motivation, not the second. But the acharon who promotes everyone following one practice isn't a question of whether their motivation is more important than lo sisgodedu to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:30:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430173012.GB27111@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are :> indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs :> and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. :> And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification :> with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than :> identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos :> as self-identifications. : That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the : MB and AhS were on. : By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they : putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, : ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on : identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? ... I don't see how they are. If someone says there should be a single pesaq for a location and the shul could be consistent is talking about unity. Not about whether our community's minhagim are better or worse than those of another community -- they aren't present to suggest we're comparing. I was contrasting two different motives for breaking that unity: The first archetype is the one who does so because he takes more self-identity from his Litvisher (eg) ancestry than in being in part of the observant community, or Jewish community in general. The second is the one who is motivated by the logic of the pesaq or the hashkafah payoff. Such as someone who is "into" qabbalah for whom "qotzeitz bintiyos" means something and motivates not feeling happy in tefillin on ch"m. I was suggesting that lo sisgodedu only rules out the first motivation, not the second. But the acharon who promotes everyone following one practice isn't a question of whether their motivation is more important than lo sisgodedu to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:08:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:08:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430170851.GD19139@aishdas.org> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 08:17:11PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The problem is : once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash : that the central part of the Matza : is not fully baked : then never mind the problem of flour : which will BECOME Chamets : when it gets wet ... Again, if gebrochts were about the middle not being baked, it would be worries about chameitz whether or not the matzah later gets in contact with water. It's about flour that didn't become kneaded. As the SA haRav states, the Besht ate gebrochts because in his day the 1 mil timer was stopped for kneading. We came up with this chumerah of trying to fit everything, including the kneading in the time limit. Which caused us to start rushing the kneading. (Yet, the Alter Rebbe of Lub lauded this new chumerah, despite it coming with new risks.) And so he justified chassidim of his generation following a new hanhagah that the Besht did not. (We discuss this teshuvah annually.) The question I asked is based on the fact that toasted flour doesn't become chameitz. And by simple physics, we expect that if dough, a huge lump, can bake through, then of course we would have completed the toasting of the same chemicals present in fine powder form, like any dry unkneaded flour within the dough. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 17:49:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 10:49:28 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <384BCE1C-0255-4CD6-9547-033963F2DA9C@gmail.com> Rich, Joel wrote: > > > From AudioRoundup at Torah Musings: > http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/864540/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-sous-vide-cooking-for-shabbos-(and-through-shabbos)/ > Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-From The Rabbi?s Desk ? Sous Vide Cooking For Shabbos (and Through Shabbos) > Sous vide cooking (another thing we?ve lived without but now sounds like it will be the next sushi). If you do it for, or over Shabbat, is there an issue of hatmana or shehiya? > > > FWIW the hashkafa at the end of R?Asher Weiss?s tshuva is well worth thinking about ? we seem to live in an age where any sacrifice is difficult. > > KT > Joel Rich R Joel, yes indeed. I got the Tshuva from R Aryeh :-) The other question is why does Halacha entail sacrifice. IF it's halachically sound it may be a hiddur! I know we have it on Tuesdays and everyone loves it. It is a superior form of cooking. If it's NOT Hatmono then why (if one has the implement) would one not use it. I find that a Hungarian Posek approach in general. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 17:34:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:34:13 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on Monday besides Hallel on tues Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 08:39:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 08:39:29 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> References: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <138374BA-01AB-4BF3-8554-304B33684B81@gmail.com> Young Israel century city holds both kulot. No tachanun Monday. Hallel Tues. Curious how most chul shuls do it. .I expect most follow israel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 09:51:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 18:51:40 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/1/2017 2:34 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on > Monday besides Hallel on tues Mine didn't and that was my experience in other shuls as well. The Tfilion app doesn't have Tachanun (but does have an added chapter of Tehillim for the fallen). Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 06:15:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:15:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> On Monday, May 1, 2017 6:02 AM, saul newman wrote: > Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on > Monday besides Hallel on tues Rav Ahron considered Hey Iyar to be Yom Ha'atzmaut and the day that Hallel (without a Bracha) is said and Tachanun is not said -- regardless of when Israel celebrates it (for whatever reason it may be delayed). I (and Yeshivas Brisk) did not say Tachanun at Mincha yesterday (Erev Yom Tov) nor today at Shacharis... nor will I say it at Mincha. I will say it tomorrow. HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 10:23:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:23:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Last year, in http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n055.shtml#10 , RHM gave R' Aharon Soloveitchik's shitah. Much like this year, although last iteration he added: One can review the Halachic sources RAS used in his book 'Logic of the heart, Logic of the Mind'. I responded in the post right below it, quoting RGS, http://www.torahmusings.com/technology-halakhic-change-yom-ha-atzmaut , who in turn was commenting on R/Dr Aaron Levin of Flatbush's evolving practice: In America, where the celebrations can be more easily controlled to avoid the desecration of Shabbos, many authorities did not recognize the change of date, among them Rav Ahron Soloveichik and Rav Hershel Schachter. They insisted that people recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar -- the day of the miracle of the declaration of the State of Israel -- regardless of when Israelis celebrate the day. Rav Aaron Levine's son, Rav Efraim Levine, told me that his father had to change his position on this question over time. Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a community to determine its own date to celebrate. To which I added: RAS might have decided similarly or not had he lived to see the day when the primary intercontinental communication was the telephone, not the aerogram. We can't know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 11:59:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 20:59:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: For Hebrew readers, Rav Yoni Rosensweig sums up Rav Rabinovitch's position on the matter: https://www.facebook.com/yonirosensweig/posts/1761639697197955 Bottom line: Moving Yom Aztmaout doesn't entirely remove the uniqueness of the day. While he does state that the rabbinate holds that one skips Tachanun only on the day Yom Aztmaout is celebrated, RYR doesn't accept that psak. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 12:35:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 15:35:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> On a lighter, more aggadic note, my father suggested that the existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to minimize chilul Shabbos is the very thing a Religious Zionist would be celebrating on Yom haAtzmaaut. Which reminds me of something Rav Dovid Lifshitz said about Yom haAtzma'ut. Rebbe said that Atzma'ut is something special, and certainly worth celebrating. But for now YhA is only half a holiday. We established the atzma'ut of Yisrael, but are still missing its etzem. To rephrase into my father's words: It is worthwhile to celebrate the existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to minimize chilul Shabbos, but what we pray for is the existence of a country that wouldn't have to! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 14:42:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 23:42:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the reading is pushed off until Sunday. Ben On 5/1/2017 9:35 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > It is worthwhile to celebrate the > existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to > minimize chilul Shabbos, but what we pray for is the existence of a > country that wouldn't have to! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 17:38:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 20:38:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:42:18PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the : reading is pushed off until Sunday. Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 22:29:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 07:29:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> Message-ID: 1) It is part of a package deal, the first part of which can fall on Shabbat. 2) When we go back to setting the month based on witnesses, it could fall on Shabbat. Ben On 5/2/2017 2:38 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. > > -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 23:12:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 09:12:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:42:18PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: > : It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the > : reading is pushed off until Sunday. > > Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. > 5 Iyyar certainly can fall out on Shabbat, and as it happens it doe so in exactly the same years when there is Shushan Purim Meshulash: Adar has 29 days and Nisan 30, so from 15 Adar to 5 Iyyar is 29 + 30 - 10 = 49 days or exactly 7 weeks. In other words, Shushan Purim and Yom Ha`Atzmaut (when not postponed or advanced) are always on the same day of the week. This last happened nine years ago in 5768 and will happen again in 5781 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 21:39:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 14:39:34 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Looking Jewish Message-ID: Gemara AZara 58a - R Yochanan b Arza and R Yosiy b Nehuroi, were drinking wine - they requested someone nearby to fix their drinks. After he fulfilled their request they realised he was not Jewish. May they drink the wine, is the Gemara's Q. But how could they make such a mistake? And how might the wine be permitted? the Gemarah 58b explains it was clear to the G that the Sages were Jewish, it was also clear that he thought that they knew he was not Jewish, and it was also clear that he as a non-J knew that if he handled the wine, they wold not be permitted to drink it So he thought - they MUST be drinking mead [which he may handle and mix for them] so even though he was actually handling wine, thinking it was mead, he would not make his usual pagan worship and so it did not become disqualified. So here is the tough part HE was CERTAIN they knew he was not J [that's why he was certain that they were drinking mead and not wine] however the truth was they DID IN FACT THINK he was J [and that is why they did invite him to fix their wine drinks] could this happen today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 04:48:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 07:48:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Ha'atzmaut Message-ID: <3866CC37-90C9-4337-8257-616B6EB01940@cox.net> The story is told of the Chafetz Chayim, zt"l, that he asked one of his visitors who had come from a great distance, "How are you?? which in Yiddish is, "Vos makhst du," literally, "What do you do?" So in answer to this inquiry, the visitor replied, "Thank God, I have a thriving business, I have no financial problems, I have a beautiful home with a swimming pool,? etc. etc. The Chafetz Chayim repeated, "Vos makhst du?" and the visitor, a bit confused as to why the question was repeated, gave the same reply. So for the third time, the same question was asked of the visitor, at which point the visitor looked at the saint and he said: ?I don?t understand why you asked me three times 'How I am.? I told you that thank God, I have a thriving business, a lot of money, a beautiful home, etc.? The Chafetz Chayim replied: ?You don?t understand. You told me what GOD is doing for YOU, but I asked, 'What are YOU doing?' I therefore repeat: 'Vos makhst du?'" How does this apply to Israel Independence Day? We know what Israel has done for US. The question remains: What are we doing for Israel, and what are we doing for each other? May we become ?Independent" enough to help others who "depend" on us. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 11:50:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Avram Sacks via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 13:50:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Cong Or Torah in Skokie said tachanun at shacharit, but not at mincha on erev Yom Ha-Atzmaut. On YhA, at ma'ariv we added additional tehillim at the end of davening, as found in the Koren siddur for Yom HaAtzmaut. At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. Kol tuv, Avi Avram Sacks From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 13:16:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 16:16:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Looking Jewish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170502201609.GB17585@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:39:34PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Gemara AZara 58a ... : the Gemarah 58b explains ... : So he thought - they MUST be drinking mead : [which he may handle and mix for them] : so even though he was actually handling wine, : thinking it was mead, he would not make his usual pagan worship : and so it did not become disqualified. ... : could this happen today? Their wine was this thick syrup that required dilution (mezigas hakos) to be drinkable. They also often had to add spices and/or honey to make it palatable. Inomlin / yinomlin (spelled with a leading alef or yud, depending on girsa; Shabbos 20:2, AZ 30a) was wine mixed with honey and pepper (Shabbos 140a). So, if the grapes were particularly sour, and more honey was added, perhaps it wasn't that easy to determine that it was wine (enomlin) and not meade. A problem 2 millenia of vintners eliminated through breeding better grapes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 14:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 17:20:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5908F811.8040504@aishdas.org> Beautiful sentiments, to be sure, but 100% emotional and 0% halachic. Was there live music on 6 Iyar? KT, YGB On 5/2/2017 2:50 PM, Avram Sacks via Avodah wrote: > Cong Or Torah in Skokie said tachanun at shacharit, but not at mincha > on erev Yom Ha-Atzmaut. On YhA, at ma'ariv we added additional > tehillim at the end of davening, as found in the Koren siddur for Yom > HaAtzmaut. At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel > (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and > ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it > is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet > observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in > Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added > that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about > those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA > on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 15:17:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 18:17:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akrasia and Ritual Message-ID: <20170502221754.GA25834@aishdas.org> Akrasia is a classical Greek term for why we so often don't do what we believe. In more mesoretic terms -- the problem of akrasia is the question of "what is the yeitzer hara?" In http://www.thebookoflife.org/akrasia-or-why-we-dont-do-what-we-believe there is an interesting piece on how ritual helps solve akrasia. It might help one's qabbalas ol mitzvos: ... There are two central solutions to akrasia, located in two unexpected quarters: in art and in ritual. The real purpose of art... (Fans of RAYK or Dr Nathan Birnbaum might want to read the part I'm skipping here.) Ritual is the second defence we have against akrasia. By ritual, one means the structured, often highly seductive or aesthetic, repetition of a thought or an action, with a view to making it at once convincing and habitual. Ritual rejects the notion that it can ever be sufficient to teach anything important once - an optimistic delusion which the modern education system has been fatefully marked by. Once might be enough to get us to admit an idea is right, but it won't be anything like enough to convince us it should be acted upon. Our brains are leaky, and under-pressure of any kind, they will readily revert to customary patterns of thought and feeling. Ritual trains our cognitive muscles, it makes a sequence of appointments in our diaries to refresh our acquaintance with our most important ideas. Our current culture tends to see ritual mainly as an antiquated infringement of individual freedom, a bossy command to turn our thoughts in particular directions at specific times. But the defenders of ritual would see it another way: we aren't being told to think of something we don't agree with, we are being returned with grace to what we always believed in at heart. We are being tugged by a collective force back to a more loyal and authentic version of ourselves. The greatest human institutions to have tried to address the problem of akrasia have been religions. Religions have wanted to do something much more serious than simply promote abstract ideas, they have wanted to get people to behave in line with those ideas, a very different thing. They didn't just want people to think kindness or forgiveness were nice (which generally we do already); they wanted us to be kind or forgiving most days of the year. That meant inventing a host of ingenious mechanisms for mobilising the will, which is why across much of the world, the finest art and buildings, the most seductive music, the most impressive and moving rituals have all been religious. Religion is a vast machine for addressing the problem of akrasia. This has presented a big conundrum for a more secular era. Bad secularisation has lumped religious superstition and religion's anti-akrasia strategies together. It has rejected both the supernatural ideas of the faiths and their wiser attitudes to the motivational roles of art and ritual. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 21:48:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 06:48:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0a07acaa-4c79-5eb5-b387-1887573b3cd1@zahav.net.il> There is an oversimplification here, that the issue is the secular. Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed off even if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash. Getting the country ready for these days means hundreds, thousands of people have to be in place. This includes soldiers, policemen, etc who are 100% dati. Holding these events on a date that would force these people to work on Shabbat is simply a non-starter and everyone understands that point. I have to add the following: My dream is that people will come to understand how wrong it is to make people (including dati'im) work on Shabbat when Lag B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate steps. Ben On 5/2/2017 8:50 PM, Avram Sacks wrote: > He added that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 21:30:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 21:30:06 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] nidche Message-ID: since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on thurs, does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded this way already in the 50's? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 06:38:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 16:38:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:30 AM, saul newman via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on thurs, > does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded this way > already in the 50's? > To be precise, they are only nidche if Pesah starts on Tuesday, like this year. If it starts on Shabbat or Sunday they are brought forward to Wednesday & Thursday. If my memory is accurate, the bringing forward has always been in practice, but the postponement from Sunday-Monday to Monday-Tuesday was introduced later, within the last 10 or 20 years. When I was first in Israel in the 1980s, YHA was still sometimes observed on a Monday. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 06:06:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 09:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> On 5/3/2017 12:30 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on > thurs, does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded > this way already in the 50's? It was instituted during the tenure of Rabbis Amar and Metzger. [Email #2. -micha] On 5/3/2017 12:48 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > There is an oversimplification here, that the issue is the secular. > Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed off even > if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash... > I have to add the following: My dream is that people will come to > understand how wrong it is to make people (including dati'im) work on > Shabbat when Lag B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate > steps. That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to 5 Iyar. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 14:34:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 17:34:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5a7c4dde-aeda-0d6e-0a6f-3824d06a66da@sero.name> On 03/05/17 09:06, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is > no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- > certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically > viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to > 5 Iyar. Why can't a religious holiday be defined by the day of the week, like Shabbos Hagodol and Behab? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 16:28:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 19:28:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: R' Micha Berger reposted from elsewhere: > Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this > subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on > the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his > position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, > Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut > celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with > perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a > community to determine its own date to celebrate. Why should telecommunications affect the day that my community says Hallel? Should we all start reading Megilas Esther on 15 Adar? R' Ben Waxman wrote: > Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed > off even if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash. Maybe not as unique as it seems. Isn't there a gezera against Motzaei Shabbos weddings for exactly this same reason - because of the likelihood that the preparations would begin on Shabbos? RBW also wrote: > My dream is that people will come to understand how wrong it > is to make people (including dati'im) work on Shabbat when Lag > B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate steps. Amen!! Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 20:43:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 05:43:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: Someone pointed out to me off line that the reading is on Friday, Al HaNissim on Shabbat, and Seuda/Matanot is on Sunday. Ben On 5/1/2017 11:42 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the reading > is pushed off until Sunday. > > Ben > > \ > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 21:26:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 14:26:20 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: <26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com> Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can never fall on a Thursday. Under the current arrangements, it cannot fall on a Monday, so those who fast on BeHaB and also wish to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzma?ut no longer need to be concerned. In Hilchot Yom Ha-Atzma?ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim (ed Nahum Rakover, 1973), there is an article by Rabbi Meir Kaplan which discusses what to do when the two did coincide. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 21:29:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 07:29:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Avram Sacks via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel > (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and > ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it > is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet > observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in > Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added > that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about > those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA > on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. ?Since the issue here is tachanun, hallel and suspending sefira restrictions, I fail to follow his logic. We are being asked to not say tachanun on the same day as the not-yet-observant?, on 6th Iyar. But why the 6th any more than the 5th. We should say hallel on the 6th, the same day as the not-yet-observant. Hardly. Sefira restrictions are suspended on the 6th like the not-yet-observant? If the entire sentiment is when we should have ceremonies to mark the significance of the State, you could that any day, or every day, as often as you like. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 22:11:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:11:39 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Nidche In-Reply-To: 26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com References: 26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: <8ff4cb3fb9929c8cf4af49714131daf8@mail.gmail.com> I wrote in haste. Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can fall on a Friday (as it does next year), in which case it is brought forward a day. David Havin *From:* David Havin [mailto:djhavin at djhavin.com] *Sent:* Thursday, 4 May 2017 2:26 PM *To:* Avodah *Subject:* Nidche Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can never fall on a Thursday. Under the current arrangements, it cannot fall on a Monday, so those who fast on BeHaB and also wish to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzma?ut no longer need to be concerned. In Hilchot Yom Ha-Atzma?ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim (ed Nahum Rakover, 1973), there is an article by Rabbi Meir Kaplan which discusses what to do when the two did coincide. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 07:53:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 10:53:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [From an Areivim discussion of how to be safe from house fires on Friday night.... -micha] On 03/05/17 18:26, Akiva Miller via Areivim wrote: > When eating the evening seudah elsewhere than where you're sleeping, > consider lighting at the seudah location, so that they won't be > unattended. My mitzvah is to light my own home, not someone else's. I know women have the custom of saying a bracha when lighting in someone else's home, but I'm not sure on what basis they do so. It seems to me they're not fulfilling their own mitzvah but rather helping their hostess with her mitzvah, just like helping someone else with his bedikas chametz. In that case (as opposed to doing the whole thing as his agent) one is supposed to hear his bracha, not make ones own, so why is this different? Thus it seems to me that this falls into the category of minhagei nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked, but the women have their own traditions and are not asking. But I don't see a basis for men, who don't have those traditions, to follow them. Yes, we are required to follow "toras imecha", but it seems to me that this means those things that women have traditionally taught their sons, not those that they have traditionally only taught their daughters. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 08:52:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:52:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <54B1C0DF-2CD4-49B5-92A0-AC29B878E3F2@sibson.com> The psak I receive many years ago is that you light where you sleep. One concern was to make sure the candles would run long enough so they were still burning when you came home so you could get benefit from them Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 13:50:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 20:50:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Tatoo Taboo and Permanent Make-Up Too Message-ID: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/ken8l8y There is a widespread myth, especially among secular American Jews, that a Jew with a tattoo may not be buried in a Jewish cemetery[1]. This prevalent belief, whose origin possibly lies with Jewish Bubbies wanting to ensure that their grandchildren did not stray too far from the proper path, is truly nothing more than a common misconception with absolutely no basis in Jewish law. Jewish burial is not dependent on whether or not one violated Torah law, and tattooing is no different in this matter than any other Biblical prohibition. Please see the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 15:13:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 18:13:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Tatoo Taboo and Permanent Make-Up Too In-Reply-To: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> References: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <72ddedb9-4172-c476-3fe6-acbb37a1e577@sero.name> > Jewish burial is not dependent on whether or not one violated Torah law, There are cemeteries, or sections within them, where only observant Jews can be buried, in line with the halacha that one may not bury a rasha next to a tzadik. But a person who qualified for burial there would not be rejected for having a tattoo, since it would be assumed that he had long ago repented. (The sin is *getting* the tattoo, not *having* it; once it's been done there's no obligation to remove it.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 20:54:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 21:54:36 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> On May 3, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is > no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- > certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically > viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to > 5 Iyar. My gut is with you on this. But then we do need to at least address the precedent of Purim. We don?t say Hallel, but we say a bracha on the Megillah. And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid chillul Shabbos. Now there are some important differences. For one thing, Purim seemed to be a concern of ignorance, not secularity. But it does seem to establish the precedent that it can be done. Whether it should be done is a different question. Following the precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off until Sunday, but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. Yom HaZikaron could be pushed earlier. ? Daniel Israel Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center of Santa Fe, President daniel at kolberamah.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 21:00:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 22:00:22 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> On Apr 30, 2017, at 11:22 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:45:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy > : OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the > : rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very > : clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz.... > : > : So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? > > I think the "out" is the clause "sheyeish lanu ba'alus alava". So, > chameitz that you didn't have baalus on, but was delivered on Pesach > wouldn't be included. (And would be a davar shelo ba le'olam, even if > you did try to include it.) I have been bothered by this same question for many years, and mentioned to my Rav over Pesach. It was his impression that contracts in EY more commonly did not use loshen including unmarked/unknown chametz. I think that is common in the US. I suggested that it is motivated by a desire to protect against the case of accidentally consuming chometz sh?evar alav haPesach where the person completely lost track and by the time he ate it, he didn?t remember he sold it. But it does seem that burning it would depend on how the contract was written. And I would take it a step further and point out that if it was sold, there is a serious geneivah issue. > No, that doesn't cover things you owned since before Pesach and were > unware "delo chazisei" that you only found on Pesach. > > OTOH, wasn't that stuff already mevutal anyway? Can I burn something that was hefker without acquiring it? If I declare something hefker (I?m not sure the legal implication of batel), and then I burn it, wouldn?t that imply I?m koneh it? Which makes things much worse. ? Daniel Israel Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center of Santa Fe, President daniel at kolberamah.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:08:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:08:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: On 04/05/17 23:54, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > . And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid chillul > Shabbos. The megillah only goes back, never forward. > Following the precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off > until Sunday, but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. The precedent of Purim is to pull it back to Friday *or Thursday*. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:40:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:40:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: 5 Iyar can also be on Shabbos (as it will in 2021), and its commemoration is pushed back two days, to Thursday. Nonetheless, that Thursday can never be a part of BeHaB, since the fasts begin on the Monday after the first Shabbos following Rosh Chodesh Iyar, and the preceding Shabbos is either the 28th or 29th of Nissan. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 6 12:32:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 21:32:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <04a24079-f3e7-a7e9-d195-3dac00552ebe@zahav.net.il> Yom HaZikaron and Yom Azmaut are an inseparable pair. There have been call to break the connection (to make it easier for the bereaved families to celebrate YA) but so far no one is willing to do so. Ben On 5/5/2017 5:54 AM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > Yom HaZikaron could be pushed earlier. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 21:20:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 00:20:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> On 5/4/2017 11:54 PM, Daniel Israel wrote: > On May 3, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: >> That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is >> no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- >> certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically >> viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to >> 5 Iyar. > My gut is with you on this. But then we do need to at least address > the precedent of Purim. We don?t say Hallel, but we say a bracha on > the Megillah. And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid > chillul Shabbos.... > Whether it should be done is a different question. Following the > precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off until Sunday, > but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. Yom HaZikaron could > be pushed earlier. On Purim Meshulash, the Al HaNisim remains on Shabbos, and the Megillah with the bracha is relocated to the day everyone else is celebrating. Moreover, there is no clash between simcha on 16 Adar and some pre-existing minhag to diminish simcha. Those are some of the differences. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:01:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 18:01:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: Discussion of chametz ?received? during Pesach can be listened to here: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/877269/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-girls-scout-cookies/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -From The Rabbi's Desk - Girls Scout Cookies KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 6 22:53:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 07 May 2017 07:53:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives today, certainly not in any practical manner. More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber). Ben On 5/5/2017 6:20 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > On Purim Meshulash, the Al HaNisim remains on Shabbos, and the Megillah > with the bracha is relocated to the day everyone else is celebrating. > Moreover, there is no clash between simcha on 16 Adar and some > pre-existing minhag to diminish simcha. Those are some of the differences. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 07:26:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 10:26:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Haircuts when Lag Baomer is on Sunday Message-ID: Rama 493:2 writes: "When [Lag Baomer] falls on Sunday, the practice is [nohagin] to get haircuts on Friday l'kavod Shabbos." What makes this Friday different from all other Fridays of sefira? If Kavod Shabbos is ample justification to get a haircut on Omer 31 (which is in the aveilus days by all reckonings), then it ought to justify a haircut on Omer 24 (the previous Friday) also, shouldn't it? But I have never heard of anyone allowing a haircut on Omer 24 simply because it is Erev Shabbos, so there must be an additional factor at work. For many years, I presumed the logic to be as follows: If a person would need a haircut on Friday Omer 31, or on Friday Omer 24, and fail to get that haircut, then he has failed to do Kavod Shabbos, but he did it by inaction. He did it in a "shev v'al taaseh" manner, and it is quite common for halacha to suspend an Aseh with a Shev V'Al Taaseh. (Compare skipping this haircut to skipping Shofar on Shabbos.) HOWEVER - If a person would go out of his way ("kum v'aseh") and actually get a haircut on Sunday, that is intolerable. To have been disheveled on Shabbos (even if justifiably), and then suddenly be all fancied up the very next day, that is an insult to Shabbos, and we cannot allow Shabbos to be insulted in that manner. So when the Rama writes that we allow the haircuts "for kavod Shabbos", what he actually means is that we allow the haircuts "to avoid insulting Shabbos." And this is what makes this weekend of Sefiras Haomer different from all the others: On the other Sundays of Sefira, no one is getting a haircut anyway, so the whole question doesn't exist. But in this year, on this particular weekend, we do have this problem. The Rabbis *could* have chosen to protect the kavod of Shabbos by forbidding us to get haircuts when Lag Baomer is on Sunday, but instead they chose to protect the kavod of Shabbos by allowing us to get haircuts when Omer 31 is on Friday. Or so I thought for many years. But I have questions on this logic. According to what I have written, getting a haircut on Sunday is a bad idea - no matter what time of year it is. Yet I don't recall ever hearing anyone advise against it. In particular, when this situation of a Sunday Lag Baomer occurs, I have often hear people cite this Rama as granting permission to get their haircut on Friday. But in actuality, shouldn't it be less of a permission, and more of a *recommendation*? When a person asks the question, shouldn't the answer be, "Yes, you can get the haircut on Friday, and that's even better than waiting for Sunday." But I have not heard anyone suggest this. That's about as far as I was going to write, but then I went to the seforim to make sure I understood the Rama correctly. Indeed, his phrasing, "nohagin to get haircuts on Friday l'kavod Shabbos", could easily be understood to mean DAVKA on Friday rather than Sunday. But although it *could* be understood that way, I don't remember anyone actually doing do. And then I came across Kaf Hachayim 493:33, who writes that the Levush held differently than the Rama in this situation: > The Levush writes that if the 33rd is on a Sunday when the > non-Jews are not barbering because of their holiday, *that's* > when you can get a haircut on Friday. Meaning that in a place > where you *can* get a haircut on Sunday, then you should *not* > get the haircut on Friday. But from the words of the Rama, who > writes "l'kavod Shabbos", he means to allow it in any case. > And Elya Raba #9 writes the same thing about this Levush, that > the Rama allows it l'kavod Shabbos in either case. To rephrase: If one has a choice between getting his haircut on Friday or Sunday, then the Levush gives precedence to the minhagim of aveilus during Sefira, and requires us to wait until Sunday for the haircut, and *not* get the haircut on Friday Omer 31. The idea of suddenly showing up with a haircut on Sunday does not (seem to) bother the Levush, and this is totally consistent with the lack of anyone ever being told to avoid Sunday haircuts the rest of the year. But the Kaf Hachayim (with support from Elya Raba) rejects the approach of the Levush. He seems to accept the word of the Rama, plain and simple, that we can get haircuts on Friday Omer 31 because it is l'kavod Shabbos. And, according to Rama, this applies whether the barbershops are open on Sunday or not. Even if one has the option of waiting until Lag Baomer, he can "violate" the aveilus of Sefira on Omer 31, because the haircut is l'kavod Shabbos. This leaves me stuck with my original question: If Kavod Shabbos is ample justification to get a haircut on Omer 31, then it ought to justify a haircut on Omer 24 also, shouldn't it? Obviously no, but why? with many thanks in advance for your thoughts, Akiva Miller PS: The Levush is not totally machmir; he does allow leniency, but only in the case of where Lag Baomer is on Sunday, AND the barbers are closed on that day. Only in such a case does he allow a haircut on Omer 31. I have to wonder why he would allow that exception, rather than disallowing it entirely. Here's my guess: The Levush was aware of poskim who allowed haircuts on Friday Omer 31, but he felt this to be an improper violation of the aveilus, and paskened that people should wait for Sunday Lag Baomer. But if the barbers would be closed, that means people would have to wait another two weeks for their haircuts, in which case he allowed the leniency. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 03:46:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 13:46:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: No, I'm pretty sure it was the 50th day. The first day after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the first day of the Omer. The 49th day after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the 49th day of the Omer. Shavuot is thus the 50th day after our leaving Egypt. On 4/28/2017 6:27 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >> I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is >> the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the >> case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which >> we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the >> Exodus. > > Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th > day but on the 51st. So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th > of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the > pseudo-Julian anniversary. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 06:38:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 09:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: On 07/05/17 06:46, Lisa Liel wrote: > No, I'm pretty sure it was the 50th day. The first day after our > leaving Egypt corresponds to the first day of the Omer. The 49th day > after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the 49th day of the Omer. > Shavuot is thus the 50th day after our leaving Egypt. Everyone seems to assume we left on a Thursday. The first day after we left was a Friday, so the 49th day was a Thursday. Mattan Torah was definitely on a Shabbat, thus the 51st day. There's no way out of that, unless we adopt the Seder Olam's view that the gemara suddenly springs on us at the end of the sugya that we left on a Friday. Then it all works perfectly, and as I read the gemara that seems to be the conclusion, but I've never seen any later source even deal with this view; everyone who mentions the day of the week on which we left Egypt takes for granted (as the gemara did for most of the sugya) that it was a Thursday. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 03:51:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 06:51:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minhagei Nashim Message-ID: In a thread about Ner Shabbos, R' Zev Sero wrote: > Thus it seems to me that this falls into the category of minhagei > nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked, > but the women have their own traditions and are not asking. But I > don't see a basis for men, who don't have those traditions, to > follow them. Yes, we are required to follow "toras imecha", but > it seems to me that this means those things that women have > traditionally taught their sons, not those that they have > traditionally only taught their daughters. That's an interesting way to classify things. I suppose it makes sense in the context of Ner Shabbos, which a mother would certainly teach to her daughters, but probably not to her sons. In this system, I suppose she would also teach Kitchen Kashrus only to her daughters, but Brachos to all her kids equally. Please consider the following scenario. I suppose it could happen even today, but it might be easier to imagine if you place it during the many centuries when there was no schooling for girls... A wife is preparing some food for dinner. She notices something unusual. Maybe it has something to do with meat and dairy, or maybe it has something to do with the just-shechted chicken she's kashering. Anyway, she concludes - based on what her mother (and both grandmothers and all her aunts) taught her - it's not a problem. Her husband happens to walk in, sees the same thing, and points out that it is a very clear black-and-white halacha that this food is assur. One could say that this sort of thing happens very rarely, because the men tend to stay out of the kitchen. But if you ask me, that only proves that the couple is unaware of the problem. It probably happened quite often, but no one noticed because the husband wasn't around. How could this *not* be a frequent occurrence? The men are busy learning, and the information never reaches the women. I concede that if a woman is unsure, she will ask, and some halachos will filter over to her side. But if she is *not* unsure, she could be blissfully unaware that her imahos have had a tradition for many generations, and it differs from the tradition that her husband got from generations of avos and teachers. And if this sort of thing can happen in Hilchos Kashrus, how much more often might it occur in Hilchos Nida? You may notice that I am taking pains to tell this story without prejudice as to which side is the truer halacha. Just because the women weren't in yeshiva, that does not prove them to be in error. All it proves is that there's been no opportunity for shakla v'tarya. Neither side can be discredited until they've carefully debated the issues. So who is right? As I wrote, these questions have been bothering me for years. But someone said that "Emunah is not when you have the answers; it's being able to live with the questions. " I got that chizuk from R' Haym Soloveitchik in his now-classic "Rupture and Reconstruction", which is all about these opposing chains of tradition, the mimetic and the textual. (The full text is on-line at www.lookstein.org. Just google the title.) He writes in footnote 18 there: > The traditional kitchen provides the best example of the > neutralizing effect of tradition, especially since the mimetic > tradition continued there long after it was lost in most other > areas of Jewish life. Were the average housewife (bale-boste) > informed that her manner of running the kitchen was contrary to > the Shulhan Arukh, her reaction would have been a dismissive > "Nonsense!" She would have been confronted with the alternative, > either that she, her mother and grandmother had, for decades, > been feeding their families non-kosher food [treifes] or that the > Code was wrong or, put more delicately, someone's understanding > of that text was wrong. As the former was inconceivable, the > latter was clearly the case. This, of course, might pose problems > for scholars, however, that was their problem not hers. Neither > could she be prevailed on to alter her ways, nor would an > experienced rabbi even try. There is an old saying among scholars > "A yidishe bale-boste takes instruction from her mother only". Somehow, these chains do find a way to work together. But I must be clear: I am NOT talking about a machlokes haposkim, where the wife was taught one thing and the husband was taught something else. In that case, there is much common ground, and they (or their rav) can go to the sources to figure out what the couple should do. I'm talking about a much more fundamental problem, where generations have passed on different traditions, without anyone ever realizing that there was a mismatch. (I'd like to close by pointing out that I am neither asking anything new in this post, nor am I trying to answer anything. But RZS mentioned a "category of minhagei nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked", and I simply wanted to expound on that category.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 09:43:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 12:43:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: In Avodah Digest 35:53 on Apr 19, R' Micha Berger wrote: > The AhS OC 31:4 is okay with minyanim that are mixed between > wearers and non-wearers. That's not what I see in the last line there: "In a single beis medrash, don't have some doing this and some doing that, because of Lo Tisgodedu." In Avodah Digest 35:55 on Apr 26, he seems to have corrected that: > ... the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed > between tefillin wearers and not. [You seem to have missed http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol35/v35n055.shtml#07 I didn't correct myself; I was forced to reread the AhS by RHK's post. -micha] This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. IF I understand that AhS correctly, he says that if there is only one Beis Din in town, then everyone must follow it, so Lo Tisgodedu doesn't apply. And if there is more than one Beis Din in town, then everyone can follow their own beis din, so again, Lo Tisgodedu does not apply. So when DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be factionalized like that. That is the AhS's explanation of why each town should be united and follow one set of days for the aveilus of Sefira: The question is totally minhag, and not under the jurisdiction of the local posek. It is a minhag of the people, and the people should get together and be united in one practice. The AhS doesn't mention it in that siman, but this explanation does help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 consistent with 493:8? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 8 05:32:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 15:32:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The relevance of the middle perakim of Bava Basra today Message-ID: Perakim 4-7 of Bava Basra (which Daf Yomi has been learning) deal with the sale of various things, what is included and what is not. The common denominator seems to be that these are seemingly solely based on the accepted business practice during the time of Chazal and what people expect to get when they consumate a deal. There are few to no Torah based sources for any of these. Here is a general outline of the perakim. Perek 4 - Hamocher es habayis discusses what is sold when you sell real property (houses, bathhouses, courtyards, fields, etc.) and what is not, for example when you sell a house the Mishna states that you include teh door but not the key Perek 5 - Hamocher es hasefina discusses the sale of movable objects, again detailing what is included in the sale and what is not (boats, wagons, animals, etc.) Perek 6 - Hamocher peiros lachaveiro discusses the sale of agricultural products. It details how much spoilage/wastage there can be in grain and wine etc. It also discusses selling land to build things on it like a house, graves, how much land is given, what access etc. Perek 7 - Deals with sales of real property how exact do the dimensions need to be. Given the above, are these at all relevant today? A house buyer in 2017 clearly has very different expectations as to what he is buying in comparison to the times of Chazal as does someone buying wine, a field, a boat, etc. The same goes for all of these categories. Since the mishnayos seem to be based solely on accepted business practice and have are not based on pesukim can we simply ignore these today? Am I missing something here? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 8 10:47:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 13:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The relevance of the middle perakim of Bava Basra today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170508174705.GA2335@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:32:57PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Perakim 4-7 of Bava Basra (which Daf Yomi has been learning) deal with the : sale of various things, what is included and what is not. The common : denominator seems to be that these are seemingly solely based on the : accepted business practice during the time of Chazal and what people expect : to get when they consumate a deal... : Given the above, are these at all relevant today? ... First reaction: They would be relevant to a poseiq trying to learn how to determine which of today's expectations have halachic import. It would require doing the saqme kind of mapping of market norms to law that chazal did, so the poseiq could learn from example. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 9 05:44:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 08:44:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor Message-ID: <4667BA80-CCF4-42D3-833D-99611C34F822@cox.net> ?And you shall count unto you from the morrow after the day of rest from the day that you bring the omer of the wave-offering; seven complete weeks shall there be.? (Vayikra 23:15) The Rambam included the counting of the Omer as Mitzvah 161 in his Sefer Hamitzvot. Those Rishonim who disagree, do count it as a mitzvah d?rabbanan and therefore, when we conclude the counting each night we pray: ?May the merciful One bring back to us the Temple service to its place speedily in our days, Amen, selah.? So the question has been asked why we do not say a ?sheheheyanu? when we first count the Omer on the second night of Pesach. The Rashba answers that according to most Rishonim who disagree with the Rambam, the counting is connected intricately with ktzirat ha?omer, harvesting the omer, ha?va-at ha?omer, the bringing of the omer and hakravat ha?omer, the offering of the omer as a sacrifice (Vayikra 23:10&16). So since these mitzvot are obviously inapplicable today it pains us to remember what we are missing when we count the omer. Therefore, the rabbis say, we pronounce no sheheheyanu which is said only when we experience joy. When I started counting my blessings, my whole life turned around. Willie Nelson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 06:33:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 09:33:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kedoshim Message-ID: It was brought to my attention that I hadn?t sent out a commentary on Parashas Kedoshim. Here is a belated d?var. ?In the presence of an old person you shall rise and you shall honor the presence of a sage and you shall revere your God ? I am Hashem.? (Vayikra 19:32) This verse is so rich with interpretation. According to Rashi, following one view in Kidudushin 32b, the two halves of the pasuk explain each other, i.e., the mitzvah is to rise and honor a sage who is both elderly and learned. Others hold that these are two separate mitzvot: to rise for anyone over the age of 70 and to rise for a learned righteous man, even if he is below the age of 70. The halacha follows the latter view, the rationale being that anyone can reach the age of 70 but it takes blood, sweat and tears to achieve scholarship and righteousness. I recall as a youngster being in awe when everyone in the beis medrash would stop what they were doing and a hush fell over the crowd as everyone rose immediately as soon as the Rosh Yeshiva entered the hall. There comes to mind the famous saying in Makkoth 22b: ?How foolish are those people who stand up when the Torah is carried by, but do not stand up when a scholar walks by,? indicating that greater than a piece of parchment upon which the Torah is written, is a human being who has put his whole life into learning and struggling in order to acquire a knowledge of Torah, and who in his personal life is a living embodiment of what the Torah teaches and represents. Along similar lines is the custom in some hassidic circles to kiss the hand of a talmid chochom upon first seeing him in the same manner as kissing the Torah when it passes by. The one thing we must never forget is the basic issue involved. It is not the mere person that is the center of the commandment; it is the ?v?yorayso mey-Elohechoh, Ani HaShem that is here involved. In rising before and granting honor to the talmid chochom, we affirm our profound belief in the Torah of God. Who sows virtue reaps honor. Leonardo da Vinci -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 13:24:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 16:24:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety Message-ID: In Avodah V35n60, RJR responded to RZS, who had responded to RAMiller: >>> When eating the evening seudah elsewhere than where you're sleeping, consider lighting at the seudah location, so that they won't be unattended. <<< >> My mitzvah is to light my own home, not someone else's. << > The psak I receive many years ago is that you light where you sleep. One concern was to make sure the candles would run long enough so they were still burning when you came home so you could get benefit from them < As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*); and as I learned as a kid every Pesach that my family was at a hotel (because my parents didn't have Pesach cooking utensils, dishes, etc. in their apartment), everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 14:55:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 21:55:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As RJR implies, I thought the key component of neiros Shabbos was enjoying their light (in contradistinction to neiros Chanukah); and as I learned as a kid every Pesach that my family was at a hotel (because my parents didn't have Pesach cooking utensils, dishes, etc. in their apartment), everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... All the best from Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA _______________________________________________ Except if they were incandescent bulbs in the individual hotel rooms. In that case I was taught that the women make a bracha on the bulbs in their room Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 04:54:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:54:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Lo Taamod Message-ID: Rav Asher Weiss discusses in parshat Vayeitzeih on lo taamod al dam reiacha that one would have to give up all his assets to save a single life if he is the only one who can do it. However, "it's pashut" that if others can also do it, that he doesn't have to give up all his assets. Why is it so pashut if others refuse? (i.e. why isn't it a joint and several liability?) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 04:55:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:55:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Local Government Message-ID: Anyone have any sources on how local government, if any, functioned in times of Tanach? Was there any besides the court system? What was the role of the nesiim of the shvatim? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 12:02:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:02:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App Message-ID: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Someone mentioned tahorapp.com on-line, so I took a look at their web site. To quote: > Keeping Tradition & > Keeping Your Privacy > Rabbinically Approved! Anonymously send pictures of your Taharas > Hamishpacha questions to a Rav right from your own home. Receive answers > quickly and privately. Download Tahor App For Free! I then thought of "The Dress" , a picture of a black-and-blue dress that floated around the internet that many of us perceived as white-and-gold. So, given that people guess at the background lighting when they see a picture and then subconsciously correct for it (see explanation on wikipedia page), how could a rav rely on a Tahor App image? So, I filled out their contact form with something to that effect, and a short discussion followed. They replied: : Color Precision: : Thank you for your inquiry, : To clarify (as this seems not to be clear): : "Tahor" is meant to serve as a halachically approved "filter" for a : majority of Shailos (many of which are straightforward and simple to : determine). It is meant to allow those who may not have access to a rov, or : who may not feel comfortable going to a rov, to have an option, when : halachically viable, to send in their sample anonymously. : What this app is not: : This app IS NOT meant to be an umbrella replacement for the process of : showing questionable bedikah cloths to Rabbonim. Rabbonim were all able to : pasken correctly because of our advanced white balance technology and : Rabbinic measurement capabilities. The cloths which are borderline or : questionable, will be told to show the actual cloth to a Rabbi. : It is obviously preferable to take the cloth directly to the Rabbi when : possible, but many many women are not doing it! This will allow them to : keep Taharat Hamishpachah and get accurate answers. I felt I was getting a barely touched form letter, so I paraphrased my original question: } But given that the human eye will misinterpret colors when the lighting } differs between the camera and the person looking at the picture, how } can you know the results are accurate? After all, the differences in } perception of the colors of The Dress is far far greater han that between } a tamei brown and a tahor one. And their reply: : Shalom, : Yes, this is true. : This is why the Rabbis will only answer questions through the app which are : clearly one or the other. : An example of this would be if a stain on underwear is less than a gris. : The Rabbi can with complete accurately declare this Pure/Impure. : If the Rabbi feels that it is not so clear, he will tell the user to go to : a Rav. I am letting it drop there, because I am not going to argue anyone into wondering whether or not his pet project works. But I myself am still wondering.... Given how pronounced optical illusions can be when it comes to color and how subtle many determinations are, can a rav even know when the question is "clearly one way or the other" rather than only seeming obvious? I saw the dress in a catalog, so I know I am getting it wrong when I look at the infamous picture. And yet, it's suprising. If it weren't for people reporting a different color set, I would have considered white-and-gold "clearly" right. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 30th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation Fax: (270) 514-1507 result in holding back from others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 12:57:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: See the following timeline: http://crownheights.info/jewish-news/575460 http://crownheights.info/chabad-news/575513 http://crownheights.info/communal-matters/575546 http://crownheights.info/chabad-news/575559 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 07:33:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 10:33:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> There is a definite dearth of rabbis on the site. I am somewhat conflicted on this. OTOH, the nuances of coloring will be distorted by many displays - perhaps all displays. OTOH, perhaps women who otherwise would not ask she'eilos would use this service. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 08:37:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:37:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App Message-ID: <11c7f4.7c2a7fc4.464730a1@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org Someone mentioned tahorapp.com on-line, so I took a look at their web site. To quote: > Keeping Tradition & > Keeping Your Privacy > Rabbinically Approved! Anonymously send pictures of your Taharas > Hamishpacha questions to a Rav right from your own home. Receive answers > quickly and privately. Download Tahor App For Free! I then thought of "The Dress" , a picture of a black-and-blue dress that floated around the internet that many of us perceived as white-and-gold...... .....So, given that people guess at the background lighting when they see a picture and then subconsciously correct for it (see explanation on wikipedia page), how could a rav rely on a Tahor App image? -- Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>>> According to wiki the human eye can distinguish about ten million different colors. Other sources say "only" seven million. (Not relevant here but interesting: Some birds, some fish, some reptiles, even some insects, like bees, can see colors we can't see.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision A computer screen can display about 33,000 different colors -- only a small fraction of the number of shades in nature that the human eye can see. http://www.rit-mcsl.org/fairchild/WhyIsColor/Questions/4-6.html The takeaway -- to my mind -- is that the tahor app probably can't be relied on. The rav needs to see the actual color, not on a screen. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 08:36:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:36:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:33am EDT, R Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: : I am somewhat conflicted on this. OTOH, the nuances of coloring will : be distorted by many displays - perhaps all displays. OTOH, perhaps : women who otherwise would not ask she'eilos would use this service. Because of "The Dress" I am worried that "perhaps all displays" really understates the possibility of getting a color wrong. While the problem you raise is real. I would still recommend yoatzos as a better solution. Still, there are women who still wouldn't go to antoher woman, or who live in an area with no one to ask. RnTK wrote: : According to wiki the human eye can distinguish about ten million different : colors. Other sources say "only" seven million. ... : A computer screen can display about 33,000 different colors... : small fraction of the number of shades in nature that the human eye can see. ... : The takeaway -- to my mind -- is that the tahor app probably can't be : relied on. The rav needs to see the actual color, not on a screen. I think the problem I raised can lead to more profound misassessments. The precision of color displays will blur the edges. And the rabbis behind Tahor App say that it's only for more clear cases. What had me concerned is that that perception is based on more context colors and lighting specifics than the phone's camera may capture. Thus "the dress", which is explained, amongst other startling optical illusions involving color perception here . It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in different lighting than it was taken. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 09:33:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 12:33:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 517 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 11:53:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 14:53:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:33:14PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote: : The 33rd day of the Omer is a minor holiday commemorating a break in : the plague. The common translation of askaria is some kind of lung disease. However, the only explanation of the gemara that predates the late acharonim is R' Achai Gaon's -- that the word is sicarii. Meaning, they were killed by Roman dagger- or shortsword-men. Tying the deaths of the omer to the Bar Kokhva rebellion. (The sicarii of the events of Tish'ah beAv were Jewish dagger bearers. Same word, different people.) If I may add, which emphasizes the connection to shelo nahagu kavod zeh lazeh. The galus was started by sin'as chinam; it couldn't be ended by people who still hadn't mastered showing another kavod. (A scary thought about our own hopes...) : This day is observed as a day of rejoicing because on this day, the : students of Rabbi Akiva did not die. Actually, it's not a day of mourning because they didn't die. It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. Or perhaps it's the day Rashbi left the cave the 2nd time, or.... For Litvaks, Yekkes, and other communities, Lag baOmer as a holiday is a new thing. Also, as per other iterations, Lag baOmer at Meron appears to have originally been Shemu'el haNavi's yahrzeit (Mag beOmer? Yom Y-m) at Nabi Samwel, and only moved when Arabs going to Nabi Samwel (from Tzefat) dangerous. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 12:42:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 15:42:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/05/17 11:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while > convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in > different lighting than it was taken. But isn't that explicitly taken care of by the instruction to the user to take the photo only in direct sunlight, and by the instruction to the rav to look at it only on a specific monitor at a specific brightness? However reliable or unreliable the technology is, at least *that* concern has been addressed, hasn't it? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 13:01:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 16:01:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> References: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/05/17 14:53, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined > communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- > find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) > writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then > a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping > the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. No typo is necessary. What could "yom simchas Rashbi" mean if not his yortzeit, which he explicitly instructed his talmidim to celebrate as if it were his yom hillula? That's where the whole concept of celebrating yortzeits rather than mourning on them comes from, as well as the concept of referring to them as "wedding days". > Also, as per other iterations, Lag baOmer at Meron appears to have > originally been Shemu'el haNavi's yahrzeit (Mag beOmer? Yom Y-m) at Nabi > Samwel, and only moved when Arabs going to Nabi Samwel (from Tzefat) > dangerous. This paragraph got garbled enough that if I didn't already know what you meant I could not have figured it out. But it's my understanding that it wasn't danger from Arab marauders that put an end to the pilgrimages to Shmuel Hanavi (from all over EY) but rather a government decree barring Jews from the site. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 14:49:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:49:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: References: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512214922.GB4067@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 04:01:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined :> communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- :> find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) :> writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then :> a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping :> the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. : No typo is necessary. It happened. Necessity isn't at issue. We know what the older version was, and there used to be a ches there. "Shemeis" is simply not what RCV wrote. : What could "yom simchas Rashbi" mean if not : his yortzeit, which he explicitly instructed his talmidim to : celebrate as if it were his yom hillula? Well, isb't that what I said in the last sentence quoted? But it's only the most likely (in my opinion) possibility, and not -- as you are taking for granterd -- the only one. To continue from where you chopped off that text: > Or perhaps it's the day Rashbi left the cave the 2nd time, or.... Simcha, in the sence that seeing the man carry two hadasim for besamim -- zekhor veshamor -- yasiv da'ataihu. His simchah learning with his son-in-law, R' Pinchas b Ya'ir. "Ashrekha shera'isi bekakh..." Shabbos 33b-34a give you plenty of reason to believe he was joyous, and wanted to share that joy with the qehillah. Or maybe R Aqiva started teaching his 5 new students in earnest the very day the massacre or plague stopped. And therefore Lag baOmer is the day Rashbi started learning qabbalah. Or maybe... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 18:04:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 11:04:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The rabbi is shocked He realises After pesach is concluded That one of the contracts he's supposed to sell to the G Was not sold to the G If ownership According to Halacha Is determined by believing one is in control And when that control Is lost There's YiUsh Then this Chamets Had no owner During Pesach This Chamets For all intents and purposes During Pesach Has no owner. And Chamets can be Muttar Even if owned by a Y If it's abandoned For the duration of Pesach That's the Halacha Re the Mapoles The shed collapse On a crate of whiskey It's buried under at least 3 Tefachim It's Muttar after Pesach And it seems Even without Bittul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 14:33:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:33:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512213304.GA4067@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 03:42:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 12/05/17 11:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while : >convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in : >different lighting than it was taken. : : But isn't that explicitly taken care of by the instruction to the : user to take the photo only in direct sunlight, and by the : instruction to the rav to look at it only on a specific monitor at a : specific brightness? ... My wife and I saw The Dress for the first time together, and reported different results. in that picture it is obvious it was taken on a sunny day. And we both saw it in the same lighting. So, I don't think it sufficiently takes care of the problem. Maybe if the distributed a color sheet that must be included in the picture in proximity to the kesem, and the rabbinic side of the software corrects the colors displayed based on knowing what the sheet should look like. If the woman prints the color chart herself, you widen the uncertainty. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 14:23:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 23:23:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I have also been in touch with them (the programmer and one of the rabbis). I haven't come to a final conclusion, but my impression so far is: (1) The people on this project are y'rei Shamayim who take what they are doing seriously and have worked very hard for a long time on developing something that will be reliable (2) It is definitely not as good as seeing a mareh in real life (3) It is not good enough for borderline or difficult-to-pasken cases, and when difficult marot are submitted the rabbis will tell them that they need to be evaluated in person (4) They have had quite good results testing this app with easier cases (and most marot that women ask about are easier cases), which is why they have the confidence to release it (5) There are clear instructions on photographing the mareh in sunlight (6) This is only available for iphone - and deliberately so. They have the camera and white balance technology to give a good enough image, and because everyone is using the same type of phone and operating system, there is more control. Developing an android version will be significantly more challenging. If asked, I think I would cautiously tell women that IF they have no way to get the mareh evaluated in person (they do not live near any qualified Rav or yoetzet, or they are traveling), and they have an iphone and carefully follow the instructions, this seems to be reliable. I have worked online with Rav Auman for a long time, and while I haven't actually met him in person, I do trust him to know what he is doing. I'm still checking into it. If any of you have iphones (like most Israelis, I have an android) and have installed the app, I would be very interested in hearing feedback. Thank you! Shavua tov, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 19:10:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 22:10:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Music on the night of Lag B'Omer Message-ID: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> It seems quite common that people have bonfires with music on the evening of Lag B'Omer. I haven't found a compelling reason for this custom - even those who are meikil like the Rama to lift the Aveilus on Lag B'Omer don't do so until the day, I thought, as miktzas hayom k'kulo. Does anyone have an explanation for this? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 21:20:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 00:20:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Music on the night of Lag B'Omer In-Reply-To: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> References: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <112dafa9-5b8f-9e78-8b3e-2c0fcd51e25b@sero.name> On 13/05/17 22:10, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > It seems quite common that people have bonfires with music on the > evening of Lag B?Omer. I haven?t found a compelling reason for this > custom ? even those who are meikil like the Rama to lift the Aveilus on > Lag B?Omer don?t do so until the day, I thought, as miktzas hayom > k?kulo. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Yes. If one is merely noting the end of aveilus, then it starts in the morning, tachanun (or Tzidkas'cha) is said at the previous mincha, and bichlal it's not a celebration, any more than one celebrates when getting up from shiva. I've never heard of people singing and dancing and playing music on such an occasion, even if it's permitted. But if one is celebrating Rashbi's yom hillula then it's a full holiday, an occasion for song and dance and music, and of course it starts at night, with no tachanun at the previous mincha. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 12:11:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:11:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin Message-ID: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 12:27:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:27:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin In-Reply-To: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> References: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170515192700.GA20468@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:11:29PM -0400, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? MB 40:3 says that's the universal minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 14:49:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 17:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped Tefillin Message-ID: <5F399CEB-B043-4AB8-A067-A8E1495829DF@cox.net> Saul Newman wrote: Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? To the best of my knowledge, YES. However, I also recall that one could give extra tzedaka in lieu of fasting. rw From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 16 19:26:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 22:26:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World" Message-ID: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> This Torah portion sets forth the blessings that are seen in this world in response to our deeds. It then continues with the Tochacha, words of admonition, "If you will not listen to Me and will not perform all of these commandments?" Interestingly, there are seven series of seven punishments each. God warns us throughout the portion that He will punish us in "seven ways for your seven sins. We are now counting seven days a week for seven weeks; the Torah has just recently given the laws for Shemita ? seventh year the land lies fallow and seven periods of seven years, we celebrate the Jubilee year. What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the diatonic scale, seven continents, etc. We wind the T'fillin straps around our forearm seven times. We sit shiva for seven days. At the wedding we chant 7 blessings (sheva b'rachos) and the wedding is followed by seven days of celebration. Even the Torah begins with seven -- the First verse has seven words also containing a total of twenty-eight letters which is seven times four. Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion. When we say "Baruch Hashem" we are praising God for something that is hopefully whole and complete. The acronym for Baruch Hashem (Beis, Hay) also equals 7. Finally, the patriarchs and matriarchs total seven: Avraham, Yitzchok, Ya?akov, Sarah, Rivka, Rochel, Leah. (Please don?t write me to say your phone number has seven digits or the rainbow has 7 colors or that there are seven letters in the Roman numeral system or that nitrogen has the atomic number of 7 or that there were 7 dwarfs with Snow White). :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 05:31:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 12:31:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality, Message-ID: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> See below concerning a frequently discussed issue: Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today, especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:30:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:30:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World" In-Reply-To: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> References: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170518143027.GB13698@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:26:19PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven : represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the : diatonic scale, seven continents... Although the diatonic scale and the division of the colors in the spectrum to fit the numbers 7 are human inventions. They say more about what 7 means to humans -- even without revalation -- than anything inherent. ... : Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion... As does the word. Without niqud, the letters /sb`/ could be read as "seven" or "satiated". (Or swear... go figure that out.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:18:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:18:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170518171844.GD26698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh : Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on : Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives : today, certainly not in any practical manner. A tighter comparison... The minhag as recorded in the SA clearly ran into Lag baOmer -- and ending mourning with the usual miqtzas hayom kekulo. Then the hilula deRashbi turned Lag baOmer into a holiday, and this new holiday overrode the older minhagim of aveilus. What's good for one new holiday ought to be good for another (YhA, where this conversation began), no? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:24:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:24:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:24:41PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was : enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*)... As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel YT") but it's "neir Chanukah". Their kids wouldn't forget. : everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get : enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel : dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... Fire hazard is safeiq piquach nefesh, and ein danin es ha'efshar mishe'i efshar. However, wouldn't the alternative been lighting in the dinig hall, near one's table? The point is to eat by neir shel YT, not to sleep by them! And in this case (combining the above with what RJR wrote), shouldn't they have provided incandescent lamps for each table? (Not that there were small bulbs of other sorts when we were growing up.) Wouldn't it be easier to justify making a berakhah on turning the light on than on lighting in a third room or a table off to the side of the dining room dozens of yards from where you are eating? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:35:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:35:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality, In-Reply-To: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170518143502.GC13698@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:31:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why : there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters : of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the : masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as : all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak : halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would : contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today, : especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.] Not sure what this means. There are halakhos about triage. About how much tzedaqah to give and how to prioritize them. There are a lot of halakhos about morality. I fail to see how this isn't circular. The open moral questions RYBS is referring to are those too situational for every possible situation to be addressed with its own pesaq. Ar the Ramban puts it on "ve'asisa hayashar vehatov". If "morality" is being used in a sense to limit it to those quetions that did not get halachic resolution, isn't he just saying the interpersonal questions that didn't get a pesaq didn't get a pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:46:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:46:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170518144626.GD13698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei : Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events : of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber). It seems (but is not muchrach) from the AhS 394:1-3 . As I wrote (in part) in 2010 . The AhS distinguishes between a global minhag from the Geonic period not to marry and a later minhag bemedinos ha'eilu. He attaches the minhag of 1-33 (and including miqtzas yayom kekulo) to when the talmidei R' Aqiva died (s' 4-5) and the minhag of the last days to "minhag shelanu" (s' 5), localizing the last days to the descendent of those who fled the Crusaders east. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:14:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 11:04:32AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : If ownership : According to Halacha : Is determined by believing one is in control : And when that control : Is lost : There's YiUsh : Then this Chamets : Had no owner : During Pesach But if this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as -- it would be open and shut. I think ba'alus (as opposed to ownership) is defined by having the legal responsibility for something, and only as a consequence about having control or a right to use it. Which would explain why qinyan, a mechanism for eatablishing shelichus or shibud, is more thought of as a means of establishing baalus. Because baalus is also primarily on the hischayvus side. And so, it has as a consequence actual legal right of control, rather than depending on belief that one is in control. Which is why a ganav needs yi'ush plus shinui. Yi'ush, loss of belief of having control, is NOT enough to end ba'alus. But that's ba'alus. We don't have ba'alus over chameitz on Pesach. For example, an avaryan who dies on Pesach while violating bal yeira'eh bal yeimatzeih (BYBY) does not leave that chameitz to his sons. BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs from choshein mishpat, and is not baalus. ... : And Chamets can be Muttar : Even if owned by a Y : If it's abandoned : For the duration of Pesach ... : And it seems : Even without Bittul. ... The mishnah on Pesachim 31b says that if it's buried so deep a dog cannot dig it up, it is a form of bi'ur. R' Chisda in the opening gemara says it needs bitul. But in any case, the question is whether this is destruction. The gemara likens it to bi'ur. Not about a loss of ownership. Which would create a whole different question, as Tosafos (Pesachim 4b "mideOraisa") understand relinquishing ownership to be the very definition of bitul. (The majority opinion -- Rashi "bibitul be'alma", Ritva, Ran, and the Rambam 2:2 -- say it's a form of bi'ur.) Rashi and the Ran say the need for bitul after a mapolah fell on one's chameitz is derabbnan, a gezeira in case it gets unburied. But while buried, it's kebi'ur. The Samaq (#98) says the need for bitul is de'oraisa. And the MA holds that the Semaq would require buried chameitz not was not batul to be dug up and burnt on Pesach. The Mekhilta (on Shemos 12:19, see #2 ) says that chameitz owned by a nakhri which is in a Jew's reshus or a Jew's chameitz are excluded from BYBY by the pasuq's extra word "beveteikhem". "Af al pi shehu birshuso". The Mekhilta is making a split between reshus and BYBY. And it could be we are discussing three different concepts of "ownership", with reshus and baalu being different from each other as well. There is also a whole sugya about buried issurei han'ah on Temurah 33b-34a (starting at the mishnah) that I would need to understand better with rishonim and posqim to really comment in full. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:38:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:38:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> References: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 18/05/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel > YT") but it's "neir Chanukah" In L's case, "neir shel shabbos kodesh", but "neir chanukah". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 13:53:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 21:53:30 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? Message-ID: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> A thought just struck me, and I wondered if this chimed with anybody. The Rambam says (Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 halacha 13): ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????. Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. The Tur says the same except that he has Torah shebichtav and Torah sheba'al peh around the other way (Tur Yoreh Deah Hilchot Talmud Torah siman 246): ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??"? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???"? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? The Sages said all who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking with Torah shebichtav but with Torah shebaal peh he should not teach her ab initio, but if he taught her it is not as though he taught her Tiflut The Beis Yosef says it is a scribal error in the Tur, and should be the same way as the Rambam, and that is how he has the statement in the Shulchan Aruch, and the Taz agrees, pointing to Hakel. The Prisha notes that the Beis Yosef says that it is a scribal error but adds: ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??"? In any event there is to give a small reason for this version in the books of the Tur, since with all of them it is written and published so, because there is a greater loss when Torah shebichtav is brought out as words of nonsense than with Torah shebal peh. However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil Siman 199, the Maharil writes: ?????? ????? ???"? ??????' ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?"? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ? - ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?????' ???? ???? ?? ??? ????' ?? ???????, ??? ??' ??"?? ?"?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????, ??"? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????, ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??'? ???? ???? ??????, ??? ??? ????? ????? ... ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???, ???? ?"? ????? ?????, And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut as it says in perek notlev and we learn it from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, when wisdom enters so does cunning since when wisdom enters the heart of a person there also enters into it cunning and according to the explanation of Rashi because of this she will do things privately, and if so we are concerned that she will come to damage since their knowledge is light and even though it is considered a mitzvah eit l?asot lashem so that one should not drown out the reward by loss and all the more so where there is not a mitzvah ... And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by way of tradition from outside, And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous generations: ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like it says ?ask your father and he shall tell you? and in this it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their upright fathers. But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in the form of the Mishna? That the Torah sheba'al peh was passed from father to son by oral transmission (albeit that at one point schools were instated for those lacking fathers who could teach them)? And on the other hand doesn't the Rosh (ie father of the Tur) famously say that today one fulfils the mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah by writing other seforim in Hilkhot Sefer Torah, chap. 1 as is brought by the Tur and Shulhan Arukh in Yoreh De'ah 270:2? So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al peh - as the vast majority of the details are sourced in Torah sheba'al peh, and if they were only to be taught what is in Torah shebichtav, they would all turn into Karaites! And indeed that women were, as the Chofetz Chaim suggests, taught in the home with the tradition handed over by their fathers in the same way as Torah sheba'al peh has always been learnt all the way back to Moshe Rabbanu. While if you understand Torah shebichtav as including mishna and gemora and rishonim, all so long as they have been written down, then one could indeed understand that as being a possible practical distinction - ie not to teach women to read and write and understand what is in the written seforim? Now perhaps one might say that if the Rambam had poskened like Rav Elazar in Gitten 60b as understood by Rashi, that Torahshebichtav is the majority and Torah sheba'al peh is the minority, because he includes in Torah shebichtav anything that is learnt out of the Torah by way of midrash or gezera shava etc, then it might be possible to understand that by and large women could both learn to do the mitzvot incumbent on them and simultaneously avoid Torah sheba'al peh, but he doesn't, as in his introduction the Mishna he categorises Torah Sheba'al peh into five categories, and is clearly in this poskening like Rav Yochanan. So how, according to the Rambam, did women know what to do if they were never taught Torah sheba'al peh, even ba'al peh, remembering that it is the Rema's addition to the Shulchan Aruch in the name of the Smag (actually Smak) via the Agur that adds in the halacha that women need to learn all the mitzvot that are relevant to them? Is not the Tur's version actually the one that makes more logical sense - especially if you explain Hakel as per the gemora in Chagiga that the women came to listen (ie hear it orally, without looking at the text)? Not that this would seem to explain Rabi Eliezer himself, as Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna in Sotah 21a - objected to women learning that sometimes drinking the Sotah water would not result in immediate death, and in the Yerushalmi, Sotah perek 3 daf 19 column 1 halacha 4 he objected to telling a woman why there are three different types of deaths listed vis a vis the chet haegel when there was only one sin - both of which pieces of learning were, at least in his day, definitely Torah sheba'al peh. So given that the Rambam poskened like Rabbi Eliezer, he would have needed, if a distinction was to be made, have to phrase it the way he did. But maybe what the Tur was saying is that, Rabbi Eliezer or no, the Rambam's solution is not workable, and given the way the gemora explains Rabbi Eliezer's limud from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, and that already in his day that kind of learning was found in Torah shebichtav, the whole thing can be made workable by turning it the other way around? Has anybody seen this suggested anywhere? Any thoughts? Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 15:56:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 08:56:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> References: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 19 May 2017 3:15 am, "Micha Berger" wrote: >: If ownership >: According to Halacha >: Is determined by believing one is in control >: And when that control >: Is lost >: There's YiUsh >: Then this Chamets >: Had no owner >: During Pesach > If this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as I don't understand. Please explain. One who is unaware of the loss of his wallet, believes he is still in control. We Pasken that he remains the owner. Famous story, woman lost her money at a trade fair, was found and taken to the Rov. Although there was no question that it was the money she had lost, there was no way to Pasken that it had to be returned to her. YiUsh. Until Reb Y ? explained that she was never the owner and her state of mind was not relevant. It was her husband's money and he, being unaware it was lost, still firmly believed he was in control. YSheLoMiDaAs suggesting that since he'd be in a different state of mind, if he knew the facts, in other words YSheLoMiDaAs, is still a Sevara that recognises and circulates around the principle that ownership depends upon ones state of mind. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 09:16:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 12:16:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts Message-ID: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Two Faces of Love Twice a day the Jew gives expression to one of the most potent forces in social life ? LOVE. In the morning we plead for ahavah rabbah, abundance of love, for in the morning we want love to expand and grow throughout the day. In the evening, however, when darkness descends upon us, we pray again for love, but not in quantitative terms. Instead we plead for ahavat olam ? enduring and eternal love. In the dark night love does not grow; it deepens. Two Philosophies of LIfe Sarah advised her husband to cast out Ishmael, when she saw he was ?Miitzachaik? and she feared he would be an evil influence on his brother ?Yitzchok.? Interestingly, both ?Miitzachaik? and ?Yitzchok? have a common root, meaning to laugh or to play. What is the disparity? The difference is compelling: ?Mitzachaik? is in the present tense and ?Yitzchok? is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael?s philosophy of life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future. Conversely, she saw that Yitzchok?s philosophy of life was to live life spiritually, delaying immediate gratification and living his life in a way that would provide genuine happiness and enjoyment in the future. The future depends on what we do in the present. Mahatma Gandhi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 11:14:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 14:14:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes Message-ID: <20170519181429.GA31873@aishdas.org> >From this week's emailing from The Halachah Center / Beis haVaad leInyanei Mishpat . There are a number of halachic discussions about e-cig use -- whether kashrus concerns apply, health issues, but then they close with this interesting (to me) more aggadic point. Note found interesting was that R' Yosef Greenwald assumes that venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem isn't about preserving life, but preserving one's ability to pull the ol mitzvos. (That sounds weird, but an animal "pulls a yoke", no?) Which includes preserving life. And thus includes intoxication and other mind- or mood-altering chemicals that could hamper one's ability to function. I could have seen argiong for each as separate values, but... Holy Smokes! A Halachic Discussion Regarding E-Cigarettes Are e-cigarettes problematic from a halachic standpoint? By: Rav Yosef Greenwald ... The Health Concerns of E-cigarettes ... 1. Are E-Cigarettes Any Better than Cigarettes? ... 2. Derech Eretz and a Life of Meaning Let us conclude with one more point about the general imperative to protect our health and its relevance to this case. Although as mentioned there is an injunction to safeguard our health based on v'nishmartem, we also have an assurance of shomer pesaim Hashem, that Hashem will protect those who engage in normal activities, as Rav Moshe explained, which is based on the Gemara (Yevamos 12b and elsewhere).[10] Consequently, eating greasy french fries, doughnuts, and the like, may not be the healthiest thing to do. However, doing so would not violate a halachic prohibition, as eating these foods is considered in the realm of normal behavior (like smoking used to be), and we can apply shomer pesa'im Hashem. There have recently been some questions asked about the kashrus on medical marijuana, due to the possibility that the recreational use of marijuana may be normalized soon. However, before discussing the kashrus questions, one must ask whether it is acceptable to consume marijuana. It would seem to be in the same category as significant alcohol consumption. Leaving aside any possible physical damage caused from overdosing, there is no specific halacha that forbids one from getting drunk, aside from being careful not to miss the proper time for Tefilla, and not issuing halachic rulings while in an inebriated state.[11] Nevertheless, it should be obvious that this is wrong, based on what could be called the "fifth section of the Shulchan Aruch," using common sense in living one's life. Clearly, Hashem does not want a person to waste away their life in a state in which one cannot serve Hashem properly. Rather, one should live life as an intelligent, sober person. One who overdoses on alcohol, or engages in mind-altering or mood- altering by ingesting marijuana, is taking away the ability to function as a normal person. This falls under the category of derech eretz, proper conduct, which precedes the observance of halacha. In other words, even if one does not directly violate the Shulchan Aruch, one must live in a manner in which the Torah and halacha can be fulfilled. To return to e-cigarettes, this notion of living healthy is an important reason why, even if it is concluded that they are 100% kosher even without certification, a non-smoker should not start using such a product. In the merit of being able to curb one's physical temptations, hopefully we as a people can merit to reaching great spiritual heights, and achieve the closeness to Hashem that He, and we, so desire. ... [11] Both of these issues are discussed in the Gemara (Eiruvin 64a) and are cited in the Shulchan Aruch. ... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 12:08:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:08:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Does Orthodox Commitment Provide What is Needed for Good Character? Message-ID: <20170519190815.GA24683@aishdas.org> From http://jewishethicalwisdom.com/does-orthodox-commitment-provide-what-is-needed-for-good-character Critical reading for anyone interested in what AishDas stands for. Jewish Ethical Wisdom Blog Does Orthodox Commitment Provide What is Needed for Good Character? Posted on April 6, 2017 Posted By: Anthony Knopf Does Orthodox commitment provide what is needed for good character? Not yet, I answer in this article. ... Rashei peraqim: Introduction Feeling and Thinking Ethically - Not Always a Matter of Halakha Exclusive Focus on Halakha Distracts from and Attenuates Moral Sensitivity More is Required :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 12:19:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:19:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts In-Reply-To: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> References: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170519191925.GA30260@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:16:28PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The difference is compelling: "Mitzachaik" is in the present tense and : "Yitzchok" is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael's philosophy of : life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as : much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future. However, "Yishmael", the name, is also in future tense, and later in his life, "Yitzchaq metzacheiq es Rivqah ishto" (26:8) -- in the present tense. And while "Yishmael's" name is about listening, not tzechoq, is not listening MORE fundamental to a healthy relationship? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 02:14:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 19:14:00 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah at the Age of 12 Message-ID: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> My maternal grandfather, who lived in Lithuania until his late teens, told me on a number of occasions that he celebrated his bar mitzvah when he was 12 years old, as his father had died and he was considered to be an orphan. Some years ago I recalled this and decided to learn more about the custom, but each of the rabbis I asked had never heard of it. Recently, however, I was re-reading A Tzadik in Our Time: The Life of Reb Aryeh Levin and, at page 95, he recounts that he attended a bar mitzvah of an orphan in Jerusalem on his 12th birthday. Does anyone know anything of this custom? David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 13:39:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:39:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs > from choshein mishpat, and is not baalus. We can see a connection between BYBY and "responsibility" by the situation of a shomer. Even in a situation where a shomer is absolutely not the owner or baal in any sense of the term, he will still violate BYBY if he is responsible for the chometz that he is watching. (I don't know which side of the discussion this supports, but it seems very relevant to *some* side, so I figured I'd mention it.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 19:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'midbar Message-ID: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> Israel?s brithplace was b?midbar ? in the wilderness. It has been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced the monotheistic faith. Man is always in need of fulfillment and his promised land is far away. He is always on the road to the actualization of his dreams, seeking better things and yearning for a fuller, fulfilling life. The wilderness is the symbol of man searching for his destination. It is told that a Chassidic Rebbe, impatient at the sad, mad state of the world (sound familiar?) and overcome with longing for the happiness of mankind, prayed to God: ?If Thou cannot redeem Thy people Israel, then at least redeem mankind!? May we reach the promised land in our lifetime! rw ?Ay me! sad hours seem long.? William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 19:00:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:00:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "Krias Moshe Leynen"? Message-ID: <7c27ddbf-5df2-526c-c8bd-dbfd5a94b96e@sero.name> Has anyone heard of such a thing? I came across it in a Munkatcher publication. If it were buried in a block of text I'd take it for a typo for "Krias Sh'ma Leynen", referring to the children who come on the vach nacht to say Krias Sh'ma for the baby. But it's in a prominent position where I think surely someone would have noticed such a blatant typo and corrected it before it went to print, so my current working theory is that it's some minhag that neither I nor anyone I've asked so far have heard of. So I'm throwing it to the wider Avodah community; does anyone know what this is? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 23:08:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 02:08:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah at the Age of 12 In-Reply-To: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> References: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 20/05/17 05:14, David Havin via Avodah wrote: > My maternal grandfather, who lived in Lithuania until his late teens, > told me on a number of occasions that he celebrated his bar mitzvah when > he was 12 years old, as his father had died and he was considered to be > an orphan. > > Some years ago I recalled this and decided to learn more about the > custom, but each of the rabbis I asked had never heard of it. Recently, > however, I was re-reading A Tzadik in Our Time: The Life of Reb Aryeh > Levin and, at page 95, he recounts that he attended a bar mitzvah of an > orphan in Jerusalem on his 12^th birthday. > > Does anyone know anything of this custom? There is, of course, no such custom of becoming a bar mitzvah early. But it was a common custom that a child with no father would begin putting on tefillin a full year before his bar mitzvah, rather than a few weeks or months as is the usual custom. See Aruch Hashulchan 37:4, who says this is "murgal befi hahamon", but he knows of no reason for it, and disapproves of it. See: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=374&pgnum=295 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 14:40:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 17:40:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts In-Reply-To: References: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Message-ID: <2B3DC5BF-D4C8-4C0D-A9B0-01AE8A89E41E@cox.net> > "Yishmael", the name, is also in future tense ...which means "he WILL hear or listen" which fits in with his personality and character. Presently he doesn't listen and does what he pleases. When he gets old, he will then listen. > And while "Yishmael's" name is about listening, not tzechoq, is not > listening MORE fundamental to a healthy relationship? A healthy relationship is fundamental with many elements: one of which is certainly listening NOW, not in the future. Can you imagine telling your child to do something and he says I'll do it in the future. He isn't even listening because as you point out "He WILL listen -- a lot of good that does for the present. And psychologists will tell you that a healthy relationship must have laughter and humor which can only increase the health of a relationship. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 22 07:47:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 10:47:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag Baomer in pre WWII Mir Yeshiva in Europe In-Reply-To: <1494871334409.64146@stevens.edu> References: <1494871334409.64146@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170522144737.GB29499@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:02:36PM +0000, Prof Yitzchak Levine posted on Areivim: : Please see http://mrlitvak.blogspot.com/ I can understand a desire to reaffirm the authentic Litvisher derkeh. But meanwhile, we have more learning than at any time in Litta's history, and kids are still uninspiring and fleeing in horrendous numbers. How often do people mention the RBSO? How much do we discuss or base decisions on the kelalim gedolim baTorah (cf RBW's recent review of RJB's The Great Principle of the Torah -- ve'ahvta lerei'akha kamokha, de'alakh sani, eileh toledos ha'adam, shema Yisrael, tzadiq be'emunaso yichyeh, etc...)? So, Lag baOmer may not be more than cheap sentimentality. But even if I were to agree this was true, I would still argue that we are in desperate need of sentimentality -- and will settle for the cheap kind rather than letting the pursuit of perfection become excuses for less emotional expression. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 10:54:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:54:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? Message-ID: We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that are on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv is al pi din. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 12:38:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:38:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Added textual mar'eh meqomos alongside the links. -micha] On 23/05/17 13:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would > like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. > Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that > are on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv > is al pi din. These would seem to be dispositive: [Rambam, Hilkhos Shekheinim 10:11:] http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/c310.htm#11 [SA CM 155:26:] https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9F_%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9A_%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9F_%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98_%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%9B%D7%95 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 13:35:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 16:35:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170523203556.GC10104@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 08:54:41PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would : like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. : Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that are : on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv is al pi : din. Related question, really came up last week. Someone had a tree that neighbors were complaining about, that it looked like it was dying and might fall on the neighbor's roof. On a windy day recently it actually snapped -- but not falling on the roof, instead the tree brought down the power lines. A number of people on the block lost food before power was restored and other expenses were incurred. Is the owner of the tree liable al pi din? What if the neighbor hadn't warned him, so that we cannot know if the owner was aware of an issue or not? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 42nd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliability crucial for universal brotherhood? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 13:37:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:37:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'Note found interesting was that R' Yosef Greenwald assumes that venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem isn't about preserving life, but preserving one's ability to pull the ol mitzvos. (That sounds weird, but an animal "pulls a yoke", no?) Which includes preserving life. And thus includes intoxication and other mind- or mood-altering chemicals that could hamper one's ability to function.' The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it either as far as I recall. So that leaves us fairly free to guess what it means, I suppose. I'd assumed it means preserving health, inasmuch as nefesh usually refers to life force, and we wouldn't need it to refer to preserving life itself, since that's covered by a) prohibition of suicide and b) al taamod al dam reyecha. And preserving health would presumably be in order to keep mitzvos the better, no? And I think an animal bears a yoke and pulls a plough. Lashon Hakodesh is always 'nosei ol'. Which corresponds better to bear than pull. So we carry/bear the ol mitzvos I think. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 14:25:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 07:25:01 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away - Mashkon Pikadon Message-ID: In Siman 440 chametz foods owned by a G in the care of a Yid (a ?shomer? / guardian) Siman 441 chametz foods owned by a G left in the care of a Yid as a ?mashkon? (lit. collateral) for guarantee of a loan from the Yid Pesachim 5b Two pesukim Shmos 13:7 ?Chametz shall not be seen to you and leaven shall not be seen to you in all your borders.? You may not see your own (i.e. keep in your possession), but you may see that of others (i.e. non-Jews)? Shmos 12:19 ?For a seven-day period leaven shall not be found in your homes.? a Yid may not accept Chamets deposits from non-Jews.? there appears to be an inconsistency Gemara Pesachim 5b If a Yid may see Chamets of non-Jews why does the Beraisa prohibit the chametz deposit of a non-Jew? It depends upon whether the Y has (monetary) responsibility for the Chametz, When a Y accepts monetary responsibility for the chametz he is considered to be owner to the extent that he is Over BYBY Mishnah Berura discusses whether the Y can sell the ?pikadon?. concludes yes If the Y has no monetary responsibility (i.e. for loss, theft or negligence) it may be kept in his house during Pesach but to ensure it is not mistakenly eaten must close it in a room The ?shomer? who assumes monetary liability becomes a part-owner therefore, a Jew's chametz with a non-Jewish ?shomer? does not absolve the Y he is Over BYBY A visiting non-Jew who brings his own chametz into the home of a Jew need not ask the non-Jew to remove the chametz and may even invite him into his home and eat the chametz right at his table provided the Y does not eat together with the G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 13:42:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:42:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim Message-ID: > > > > I am not expressing an opinion here on the permissibility of maharats, or > of women's ordination. I merely wish to express my respect for those on > both sides of this important question, and my hope that the dispute will > remain on the level of a machloket l'shem shamayim and that ultimately all > of us will benefit from this challenging and passionate conversation. > > ---------------------- Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilana. I have found that discussions about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven ... and of not having a recognized posek to support their halachic position. The discussions rarely focus on the relevant halachic issues. It's nice to hear someone who is willing to respect the other side...and recognize that the discussion is a machlokes l'sheim shamayim. -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 17:37:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 20:37:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170525003710.GA22308@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:42pm EDT, R Michael Feldstein wrote: : Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilana. I have found that discussions : about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because : those who support : shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven ... and : of not having : a recognized posek to support their halachic position. The discussions : rarely focus on : the relevant halachic issues. A discussion on Avodah can focus exclusively on the relevant halachic issues. A decision of what to do in practice has to include deferring to the position that actually is backed by recognized posqim. And one side's unwillingness to ask the question on this level itself becomes a relevant halachic issue. However, the following is true anyway: : It's nice to hear someone who is willing to respect the other side...and : recognize that : the discussion is a machlokes l'sheim shamayim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 20:03:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 05:03:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly accused of being agenda driven. Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. Ben On 5/24/2017 10:42 PM, Michael Feldstein via Areivim wrote: > I have found that discussions > about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support > shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 04:57:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 11:57:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> On 5/24/2017 10:42 PM, Michael Feldstein via Areivim wrote: > I have found that discussions > about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support > shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven _______________________________________________ Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:28:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:28:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? Message-ID: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:30:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:30:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shoftim-Mesorah Chain Message-ID: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&st=&pgnum=484 Fascinating article on the mesorah chain-were the shoftim really part of it ?(doesn't deal with broader question of why we don't see Sanhedrin in Nach). KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:46:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 10:46:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shoftim-Mesorah Chain In-Reply-To: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170525144620.GA16912@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:30:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&st=&pgnum=484 : Fascinating article on the mesorah chain-were the shoftim really part of it ?(doesn't deal with broader question of why we don't see Sanhedrin in Nach). Is this the right link? The article appears to be about the revalation of Tanakh "Dargot haNevu'ah baTorah, Nevi'im uKhtuvim", starting with Devarim vs the other 4 chumashim, then Navi vs Kesuvim. By R Moshe Menachem haKohein Shapira. I think you mean an earlier article, MEsoret haTSBP beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah Neustadt. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252pgnum=474 Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:26:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:26:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minhagei Nashim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526012654.GA29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 06:51:56AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I am NOT talking about a machlokes haposkim, where the wife was taught one : thing and the husband was taught something else. In that case, there is : much common ground, and they (or their rav) can go to the sources to figure : out what the couple should do. I'm talking about a much more fundamental : problem, where generations have passed on different traditions, without : anyone ever realizing that there was a mismatch. Is this really a problem? I highly recommend learning AhS. One of the things you get to watch is how much this conflict drives the dialectic of halakhah. Unlike the clean-room approach to halachic theory one gets from lomdus. You get a sense of how much acceptance of a practice in the field drives how much willingness to accept or draft a dachuq theory to explain how it could be justified in theory. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:43:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:43:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'midbar In-Reply-To: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> References: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170526014307.GC29809@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:37:34PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has : been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced : the monotheistic faith... But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged during the Exodus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:39:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526013946.GB29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, : and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying : observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes : when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ... : [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is : outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be : factionalized like that. .... : help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, : despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it : is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to : the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply : to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. : I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 : consistent with 493:8? Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag, as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin on ch"m either. It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the local court(s) or inherited. Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag side of the AhS's chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 20:53:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 23:53:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes Message-ID: R' Ben Bradley wrote: > The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is > that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui > which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in > fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha > nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it > either as far as I recall. This surprised me so much that I looked it up. Here's what I found: These words are from Devarim 4:15. The only comment of the Torah Temimah is: "This is brought and explained above, in the pasuk Ushmor Nafsh'cha (#9)." So I look at Devarim 4:9, and the Torah Temimah quotes a lengthy story from Brachos 32b, which references both pesukim (4:9 and 4:15). The comments of the Torah Temimah that I found particularly relevant to RBB's comment are found in the second and third paragraphs in Torah Temimah #16, and I will quote them here: > The Maharsha writes here, "This pasuk is about forgetting > the Torah, and these pesukim have nothing at all to do with > a person protecting his own nefesh from danger." According > to him, the tzadik of that story said what he said to the > government official merely to get out of the situation, > because the pasuk is really not about Shmiras Haguf. Further, > the fact that it is a common saying, for people to quote the > pasuk V'nishmartem Me'od L'nafshoseichem for any physical > danger - according to the Maharsha that's a mistake. > > But isn't it the explicit opinion of the Rambam, who wrote > in Rotzeach 11:4, "It is a Mitzvas Aseh to remove any > michshol which could be a Sakanas Nefashos, and to be very > very careful about it, as it is said, 'Hishamer L'cha, > Ushmor Nafsh'cha Me'od.'" So it is explicit that the language > of these pesukim *is* about protecting one's body. At first glance, this seems to go against what RBB wrote. BUT: Even according to the Rambam as cited by the Torah Temimah, it seems to me that the most one can say is that Ushmor Nafsh'cha (Devarim 4:9) talks about physical danger; we don't necessarily know that about V'nishmartem (Devarim 4:15), and it is not clear to me why the Torah Temimah closes that paragraph referring to "THESE pesukim" (hapesukim ha-ayleh). Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 03:18:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 13:18:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Bmidbar Message-ID: Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has : been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced : the monotheistic faith... But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged during the Exodus >> However, the avot were shepherds and it has been suggested that being alone with the flock and nature helped them perceive monotheism. BTW I am now reading The exodus you almost passed over by Rabbi Fohrman who demonstrates that the debate between Moshe and Pharoh and the 10 plagues all revolve about monotheism versus polytheism -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:39:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526013946.GB29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, : and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying : observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes : when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ... : [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is : outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be : factionalized like that. .... : help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, : despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it : is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to : the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply : to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. : I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 : consistent with 493:8? Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag, as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin on ch"m either. It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the local court(s) or inherited. Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag side of the AhS's chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 19:22:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 22:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government Message-ID: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> There is a popular theory that the positive description of the gov't found repeatedly found in the AhS is self-censorship and an attempt to make sure his works make it through the government censorship and approval process. But there are times he goes far beyond this, complimenting them in ways no censor would have expected, never mind demanded. For example EhE 42:51, the discussion of marrying in front of witnesses \who are pesulei eidus deOraisa -- eg converts away from Judaism. Rashi has a case of an anoos who got married with other anoosim, and they all returned. Rashi ruled that she needs a gett, because maybe they had hirhurei teshuvah and at that moment were valid eidim. Then he adds Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed. They would never force someone to convert. Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah, we don't have to be chosheish for it. So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus? In terms of timing, the first booklets of EhE started coming out in 1905. (After YD, which came out 1897-1905.) He stopped sometime during or before 1908, his petirah; but he could have written this well before 1905 -- I only know the publishing date. 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other things. Which then led to a new Russioan Constitution, a multi-party system, the Imperial Duma... and 11 years later, the Soviets. So, it's hard to believe he meant it, but it's hard to believe he would risk empty flattery with those stakes! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 04:50:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 07:50:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> On 25/05/17 22:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Then he adds > Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu > shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed. > They would never force someone to convert. He goes on far longer than that. So long that no reader could possibly miss his meaning. > Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he > continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's > converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah, > we don't have to be chosheish for it. > > So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he > suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO > obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up > to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus? This was a period when some publishers of siddurim felt it necessary to print "avinu malkeinu ein lanu melech bashamayim ela ata". He may very well have feared that including a practical psak about anoosim would arouse the censor's ire, especially since the censors were themselves mostly meshumodim. > 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which > was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other > things. Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would have been obvious to him too. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 07:57:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other :> things. : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would : have been obvious to him too. I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation audience. Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his contemporary readers. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 08:33:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 11:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2dc5d4d3-0686-0f3a-9692-24d0aa39595b@sero.name> On 26/05/17 10:57, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which > :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other > :> things. > > : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see > : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which > : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would > : have been obvious to him too. > > I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in > his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation > audience. candlesticks? I think you meant gelecther. But there's no false psak, just a false description of the metzius, which is so over the top that nobody could miss it. > Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining > qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting > them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his > contemporary readers. How could he possibly know what future conditions might be? Any reference in any sefer to "our times" has to be understood as about the author's times, not the reader's. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 07:53:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:53:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly : accused of being agenda driven. : : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response. Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality. Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a non-halachic agenda by making it look holy. (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:57:32AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post : modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all : agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid) But there are limits to eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. When in a halachic debate, one should be limiting oneself to the various answers that are objectively right. Thus presuming there is an objectively right, while still not being absolutist about it. And if we assimilated too much postmodernism to be able to see where eilu va'eilu ends (tapers off), we should be leaning on posqim who can. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 09:54:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 12:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Tvunah] St. Petersberg White Night Zmanim Message-ID: <20170526165420.GA22041@aishdas.org> >From the web site of R' Asher Weiss's pesaqim . I was told that they had a similar problem in the summer in Telzh. Motza"sh was havdalah, melaveh malkah, night seder, shacharis kevasikin, sleep. Tvunah in English Beit Midrash for Birurei Halachah Binyan Zion Under the Leadership of Maran HaRav Asher Weiss Shlita White Night Zmanim Questions: 1. During White Nights here in St. Petersburg we end Shabbat at midnight (2:00). This is also the time of alot ashahar. Accordingly, there is no opportunity to say a blessing on the candle and eat Seudat melawe malka. Question: Is it possible to rely on the opinion of rabbi Ovadiya Yoseph that alot ashahar is 72 dakot zmaniet before dawn, and accordingly there is a certain night after Chatzot for Bracha on the candle and melawe malka? 2. Can we finish fasts of 17 of Tamuz and the 9th of Av after tzet kahovim according Gaon (0:03 and 23:03)? Answers: 1. Since it is already the beginning of the light of the new day and hence Alot Hashachar, the bracha on the candle for havdala should not be said. However since it is still a few hours before Netz Hachama [sunrise] one could be lenient to eat Melave Malka. In fact, with regards to Melave Malka one could be lenient and eat before Chatzos, as long as 72 minutes have passed since shkiya [even though with regards to Melacha one should be machmir until Chatzos]. 2. With regards to ending Rabbinic Fasts, one could rely on the zman of Tzais Hakochavim according to Rabeinu Tam [according to the Pri Megadim that it is a set time in all places], waiting 72 minutes after shkiya. [Hebrew meqoros ubi'urim elided.] :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 45th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Malchus: What is the beauty of Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity (on all levels of relationship)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 27 12:11:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 22:11:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> On 5/26/2017 5:53 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly > : accused of being agenda driven. > : > : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. > > I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat > believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their > halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response. > > Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda > to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have > a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality. People keep using that word, "feminist". I don't think that's what feminism means. This is egalitarianism, which may overlap with feminism in some areas, but is a different ideology. And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to reality. That would imply that halakha comes first and responds to reality. I think that in the vast majority of cases, and if you want, I'll give you ample examples from the writings of JOFA/YCT people, it is a sense that egalitarianism is a moral imperative. That the egalitarian worldview is quite simply the *only* moral worldview, and that to the extent that halakha comforms to that worldview, it is a moral system, and to the extent that it does not, it is not. > Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means > of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a > non-halachic agenda by making it look holy. It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality that predates this entire debate. When the egalitarians want to try and read their ideology back into Jewish history, they often do so with things like Rashi's daughters laying tefillin, a fiction which is accepted as fact by Conservative and Reform Jews, but has absolutely no historical basis. There is a legitimate argument to be made that those on the side of tradition are afraid of change. But not that they are *only* afraid of change. Casual change of halakhic norms has caused enormous damage in recent history, and wariness or even fear of such things is both rational and reasonable. Again, there may even be something admirable about trying to equalize the two sides the way you're doing here, but it doesn't match the reality. One has only to listen to the types of arguments that are used by the two sides to see that they are operating on the basis of vastly different paradigms, where one *starts* with the Torah and one *starts* with egalitarianism. > (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about > fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" > a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos > that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, > etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or > resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and > general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha. The words of the Ramchal and Rabbenu Bachya are not as rigorously chosen as those in the halakhic areas of the Torah, and are far more easily "adapted" to foreign ideologies. I don't say that they are unimportant, but let's not let the tail wag the dog here. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 27 20:44:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 23:44:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: To quickly review an old question: If Rus and Orpah converted at the *beginning* of the story, then how could Naami send Orpah back to her people? But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews? Some answer this question suggesting that there was a sort of "conditional" conversion at the beginning, and while Rus later affirmed her conversion to be sincere, it was revealed that Orpah's was never valid to begin with. I have never understood this answer, because of the ten years that elapsed from the supposed conversion until it was retroactively nullified. (By analogy, suppose (chalila) that Jared and Ivanka would split up, and Ivanka would claim that she was only putting on a show all along. Who would believe her? Those who currently accept her geirus as valid, would anyone accept such a bitul of it?) Today I came across a different approach to the question. Like any other area of halacha, hilchos geirus has its share of halachic disputes. For example, which parts of the process require a beis din; perhaps a beis din is needed only l'chatchila, or is it me'akev? Or: If the conversion candidate admits that he/she has mixed motivations (such as being interested in a Jewish spouse, but also sincerely l'shem Shamayim), is this acceptable or is it posul even b'dieved? Pick either of those questions, or make up another one of your own. Let's say that both Orpah and Rus converted at the beginning of the story. Let's also say that everyone was up-front and sincere about whatever they claimed their motivations to be, such that no one was surprised ten years later. In other words, there was no disagreement about the facts of the situation. But there WAS a machlokes among the poskim of the time, about the halacha to apply to that situation. Machlon, Kilyon, Rus and Boaz all held like the poskim who said that the conversion was a valid one, at least b'dieved. But Naami held like the poskim who ruled it to be invalid, even b'dieved. Thus, Machlon and Kilyon were able to marry these women in good conscience. For ten years Naami held Orpah and Rus to be non-Jewish, but there wasn't much she could do about it, because their husbands held that they *were* Jewish. When the husbands died, Naami finally had the opportunity to express the view of her poskim. Orpah accepted Naami's advice (for whatever reason), but Rus was committed to continuing her new religion (for whatever reason). At this point, perhaps Rus had a second geirus to keep her mother-in-law happy, or maybe not. Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to speak of. A possible hole in my suggestion appears in pasuk 2:20, where Naami explicitly admits that Boaz is one of "OUR" relatives, and one of "OUR" redeemers. This would not make sense if Naami rejected the validity of the original conversion. However, this occurs AFTER pasuk 2:11, in which Boaz tells Rus (I am paraphrasing): "I know your whole story. Don't worry. I hold your geirus to be valid, and I hold you you be a relative." In the final analysis, Naami goes along. Maybe she decides to accept Boaz's shitah l'halacha, or maybe she merely goes along as a practical matter, given the fait accompli that both Boaz and Rus hold that way. Have I left any loose ends here? Previous approaches have focused on uncertainties of intention. This approach says that everything that happened in Moav was clear, and the only gray part was a machlokes haposkim, but we know which shitah was followed by each character of the story. I invite all comments. advTHANKSance Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 09:16:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 12:16:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0789e301-2374-0dd3-0f9e-8befc1c1052c@sero.name> On 27/05/17 23:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was > valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to > speak of. There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. What is the point of this mitzvah? It's to pay off his obligations and redeem his good name; Ruth -- whether Jewish or not -- was also his obligation, and had to be redeemed. Thus Boaz need not have believed that the initial conversion -- if there was one -- had been valid. But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:51:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:51:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Rut converted when Naomi tried to send her back, while Oprah chose not to convert. Ben On 5/28/2017 5:44 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without > Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 10:50:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 17:50:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> >From last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should always follow the local custom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:16:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:16:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mezonos After Kiddush Message-ID: <1495995457275.89387@stevens.edu> >From Friday's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. Must Kiddush be followed by a meal with bread, or is it sufficient to make Kiddush and then eat mezonos? A. There is a halacha that Kiddush may only be recited at the place of one's meal. This requirement is known as Kiddush b'makom se'udah (Pesachim 101a). If one does not eat a se'udah after Kiddush or recites Kiddush in a location other than where he eats the meal, he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of Kiddush and must make Kiddush again when and where he eats. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch (OC 273:5) quote the Ge'onim who hold that one can fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush without actually eating a full meal at the time and place that he makes Kiddush. Rather, a person can consume a mere ke'zayis of bread or even drink an additional revi'is of wine as his Kiddush-time "meal" to fulfill the requirement of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. The Magen Avraham (273:11) and Aruch Ha-Shulchan (273:8) explain that, according to the Ge'onim, one can eat Mezonos food (e.g. cookies, pastry, or cake), after Kiddush to satisfy the rule of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. This view has become widely accepted, and many poskim permit partaking of Mezonos foods after Kiddush but ideally advise against satisfying the mitzvah by merely drinking an additional revi'is of wine (see MB 273:25). Some halachic authorities, including the Chasam Sofer, as quoted by Rav Moshe Shternbuch, shlita (Teshuvos V'Hanhogos 5:80), have ruled that if one makes Kiddush and then eats Mezonos foods, he must make Kiddush again later at his actual se'udah. This was also the opinion of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l. In the next Halacha Yomis we will discuss whether cheesecake is a proper pastry for one to fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. For more on this topic please read Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer's excellent article "Eating Dairy on Shavuos" featured in the 5777 - 2017 Shavuos Consumer Daf HaKashrus. After eating pungent, strong-tasting cheese one should wait before eating meat, the same amount of time that one waits between meat and milk, regardless of the cheese's age. The following chart shows which cheeses require waiting: Aged Cheese List - Kosher -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:59:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:59:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros Message-ID: <1495998054786.63765@stevens.edu> I received the following response to my earlier email about this topic Sadly, you will always find 1 or 2 people in every shul who "sit" while the entire tzibbur stands. This strikes me as downright arrogant, and IMHO is done more to make a "statement" than to follow a minhag that might be prevalent in some communities. C'mon; if 100 or 200 people are standing, should someone stick out and sit because that's the way he was taught.....? To this I replied Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. And in light of this, may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed. I bet this never occurred to you. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:15:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:15:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> References: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> Message-ID: Some people look at this as purely a matter of minhag, and so criticize those who do not follow the local minhag, calling them arrogant. Well, the Rambam thought this was an issue of an incorrect hashqafa, and worth ignoring any minhag started in ignorance. Part of the problem with modern Jews is that everything to them is an issue of minhag. They do not understand that sometimes there are really important hashqafa issues from teh Torah involved. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels at ou.org ________________________________ From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 1:50 PM To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? >From last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should always follow the local custom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:34:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:34:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to : reality... It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem. ... : It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as : being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality : that predates this entire debate... True, as I wrote : >(My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about : >fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" : >a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos : >that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, : >etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or : >resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and : >general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) >From this perspective, those who are in favor of change are advocating a definition of Torah that includes only black-letter law. ... : It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of : Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha... Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that halakhah must conform to and the law itself. Not "primacy over halakhah", but a voice in resolving between two positions when black-letter law could be drafted to support either. It may only get a quieter voice, it still must have its say. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:16:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 16:16:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the rituals above the menshlichkeit. There's a story I've heard many times. This version comes from Rav Frand at https://torah.org/torah-portion/ravfrand-5755-naso/ > At the eulogy of R. Yaakov Kaminetzsky, zt"l, one speaker > related the following: There was a nun in Monsey, New York > who complained about the way the Jewish population related > to her: Everyone used to walk right past her... The "correct" > people ignored her, and the "super correct" people spat. This > nun then related that there was, however, one old Jew with a > white beard that used to say "Good Morning" every single day. > (That Jew was R. Yaakov.) That?s Kiddush Hashem and "looking > the other way" is Chillul Hashem. Such stories are NOT hard to find. The "frum" newspapers and magazines and parsha sheets are full of them. I don't know why so few people greeted that nun pleasantly. I hope that it changed when that story started to get around. If I write any more, I'll get even more depressed than currently. Suffice it so say that the only reason I'm posting this at all, is to clarify the point that I think RMB was trying to make, and to agree with it. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:52:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:52:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as kedoshim tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in the sense of being like aggadeta. Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos would be incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give the value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan pesukim and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos. Most often that's implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the gemara of value based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the expense of what looks otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular dracheha darchei noam is cited. I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic. Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not operate in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how the value system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We ignore meta-halachic pesukim at our peril. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:18:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:18:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Ben Waxman wrote: > I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their > very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, pages 48-52. R' Zev Sero wrote: > There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the > mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. > But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than > being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why > put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether > it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only > applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk > literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging > such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves. Good question, especially since my post explicitly allowed for "an unknown machlokes". The problem is that the machlokes would have to be one where Machlon, Kilyon, Ruth, and Boaz all held that Ruth's marriage was valid, with only Naami holding it to be not valid. My understanding is that Avoda Zara 36b allows for the *possibility* that it is muttar *d'Oraisa* to marry an Avoda Zara woman who is not from The Seven Nations. And Ruth, being from Moav, was *not* from those seven. But at the very most, that gemara would allow (on a d'Oraisa level) sexual relations, and even doing so "derech chasnus" - as a marriage. It does NOT go so far as to consider Ruth as part of the extended family such that Boaz would have any responsibility to her. I would want a source for that. Granted that there might be some "unknown machlokes" which would consider Ruth to be part of Boaz's family, even if she did not convert at the beginning of the story. But I think such a suggestion would be venturing into fantasyland. Here's why: Even if it is mutar d'Oraisa for a Jewish man to publicly marry an Avoda Zara woman (who isn't from the Seven Nations), the children from such a marriage would not be Jewish, and that's d'Oraisa. In other words, even if the marriage is legitimate, the children are not part of the man's family. And if the children are not part of his family, then kal vachomer, Boaz is certainly not part of his family. So unless you can show a valid source that Boaz held (or even *might* have held) by patrilineal descent, then I can't see RZS's suggestion as reasonable. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 15:07:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:07:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: "And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying, 'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them: May HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers 6:22-26] The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins between man and his fellow man. Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his or her face towards the offender. So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is equally important. Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 15:27:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: <4EECF03B-E505-4324-B37E-96A99F67F0A9@cox.net> "And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying, 'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them: May HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers 6:22-26] The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins between man and his fellow man. Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his or her face towards the offender. So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is equally important. Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 16:14:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 19:14:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170528231426.GD6467@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:16:38PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : : > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of : > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without : > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot : > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... : : I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and : more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly : does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But : for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the : rituals above the menshlichkeit. : This is why I wrote that the hashkafah is necessary in order to observe halakhos like qedoshim tihyu. But I realized the language problem, which is why when I replied to Lisa I used the idiom "black-letter halakhah", to refer to the kind of laws that can be codified in the SA. Which isn't only ritual. Eg the limits of ona'as mamon is black-letter halakhah. One of the saddest things about the writings of the CC (other than the MB) is that they represent the realization that shemiras halashon and ahavad chessed were going to continue to get short shrift unless someone made black-letter halakhah out of them. When in reality, HQBH would be "Happier" -- I am guessing, of course -- if we would do things things simply because ve'ahavta lerei'akha kamokha. At the Alter of Slabodka put it: I don't love mtself because there is a mitzvah to do so. So too, the mitzvah is to develop of love of others, and therefore all these things would come naturally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:31:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 14:31:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: It seems to me that the opponents of ordination of women are hiding behind conflation of terms. What is first needed is an understanding of what ordination is in this day and age. The plain meaning of the Shulchan Aruch YD 242:14 is that it is permission from a teacher to a student to instruct in issur v'heter. it is perhaps more instructive to go through the process step by step and see where those who object have a problem. 1. women learn the subject matter 2. the teacher thinks they are capable 3. if the teacher dies, according to SA YD 242:14, nothing further is needed 4. the teacher gives the student permission(to avoid transgressing on the prohibition of moreh l'fnei rabo) So, if there is a problem, which step is the problem and why? is it that a teacher cant give a women permission to be mora l'fnei raba? what is the source for that? Essentially what we use the term semicha today is a teacher giving the student immunity from transgressing a particular prohibition. If the issue is that of a woman giving hora'ah, then it is necessary to establish exactly what that is in this day and age. Is it just 'mareh mekomot'? is it more formal hora'ah? we should keep in mind that R. Schachter, in defining terms for converts, writes that hora'ah in issur v'heter is NOT serarah, and that according to some opinions, judging dinei mamanot is not serarah. Furthermore, he writes of a difference of opinion whether semicha is a din in dayanus, or a din in hora'ah. So, if semicha is a din in dayanus, and not hora'ah, then there is no reason to bring the restrictions from dayanus over to hora'ah. and, if semicha is a din in hora'ah, then the restrictions on dayyanus don't apply to semicha. I would add that the entire basis for the claim that women cant get semicha starts with the restriction on women being witnesses, then that being extended to judges, and then being extended again to semicha. It is not necessarily a given that these extensions should be made. We should note that there are a number of others who are prohibited from being witnesses- those who lend with interest, deaf, blind, etc. The internet reports that there are those who were deaf that recieved orthodox semicha. I dont have any information on semicha for the blind. However, it does not appear that the OU has taken a position on these, nor has anyone accused the deaf and the blind who are seeking semicha of being heretics nor have they been threatened with being kicked out of Orthodoxy. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 17:00:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:00:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529000002.GA17436@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:01:37AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Areivim wrote: : 'that a pesaq is by definition someone eligable to be a dayan,' : Which surely most community rabbis are not, since most have yoreh yoreh but not yadin yadin. 1- Eligable, not qualified. 2- Who said one has to have Yadin Yadin to serve as a dayan? Yes, to judge fiscal matters, we need someone who knows CM, but for someone to decide questions of YD? On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:21:20PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Areivim wrote: : I was thinking along very similar lines. In which case, the main : (only?) difference between the yoetzet and the community rabbi is that : the rabbi's job also includes "masculine" roles like leadership, while : teaching and paskening are neutral and shared. As I wrote in every other iteratrion of this question, there is a difference between teaching halakhah pesuqah and applying shiqul hada'as. Someone who follows a rav's pesaq is obeying lo sasur, and therefore did the right thing even if the rabbi's shiqul hada'as was faulty. Any hypothetical qorban chatos would be the rabbi's. If the person is not among those covered by mikol asher yorukha, then the qorban chatas is yours for listening to her, not the Maharat's. On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 02:31:52PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that the opponents of ordination of women are hiding : behind conflation of terms. What is first needed is an understanding of : what ordination is in this day and age. The plain meaning of the Shulchan : Aruch YD 242:14 is that it is permission from a teacher to a student to : instruct in issur v'heter... I cwould use the word "hora'ah" rather than the misleading "instruct". One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in the same town as one's rebbe. ... : 3. if the teacher dies, according to SA YD 242:14, nothing further : is needed : 4. the teacher gives the student permission(to avoid transgressing on : the prohibition of moreh l'fnei rabo) I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. IOW, we have no indication that when the Rama says that if the rebbe was niftar, nothing else is needed that he is talking about anything more than needed to satisfy kavod harav ONLY. IOW, one of these two criteria is necessary, but -- even assuming competency is a given -- are they sufficient? Semchiah could well be hetero hora'ah plus. Both R/Prof Saul Lieberman and RHS argued they are not. And so it appears from Taosafos. And since we have no indication that the Rama is disagreeing with Torafos... For that matter, since the form "yoreh yoreh" is peeled off of the formula for ordaining a member of sanhderin -- "Yoreh? Yoreh! Yadin? Yadin! Yatir bekhoros? Yatir bechoros!" -- there is sme connection to dayanus as per Tosafos implied in the traditional ordination text itself. ... : I would add that the entire basis for the claim that women cant get : semicha starts with the restriction on women being witnesses, then that : being extended to judges, and then being extended again to semicha. : It is not necessarily a given that these extensions should be made. We : should note that there are a number of others who are prohibited : from being witnesses- those who lend with interest, deaf, blind, etc. : The internet reports that there are those who were deaf that recieved : orthodox semicha... Deaf? To you mean cheireish, a caegory we rule refers to the uneducable and thus does not mean today's deaf mutes? Blind? Chalitzah has a special gezeiras hakasuv, "l'einei", specifically because a blind man is allowed to serve as a dayan. (And as RHS points out, geirim can be dayanim for other geirim, so we see their disqualification to serve in most courts is not athat they are outside of lo sosuru, but another issue.) But I do not think those who lend with interest are kosher rabbanim. Refardless of social ills which may cause that din to be largely ignored in practice. Our discussion here should not be about whether you or I agree with the OU's priorities, but whether the shitah they are supporting in the particular question at hand is well-founded in principle. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 16:53:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 19:53:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg cited a story with an apparent contradiction, and resolved the contradiction this way: > Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between > man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can > show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But > when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His > face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his > or her face towards the offender. > > So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the > Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately > towards other human beings is equally important. It seems to me that although religious or ritual behavior is important, Rebbe Yossi HaKohen is teaching us that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is EVEN MORE important. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 17:18:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:18:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 07:53:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that although religious or ritual behavior is : important, Rebbe Yossi HaKohen is teaching us that behaving : appropriately towards other human beings is EVEN MORE important. Look at the list of holidays in parashas Emor. 23:21-22 describe Shavuos. Look which mitzvos are associated with Shavuos. Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which mitzvos are listed specifically? Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice of Shavu'os reading. To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani. We really need a flavor of O that takes Hillel's "de'ealh sani", or R' Ariva's or Ben Azzai's kelalim gedolim, or for that matter the oft-quoted medrash "derekh eretz qodma ... leTorah" as one's actual first principle for life. And not just a platitude for the early grades, a truism repeated unthinkingly to get nods during the rabbi's sermon. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:11:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:11:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Someone who follows a rav's pesaq is obeying lo sasur, and > therefore did the right thing even if the rabbi's shiqul > hada'as was faulty. Any hypothetical qorban chatos would be > the rabbi's. If the person is not among those covered by > mikol asher yorukha, then the qorban chatas is yours for > listening to her, not the Maharat's. L'halacha, I totally agree. L'maaseh, it is critical to determine who is a "rav" and who isn't. That is, who is "covered by mikol asher yorukha" and who isn't. It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these teachers, because, after all, *Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! > I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. > IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that > anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. I agree that YD 242 is about kavod harav. And if the rav is niftar, then that permission is no longer necessary, but that's not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about who is covered by mikol asher yorukha. So why wouldn't the semicha place a musmach into that category? In other words: Suppose a certain person *is* in that category, and then gives semicha "yoreh yoreh" to another individual. Doesn't the semicha announce to the world that the second individual is now covered by mikol asher yorukha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:15:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 05:15:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> If "black letter law" is the criteria, then issues like womens Megila readings and women dancing with a Sefer Torah disappear. All the opposition because these practices are not "Torat Sabba" doesn't even begin if all we do is ask "Muttar? Yes? Fine". Ben On 5/28/2017 9:34 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of > : Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha... > > Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black > letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that > halakhah must conform to and the law itself. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:20:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 05:15:03AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : If "black letter law" is the criteria, then issues like womens : Megila readings and women dancing with a Sefer Torah disappear. All : the opposition because these practices are not "Torat Sabba" doesn't : even begin if all we do is ask "Muttar? Yes? Fine". I am totally at lost as to your intent. Megillah reading or dancing with a sefer Torah are reducible to black-letter law. In contrast to, for example, deciding how to triage my tzedaqah donations. Wehther that reduction can be done within vanilla halachic process or by appeal to metahalakhah, or by appeal to the general "feel" of halakhah -- like the Rambam's "li nir'eh" -- is a different question. But either way, the question exists. So, what do you mean? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:06:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:06:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat/R. Micha Message-ID: R. Micha, thanks for the response. so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah. And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't necessarily apply to anything else. But the OU authors claim that some of YD 242 is based on classic semicha, and therefore all the restrictions of classic semicha should apply. But that makes no sense of you are claiming that YD 242 ONLY applies to the teacher/student relationship. So your own argument works against your claim. There is not a single hint that anything else about classic semicha applies to what we currently call semicha. (Incidentally I wonder when the first claim of more extensive connections were made, and why, if there is such a close connection, we dont mandate that semicha be done only in Israel, and all the other attributes of classic semicha, it seems that the ONLY aspect of classic semicha that is being brought forward is the prohibition on women). You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much against that possibility. It states: ??????? ???????????? ??????????? ????????? ??????, ?????? ??????????? ???? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ????? ??????????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ???????????, ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????????. ????? ??????????? ?????, ????????? ?????????????? ??????, ????????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????????.(???''? ?????? ??''? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ?' ?????? ????????). ?????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ???????????, ???? ???????????? ???????, ?????? ??????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????, ??? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????. (???''? ?????? ??' ?' ?????''? ??' ?''? ???''?). ?????? ????????? ???????????(?????????? ???''? ?????''?). ?????????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????????, ????? ??? ????????? ?????, ???? ????????? ???? ?????????? ???????, ???? ?''?. ?????? ?''? ?????????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???????????? ????????, ????? ??? ???? ??????????? ??????????? ????????????? ????????????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????, ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????????? ????????. specifically, semicha IN THIS TIME, so that people know that....he has permission. So if his teacher died, there is no need for semicha. The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general" It is very forced to claim that there is more here. You basically have to read things into it that are not there. I am not sure if you are claiming that women cant have semicha? or that they cannot be moreh hora'ah. because it seems very clear here that those who can be moreh hora'ah can get semicha b'zman hazeh..And there is a long list of poskim who agree that women can be moreh hora'ah. Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable. And also, that even though the Talmud specifically states that someone in a particular category cant be a judge or witness, when the understanding of that person's abilities changes, there is potential for them to be witnesses and/or judges- essentially in some cases, where the understanding of the Talmud was at variance with what we know now, the restrictions on some categories is not fixed. If I am reading correctly, R. Herschel Schachter in b'din ger dan et chavero (available at YUTorah August 2002), seems to state that hora'ah in issur v'heter is NOT a issue of serarah. and, according to some opinions, being a dayan for dinei mamanot is similarly not an issue of serarah. Perhaps more to the point, In 'Kuntrus HaSemicha"(published in eretz hatzvi and it seems to be the basis for a talk given at an RCA convention- the talk is available at YUTorah(1985) Smicha in the talmud and today), if I understand correctly, R. Soloveitchik made a distinction as to whether Smicha was a din in dayanus or in Hora'ah. It would seem that such a distinction would indicate that restrictions on dayyanus via semicha do not automatically apply to hora'ah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 00:14:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:14:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 5/28/2017 10:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >: And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to >: reality... > It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are > other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem. I'm not sure that the views of Avodah's LW are the point. To the extent that they argue in favor of those with "other, less defensible, ideologies", it's reasonable to argue against those "other, less defensible, ideologies". And I would be willing to supply examples of where members of Avodah's LW do appear to see it that way, but I suspect such examples would be bounced as "adding more fire than light to the discussion". On 5/28/2017 11:52 PM, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of > Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' > I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as > kedoshim tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in > the sense of being like aggadeta. I don't see that. They are halakhic in the sense that they are commandments. > Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos would be > incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give the > value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are > part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan > pesukim and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos. Most > often that's implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the > gemara of value based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the > expense of what looks otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular > dracheha darchei noam is cited. There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what can be done today. When members of the left claim that brachot should be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old. > I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic. > Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not > operate in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how > the value system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We > ignore meta-halachic pesukim at our peril. The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum". If you mean that the system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to respectfully disagree. The ethics must themselves come from within our own cultural framework, based on our own traditions. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:32:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:32:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:11:37PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least : equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, : because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has : not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself : included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these : teachers, because, after all, *Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! I do not think the typical yo'etzet is qualified under mikol asher yrukha regardless of how capable she is. The term only applies to be elegable to recieve full semichah -- if the chain hadn't been lost, or could be restored. THat's the thesis of what I'm pushing here; that even the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services. And, since this seems ot be turning into a full reprise, even though we should all know the other's position by now, my third problem is with egalitarianism in-and-of itself. It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah. By justifying finding worth in this way, we are indeed teaching girls their traditional role is inferior and they can't reach equality. Rather than trying to find equal meaningfullness without egalitarianism. Second, the fact that we can't reach full eqalirianism implies something about the anature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely consistent with our religion. It should mean that we should really think through our even wanting to make halakhah more egalitarian, and how to balance that with the clear message of laws like davar shebiqdushah, talmud Torah, esrog, sukkah, shofar... Again: 1- Who can pasqen 2- Who was shul designed to serve 3- Trying to accomodate agalitarianism is both strategically and in terms of values, a bad idea. Notice the absense of the word "serarah". Trying to minimize or eliminate the role of serarah in our conversation won't do much to sway me, as it has little to do with my arguments to begin with. Now, back to R/Dr Stadlan's email: :> I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. :> IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that :> anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. : I agree that YD 242 is about kavod harav. And if the rav is niftar, : then that permission is no longer necessary, but that's not what the : discussion is about. The discussion is about who is covered by mikol : asher yorukha. So why wouldn't the semicha place a musmach into that : category? It could or couldn't -- I believe couldn't. (Following R/Prof Lieberman and RHS.) But SA 242 can't be cited on the topic either way, since the se'if is not on topic for our discussion. R/Dr N Stadlan brought it as the defintion of the role of semichah, so I wanted to dismiss taking this siman that way.` "Mikol asher yorukha" is written in the context of dayanim. The only reason why we say it applies to today's musmachim, despite the lesser kind of semichah and the lack of sanhedrin is that "yoreh yoreh" is framed as a splinter of dayanus (which is where the phrase "yoreh yoreh" comes from) and that they are appointed to act as the surrogate of the last (so far) sanhedrin. None of which pro forma can be applied to women. Only someone who could be a dayan, if the situation were such that they could become qualified and real semichah were available can serve as their fill-in. On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:06:06PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah. : And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't : necessarily apply to anything else. But the OU authors claim that some of : YD 242 is based on classic semicha... They note that the Rama in 4-5 is drawing from the Mahariq, and then explain that the Mahariq tells you he is basing his conclusion on the idea that what's true for classic semichah should be true for our current Yoreh-Yoreh (YY). They also cite the AhS 242:30, who assumes that only those eligable for classic semichah can be ordained YY. Those are the ony two mentions of siman 242 in the paper, neither of which refer to the se'ifim you did. And what you are attributing to the OU is actually the Mahariq and the Ah -- a source and an interpreter (who is for us a source in his own right) of the SA -- not their own take. : You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly : where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much : against that possibility. It states: ... : The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the : ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general" YD 242:14 isn't trying to define semichah. It's in a siman about kevod harav, not a siman about semichah. You are nit-picking in the wording about se'ifim that are only tangentially related, and ignoring the Rama's stated source. I disagree with how you read the se'if, since his "only" would be about kevod harav, not "semichah is only". But really that's tangential. Your read of the Rama contradicts one of the sources he names. ... : Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be : witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable... I do? Where do I say that? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 22:01:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 01:01:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the entire aliya in which the dibros appear. For those who feel the dibros merit standing, they are indeed standing. For those who feel that the dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria of the dibros begins. Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since their end is always the end of the aliya. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:04:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 23:04:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/05/17 15:18, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Ben Waxman wrote: >> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their >> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. > > Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that > Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent > introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, > pages 48-52. Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation that has such "gedolim". > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the >> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. > > It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it > something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus > and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus > then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. On the contrary. If it were a matter of yibum then it would depend on whether there was an original marriage. But then why would it be connected to redeeming the field? It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations would not be settled. Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz agreed with them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 00:10:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:10:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/28/2017 10:18 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Ben Waxman wrote: >> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their >> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. > Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that > Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." Yes, but the dor in question was one where "each man did what was right in his own eyes". So their being gedolei hador doesn't mean they were any better than, say, Yiftach. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:23:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:23:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation : that has such "gedolim". According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah Neustadt , this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam. Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim". But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el... If this is the Rambam's intent, it would fit a number of gemaros which refer to various shofetim as amei ha'aretz. See the article. OTOH, Tosafos's treatment of the question of how Devorah could serve as shofetes presumes the role includes being a dayan in the halachic sense (and then explains why Devorah is neither role model nor eis-la'asos exception), rather than only the serarah question of her being a civil leader. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:17:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:17:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29/05/17 01:01, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his > minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not > to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two > different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the > entire aliya in which the dibros appear. For those who feel the dibros > merit standing, they are indeed standing. For those who feel that the > dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up > specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria > of the dibros begins. Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since > their end is always the end of the aliya. Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. (Personally I stand for the whole leining so it's not an issue for me, but this is what I've seen.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:33:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:33:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <10c1c9ed-6b4e-cb90-8297-cdeb5a507e94@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <13c3a1e0-26da-f70b-7b13-b80c95bf5d1d@zahav.net.il> <58F44DE5-8AE0-4CF7-BC79-7048F752624D@sibson.com> <10c1c9ed-6b4e-cb90-8297-cdeb5a507e94@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: > Ok let's accept your presumption-Who that has the authority to determine which changes are with in the halachic system and which aren't. Can I say libi omer li if I have smicha and that's good enough? If not , how do you draw the line? ------------------------ I can't say that I can draw a clear line. Certainly someone who passes a 2 year smicha program (a change, BTW) shouldn't be doing this type of thing. It seems that change doesn't require unanimous agreement and very possibly it can be done even if the greatest rabbis disagree. My example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher. Ben ----------------------- Yup, as said, the wheel is still in spin with regard to this and the other current thread Maharat/smicha. Now "everyone knows" it was obvious that Chassidus would be accepted and Conservative not (see Kahnemaan Tversky on how we all do this) Anyone who thinks these or those are simply matters of black letter law discussions (hat tip R'Micha) IMHO is fooling themselves. Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 06:09:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 09:09:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in > the same town as one's rebbe. If the shiur-giver is very careful to merely read and explain the QSA, then I'd agree with you. But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require require semicha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 06:12:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 13:12:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] (no subject) Message-ID: "Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. And in light of this, may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed." Do you also sit for the musaf amidah on Rosh Hashana and Ne'ilah on Yom Kippur? And since there are those who cannot and do not stand for those because of physical infirmities, would you suggest that everyone sit for those teffilot so as not to embarrass the ones who truly must sit? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 09:41:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros Message-ID: <33c01f.93b651f.465da93b@aol.com> From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. YL >>>>>> I want to thank RYL for the reminder we all need -- myself very much included -- not to be too quick to assume we know other people's motives. Sitting during the reading of Aseres Hadibros may indeed be an indication not of arrogance but of arthritis. Let us be kind to one another, even in our thoughts. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 07:26:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 29/05/17 08:23, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation > : that has such "gedolim". > > According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP > beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah > Neustadt, > this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam. > > Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim > of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim". > > But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers > of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past > that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el... I actually had that article in mind, but was not taking Rashi's side. Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel Bedoro". So even if Machlon & Kilyon were considered "gedolei hador" that wouldn't seem to be sufficient reason to assume that they acted properly, even in the sense that they had an opinion which is one of the shiv'im panim and followed it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 09:46:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:46:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum," or you call it something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. Akiva Miller >>>>>> There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events in Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 13:01:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 20:01:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <92dae2a6-a1ea-f563-f350-cddd9a9fbade@starways.net> References: , <92dae2a6-a1ea-f563-f350-cddd9a9fbade@starways.net> Message-ID: 'There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what can be done today. When members of the left claim that brachot should be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old.' No argument there at all. The point was really to buttress the truism that halacha and Torah are not synonymous. Halacha works within the larger structure of Torah and is guided by principle and values. Your point that this idea is mangled and misused throughout heterodoxy is well taken though. I was not suggesting that someone can pick a favourite value, decide that it doesn't shtim with a particular halacha and proceed to mangle the halacha into submission. Not for a moment. 'The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum". If you mean that the system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to respectfully disagree. The ethics must themselves come from within our own cultural framework, based on our own traditions'. Again, agree 100%. Don't think I suggested otherwise. I'm a neo-Hirschian after all. What I was taking issue with was your contention that it is 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' That's true for the heterodox tendency to sidestep halacha (or worse) due to what they consider to be ethical issues. But it doesn't take into account the centrality of of values in the whole system of Torah, including underlying TSBP. Just for example, Pirkei Avos is not halachic but it's vital and has implications for halacha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 12:38:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:38:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> References: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> Message-ID: <2ba3e007-8860-37d6-2941-c41f1aac13bf@sero.name> On 29/05/17 12:46, RTK wrote: > There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events > in Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no > mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was. 1. How could anyone hold there was a mitzvah of yibum, when the Torah explicitly limits it to brothers? 2. If he held as a matter of halacha that Boaz was wrong, then he should have insisted on redeeming the field without marrying Ruth. The fact that on being informed of this requirement he backed out of the whole deal shows that he acknowledged Boaz's point. Therefore that point was not about yibum but about mitzvas geulah. Boaz pointed out that Machlon had an obligation to Ruth, and so long as it remained outstanding the mitzvah to discharge his obligations would remain unfulfilled. Ploni agreed, and since he could not do that he waived his rights. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 12:51:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:51:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel : Bedoro". The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah". Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so? Yes, it's dachuq. But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include the generation's gedolim. I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology, but that doesn't mean I share it. However, given Chabad's linking HQBH medaber mirokh gerono shel Moshe to Moshe bedoro keShmuel bedoro to yield the notion that every generation has a Yechidah Kelalis, a single tzadiq who is uniquely that generation's person in that role, I would think the notion that Yiftach as that person but not one of the baton-passers of mesorah to be even harder to fathom than within my own hashkafah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 13:25:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:25:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <46edbb0e-6394-3e98-a574-f1c53410f0bf@sero.name> On 29/05/17 15:51, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the > : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the > : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel > : Bedoro". > > The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing > Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah". Yes, precisely. And yet he was the "gadol hador". > Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our > obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring > whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so? > > Yes, it's dachuq. > > But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but > not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm > not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include > the generation's gedolim. Your unstated but clear assumption is that "gedolei hador" means "gedolei *hatorah* shebador". I am challenging that assumption. I am saying that when Machlon & Kilyon are described as "gedolei hador" it does not mean that they were talmidei chachamim, any more than it means that when Yiftach is described as "kishmuel bedoro". It just means they were the generation's leaders, and thus if they did wrong everyone else would follow their lead. Meanwhile Pinchas was still the gadol hatorah. Remember, "Yiftach bedoro" is an explicit gemara, so the Rambam can't dispute it. So how can this machlokes between Rashi & the Rambam, that the article posits, exist? This is how. The Rambam accepts Yiftach bedoro, that Yiftach was indeed the "gadol hador", but that is irrelevant to his topic; he is listing who passed the Torah down from that generation to the next, and that was not Yiftach but Pinechas. > I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I > think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology, Wow. Just wow. No, it has nothing to do with Chabad *or* theology. It's an explicit pasuk and gemara. Yiftach was the one and only gadol hador, because the pasuk says so, and he had the same authority as Shmuel because the gemara says so. But one wouldn't ask him a shayla about "an egg in kutach". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:03:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing. Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R. Micha's interpretation: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/ Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to understand the Rama, but one of them is: " The first and simplest view, drawing the logical conclusion from the above depiction of semikhah and adopted by Rama in both the Darkhei Moshe and Shulh?an Arukh, concludes that anyone is eligible to receive semikhah when their teacher certifies they have acquired requisite knowledge and licenses them to issue halakhic rulings. The scope of this license may be limited to certain areas of law (depending on the studentVs actual knowledge and qualifications) and may be granted to one who is ineligible to receive Mosaic ordination that was present in Talmudic times. As such, basic contemporary semikhah is based on oneVs knowledge and competence to answer questions of law". the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have sources to rely upon. I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong with semicha for women. The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 05:08:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 08:08:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am going to revise and restate my original post, which got sidetracked onto issues of marriage to a non-Jewess, and of the role of a "redeemer", which I confess to knowing very little about. But it is very clear to anyone who has looked at it (again, pages 48-52 of ArtScroll's Ruth is an excellent summary) many of Chazal were uncomfortable with the possibility that Machlon and Kilyon would marry women who had not been converted at all. At the same same, they are also very uncomfortable with Naami telling women who *had* converted that they should leave. Some have tried to resolve this by suggesting some sort of "tentative" conversion, but I cannot imagine that we'd allow such a conversion to be cancelled after ten long years. Instead, my solution is that there was a genuine halachic machlokes involved, such that Machlon and Kilyon held the conversion to be valid (at least on some minimal b'dieved level), while Ruth held it to be totally invalid. This simple approach answers all the problems listed above. (It also allows you to think whatever you like about the level of Machlon's and kilyon's gadlus.) I will leave it as an open question whether Ruth reconverted to satisfy Naami's shita, or whether Naami resigned herself to accepting the first geirus. I also retract all my comments about Boaz, as they will turn on topics that I am woefully ignorant about. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:32:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 17:32:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging > Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an > obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he > owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations > would not be settled. > Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages > were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz > agreed with them. I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a related question which is probably simpler: What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then there was no kiddushin. I'll repeat that: Even if it is mutar to marry a woman AZ-nik (not from the Seven Nations) that marriage is one of convenience, maybe even love, but not of kiddushin, and I'm not aware of any halachic obligations that the husband has toward such a wife. I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have towards the husband himself, and we see in pasuk 4:4, that Ploni Almoni was willing to buy the field from Naami in order to meet those obligations to Elimelech. But in 4:5, Boaz pointed out that buying it from Naami would be insufficient. He'd have to buy it from both Naami and Ruth, at which point Ploni declined and Boaz himself accepted the responsibility. My question is: *What* responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid? (I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so, then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech left. Why did they wait ten years?) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:51:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 23:51:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > RMB: the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. > All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and possibly the latter. > > RMB: Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of > shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use > to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi > in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services. > On the one hand, I completely agree with you. One of the things I love about Orthodox Judaism is the all-women spaces - women's shiurim and batei midrash and tehillim groups and ladies' auxiliaries and all-girls schools. I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have comfortable space for women as well. I understand that the "men's club" gets to run the tefillot and be the gabbaim and the ba'alei tefillah and ba'alei korei and rabbi - and that losing that space would not be good for men. But I hope that having an ezrat nashim open for all tefillot (during the week, Shabbat mincha) would not ruin the mens' club atmosphere. Does having a woman give the drasha go too far in this regard? I think it depends on the community. > > > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah.... > Second, > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about > the > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely > consistent with our religion.... > Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. I think you have presented some compelling reasons for declining to endorse or promote the institution of maharats. I see no reason for maharats to be universally accepted. However, I believe that the maharats personally, and the communities they serve, remain clearly within the Orthodox community. We can disagree strongly with another Orthodox sector's practices (Hallel on Yom Ha'Atzma'ut comes to mind) without declaring them out-of-bounds. Finally, a perspective from Israel. Women rabbis/maharats are a particularly contentious issue in the US, because (a) it is similar to changes made by the Conservative and Reform movements, (b) a very common career path for American male rabbis is the shul rabbinate, which is particularly problematic for women, and (c) it seems to have perhaps been instituted in a manner designed to provoke controversy. In Israel, Conservative and Reform are a small minority with little influence. Most male rabbis work in education, writing/translating/publishing, or computer programming - all perfectly acceptable careers for learned women. Full-time shul rabbis are almost unheard of. And I can think of three or four respected, mainstream, dati leumi institutions that are essentially giving women the equivalent of smicha, without a lot of fanfare. Some people think this is great, some people think this is awful, and many people have not really noticed - but there isn't a big brouhaha and questioning of Orthodox credentials. Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it seems to be shaping up as the latter. Chag sameach, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 03:10:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 06:10:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170530101006.GA10791@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have : sources to rely upon... Again, the Rama cites the Mahariq... So, so rule leniently is to read the Rama and ignore his source. : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the : specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. Well, in the case of Maharat in particular, the big bold print in the middle of the certificate reads "heter hora'ah larabbim". http://www.jta.org/2013/06/17/default/what-does-an-orthodox-ordination-certificate-look-like Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 49th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 7 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 goal of perfect unity? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 04:51:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 06:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R Micha. You did not answer my question. When you and/orthe OU panel use the word semicha when you forbid it to women, what exactly does it mean? Heter hora'ah? Something more? Something different? Clarity please. Thank you Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 07:27:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shavuos (Lifeline) Message-ID: <448A28D9-D7AC-47C4-807C-08E3C10A0318@cox.net> The Rabbis tell us the Book of Ruth teaches neither of things that are permitted or forbidden. Why then is it part of Holy Scriptures? Because its subject matter is gemilus chassodim. Along the same line, three times a day we recite ?God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob.? However, we conclude the blessing ?mogen Avraham? ? only with Abraham. Why? In explanation, a Chassidic Rabbi explains that each of the patriarchs symbolizes one of the three essentials as articulated in Pirkei Avos 1:2). Jacob represents Torah; Isaac, Avodah; and Abraham, gemilus chassodim. Though all three principles are vital, kindness is sufficient to stabilize the world (how we need it now more than ever!). An interest in the performance of good deeds was the quality that marked Abraham ? a quality which can be a shield and support to us even when other qualities in our nature are weak ? hence, MOGEN AVRAHAM. Ruth was no ordinary convert. Her name gives us a clue to her essence. In Hebrew, Ruth's name is comprised of the letters reish, vav, tav, which add up to a numerical value of 606. As all human beings have an obligation to observe the seven Noachide commandments ? so called because they were given after the flood ? as did Ruth upon her birth as a Moabite. Add those seven commandments to the value of her name and you get 613, the number of commandments in the Torah. The essence of Ruth, her driving life force was the discovery and acceptance of the 606 commandments she was missing. Another lovely aspect is the meaning of the name "Ruth." In Hebrew the name is probably a contraction of re'ut, ' friendship,' which admirably summarizes her nature. The meaning in English is also very apropos: ? Compassion or pity for another ? Sorrow or misery about one's own misdeeds or flaws. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 15:46:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 01:46:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Naso In-Reply-To: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> References: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos > 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which > mitzvos are listed specifically? > > Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice > of Shavu'os reading. > > To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms > of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of > observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani. > Barukh shekkivanti. I made exactly this comparison in a Tikkun Leil Shavuot this time last year, and a parallel observation in a shi`ur last Shabbat: when the Zohar needs an example of how Basar veDam can make a hit`aruta dil'tata which will cause a hit`aruta dele`ela and kickstart the process of atzilut shefa from the upper to lower worlds, it typically says something like "hoshiv ani al shulhanecha". Because for Hazal, the Torah is above all Torat Hesed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 06:06:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:06:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. ---------------------------------------------------- Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the debate on black letter law? KT Joel Rich (full disclosure-kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-not everything that is permitted to you should be done) THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 07:22:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:22:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Probably the best and most succinct historical analogy I've seen for this question. Ben On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > > Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women > rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the > vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it > seems to be shaping up as the latter. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 13:59:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:59:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation. Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. How can this be? Dare we imagine that he did such things unauthorizedly? Certainly he must have had/received some sort of Heter Hora'ah. If so, then when and how did he get it - and without getting semicha at the same time? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 10:22:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] matched soldier and praying for them In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014801d2d969$41c5c800$c5515800$@com> A while ago on Avodah, a well known (chareidi) Baal machshava was quoted as disagreeing strongly with the concept of matching frum people with a nonfrum soldier in order to pray for them. "we have no brotherhood with secular Israelis" Recently, I posted to Avodah a link to a collection of 1400 short tshuvot from HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlitah (of Toronto) On the above topic, he writes there.. #600 Pray As They Go Q. There are two organizations here in Eretz Yisroel, one called; Elef LaMateh, and the other; The Shmirah Project. Basically, their intent is to match Israeli soldiers with Avreichim and bochurim learning. Each Avreich and Bochur who volunteers, receives the name of a specific soldier (his name and his mother's name) that he takes responsibility to daven for and learn specially for so that in the merit of the tefillos and learning, that soldier will merit to return home alive and well. (Is this a good idea) A. HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is a great mitzvah to pray, learn Torah and accomplish mitzvos for the benefit of all our brethren B'nay Yisroel in times of peril and need, especially for those who put their life in harm's way to save and protect others. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 00:39:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:39:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should be identical for each community and each generation? - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 20:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: . I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start farming? I suppose it was pretty desolate after a ten-year famine, but did she even try? She must have at least gone there to see the place, if for no other reason than to be sure that no squatters took over while she was gone. Without making sure of such things, how could she even hope that anyone (even a goel) would buy it? Maybe she expected to get a better profit from Boaz than she'd get from farming it herself, but maybe there are other answers? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 20:05:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:05:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the distinction? When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on this. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 02:14:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (ADE via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:14:59 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are still being machshiv some pesukim over others. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk > *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:32:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:32:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <510d4fd4-6c91-fb85-0c23-f6cdfa7ffcbf@sero.name> On 02/06/17 05:14, ADE wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one >> pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this >> reason. > Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are > still being machshiv some pesukim over others. There is no requirement to treat all pesukim exactly the same. One is entitled to stand or sit during KhT as one wishes, and has no obligation to choose one policy and stick to it. The problem is only with standing up for special pesukim, such as Shma or the 10D. Since there's nothing special about the pasuk before the 10D, there's no problem with deciding to stand for it. And when the special pesukim come along one is already standing, so one has no obligation to sit down. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 18:46:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:46:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> In our personal religious commitments there are those among us scrupulous in performance of the ceremonial mitzvot but at the same time displaying reckless disregard of our elementary duties towards our fellowman. Halacha embraces human life in its totality. One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social trait from our behavior! A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 08:31:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:31:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought In-Reply-To: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> References: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170602153131.GA15356@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made : a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study : of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social : trait from our behavior! Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, among the aphorisms of his listed in R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 21:28:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:28:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4dd6e4f1-2d00-a274-ace0-e5d2a803039a@sero.name> On 01/06/17 23:05, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I only see four instances of "Ruth Hamoaviah", three in ch 2, and only one in ch 4, in Boaz's description of the situation to Tov. Since his purpose was to scare him off, it made sense to mention her origin, so Tov would be reluctant to risk his future. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:20:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:20:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/2/2017 6:05 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I can't cite a source for it, but I remember once reading that Ruth HaMoaviah was intended to praise her, since she gave up her position in Moav to join us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:31:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:31:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Actually if the land had lied fallow for 10 years, it should be in good shape. Granted it needs weeding but the soil should be good. It only requires a relatively small amount of rain for grass to grow and re-invigorate the soil. Maybe she was too old to work the land and figured that a sale would provide her with enough money to live out the rest of her days in dignity? Ben On 6/2/2017 5:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 00:04:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 09:04:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? They came back on Pesach, at the beginning of the barley harvest. Nothing was growing on their land, presumably. Planting is after Sukkot, at the beginning of the rainy season. If they planted, it would be a full year until they could harvest the first barley. As we see from Megillat Rut, the barley then had to dry and wasn't threshed or winnowed until after the wheat harvest (early summer?). When they come back, they have nothing. They need to eat. And two women alone will not be able to do all the work of planting and cultivating in the fall. They would need money to hire workers and probably buy or rent an animal to help with plowing. And to buy seed. They didn't have the capital to go back into farming, or the means to support themselves until the first crop. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 21:17:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:17:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <272b8698-d5c1-55a1-560b-2bc6d0c39b74@sero.name> On 01/06/17 23:01, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? It seems to me that finding a buyer for the property was not at all important to her, and in fact she had shown no interest in doing so until she saw how she could use it to get Boaz to marry Ruth. It was Boaz who spun the story out for Tov in order to scare him off; first he drew him in with the prospect of an easy transaction for Naomi's portion of the field, but then he threw in the Ruth monkey wrench. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:18:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:18:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/2/2017 6:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the > halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I > think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: > > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? In the set of priorities that we had back then, the principle of yerusha was more important than simple economics. As I understand it. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:21:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:21:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22efff8f-5ee7-d47e-8701-b1541a7a8e41@zahav.net.il> And of course the irony is even greater in that many yeshiva rabbis will tell their guys to go to a community rav because they, the yeshiva rabbis, don't deal with shailas. Ben On 5/29/2017 4:11 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least > equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, > because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has > not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself > included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these > teachers, because, after all,*Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:16:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:16:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> On 6/1/2017 10:39 AM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly > egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the > experiences of women and couples and families and communities to > affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian > direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. > > RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument > is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically > permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically > forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without > asking whether HKB?H prefers it? > > Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should > be identical for each community and each generation? > I'm not sure that's the question. The problem is, as I see it, that when one adopts an external -ism as an ideal, and try and "move in a somewhat more -ism-friendly direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted", they're essentially saying that their motivating principle is that -ism. That halakha isn't the motivating principle, but merely bookends. Limits to how far they can push the -ism that's important. It's the difference between a static principle and a dynamic one. What you're describing has egalitarianism as the dynamic force, and halakha as a static one. A fossil. And there's no way to maintain that worldview for long without starting to chafe against the static limits. At which point, people put their shoulders into it and *push* those limits a little bit further. And then a little further than that. And they feel frustrated by those limits. That's probably the biggest problem. It turns halakha into shackles and frustration. And you only have to read articles written by certain YCT teachers and grads to see the hostility that comes out of that. Yes, there are people who can manage to walk the tightrope and not fall into that kind of frustration, but they are few in number, and not representative of the "movement", as such. And many of them, in my observed experience, eventually fall off. Permit me to illustrate this mindset with something that just happened *as* I was writing this. My 17 year old daughter was reading a comic book from the early 1990s. In the comic, the hero (Superboy) is 16, but all of the women he dates are in their 20s. Today, we call that statuatory rape, and have little to no tolerance for it. But if you recall the early 90s, that idea was rather new, and while the writers of the comic gave lip service to the idea, even having characters laughingly calling Superboy "jailbait", it wasn't nearly as taboo as it is today, at least when the younger person was male. But my daughter is livid about it. Appalled. And she isn't able to imagine a world in which that was the way people thought. Similarly, people immersed in the egalitarian ethos so prevelent in the Western world today cannot *imagine* a world where that isn't the universally accepted ideal, except for barbaric and backwards societies. It's a given that egalitarianism is the more advanced worldview. The more civilized worldview. That to the extent that a worldview is less egalitarian, it is less civilized. More backwards. So now consider what it means to say, "I want to be as egalitarian as possible, within the bounds of halakha". It means "I want to be as civilized as possible, within the bounds of the less civilized and more backwards system of halakha." How can that help but breed disrespect, discomfort, and eventually contempt for halakha? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:50:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:50:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> Message-ID: > > LL: The problem is, as I see it, that when one adopts an external -ism as > an ideal, and try and "move in a somewhat more -ism-friendly direction > WITHIN what is halachically permitted", they're essentially saying that > their motivating principle is that -ism. That halakha isn't the motivating > principle, but merely bookends. Limits to how far they can push the -ism > that's important...... > > Similarly, people immersed in the egalitarian ethos so prevelent in the > Western world today cannot *imagine* a world where that isn't the > universally accepted ideal, except for barbaric and backwards societies. > It's a given that egalitarianism is the more advanced worldview. The more > civilized worldview. That to the extent that a worldview is less > egalitarian, it is less civilized. More backwards. > > So now consider what it means to say, "I want to be as egalitarian as > possible, within the bounds of halakha". It means "I want to be as > civilized as possible, within the bounds of the less civilized and more > backwards system of halakha." How can that help but breed disrespect, > discomfort, and eventually contempt for halakha? Yes, if one defines one's ideology and worldview primarily as feminist, one is going to struggle with halacha. Some people struggle and still maintain Orthodox practice. Some become "halachic egalitarian." But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah live in an increasingly egalitarian society. Even women who would never dream of making a women's zimmun (range of psak on this goes from obligatory to optional to assur) have their own credit cards and vote in elections and choose whom they want to marry. Halachic psak does not exist in a vacuum; it applies to a particular metziut in a particular time and place. I can certainly see room to argue that the institution of maharat is an example of an attempt to "push" halacha to evolve artificially to conform to feminism. But to some extent, increased involvement of women teaching and learning all areas of Torah, at all levels, is a natural halachic development in response to changing reality. Each posek will draw his own line as to what is a positive development (maharats? yoatzot? Rebbetzin Heller?), and what needs to be reined in. Halacha is dynamic. (This is true even if the Conservative movement also says it!) Obviously, there are boundaries, but there is also plenty of room for different opinions, and for development over generations. I am not advocating always choosing the most feminist interpretation possible within the bounds of what is mutar. I am pointing out that increasingly egalitarian psak within halacha reflects the reality in which we live. Shabbat Shalom, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 10:00:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Martin Brody via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:00:09 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat etc. Message-ID: "R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation" Did the Chazon Ish have semicha?.I think not -- Martin Brody -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 11:35:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:35:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <960df966-7387-baf7-202b-5a6624127fed@sero.name> On 30/05/17 16:59, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura > did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the > ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite > involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send them to the rav. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 11:46:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:46:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37d489e2-09cc-d836-f973-74d1b831ec0a@sero.name> On 29/05/17 17:32, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging >> Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an >> obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he >> owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations >> would not be settled. >> Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages >> were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz >> agreed with them. > I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to > respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too > complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a > related question which is probably simpler: > > What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then > there was no kiddushin. I don't see how this matters. Machlon was shacked up with this woman for ten years, and left her high and dry. She was now in Beit Lechem living in poverty, and everyone who saw her would say "there's Machlon's widow, poor thing". Thus seeing her settled was an unsettled obligation that Machlon had left behind, so taking care of it was part of the goel's duty, just like paying off his credit cards and returning his library books, so that nobody should be left with a claim against his memory. > I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's > relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have > towards the husband himself [...] My question is: *What* > responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might > be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid? Yes, the goel's duty is to his relative, not to the relative's creditors. But that duty *is* to discharge the relative's obligations, which he is himself unable to discharge, whether because of poverty (as in the Torah's example) or death (as here). Neither Tov nor Boaz owed anything to Ruth, but Machlon did. > (I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the > family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we > want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be > paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so, > then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech > left. Why did they wait ten years?) Redeem it from whom? At that point it still belonged to Elimelech. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 12:55:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 15:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170602195535.GA7359@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 09:09:10AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this : other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that : question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require : require semicha? Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also not an open question that requires decision-making rather than just reporting the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:51:26PM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: : > the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore : > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. : All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to : offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not : sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and : possibly the latter. I am missing something. My assertion was that "the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur" for the same reason that she could never give hora'ah as a dayan either. I wasn't denying the reality that there are women who know enough for their knowledge not to be a barrier to their pasqening. ... : I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the : other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have : comfortable space for women as well... I think there should be comfortable space for women too, and that it makes sense for it to be in the same building. Our topic was women rabbis. My first point was my belief that the Mahariq holds like Tosafos, the Rama like the Mahariq, and therefore we cannot ordain a poseqes. In this, my 2nd point, I was arguing that since shul and minyan as Anshei Kenses haGadolah invented them are men's spaces, we shouldn't want women speaking from the pulpit or otherwise making it a co-ed experience, a second element of the rabbi's job. : > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for : > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be : > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah.... : > Second, : > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about : > the : > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely : > consistent with our religion.... : : Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that : is highly egalitarian... And this was my third point. That the notion doesn't fit the gestalt built of numerous halakhos. I don't think our living in a world where opportunity is increasingly egalitarian changes that. The disjoin poses a challenge, not a license. : And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the : experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect : religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction : WITHIN what is halachically permitted. I tried to explain why that can't happen. You're not moving into a setting of greater equality; you are aiming women toward hitting a glass cieling. The implied message of "as much egalitarianism as allowed" is that it's the role traditionally given to men that is meaningful, and women can't fully take on that role. To my mind the long-term outcome, once there is little room for further innovation left, will be worse that trying to find different but equally valuable roles. Aside from the "minor" problem that that message about male roles is simply sheqer. On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 01:06:28PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that : as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted : (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by : r'mb's black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether : HKB"H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all : or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the : debate on black letter law? I don't think that's fair. We all learn in the early grades that derekh eretz qodmah laTorah, but we'll talk about frum theives, but not frum shellfish eaters. Our culture's focus on those mitzvos and dinim that can be reduced to black-letter is a problem we need to work on, and not a given to be leveraged further. On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:50:32AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: : But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah : live in an increasingly egalitarian society... Egalitarianism as metzi'us, the fact that gender roles are progressively becoming more similar, is different than eqalitarinism as a value -- the notion that they should. At the very least, halakhah is telling us there are a number of greater values that override egalitarianism. I argued that some of them actually impact who enters the rabbinate. But really the burden of proof lies in the other direction: It is change that needs justification. One has to prove that whatever those conflicting values are -- and I guess this would require identifying them -- they are not issues that impact the desirability of ordaining women. So, to get less abstract, here's an example. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting : R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing. : Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid : muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R. : Micha's interpretation: : http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/ But lemaaseh he wrote a letter against ordaning women that held up JTS changing policy until after R/PSL's passing. has a complete translation by Rabbi Wayne Allen. The issue isn't how RGS read the letter, but the letter itself. And I understood your father-in-law differently than your (and your wife's, judging from her choice of subject line) take. He writes: Professor Lieberman might have been opposed to any clerical role for women. Nevertheless, he only cited the classical sources that indicate that only men may be dayyanim or even serve on a bet din as laymen (hedyotim). Since Yeshivat Maharat is careful to remain within the bounds of Halakhah by not ordaining women to roles that are proscribed by Halakhah, Professor Liebermans responsum does not apply to the yeshivah or to any of its graduates. So he agrees with RGS that R/PSL was opposed to orgaining women as rabbi. After all, most of the letter is about what we mean today by "Yoreh Yoreh", and how it's NOT dayanus. It was about admitting women to JTS's semichah program, to "being called by the title 'rav'", not "dayan". It would seem that minus the political pressures within JTS, R/PSL's letter would at most permit "Rabbah uManhigah". Your FIL writes that R/PSL only cites sources about dayanus, not that his point was only about dayanus. And as we saw, there is a connection made between who can become a dayan and who can give hora'ah. His only mention of the political dynamics at JTS at the time is to explain his own position -- why he was against ordaining women when he was among those starting UTJ, but is in favor of Yeshivat Maharat. His letter to your wife does not speak of this issue in terms of his rebbe's position. For that matter, his description of R/PSL's lack of proving his point WRT non-dayan rabbanim reads as explaining why his own position was justified despite R/PSL's letter, rather than justified by that letter. He doesn't say RGS is wrong, he says it's "beside the point". : Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and : Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to : understand the Rama, but one of them is: But the burden or proof is on the innovator. You can't simply say your read is possible -- and given the aforementioned citation of the Mahariq, I don't see how this se'if can be, you would have a self-contradictory siman. But in any case, you have to prove your read is the Rama's intent; saying "it's possible" is not enough to justify a mimetic rupture. ... : the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have : sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have : sources to rely upon. I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and : Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong : with semicha for women. "Rather than nitpicking"? How do we learn a sugyah without nitpicking? In any case, you jumped from "could be read as someone to rely upon" to "someone to rely upon". : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the : specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. Sorry I made you wait long enough that you felt a need to re-ask this question. Semichah today may well be a heter hora'ah, but that doesn't mean that it's the only barrier to hora'ah. And if one's rebbe passed away, there is no need for heter hora'ah -- and yet still other barriers could exist. Tosafos, and the Mahariq cited by the Rama link the authority for hora'ah with being eligable to gain the qualifications and become a dayan. That's a barrier to hora'ah even if someone's rebbe wrote them a "qlaf" or passed away. We would have to find another shitah about hora'ah, show it's not dekhuyah -- and given we're talking about an opionion that disputes 3 pillars of Ashkenazi pesaq (if I include the Rama's se'if 4), for someone of Ashekazi background, that's a tough row to hoe. And then there are my other two problems.... Both of which would also reflect on Rabbah uManhigah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 3 20:23:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 23:23:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . Is semicha required for hora'ah? To illustrate the possibility that it is *not* required, I wrote: > Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura > did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the > ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite > involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. R' Zev Sero responded: > Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, > and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send > them to the rav. And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression of his personal opinion. Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"? I had written that a non-semicha person could give a shiur in Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, provided that he is careful to merely read and explain the text, but ... ... > But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this > other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that > question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require > require semicha? R' Micha Berger responded: > Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also > not an open question that requires decision-making rather than > just reporting the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community. "Black-letter halacha" is often not as black as we might think. Who gets to decide which shita is the dominant one? If the community has a recognized rav who issued a ruling on this exact question, then I can quote that. But in the great majority of cases, there are two or more shitos, and I have no idea which is "dominant". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 3 22:51:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 07:51:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c3c1e25-04b7-878e-d93b-d6b5edc10a0f@zahav.net.il> My intent, or my desire, is to reduce the number of issues on which we decide to break Torah community into even more pieces. If these issues are meta halachic, or have a bad feeling, then let's take the argument between the RWMO and LWMO down a notch or two. Let's lower the tones. For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi community consider to be kefira. If so, than kal v'chomer many of the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in getting hung up on multiple non-issues. Ben On 5/29/2017 4:20 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I am totally at lost as to your intent. Megillah reading or dancing with > a sefer Torah are reducible to black-letter law. In contrast to, for > example, deciding how to triage my tzedaqah donations. > > Wehther that reduction can be done within vanilla halachic process or > by appeal to metahalakhah, or by appeal to the general "feel" of halakhah > -- like the Rambam's "li nir'eh" -- is a different question. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 04:36:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 07:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a0d51cd-f693-b8a0-f2bd-a23a15a3e44a@sero.name> On 03/06/17 23:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > >> Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, >> and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send >> them to the rav. > And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to > find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim > wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us > which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other > expression of his personal opinion. > > Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"? AIUI no, it is not. Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a specific shayla for a specific person. Writing books does not involve any shikul hada`as, it merely involves setting down the halacha as one understands it, including, if applicable, the range of options available to a moreh hora'ah when applying his shikul hada`as. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 09:40:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 12:40:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170604164052.GA8050@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 11:23:05PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to : find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim : wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us : which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other : expression of his personal opinion. Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone know what has been said in the years since the standardization of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh. I argued that the difference between the AhS and the MB was not that one was a mimeticist and the other a textualist, but that the AhS was out to justify accepted pesaq, and the other is a collection of texts, a tool for the poseiq -- not pesaq. The personal opinion is just that, advice, not hora'ah. Or, other assumed you need to dismiss the MB's self-description as reflecting the CC's anavah, and not to be taken at face value. But then one has to explain the numerous stories of the CC personally not following the MB's conclusion -- the size of his becher, his tzitzis were tucked in, he supported the building a a community eiruv, etc... (Something is broken on my blog right now. It may take a 3-4 refreshes before getting anything but the AishDas "page not found" page.) In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable. And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving R Ploni answering questions. (The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the model.) This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads -- or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her rebbe's license? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 08:48:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:48:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you understand the OU panel as defining it. Otherwise you are just using a nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning. The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here: http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah ). There was a period when leaders did not have semicha, The Tzitz Eliezer points out that Sephardim for a long time did not have semichah, yet communities had religious leaders. So one does not need semikhah to be a communal religious leader(in keeping with the Rama in 242:14). Furthermore, R. Lichtenstein points out(Leaves of Faith vol 2 293) "originally a samukh would pronounce a decision that was binding by don't of his authoritative fiat. ...Now, he essentially serves as a reference guide, providing reliable information about what the tradition and its sources, properly understood and interpreted, state; but it is they, rather than he, that bind authoritatively." (quoted in the name of the Rav, in the name of his father, Rav Moshe.) Furthermore, as R. Lichtenstein points out, the Rambam viewed that Smikhah applied to hora'at issur v'heter as well as din. However, as R. Schachter himself points out, (see Kuntrus Ha semicha in Eretz Hatzvi chap 32) the other Rishonim hold that Semichah is a Halacha in beit din, NOT Hora'ah. AND, there are lots of authorities who clearly state that women can give Hora'ah. So you really need to define exactly what you mean by Semicha and how you are using it So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that apply to beit din. That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist. The semikhah for that type included wearing a specific garment, only being given in Israel, and according to most(but not all), prohibited to women. According to most Rishonim, that category did not apply to Hora'ah, just beit din. And, R. Lichtenstein illustrates that there is a clear and gaping difference in authority. There have been many years and many communities where leaders did not have any formal semikhah. But obviously there was some sort of Hora'ah going on. So it is clear that Hora'ah doesn't require semikhah, unless you want to argue that they were doing it all illegitimately. granting a degree of ordination was re-established(perhaps in response to universities, perhaps other reasons, see "The Emergence of the Professional rabbi in Ashkenzic Jewry by Bernard Rosensweig in Tradition, especially references in note 6) and the word Semikhah was used(although not always and not always exclusively). But you are arguing that somehow someway the restrictions from ancient Semikhah still apply- well, actually you are only arguing that the restrictions on women still apply, you have conveniently neglected to argue for the restriction of semikhah to Eretz Yisrael, for the wearing of special clothing, and all the other restrictions that were in place on ancient Semikhah. I have not had a chance to see the Maharik inside. But just because he applies halachot of relationships between teacher and student doesn't seem to be a reason to generalize that everything that applied to ancient Semikhah applies to today's neo-semikhah. That logically makes no sense. Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus tradition trope. It is a false dichotomy. First of all, as R. Shalom Carmy wrote, the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism. More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of our Masoretic values has changed over time. We don't value slavery or polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more. And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah. Furthermore, our Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a women. L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 07:40:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:40:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is becoming increasingly clear to me that I need a very basic lesson in the concepts of "redemption" and a "redeemer's" responsibilities. In my experience, we find two different sorts of redemption in Judaism. (I was going to write "in Halacha", but it seems that Boaz's actions were more sociological and ethnic than halachically mandatory.) One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and "redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many others. The other sort of kedusha has nothing to do with kedusha, but rather ownership of land. If I'm not mistaken, we find this in Shmitta, Yovel, and ordinary land sales in a walled city (and maybe elsewhere too?). In these cases, land has been sold outright, but under certain circumstances, the original owner has a right to buy it back from the new owner. AFTER WRITING THE ABOVE, I remembered another sort of redemption, that of the Goel Hadam. That seems irrelevant, because even though Naomi is now destitute, and her husband and sons are dead, no murder was committed. I also found yet another kind of Goel, described in Vayikra 25:47-54: If a person became poor and sold himself, then close relatives are obligated to redeem him and purchase his freedom. Although Naomi and Ruth did not reach that level (slavery), I can easily imagine that a social sort of redemption would require Tov or Boaz to help them out. I would call this "tzedaka" (not geula) but I suppose this might be the origin of the rule that one's primary obligation in tzedaka is to relatives. Many thanks to all who wrote to me (both on- and off-list), who put so much effort into helping me learn this subject. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 03:01:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:01:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= Message-ID: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a commentary how do you read it? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 02:59:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 09:59:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] support? Message-ID: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah restrictions are generally not observed (e.g., hello includes a social hug between the sexes), although Reuvain is meticulous in his observance of them. He is in his office in a conference with two colleagues when Miriam, the wife of a third tier social friend, also well past childbearing age, comes to the office door and says with a tear in her eye, "Reuvain, I hate to do this to you." Reuvain quickly asks his colleagues to excuse them, and Miriam blurts out, "David (her husband) just passed away," and she begins to slump, crying. Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to comfort her and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not make any request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but she did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion of the community which did not presume a social negiah restriction. Was Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, what should he have done? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:23:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 15:23:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:01:10AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a : commentary how do you read it? I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq venimtza qal" were written out. That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:43:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 22:43:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?va=E2=80=99v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <30b106b1-2a2d-f8dd-e692-4af1979063c9@starways.net> v'doke On 6/4/2017 1:01 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a > commentary how do you read it? > Kt > Joel rich > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:33:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 15:33:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] support? In-Reply-To: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170604193342.GA24739@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 09:59:23AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a : Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah : restrictions are generally not observed... A real maaseh shahayah, which would liely garner the same thoughts. One day, around 10am, the woman sitting in the cubicle next to mine gets a call on her cell, and after a few moments had her screaming and crying. It was the Salvation Army, where her son volunteered and lived. He didn't wake up that morning. Another co worker of ours, a yehivish guy who grew up in Israel but lives in Lakewood, got us a conference room, dialed some phone calls for her -- the coronor's office and the like. He was clearly cfrom communities in which persumed social negi'ah restrictions are fully observed. But when our co worker broke down in a fresh round of crying, he put his arm around her. I think to do anything else is to be a tzadiq shoteh. But I never asked a she'eilah; that was just my gut reaction at the time. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:01:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 23:01:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Noam, It's not a "trope". While there can be situations in which egalitarianism vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them. Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not. It seems a poor argument, as well. I don't believe there is anyone who, without the impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical concepts of justice demand that we ordain women." Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Distinctions are one of the hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and non-Jews or men and women. We have never viewed having different roles as indicating superiority and inferiority. That judgment is foreign to our tradition. Foreign to halakha. Foreign to the Torah. Please note that I'm not talking about whether, given the assumption that having different roles conveys inferiority, one could argue in favor of equalizing roles in the name of justice. I am talking about that assumption itself. It is an assumption that comes from egalitarianism, and cannot be found in Jewish tradition, which is not subject to Brown v Board of Education. Different does *not* necessarily mean unequal in Judaism. Polygamy was never a "value". To Mormons, perhaps. Not to us. It was simply something permitted. Slavery is out of the question purely on dina d'malchuta dina grounds. Were that not the case, we might still engage in it. We certainly haven't changed the halakha pertaining to either kind of avdut (K'naani or Ivri). You say that modern values have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in our Mesorah. Can I ask where the need for such a re-evaluation comes from? It was my understanding that we value all of our Mesorah, and do not sift through it, deciding what parts of it we value and what parts we do not. Also, please note that I have specifically referred to egalitarianism, and *not* to feminism. I don't believe that feminism requires egalitarianism, and the moves by the left to try and force Orthodox Judaism into an egalitarian framework have nothing to do with the basic idea that women are fully competent adult human beings, which is what feminism was originally about. On 6/4/2017 6:48 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus > tradition trope. It is a false dichotomy. First of all, as R. Shalom > Carmy wrote, the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to > Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism. > More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of > our Masoretic values has changed over time. We don't value slavery or > polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more. > And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for > us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah. Furthermore, our > Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna > in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a > women. L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:53:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:53:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . I wrote that the Mishneh Berurah, despite a lack of semicha, > frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the > ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression > of his personal opinion. R' Micha Berger responded: > Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed > this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone > know what has been said in the years since the standardization > of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh. Yes, he does self-describe as a summary and teaching/learning tool. But he does *not* specifically disclaim being a posek for halacha l'maaseh. The Igros Moshe and many other recent seforim do that, but I do not see it in the Mishneh Berurah. As an example, let's open to the very first page. He writes in MB 1:2 (near the end) about Netilas Yadayim upon waking in the morning: "Some say that for this, the entire house is considered like four amos. But (4) do not rely on this except in a shaas hadchak." Let's analyze that: He cites an unnamed lenient opinion, and clearly tells us not to rely on it. Note 4 leads us to his own Shaar Hatziun, where he gives his source, the Shaarei Teshuva. The Shaarei Teshuva, fortunately, is printed on this same page, and I direct your attention to the last four lines of #2, where the lenient opinion is named as being the Rashba. It is not clear to me whether the psak to *not* rely on that Rashba comes from the Shvus Yaakov, or whether it is from the Shaarei Teshuva himself. But either way, it is clear to me that the Mishne Berurah is taking sides, and IS PASKENING TO US that we should be machmir unless it is a shaas hadchak. > In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in > every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, > which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise > unreachable. Then we need to figure out what *is* required for hora'ah. Because it seems clear to me that the Chofetz Chaim felt that he met the criteria, and (perhaps more importantly) Klal Yisrael agreed. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:58:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 19:58:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2F566ED7-C27E-4141-9BAA-E81C69F30CE1@sibson.com> > > I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq > venimtza qal" were written out. > > That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. > > HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" > -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. ------------ I had always been taught the latter. The bar Ilan data base uses the former. I suppose one could rationalize one person's try and it will seem easy is another's it's a bit of a stretch. Then again Kuf lamed could be kal lhavin or kasheh li. :-) Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 15:56:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 17:56:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > It's not a "trope". While there can be situations in which egalitarianism > vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them. > Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to > the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not. It seems a poor > argument, as well. I don't believe there is anyone who, without the > impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical > concepts of justice demand that we ordain women." > Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Distinctions are one of the > hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and > non-Jews or men and women. We have never viewed having different roles as > indicating superiority and inferiority. That judgment is foreign to our > tradition. Foreign to halakha. Foreign to the Torah. Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" It isn't an issue of being like men, it is an issue of fairness and justice. Regarding 'modern values' and Mesorah. please read Rabbi Walter Wurzburger, regarded as one of R. Soloveitchik's most prominent students here: http://download.yutorah.org/TUJ/TU1_Wurtzburger.pdf Since chazal owned slaves and the Gemara didn't outlaw them, obviously owning slaves was not seen as odious as it is now. I doubt that current rabbis have the same positive view of slavery as you do. in fact, one published author does not. see R. Gamliel Shmalo here: http://download.yutorah.org/2013/1053/798326.pdf Similar to polygamy, I doubt that any current rabbinical authority thinks that polygamy should be instituted(except in the very rare situations of heter me'ah rabbonim when in practicality there is only one wife) Many authorities, including Rav Lichtenstein, R. Nachum Rabinovitch(and see R. Wurzburger's article for citations to classic authorities of the past) and others state clearly that encountering 'modern values' helps us figure out which how to better balance the values already in our Masorah. And, as I pointed out, our Masorah has already moved towards egalitarianism, as demonstrated that most MO poskim don't hold by the Mishna in Horiyyot. And who was denying that there are different roles? no one denies that there are different roles for the genders. But Halacha should be the determinant of what those differences are. Not someone saying, "well, there have to be differences, and I am going to tell you what those differences should be." If there are no good Halakhic arguments against women's ordination(and there aren't), then claiming that there should be different roles for different genders is not a coherent argument. Basically you could use the same argument for everything and anything, since there is no Halachic basis for it. You could say that women shouldn't ride bikes because gender roles have to be different. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:47:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <6736acd1-ba2d-c1bc-1762-d8e55bb8e473@sero.name> On 04/06/17 06:01, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a > commentary how do you read it? Vest du velen kvetchen, kadoches vest du vissen On 04/06/17 15:23, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. > HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" > -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. Or "vedayeq vetimtza qashe" -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 20:38:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 23:38:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605033858.JVPC32620.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a >specific shayla for a specific person. I guess the question is: is that related to semicha? Note the following (by Joel B. Wolowelsky, from that Tradition issue last year that focused on women's leadership issues) The standards of the semikha might vary from yeshiva to yeshiva even though the text of the klaf certificate is generally the same. I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters of grave import. Very few rabbis are viewed as posekim, and their authority surely does not rest on any formal semikha they were awarded at an early stage in their professional career. Most rabbis even most pulpit rabbis are relied upon to relate what the accepted halakha is, not what it should be. They are not assumed to be posekim. Rabbi Menachem Penner, Dean of RIETS, recently made this clear when he stated that: not all individuals given the title of rabbi are entitled to serve as decisors of Jewish law... Following the halakhic opinion of a scholar or rabbi who is not recognized as a posek would represent a fundamental breach in the mesorah of the establishment of normative halakha... Musmakhim of RIETS, along with all learned individuals, are entitled to their personal opinions on halakhc matters and the halakhic system as it functions today and may publicize their views as opinions that are not halakhically binding. If this is true of musmakhim of RIETS, who have completed many serious and demanding years of study, all the more so for the myriads of rabbis who earned their semikha by simply sitting for a less-demanding final exam after self-study or learning in a beit midrash up until their wedding, at which time they received semikha. We should quickly note that this is not intended to imply a diminution of the value of semikha. Rather it reflects an unprecedented expansion of Torah study in our community. Which raises the obvious question: if so many men have semicha that shouldn't engage in hora'ah, what's the problem of having a woman in a similar position? [Email #2.] Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that in Israel, this doesn't seem to be so much of an issue. May I recommend an utterly fascinating article on this: A VIEW FROM THE OTHER SIDE By Rachel Levmore, Ph.D. - Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 05:42:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 12:42:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" ----------------------------------------------------- As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question (chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", on what basis are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" I'd say the debaters on this issue would be well served to read J Haidt's The Righteous Mind https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj_nMSM3abUAhUG7CYKHRfcAJgQFghZMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Frighteousmind.com%2F&usg=AFQjCNH2OB9Ny75lbVswde2ndpkNKXvilQ&sig2=hBXRmEu1I6x-J0radUdXqA to better understand why they aren't convincing each other KT Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 12:00:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lo Taamod In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605190033.GD3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:54:06AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Asher Weiss discusses in parshat Vayeitzeih on lo taamod al : dam reiacha that one would have to give up all his assets to save a : single life if he is the only one who can do it. However, "it's pashut" : that if others can also do it, that he doesn't have to give up all his : assets. Why is it so pashut if others refuse? (i.e. why isn't it a joint : and several liability?) I am not sure halakhah has the concept. The nearest I can think of is a zeh vezeh goreim, such as if a shor tam pushes another ox into a third party's bor bereshus harabbim. SA CM 410:32 rules that the baal habor must pay 3/4. Hezeq by a shor tam need only be reimbered 50%. So, the owner of the shor tam only has to pay 50% of his half of the guilt -- 25%. The baal habor therefore would cause the loss of the other 75%, so he has to reimberse it. But there is a machloqes about what happens when one of the two doesn't have the money -- does the other have to pick up the difference, or not? If not, then wouldn't that mean halakhah doesn't have a notion of joint and several liability?" But even if he does have to pay what the other can't... One may still be choleiq between someone who did something that incurs a fine and a chiyuv to spend money. It's not really a "liability". And this is beyond the usual limits of a chiyuv.... If there are others who can save the guy, RAW says I'm not chayav to spend all my money, but what about spending up to a chomesh, like for any other chiyuv? Maybe even if there is joint and several liability, it stops at 1/5 rather than 100%. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 12:33:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:33:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? In-Reply-To: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim : b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman : shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? The SA says "yekhavein lehispalel besha'ah shehatzibur mispallelim". Your question is why the Rama -- or is the Semag, I couldn't find the citation -- doesn't mention minchah. I think the MB s"q 31-32 *implies* that the emphasis is on Shacharis and Maariv since the solar landmarks vary the most, and therefore the minyan is more likely to have their own idiosyncratic time -- late Shacharis or early Maariv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The waste of time is the most extravagant micha at aishdas.org of all expense. http://www.aishdas.org -Theophrastus Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 11:49:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:49:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170605184905.GC3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 10:00:22PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : Can I burn something that was hefker without acquiring it? If I declare : something hefker (I'm not sure the legal implication of batel), and then I : burn it, wouldn't that imply I'm koneh it? Which makes things much worse. We might argue whether bitul chameitz means something other than hefqer. But even if it does, how can a formula that ends "vehefqer ke'afrah de'ar'a" not render it *also* hefqer? I am not sure what kind of qinyan burning would be. (Shinui? but shinui to something worthless is back to not having anything shaveh perutah to own.) Taking from hefqer means there is no maqneh, does that mean there is no qoneh? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 11:37:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:37:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a : conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of : YaVY... Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because there is no actual issur la'avor. : Since when is conversation : hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes : the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation : carries the din YvAY. I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from hirhurim. And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA: : That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, : causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of : hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and : certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? : : The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya : due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the downward character spiral. Tie'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:13:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? In-Reply-To: <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> References: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5424769a-057e-b1d6-87b8-130dad06850d@sero.name> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > : S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim > : b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman > : shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? It seems to me that "shacharit v'arvit" here may not mean the tefillot but the times: they should daven each morning and evening when they know the minyan in the city is davening. The city minyan presumably does mincha and maariv together in one evening session, so that's what individuals should do. This is so especially if this is from the Smag, and we know from Rashi and Tosfos Brachos 2a that the minhag in France at that time was to daven maariv immediately after mincha, while it was still daylight. We also know from elsewhere that minhag Ashkenaz at a later time was similarly to go straight from the Kaddish Tiskabel after Mincha to Vehu Rachum and Borchu, with no Aleinu or Shir Hamaalos/kaddish (or Ledavid in Elul) in between. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:55:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:55:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:40:56AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and : "redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually : to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many : others.... I think that bringing up pidyon and temurah just cloud the issue. IMinsufficientlyHO, it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that strikes me as a progression): - the go'el hadam - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) - and of people (ibid v 48) - the end of galus To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on its nachalah. But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first -- "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why there are different words in lh"q. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 14:06:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:06:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605210617.GB23709@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 03:18:13PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that : Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent : introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, : pages 48-52. Which ties to the other thread about how we're to view Yiftach or Shimshon -- baalei mesorah or amei ha'aretz? It's possible that at the nadir points in the days of shofetim, being the gadol hador didn't rule out also having fundamental flaws. : R' Zev Sero wrote: :> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the :> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. : It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it : something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus : and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus : then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. If it was some general Semitic notion of ge'ulah, then perhaps being common-law spouses in a 7 Mitzvos b' Noach sense would be enough to trigger ge'ulah, even if yibum would require real qiddushin. After all, the basis for ge'ulah was likely that the woman came to depend on the family for her support, and it would be wrong to let her down. Which is true of a Moaviah intermarrying into a Jewish family, even if the marriage only seemed real to her. I am also reminded of the Rambam IB 13, discussed hear repeatedly ad nauseum. Shimshon's and Shelomo's wives were p[resumed Jewish until their actions showed that they not only had ulterior motive, they lacked a true motive (qabbalas ol mitzvos) altogether. Geirei `arayos all are in that boat -- if we think they were mequbalos al mitzvos along with wanting to convert to marry, we presume they're kosher Jews but suspect and watch whether behavior matches presumption. Rus would be in a similar situation, no? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 14:55:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:55:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> References: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4674ee8c-5f5e-c740-051a-00191c18b4fb@sero.name> On 05/06/17 16:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > IMinsufficientlyHO, it pays to just stick to trying to find a common > theme to all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that > strikes me as a progression): > > [...] > > - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's not an > actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) Where is the word found in this context? My position is that the use in Megilath Ruth is an instance of the next meaning. > - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) - and of people (ibid v 48) This one. AIUI the underlying theme of this mitzvah is discharging ones own obligations, or those of a relative who is unable to do so himself. When one has sold the family patrimony, one must buy it back so that people will no longer look at one as someone who had to do that. If one can't, then whoever in the family can afford to do so must buy it back, to clear ones name. Included in this is a sub-obligation that if one is aware that a relative has to sell family land, and one can afford to buy it, one must offer to do so, so he is never subjected in the first place to the ignominy of selling it out of the family. (That, as near as I can tell, is what was happening in Ruth. Naomi and Ruth, having claimed Elimelech's property for their ketubot, were now purportedly looking for a buyer, and turned to the family to give them first refusal.) By extension this also includes discharging other obligations, not to do with the family land, such as ones obligation to a woman whom a relative has left destitute, so that her state will not be a disgrace to the family. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:56:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 20:56:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to comfort her > and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not make any > request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but she > did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion > of the community which did not presume a social negiah restriction. Was > Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, > what should he have done? I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to include any contact in any social situation in addition to more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly consistently not included are professional scenarios where your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors, nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says there that even in his generation he was unique in being able to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for this situation. But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei aveira then there is no issur of negia. I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred option. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 03:08:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 10:08:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? I heard from Rav Matis Weinberg that the final reference to Ruth Hamoavia emphasises that, despite the way we usually think of geirus, and despite everything she's gone through, she remains a Moavia. Meaning that she retains her Moavi roots and personal context, and brings the positive from that into Klal Yisrael. I understand him as polemicising against the tendency to destroy ones previous identity, consciously or otherwise, in order to join the Jewish world either as a ger or a baal teshuva. Ben ________________________________ From: Avodah on behalf of via Avodah Sent: 02 June 2017 03:34 To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 72 Send Avodah mailing list submissions to avodah at lists.aishdas.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org You can reach the person managing the list at avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." A list of common acronyms is available at http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms Avodah Acronyms ? The AishDas Society www.aishdas.org Here?s a hopefully useful but incomplete list of acronyms that are standard to Avodah, but aren?t in common usage. I marked each either ?A? for those specific ... (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) Today's Topics: 1. Re: Maharat (Rich, Joel via Avodah) 2. Re: Maharat (Ben Waxman via Avodah) 3. Re: Maharat (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 4. matched soldier and praying for them (M Cohen via Avodah) 5. Re: Maharat (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) 6. Elimelech's land (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 7. Ruth Hamoaviah (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 8. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (ADE via Avodah) 9. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (Zev Sero via Avodah) 10. A Holiday Afterthought (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) 11. Re: A Holiday Afterthought (Micha Berger via Avodah) 12. Re: Ruth Hamoaviah (Zev Sero via Avodah) 13. Re: Ruth Hamoaviah (Lisa Liel via Avodah) 14. Re: Elimelech's land (Ben Waxman via Avodah) 15. Re: Elimelech's land (Zev Sero via Avodah) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:06:28 +0000 From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" To: 'Ilana Elzufon' , "'The Avodah Torah Discussion Group'" , Micha Berger , "Akiva Miller" , Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05 at VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. ---------------------------------------------------- Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the debate on black letter law? KT Joel Rich (full disclosure-kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-not everything that is permitted to you should be done) THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:22:13 +0200 From: Ben Waxman via Avodah To: Ilana Elzufon , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Micha Berger , Akiva Miller , Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Probably the best and most succinct historical analogy I've seen for this question. Ben On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > > Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women > rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the > vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it > seems to be shaping up as the latter. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:59:33 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation. Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. How can this be? Dare we imagine that he did such things unauthorizedly? Certainly he must have had/received some sort of Heter Hora'ah. If so, then when and how did he get it - and without getting semicha at the same time? Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:01 -0400 From: M Cohen via Avodah To: , Subject: [Avodah] matched soldier and praying for them Message-ID: <014801d2d969$41c5c800$c5515800$@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A while ago on Avodah, a well known (chareidi) Baal machshava was quoted as disagreeing strongly with the concept of matching frum people with a nonfrum soldier in order to pray for them. "we have no brotherhood with secular Israelis" Recently, I posted to Avodah a link to a collection of 1400 short tshuvot from HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlitah (of Toronto) On the above topic, he writes there.. #600 Pray As They Go Q. There are two organizations here in Eretz Yisroel, one called; Elef LaMateh, and the other; The Shmirah Project. Basically, their intent is to match Israeli soldiers with Avreichim and bochurim learning. Each Avreich and Bochur who volunteers, receives the name of a specific soldier (his name and his mother's name) that he takes responsibility to daven for and learn specially for so that in the merit of the tefillos and learning, that soldier will merit to return home alive and well. (Is this a good idea) A. HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is a great mitzvah to pray, learn Torah and accomplish mitzvos for the benefit of all our brethren B'nay Yisroel in times of peril and need, especially for those who put their life in harm's way to save and protect others. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:39:53 +0200 From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah To: "Rich, Joel" Cc: Avodah , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Micha Berger , Akiva Miller Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should be identical for each community and each generation? - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:01:50 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" . I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start farming? I suppose it was pretty desolate after a ten-year famine, but did she even try? She must have at least gone there to see the place, if for no other reason than to be sure that no squatters took over while she was gone. Without making sure of such things, how could she even hope that anyone (even a goel) would buy it? Maybe she expected to get a better profit from Boaz than she'd get from farming it herself, but maybe there are other answers? Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:05:01 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the distinction? When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on this. Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:14:59 +0100 From: ADE via Avodah To: Zev Sero , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are still being machshiv some pesukim over others. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk > *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:32:23 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: ADE <9006168 at gmail.com>, The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: <510d4fd4-6c91-fb85-0c23-f6cdfa7ffcbf at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 02/06/17 05:14, ADE wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one >> pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this >> reason. > Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are > still being machshiv some pesukim over others. There is no requirement to treat all pesukim exactly the same. One is entitled to stand or sit during KhT as one wishes, and has no obligation to choose one policy and stick to it. The problem is only with standing up for special pesukim, such as Shma or the 10D. Since there's nothing special about the pasuk before the 10D, there's no problem with deciding to stand for it. And when the special pesukim come along one is already standing, so one has no obligation to sit down. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:46:10 -0400 From: Cantor Wolberg via Avodah To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50 at cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In our personal religious commitments there are those among us scrupulous in performance of the ceremonial mitzvot but at the same time displaying reckless disregard of our elementary duties towards our fellowman. Halacha embraces human life in its totality. One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social trait from our behavior! A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:31:31 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Cantor Wolberg , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <20170602153131.GA15356 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made : a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study : of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social : trait from our behavior! Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, among the aphorisms of his listed in R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I. :-)BBii! -Micha ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:28:00 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Akiva Miller via Avodah , "akivagmiller at gmail.com >> Akiva Miller" Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: <4dd6e4f1-2d00-a274-ace0-e5d2a803039a at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 01/06/17 23:05, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I only see four instances of "Ruth Hamoaviah", three in ch 2, and only one in ch 4, in Boaz's description of the situation to Tov. Since his purpose was to scare him off, it made sense to mention her origin, so Tov would be reluctant to risk his future. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:20:16 +0300 From: Lisa Liel via Avodah To: Akiva Miller , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 6/2/2017 6:05 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I can't cite a source for it, but I remember once reading that Ruth HaMoaviah was intended to praise her, since she gave up her position in Moav to join us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus [https://static2.avast.com/11/web/min/i/mkt/share/avast-logo.png] Avast | Download Free Antivirus for PC, Mac & Android www.avast.com Protect your devices with the best free antivirus on the market. Download Avast antivirus and anti-spyware protection for your PC, Mac and Android. ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:31:41 +0200 From: Ben Waxman via Avodah To: Akiva Miller , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Actually if the land had lied fallow for 10 years, it should be in good shape. Granted it needs weeding but the soil should be good. It only requires a relatively small amount of rain for grass to grow and re-invigorate the soil. Maybe she was too old to work the land and figured that a sale would provide her with enough money to live out the rest of her days in dignity? Ben On 6/2/2017 5:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:17:52 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Akiva Miller via Avodah , Akiva Miller Subject: Re: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: <272b8698-d5c1-55a1-560b-2bc6d0c39b74 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 01/06/17 23:01, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? It seems to me that finding a buyer for the property was not at all important to her, and in fact she had shown no interest in doing so until she saw how she could use it to get Boaz to marry Ruth. It was Boaz who spun the story out for Tov in order to scare him off; first he drew him in with the prospect of an easy transaction for Naomi's portion of the field, but then he threw in the Ruth monkey wrench. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/avodah http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org ------------------------------ End of Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 72 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 04:24:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:24:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <545028A09009CEB1.0C33F862-E0BD-4F09-B72B-2B14A928A471@mail.outlook.com> I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter, the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat, is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin and relay the answer. We have fine female educators like Shani Taragin etc and we have Yoatzot Halacha as above. I consider this ordination movement as a Western valued and inspired institution. Indeed, these days I know Shules look for husband *and* wife teams. The Rebbetzin occupies an increasingly important place. This is most certainly also true of successful Chabad Houses, and here I speak of people like Rivki Holtzberg hy'd whom I knew well personally and I watched as the women gathered around her and the men around her husband. This is the mimetic tradition not withstanding exceptions. That, I believe is the thrust of the OU proclamation and it is dead on the money. Judaism certainly adapts but it is not the plasticine for Western values and aspirations. Even at a funeral, where one expects little hope for Yetzer Hora, the Halacha mandates the Shura to be separate for males and females. This category of notion underpins our Mesora and always did; right back to the days when our tents were arranged with Tzniyus in mind. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 07:26:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:26:41 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap Message-ID: can anyone explain and show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from non-Kosher fat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 07:23:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:23:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh Message-ID: regarding Chamets buried under a collapsed building where we remain the owner - we intend to salvage it after Pesach but are not transgressing BY and BY without needing to make Bittul I explained that Halachic ownership is determined by ones perception of control and explained this is the reason that YiUsh means one is no longer an owner for example you forget your wallet holding your ID and some money in a restaurant even though you go back in the HOPE of finding it or are HOPING an honest person will return it this is nevertheless YiUsh you no longer believe you are in control although RaMBaM encourages that the finder return it Halachically the finder is entitled to tell you Once upon a time this was yours - but you were MeYaEsh so it is no longer yours and I picked it up AFTER you were already MeYaEsh This is the foundation for the Pesak of R Y E Spektor that money lost by a woman at a trade fair MUST be returned because there was NO YiUsh the money had been found and taken to the local Rav it matched perfectly the description given by the woman who lost it but the finder insisted he wants to keep the money unless he is obliged to return it even though the woman had Simanim Muvhakim there was no doubt the money found was the money she lost she was certainly MeYaEsh she is not the owner Reb Y E Spektor Paskened that there was no YiUsh her husband is the owner and he, sitting many miles away was unaware of the loss of the money so there was no YiUsh R Micha argues that this is not correct he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost so there is no YiUsh however if they would know it is lost they would be MeYaEsh I would suggest that there is no problem the Machlokes is simply a dispute about ACTUAL belief one is in control versus POTENTIAL belief one is in control for example walking behind a fellow Yid you notice a diamond fall off his ring he would be unaware of his loss if we say YiUsh requires DaAs then there is no YiUsh yet you would have to wait until you see the fellow stop and look around for something then you can take your foot off the diamond and take it home [BTW is such a person a Rasha? or worse, not a Mentsch?] If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs then you can take the diamond straight away because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 10:48:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:48:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> , <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a : conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of : YaVY... Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because there is no actual issur la'avor. I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where there's an issur involved? That's why I'm suggesting that since it's on pain of yeihareig then we know there must an issur la'avor so the point of the sugya is to work out what that is. The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below. : Since when is conversation : hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes : the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation : carries the din YvAY. I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from hirhurim. >From hirhurim? Chazal were gozer yeihareig on hirhurei aveira? If that were true we'd find the same din in a lot of other places. Which is why is seems to me we must be dealing with something else here. And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA: : That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, : causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of : hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and : certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? : : The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya : due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the downward character spiral. Me'heicha teisi that we're dealing with Hilkhos De'os here? Where do you find a din of yeihareig in Hilchos De'os? Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does. Your partially stated assumption is that this din in both man d'amrim is d'rabanan. Rambam strongly implies otherwise. Kol tuv Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 09:19:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha wrote: "In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable. And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving R Ploni answering questions. (The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the model.) This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads -- or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her rebbe's license?" me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using. They are hiding behind ambiguity. if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do hora'ah. AND, you cant use the model of semicha to prohibit women from hora'ah, becuase in the Venn diagram of the topic, there is hora'ah outside the lines of semicha. So R. Micha et al need to provide some other basis for their issur of hora'ah, AND, address all those who write that a woman can provide hora'ah. AND, address the quote from R. Penner that the semicha for REITS graduates is not one to pasken(or perhaps even to give hora'ah). AND, address why(rather than simply say) the Rabbanut semichah test system, perhaps the most popular semicha in Orthodoxy, does not undermine his entire thesis. One can give a woman 'heter hora'ah l'rabbim' because there has not been a cogent argument presented not to do so, and there are many poskim who write that a woman can give hora'ah. The argument regarding 'what would HKBH' want is interesting. Does he want us to restrict women from doing things just so that we can say there are differences between men and women? Or, did He establish Halakha to help us sort out those that He wants, rather than ancient ones that and are gradually being re-evaluated, similar to how we have gradually moved away from embracing slavery, polygamy(in the vast majority of instances), restrictions on the deaf/dumb, the devaluation of women(see Mishna in Horiyyot 'men's lives are saved prior to women....), the idea that a women's wisdom is only with the spindle, one who teaches his daughter Torah has taught her tiflut, etc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 11:28:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:28:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/6/2017 7:19 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all > those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to > clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using. They are > hiding behind ambiguity. if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then > saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do > hora'ah. Are you suggesting that the burden of proof is on those *opposed* to a radical change in Jewish practice? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 11:18:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:18:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> (And also some "Re: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim".) On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:48am CDT, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you : understand the OU panel as defining it. Otherwise you are just using a : nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning. To me, "semichah" is a secondary concept. My focus was to assert whose halachic decision-making can qualify as hora'ah. That question involves semichah in the discussion. We were discussing the Rama YD 242:14. The Mechaber writes in strong terms that a higi'ah lehora'ah is obligated to actually provide hora'ah. The Rama there adds that this is only if there is no barrier of kevod harav -- his rebbe passed away, gave him semichah, is a rebbe-chaver, or the like. He doesn't make semichah a definition of magi'ah lehora'ah, but only a removal of a barrier, a necessary condition in the usual circumstances. Not a defining feature. If we look at the Rama in se'ifim 5-6, he tells you he is basing himself on the Mahariq (113.3, 117 [and the OU panel adds, cf 169). The Mahariq's position is based on assuming that what was true for classical semichah is still true for modern day semichah. The Rambam (Sanhedrin 4:8) agrees with that comparison -- he derives the need today for netilas reshus from Mosaic semichah. IOW, who needs reshus for hora'ah? Someone who is magi'ah lehora'ah and has kevoad harav issues in giving hora'ah without one. A magi'ah lehora'ah can only be someone eligable to sit on a BD of [Mosaic] musmachim (or according to the Rambam, other mumchim). Not because "rabbi" is defined by "has semichah", but because "yoreh yoreh" or Yesivat Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim" declares someone to be a hegi'ah lehorah. I find the OU's argument compelling, fits the words of R/Prof SL's letter and is probably his intent, and how I understood the sugyah in general before the notion of an O woman as rabbi became a topic people would seriously discuss. I am interested to know if you asked R/D Novak which one of us understood his intent. Did he mean to explain R/Prof SL's position or explain why he differs with it in ways that makes Yeshivat Maharat an option? Agreed that few rabbis pasqen, and that we could have female clergy that avoid this first issue that I have even if a Maharat's semichah read "Rabbah uManhigah" instead of "heter hora'ah lerabbim". : The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship : between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah : to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here: : http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah ... : So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that : apply to beit din. That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist... And yet the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama all think that one continues enough of the other that we can draw conclusions across that bridge. It's not me doing the category taking, it's the Rambam and the SA. What greater authorities do you need? While on the topic of magi'ah lehorah... On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 11:24am GMT, Isaac Balbin wrote: : I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his : students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the : aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was : a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter, : the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat, : is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is : 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin : and relay the answer. There is a difference. Hopefully, someone who get "Yoreh Yoreh" is first magi'ah lehora'ah. But that's a sliding scale. They could get reshus to pasqn because there are less weighty or less involved questions they can and should be answering, while still being aware when they are in over their heads and should call RMF. Whereas the impression I got from RYHH's posts here on Avodah is that a Yo'etzet isn't supposed to ever be giving pesaq; only answering questions that the community has definite answers for -- reporting halakhah pesuqah. But then there's the second and third issues.... 2- How do we know shul is no supposed to be a men's club? Men's clubs work, or at least the Rotary and the Masons have for centuries. Movements that went egalitarian now have issues getting male participation in shul; this is a big topic in Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs (C umbrella organization) discussion. And more fundamentally, how do we know that this social dynamic was not Anshei Keneses haGdolah's intent? I would assume indeed it was. This would rule out having a woman for much of the congretational role of rabbi. 3- Halakhah is inherently non-egalitarian: a- Importing an external value over those implied internally. And more functionally, we are telling women that indeed, the traditionally male role is the better path to holiness -- let us help you run at that glass ceiling. b- This is bound to lead to greater frustration as soon as LWMO has gone as far as it could up to that halachic limit. and c- It is making a claim that is false. One is sacrificing Judaism's model of equal worth despite hevdel for the sake of egalitarianism and erasing havdalah. The last being more of a perceptual issue. And this may explain why you can get a bit further not using the word "rabbi". It's not merely a word game, there is an issue at stake; are we trying to be egalitarian, or to accept a system in which kohanim not only defy egalitarianism, but apparently start out holier than I am. Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW. On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 7:51am IST, Ben Waxman wrote: : For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community : that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like : Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi : community consider to be kefira. Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'" (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not! : If so, than kal v'chomer many of : the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are : some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in : getting hung up on multiple non-issues. There are two possible sources of division here. 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators, and therefore in practice will be a separate community. Comfort zone isn't only a psychological issue. it nostalgia, mimetic tradition, Toras imekha or minhag Yisrael sabba, communal continuity is a big issue. 2- The ideological problem isn't in the bottom-level issues but in how they highlighted the loss of common language. The opposition to these changes are talking about Mesorah, values, etc... and the proponents just see the issue as "if it's halachically allowed, why are you giving us a hard time?" This lack of common language, more specifically, the lack of a notion of metahalakhah* is disconcerting. So to my mind the schism-level battle isn't over ordaining women, Partnership Minyanim, or whether Document Hypothesis is a viable option without O as much as these decisions are apparently being made by a different set of rules. And that could quite validly be a schismatic level issue. (* In this sense of the "word" "metahalakhah". We on Avodah have also used "metahalakha" to refer to the halachos of making halakhos, even when the rules are more black-letter. Such as discussions of when we say halakhah kebasrai, or whether there is acharei rabbim lehatos in this post-Sanhedrin era.) Back to R/Dr Noam Stadlan... I believe in a role for women in the clergy that isn't that of poseiq, part of minyan, nor claiming to be egalitarian. The OU thinks that categorizing the resulting role set as "clergy" is itself too egalitarian. Again, I see that as a perceptual issue. But they too end calling for finding more venues for women to contribute communally and to be visible role models. (An Areivim-esque tangent: It would be interesting to see if the OU acts on these closing remarks as rapidly as they did about the 4 member shuls that already have Maharatos.) But then, the only difference between the position now taken by Aish or Chabad kiruv today and the actual permission granted in the driving responsum is perception as well. In terms of dry facts, both were premitting causing the non-observant to drive on Shabbos rather than let them remain disconnected. They only differed in how they let the person perceive his own driving. And yet one was a major part of a broad collapse of observance, and the other is apparently increasing observance. Presentation and perception matter. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:03:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:03:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606150330.GB26549@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:23:51AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : R Micha argues that this is not correct : he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control : then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs : i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost : so there is no YiUsh : however if they would know it is lost : they would be MeYaEsh Rather, I was saying ownership hinges on responsibility, which I suggested was both a consequence of and license for having actual control. : I would suggest that there is no problem : the Machlokes is simply a dispute about : ACTUAL belief one is in control versus : POTENTIAL belief one is in control It would help if you can find a case where somone has potential of believing they control an item for reasons other than having actual control, and has the din of ba'al, OR someone has potential to believe they lost control of an item for reasons other than actually losing control, and does not have ba'alus. Yi'ush is giving up on finding it again, not knowledge of loss of control, real or potential. Let me use your example to explain how I see it: : for example : walking behind a fellow Yid : you notice a diamond fall off his ring : he would be unaware of his loss ... : If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs : then you can take the diamond straight away : because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss But this is a case where he loses actual control. The yi'ush shelo mida'as is more of an expectation not to regain it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:06:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606150633.GC26549@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:26:41AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : can anyone explain and : show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim : to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from : non-Kosher fat "Preferable"? Because we make a point of using dish soap that is ra'ui la'akhilah. So, using a treif one means taking a position on akhshevei. I believe the OU knows they are just pandering to the market when they give such a heksher, though, and don't lehalakhah require it. (But you did say "preferable", and avoiding even a shitah dechuyah could be deemed preferable.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:55:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 09:53:30PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil : Siman 199, the Maharil writes: ... :> And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive :> commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we :> should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut ... :> And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible :> to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules :> and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in :> our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and :> hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by :> way of tradition from outside, I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather than knowledge of abstract ideas. However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. There I ass more promise. he quotes the Rambam (which you already discussed) and the Sema"q's haqdamah (from near the end). There the Maharil talks about oseiq beTorah as in kol ha'oseiq beparashas olah kei'lu hiqrivu qorban, and that this should apply even to mitzvos in which they are NOT obligated (like qorbanos). Is this exclusively TSBK? It might; the Maharil talks about men saying birkhos haTorah before reading pesuqim they do not understand. Ayin sham. : And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in : Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous : generations: :> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their :> upright fathers. Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. Which the Maharil you cited appears to be doing as well. I place more hope on the second Maharil. Which is why I disagree with: : But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the : ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach : women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was : taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in : the form of the Mishna?... Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an example to imitate. (Tosafos believe Rabbe compiled the mishnah; writing down didn't happen for centuries. So what the mishnah was to the amora'im was an official text to memorize and repeat. As in "tani tana qamei deR' ..." Not that it really touches on our discussion.) : So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what : the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women : to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al " peh... True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask why, etc... but it's not an "education" setting. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 16:57:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men gather. Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis. So that women can gather around women rabbis. certainly it is not an argument against women rabbis. And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals does not apply either. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 18:50:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:50:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: - R' Shalom Simon wrote: > I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value > as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters > of grave import. No one?!? I imagine this might be true about people who are relatively learned, and relatively savvy in the ways of certain yeshivishe circles. But I can testify that it is certainly not true of a typical less-learned nominally-Orthodox person. Towards the end of my first year in yeshiva in Yerushalayim, as I made my plans to returns back to the USA, my friends were nudging me to stay for a second year. I felt that the proper thing for me to do was to return, as per my plans. But their annoying reached a certain level, and I felt the most effective response would be to ask my gemara rebbe (who I was very close with), and then I'd be able to tell them to keep quiet. Surprise! He answered me honestly, that leaving the yeshiva would be a mistake, I needed a second year of chizuk, etc etc etc. I was devastated, having to choose between his p'sak and what *I* felt to be right. In the end, I wasn't strong enough to follow Hashem's halacha. I left the yeshiva, returned to YU for the one remaining year to get my degree, and then returned to my yeshiva in Yerushalayim. All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha. Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 19:25:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 22:25:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support? Message-ID: - R' Ben Bradley wrote: > I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur > derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what > consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to > include any contact in any social situation in addition to > more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly > consistently not included are professional scenarios where > your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors, > nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who > can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like > the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says > there that even in his generation he was unique in being able > to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for > this situation. > > But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively > certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei > aveira then there is no issur of negia. I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses, physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her, she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia. But in the case at hand, the physical contact is not incidental. It is the goal. Nay, I would argue even more strongly: The mere physical contact isn't the goal -- The EMOTIONAL RESPONSE to the contact is the goal! The whole point of hugging this person is for emotional support. I certainly agree that this sort of hugging is on a lower level that the sort of hugging that leads to sexual relations. But at the same time, it *IS* more intimate than the examples you cited. A person will choose a doctor, nurse or therapist, based on their medical ability -- but the sort of hugs we are discussing here are valued more when from a friend than from a stranger. > I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And > preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in > sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved > in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred > option. "The need to comfort the bereaved..." Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor" regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this "needed" comfort from someone else. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 20:28:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 03:28:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R Meir Rabi asked for mekoros. I suggest Yechaveh Daas 4:43 Although Chacham Ovadya is Meikel he does bring Rishonim who would hold its an Issur Derabonnon as in Pesach for 'off' Chametz. This is probably the place to look but I don't have the Sefer in front of me at the minute. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 03:38:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 06:38:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607103838.GC10990@aishdas.org> There are also sources in RAZZ's column in Jewish Action https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_kosher_soap (He sent me the link privately. Perhaps R/Dr Zivitofsky wanted to spare me being corrected in public.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 06:35:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:35:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> >Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed >incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis >are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community >in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to >do so?" >----------------------------------------------------- >As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question >(chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", >on what basis >are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a >Halachic reason to do so?" But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no? We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni or Tzlophad's daughters. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 06:49:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 08:49:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maharat Message-ID: R. Micha- if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL). It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is one of them. You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get semicha. You obviously hold that a woman cant be a judge, and the barrier to the woman is actually not semicha, but her not being qualified to be in the category of hl. Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness. There are others in that category. Since there is no reason to differentiate between those in the category, you are saying that all those others in the category also are forbidden, not from semicha, but from being in the category of HL. We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be dayyanim in some cases. So, the disqualification of women from HL actually wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot. So your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not claiming to be eligible for semicha. I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive lomdus. Is there a source that specifically states that women are forbidden from being HL? The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age. It seems that you may be distinguishing between hora'ah, and HL, there being hora'ah that is not in the category of being given by someone that is HL(if not, you have to deal with the myriads of sources that state specifically that women can give hora'ah). So you and the OU authors may be referring to HL in the mosaic understanding, and moderns, including YM, are using it in a different fashion, to refer to non-formal HL. Because if there is hora'ah that is not part of the formal HL, there is no restriction on women. And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? what is the basis for that? It seems that even assuming that you are correct(for which I have not found any support in any references), there is no basis for excluding women from having non formal hora'ah, someone acknowledging that they are capable of that non-formal hora'ah, and them functioning as a rabbi and doing what rabbi's do in shuls and elsewhere. Your restriction only keeps them from occupying a formal title which is not neccessary or needed for the job description. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 07:05:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 14:05:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> References: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> Message-ID: <94258eaf26e94a0ea0c49de3630ef2ce@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no? We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni or Tzlophad's daughters. ========================= So just to complete the loop-the question is who gets to answer this request for whom Kt Joel rich _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rn0JnHwKAKxEU5lYbmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGWm5q4mhsFBBsamlgbGDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAF5osAg&Z THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 09:38:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607163850.GA12495@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:49:45AM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL). It's not me positing it. Look again at YD 242:13-14, warning against the talmid shelo higia' lehora'ah against giving any, and the chakham who did higi'ah lehora'ah and was not moreh, applying condemnatory pesuqim to each. The SA is based on R' Abba amar R' Hunah amar Rav on AZ 19b. : It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can : give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is : one of them. So yes, it is clear. The SA says so outright. : You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get : semicha... Again, not me, Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq all assume comparability between the two. A Mahariq the Rama then cites (se'if 6) as the basis for his concluding how a musmach should behave toward the rav who gave him semichah, when not his rebbe. So it would seem the Rama buys into the notion that our "semichah" of declaring someone a hegi'ah lehora'ah (and in the case of a rebbe, implicitely that he has permission to be moreh) follows the rules of Mosaic semicha for beis din. So, thinking you are arguing against me, rather than centuries of dissentless precedent, you propose a line of reasoning at odds with the Rambam and Tosafos: : Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for : those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness... The Sema and Be'eir heiTev (on CM 7:4) does say yalfinan lah mei'eidus. See Nidah 49b But see the Y-mi, Shevuos 4:1 (vilna 19a) brings several derashos. One of them (R' Yosi bei R' Bun, R' Huna besheim R' Yosi) does learn is from a gezeira shava from eidus. ... : We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be : dayyanim in some cases. So, the disqualification of women from HL actually : wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot. So : your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not : claiming to be eligible for semicha. One thing at a time. Eligability for true Mosaic semichah and how it reflect on who can give hora'ah is what's relevant now. Not who can serve in other judicial roles that did/will not require semichah. : I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive : lomdus. Is there a source that specifically states that women are : forbidden from being HL? There are numerous sources that say women can't get real Mosaic semichah, and numerous sources that say that the laws of today's "semichah" are derived from those. The fact that I don't know anyone before the current dispute actually connect the two to deny something no (O and pre-O) observant community considered a plausible question even as recently as the late 1990s (including a statement by R' Avi Weiss) really doesn't make the argument less compelling. If you have A =/= B and B = C, do you really demand a source telling you that A =/= C? : The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara : and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age... No, that HL in the SA is the same. ... : And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the : requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? ... Never claimed that. I separated my problem with declaring a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" for women from my problem with a woman serving during services and from my 2 or 3 problems with giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings in halakhah. You have only responded to the first. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 10:33:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:33:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607173338.GB9596@aishdas.org> As I see it, the question WRT hora'ah is whether we follow the Rama's lead and hold like the Mahariq, or the Birkei Yoseif CM 7:12 a viable shitah -- and then, does "viable" mean "advisable"? (We aren't heter shopping, after all.) The Birkei Yoseif says Af de'ishah besulah ladun, mikol maqom ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah basing himself on one of the opinions in Tosafos (Yevamos 45b "mi", Gittin 88b, ve'od) about what it means that "Devorah melamedes lahem dinim". (Devodah vs. ishah asurah ladun is the topic of 11.) It seem to me that "melameid lahem dinim" is a different use of the word "hora'ah" than the SA is using in YD. And thus it seems to me that Birkei Yoseif would explicitly permit a yo'etzet, who is teaching established halakhah and defering questions that require shiqul hada'as to a rav. But he is not describing hora'ah as assumed in a Maharat's heter hora'ah lerabbim and the YD 242 sense of magi'ah lehora'ah and who needs such a heter when he does. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 10:12:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:12:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607171230.GA2858@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:25:57PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses, : physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a : "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one : will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so : too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked : her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her, : she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia. "Melakhah she'inah tzerichah legudah" is specific to the 39 melakhos, so "sort of" indeed. Besides, might be more of a pesiq reishei. In any case, when a professional violates negi'ah, the heter is ba'avidteih tarid (BM 91b). And it's specifically to professionals and the air of professionalism. (As well as the lowered odds of a problem for someone who has a license at risk.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 12:22:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 21:22:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/7/2017 3:50 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I > will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I > *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for > disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi > Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha. > > Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar > things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent. I would agree that this is an extreme example. I don't know you so I can't say anything about you in particular (not that I would anyway, not on a forum) but I would expect a yeshiva guy who had been learning with a teacher/rav for a year to take the teacher/rav's words much more seriously than the average ba'al habayit. The first thing a ba'al habayit would do is say "Well, I went to him for advice, not psak, so I don't have to listen to him". >I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value >as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters > of grave import. I don't know what constitutes grave import - an abortion? learning Biblical Criticism? Marrying someone of questionable yichus? Whether or not a particular business maneuver constitutes fraud in the eyes of halacha (or if it isn't but is illegal)? Accepting charity from criminals? Would the average MO Jew speak a rav and get his psak on these issues? Or do people limit themselves to strict Orach Chayim issues like eating on Yom Kippur? Are there issues that people will do whatever the rabbi says and ignore what he has to say about other things (obviously people ignore what rabbis have to say about a lot of issues, but I mean a straight psak)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 11:57:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maharat Message-ID: R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress. You are engaging in a theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls. (they were not arguing against specific wording on a claf, they were arguing against holding a specific position). Given what you wrote, we both agree that the OU argument against does not hold water. Even if they are technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are capable of doing so(even if according to you they actually do not need permission from their rav). Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R. Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and others. Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav) have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and the authority is in the sources, not the person. You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments. You have admitted that the issue of women semicha has not been considered until recently. So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong. (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an arguement, that it be consistent. So if you are claiming that the reason women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot. you cant have it both ways). Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.' Please read the article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier. He makes it very clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that external 'modern values' are an important part of that. Modern values are neither positive nor negative. Those that find resonance in the Mesorah are elevated. R. Nachum Rabinovitch and R. Lichtenstein point out that our goal is to make moral progress. You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'. It isn't about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion. As R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice. I happen to be married to a Maharat student and personally know many of them and their teachers. It is the ultimate in hubris and mansplaining for you and the others to claim to know what their motivation is. It was reprehensible of the OU panel to claim to know what the motivation is when they failed to talk to anyone actually involved in the enterprise. Even if we incorrectly grant that it is due to 'egalitarian yearnings,' is that wrong? I suggest that our Mesorah has incorporated egalitarian yearnings. The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way, and those that would probably would give all sorts of apologetics and rationalizations for it. (I am aware of the different shitot, and know that RSZA for example gave so many other rationales to decide that even though l'halacha he held this, there were so many other bases for deciding ahead of gender that practically it never would have been applicable.) Even the OU panel said that we value women the same as men. Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women. The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large or as small as possible? Because as we have decided above, if we go by strict halacha, there is no problem with women serving as shul rabbis. is it a value to have differences, and because you want to have differences, you are going to prohibit women from doing things? Just to have differences? There are differences between Jews and Converts. Is it a Halachic value to maximize the differences, or minimize the differences between Jew and Gerim? R. Moshe wrote that a convert can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah is not a problem. Would he have agreed that a women can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah is also not a problem for her? (rosh yeshiva does not require semicha). Mishpat echad yehiyeh lachem, ka-ger ka-ezrach. The OU paper brought up tzniut. I do not think that the MO community thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a violation of tzniut. So there is no violation of tzniut when women or men perform the functions of clergy on their side of the mechitzah(one could designate a man to take of things on the men's side of the mechitzah if you were worried about interactions across the mechitzah). if you are claiming that this is a tzniut problem, then it applies to every interaction of women and men, inside the shul and outside. The OU paper claimed that a synagogue required greater tzniut, and therefore women cant perform rabbinical duties. That is a non-sequitor. First of all, it hasnt been demonstrated that appropriately dressed and acting people are a problem with tzniut. and, why is this particular action the one picked to fulfill the mandate of more tzniut? perhaps the men fulfilling EH 21 would be a better starting place. I understand you and others not being comfortable with ordination for women. no one is asking for you to be comfortable with it. If you dont think it is a good idea(halacha v'ain mori'in kein), that is fine to say. But it isn't fine to say that Halacha bans it when it doesn't, and it isn't ok to try to kick people who are shomrei Torah u'mitzvot out of the tent because of your comfort or lack of comfort. I would hope that you are at least as uncomfortable with some of the people on the far right wing. No one is asking for you to go to their shul, ask them a shailah, or learn their Torah if you dont want to. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:10:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:10:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:57:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress. You are engaging in a : theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU : rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls... Well, my first point is a discussion of hora'ah, and consequently for whom is semichah meaninful. But my argument on this point is a subset of the OU's argument on that point. See their paper, pp 8-9 : Given what you wrote, we both agree : that the OU argument against does not hold water. Even if they are : technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give : hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are : capable of doing so (even if according to you they actually do not need : permission from their rav). HOW do you get from what I wrote an implication that we have agreement on that? I think it's firmly established by aforementioned rishonim (plus others in the OU's footnotes) that if someone is ineligable for Mosaic semichah they are ineligable to give hora'ah and therefore have no use for today's yoreh-yoreh. Or the Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim"? : Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch : who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R. : Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a : later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't : invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and : others. Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav) : have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and : the authority is in the sources, not the person. Asked and answered, although in a post after the one to which you replied. Some use the word hora'ah to mean "melameid lahem dinim". Which is not hora'ah as the Rama is discussing it. I pointed you to the Birkei Yoseif. The Chinuch is similar; his : You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments... Another? What's the first? : So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only : poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong. The OU paper doesn't make that argument. Not that I see everything the way the OU panel does. (But halakhah lemaaseh, I would be more likely to follow their opinion than my own.) Nor did I find RJF's analysis of this claim in neither (his general position on ordaining women) nor the only place where I saw him discuss the OU panel on Lehrhaus. As an activist on the subject, I'm sure you've spent more time reading up on it than I. Could you kindly provide more specific references? But let me deal with what you wrote: IOW, you are saying that because our ancestors thought the idea was absurd, we ought to go ahead? What such an argument would say is that we historically had numerous women capable of being rabbis and even so no one even considered making any of them one. The OU's section on mesorah should explain why such attitudes have precedential authority. But again, none of this reflects on what I myself was arguing : (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an : arguement, that it be consistent. So if you are claiming that the reason : women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from : being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including : that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot. you cant : have it both ways). I argued the opposite causality. Lo sosuru mikol asher YORUKHA refers to dayanim. So, someone who is excluded from becoming a dayan can't be the subject of the pasuq, and their decisions don't fall under the halakhos generated by this pasuq. Their decisions are not hora'ah, in the pasuq's sense. (YOu had me saying: Can't give hora'ah implies can't be dayan. I am really saying: Can't be dayan implies can't give hora'ah.) : Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.' Please read the : article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier. He makes it very : clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that : external 'modern values' are an important part of that. Modern values are : neither positive nor negative... Not because they're modern, no. But obviously some are positive, some negative. We can judge them. Mesorah and its values are logically prior to modern values. Numerous halakhos are unegalitarian. Even if egalitarianism is a good idea for benei noach, as a perspective it is inconsistent with that the Torah expects of Jews. : You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'. It isn't : about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers : to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion. As : R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice... The motive I attributed, really echoed back from what I heard in prior iterations, is not that anyone is about making halakhah more egalitarian, but a desire to make halakhah fit a more egalitarian reality. So I don't know what you're rebutting. I argued that some realities reflect values that must be resisted rather than accomodated. We can talk about the end of inequality in the workplace as a good thing, but can we talk about reducing the differences in avodas Hashem, differences that can't be eliminated because halakhah demands they're there, as a good thing? Good point here to address RSSimon's post. On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 09:35:14AM -0400, Sholom Simon wrote: : But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight : halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's : education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent : this", no? To avoid making this a false dichotomy, you have to define halakhah broadly, to include the obligation to live according to the values and general guidelines of aggadita -- mitzvos like qedoshim tihyu, vehalakhta bidrakhav, ve'asisa hayashar vehatov (a/k/a Chovos haLvavos or Hil' Yesodei haTorah and Hil' Dei'os). I think this is what the OU is trying to get to with the concept of "Mesorah". But if I may be frank, they are handicapped in their ability to discuss the aggadic by too many of them seeing the world with Brisker eyes. Back to R/Dr Stadlan... In addition to the question needing to be asked about the Torah's evaluation of a modern value before we simply adopt it (rather than tolerate, limit the scope, or entirely reject).... Second, I do not think justice is served by telling women to find their religious meaning in a headlong rush toward a glass ceiling. I think it's more just to teach them how to find meaning in ways that aren't dead-ended for them. More equal, if less egalitarian. ... : Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women. : The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large : or as small as possible?... That decision should be made by starting with "why does halakhah have those differences"? And what do our aggadic sources say? As I said above, we judge whether to adopt, tolerate or resist new values based on TSBP. : The OU paper brought up tzniut. I do not think that the MO community : thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a : violation of tzniut... Tzenius isn't about clothes. I don't agree with their argument, but don't fight strawmen. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 13:55:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:55:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a > woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken > that way I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:21:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 23:21:05 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB writes: >I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" >in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather than knowledge of abstract ideas. No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these were not "textual" sources - how would you translate ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? better though, to keep the flow and that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? >However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult to understand them as having been written by the same person. Indeed the Birchei Yosef, who seems to have only seen the first one inside, and seen the second one referred to in other sources, particularly the Beis Yosef,( who himself seems to have had the second on but possibly not the first) challenges the quotations from the second teshuva on the basis of the first, and seems to suggest (in the politest possible way) that the Beis Yosef got it wrong, because they just do not match. I do not know any real way to reconcile these two, and can only note that the two compilations of teshuvos were compiled by different students of the Maharil . : And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in : Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous : generations: :> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their :> upright fathers. >Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk, it is about actively teaching (albeit oral). Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting up of schools), but it is a strange pasuk to use if he was talking purely about mimeticism. >Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at all the experiential aspect. When the gemora cites a ma'aseh rav, is this *not* TSBP because it would seem to be mimetic? >I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an example to imitate. The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two types of TSBP. And the other alternative would seem to be to write this kind of teaching out of TSBP. But is not a lot of TSBP, even though by no means all of it, this kind of teaching. Is not the gemora etc filled with this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. : So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what : the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women : to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al " peh... >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting. But the Rambam doesn't say either - "but with regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she ba'al peh taught in a formal educational setting, but that not taught in a formal education setting is fine". And note of course that one cannot just observe Mum taking challa, one also needs to be told about the correct shiur. It is highly unlikely that anybody would necessarily conclude, by watching week after week, exactly what the correct shiur for taking chala and the bracha is by mere observation. That has to be communicated as a form of rule. Ok a situational rule, - taught in context, but the tradition would be lost in a generation if it was left for every generation to guess the correct shiur by watching closely enough week after week. >-Micha Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:53:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:53:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we have now is historically completely wrong. From "b'inyan semichat chachamim' published in Or Hamizrach: 'At this time when semicha is batel, all the mishpatim from the Torah are battel..based on lifneihem- and not lifnei hedyotot. And nowadays we are all hedyotot. And the only way it works is that we act as shlichim of Mosaic beit din' So everyone is a hedyot. More to the point in section five there is a detailed examination of semicha included what was required in various areas. 'The Chatam Sofer writes...that this semicha of morenu and chaver has NO BASIS IN SHAS but is a ashkenazi minhag and does not contain anything real'. 'They issue of semicha that they estabkished(tiknu), according to the Rivash, because it is forbidden for a student, even one who is hegiah l'hora'ah, to give hora'a or to establish a yeshiva(note that this obviously is not hora'ah)while his teacher is alive....therefore they had the PRACTICE of semicha...that he is no longer a student but can teach others(the word is l'lamed, not hora'ah)' There is a lot more. But it is quite clear in the sources brought in this article that the historical record clearly shows No connection between Mosaic semicha and what was begun in the Middle Ages. Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:53:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 22:53:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> References: , <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> Message-ID: <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 7, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > >> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: >> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way > > I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this Not really. They basically say either that there are other tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why.specific citations available upon request Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:07:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:07:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> References: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> Message-ID: On 07/06/17 18:53, Rich, Joel wrote: >> I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that >> this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this > Not really. They basically say either that there are other > tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it > would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why. That's what I thought too. I was surprised to read RNS not only insisting otherwise but deducing an entire shita from this supposed fact. In practise I doubt it was ever meant to be implemented kipshuto, because even on its own terms it applies only when all else is equal, and it rarely is. But it seems to me that when all else *is* equal, i.e. when we have no other information so all else is zero, and we are free to set our own priorities without fearing negative consequences (that too constitutes additional information which makes all else not equal), then the halacha must still apply. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:51:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:51:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170607225122.GA14289@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 05:48:13PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : > Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because : > there is no actual issur la'avor. : : I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on : pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where : there's an issur involved? Red shoelaces? : The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that : yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below. No, it could be preservational and still deOraisa. Like my example of a ben soreier umoreh, who Chazal say dies al sheim ha'asid -- we're also preventing the continuing deteriation in a downward spiral. This "downward spiral" was what I was calling Hil' Dei'os. Hirhurim and hana'ah -- devarim sheleiv in general -- aren't even punishable altogether, how could they allow a court to decide yeihareig? Most dinei nefashos don't even qualify. : Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context : of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must : be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as : issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does. And qiddush hasheim could involve avoiding something that is not assur either. (Agian: red shoelaces.) That too is death to preserve an attitude. I am just saying that your desire to make this yeihareig ve'al ya'avor is putting an overly formal halachic box. Whether or not something is a qiddush hasheim or otherwise worth dying for is not necessarily reducible to a Brisker chalos-sheim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:17:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:17:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we : have now is historically completely wrong... And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah? The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up to imitate the other with no continuity between them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:58:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> Message-ID: The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way, and that saying that modern semicha was set up to imitate ancient semicha(to such an extent that the same prohibitions apply) is a distortion of history and Halachic history. Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources. The Rama makes more sense when read in the context of the quotes that I provided from the Chatam Sofer et al. The Rambam, could well be discussing ancient semicha in the sources you describe........ On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun > 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: > : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we > : have now is historically completely wrong... > > And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based > on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical > study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah? > > The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up > to imitate the other with no continuity between them. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 23:40:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 09:40:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> References: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> Message-ID: <5938F16E.9010705@biu.ac.il> the topic is addressed in this article: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0048-0068.pdf ?A MAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER from Tradition in 2014 Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > >> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a >> woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken >> that way > > > I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this > is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? > What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument > is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the > question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O? > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 06:14:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:14:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check Message-ID: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> [RJR poses these questions at the start of his Audio Roundup column on Torah Musings . I prodded him to share them here as well, as questions work better in an actual discussion venue. But I didn't think he would do so without plugging his column! So, here's my plug: Worth reading, and if you have one -- pointing subscribing to on your news agreegator / RSS reader. -micha] A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled the commandment to wear tfillin. In fact, many pasul tfillin were pasul from the start (e.g., missing a letter). The Rav later reported that a listener heard the shiur and had his tfillin checked and found such a psul, even though he had bought the tfillin from a reputable sofer and had them checked earlier by another reputable sofer. The Rav was pleased with this result. Two questions: 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status) appropriate? 2) As a societal issue, how should current rabbinic leadership view the tradeoff of now requiring (suggesting) frequent checks? We will have some who will have the listener's result. OTOH, we will also have those whose tfillin will more likely become pasul due to uncurling the klaf and the increased costs of checking. BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan checking be appropriate? Kt Joel rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 06:15:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:15:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Parenthesis Message-ID: <1c9fcdd2c38f43e7af59d24ffe246c8b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> [See my plug of RJR's column in the previous post. His question about a distraught new widow and negi'ah as well... And that's just the column's *padding*! Extra credit if you answer the question about parenthesis while "vayehi binsoa'" and its upside-down nuns is still in parashas hashavua. -micha] 1. In the Shulchan Aruch -- who is the author of the statements in parenthesis in the Rama like print that don't start with Hagah? 2. In Rashi (or Tosfot), who decided to put certain words in parenthesis and why? (e.g., differing manuscripts, logic, etc.) Kt Joel rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 04:31:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 07:31:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . I would like to start a new thread to discuss exactly what we mean by "redemption". I will begin by quoting most of R' Micha Berger's recent post from the thread "Elimelech's land": > ... it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to > all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that > strikes me as a progression): > > - the go'el hadam > - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's > not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) > - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) > - and of people (ibid v 48) > - the end of galus > > To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even > something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on > its nachalah. > > But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more > to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first -- > "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of > redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why > there are different words in lh"q. Several years ago I tried working on this as part of my preparations for Pesach. The first obstacle I encountered was (as RMB mentioned in the last line here) that there are so many interchangeable synonyms. The first two that came to my mind are "geulah" and "pidyon", such as in Yirmiyahu 31:10: > Ki fadah Hashem es Yaakov, > Ug'alo miyad chazak mimenu. I agree that a good starting point, as suggested by RMB, is "restoration". This carries over to English as well, and I could cite several pieces of literature whose theme is "the chance to redeem myself," where someone suffered a significant loss of status (justified or not) and is trying to correct that loss, and restore himself to his prior status. This is very much what Naomi was trying to accomplish. But I'm not so sure how relevant it was to Mitzrayim, where the problem was not merely social status, but physical danger. And that brings more synonyms into the mix: yeshuah and hatzalah. A useful tool for distinguishing synonyms is when they occur near each other in the same context. I brought an example of pidyon and geulah above from Yirmiyahu, and here is a case of hatzalah and geulah: Shemos 6:6-7: "V'hotzaysi... V'hitzalti... V'gaalti... V'lakachti..." On this, Rav SR Hirsch explains: "Whereas hitzil is deliverance from a threatening danger, gaal is deliverance from a destruction which has already occured." In Shemos 8:19, RSRH seems to say that "padah" refers to redemption when "anything has fallen into the power of someone else, to bring it out of that power." I suppose that relates to kedushah (Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, etc) because the redeemed object is no longer encumbered by the halachos that applied before. On the other hand, Vayikra 25:24-54 teaches about using money to redeem land, or a house, or an eved. In those pesukim, the word "redeem" appears as some form of geulah 17 times, but as pidyon not even once. How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? Looking forward to your thoughts Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 04:49:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:49:29 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500 From: Noam Stadlan via Avodah > R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men > gather. Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis. So that women > can gather around women rabbis. I'm sorry this does not compute halachically or logically. The men don't gather around the Rabbi either, and I have never seen a problem when the Rav who has been directing everything requests women on one side and men on the other. > certainly it is not an argument against > women rabbis. It was a comment that even in a place where the Yetzer Horah is least likely to have an influence, we are asked to be separate from each other. > And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like > the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly > dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual > immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals > does not apply either. Ger does not make that their focus. They have Gedorim for their own wives even if dressed Tzniusdikly etc One doesn't have to be modern orthodox to encounter women in the workplace either. It would be good if there were more women asking shaylos period. For Nida shaylos there have always been ways to treat a matter discretely. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 07:30:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of > any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even > punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of > the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? Yes, it's what the victim's blood needs and deserves, and the victim is unable to provide it for himself, so as the closest relative it's his duty to provide it for him. The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. Ya`akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because Kel Nekamos Hashem. We are commanded to love our fellow Yidden so much that we forgive them and *forgo* our natural and just desire for revenge, just as we would do of our own accord for someone we actually loved without being commanded. Even the neshama of a murder victim is expected to forgive his Jewish killer, and Navos was punished for not doing so. But we can't forgive on someone else's behalf, especially on our father's behalf, or assume he's such a tzadik that he must have forgiven his killer. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 09:13:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:13:39 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Psak of a Musmach Message-ID: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> The Maharat thread got me thinking about this, but it is a bit of a tangent, hence the new thread. It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don?t recall that it is mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 07:23:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 10:23:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170608164150.ETSG4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> At 09:43 AM 6/8/2017, via Avodah wrote: > >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather >than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she >noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask >why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting. Surely, *some* of it is. Rn Ch L gave the example of a shiur, but there's an awful lot that goes on in the kitchen, and I would guess (I don't know, as I've never been a mother or a daughter) that the mother would be almost negligent if she didn't actually explain some various rules. (I'm using a slotted spoon here, but in cases x, y, z, I can't use a slotted spoon; or: when I do this it's not considered borer because x, y, z; or: if I want to return the pot to the blech, I have to have in mind x,y,a; or: this is how you make tea, and this is how you make coffee, and this is why I can't melt the ice in a cup, and this is why you can defrost the orange juice, etc etc etc). I have a teacher who told me that any women who is doing a competent job in the kitchen has to have learned TSBP. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:28:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:28:47 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> Message-ID: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of >> any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even >> punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of >> the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? > > The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like. Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:45:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 14:45:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <3c673353-b5e9-d704-9cb0-52aff2f213c7@sero.name> On 08/06/17 14:28, Daniel Israel wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not >> Jewish. > An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. > Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos > chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an issur on doing so againstyour own people, because you are commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in itself does not come from any Jewish source. > That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like. > Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam > should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise > above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes. He's not go'el ha'emes, he's go'el hadam. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 13:43:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 20:43:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? ------------------------- The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an extension of the beit din. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:40:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 18:40:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Psak of a Musmach In-Reply-To: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> References: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <70d0ce58d48443a8a6b7fb558f001745@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From: Daniel Israel via Avodah Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 12:14 PM > It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, > then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying > on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or > her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not > obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don't recall that it is > mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha. Good starting point is first Mishna in horiyot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 14:01:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:01:33 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> References: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2D819FCB-5A0D-497C-8E21-EE99A6A9069A@kolberamah.org> A few points that have been swirling around my head reading through this thread. 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? Let?s concede, for sake of argument, that there are halachically permissible ways for a woman to do much of what communal rabbis actually do in practice. Not everything that is mutar is advisable. I don?t see why we should be embarrassed that community policy is being set by Torah principles which are not purely halachic. And while we are all entitled to our own opinions, community policy must be set by gedolei Torah of a certain stature. I don?t believe any of the Rabbaim who are supporting these ventures, with all due respect to their legitimate scholarship and accomplishments, are among the select few who a significant portion of the Torah world look to for answers to these kinds of questions. They were never among those who set gedarim for the community before they become involved in this issue, and so it should be no surprise that their taking the initiative on this issue is widely not accepted. 2. As far as hora?ah, we are discussing it like there is a clear line: halacha p?sukah and hora?ah. (And some comments make a third distinction, between what a local Rav can pasken, and what requires phone call.) But every case requires some amount of shikul hada?as. Sometimes it is so trivial we don?t notice it (?is this specific package of meat marked ?bacon,' treif??). But there are lots of questions we essentially MUST pasken for ourselves. Things like, ?is my headache painful enough to justify taking asprin on Shabbos??. OTOH, most of the questions we ask a Rav (?is this spoon okay??) aren?t really about shikul hadaas, they are more about his knowing all the relevant sugyos. I.e., they are topics that we could (should?) learn enough to answer for ourselves. Note also that any responsible Rav is continually evaluating which questions he feels capable of answering on his own. Just to be clear, I?m not saying there is no distinction to be made. Given that hora?ah lifnei Rabo is assur, clearly there is such a category. But what it is is not so clear cut. Also, I?m not pointing this out to support Rabbanus for women (although one could formulate such an argument), rather to suggest that hora?ah is not this place this needs to be argued out. 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher.? I think this is a good model. First, I would note that there are definitely still circles which strongly disagree with aspects of the chassidic approach. What has changed is that no one is seriously concerned that it will degenerate into widespread k?firah. (Keep in mind there was precedent. Chassidus arose soon after exactly that happened with regard to the Sabbateans.) That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, much as happened with the Conservative movement. Fifty years from now, if that happens, the question will be answered. If it doesn?t happen, then those who are still opposed may be willing to make their peace with it as part of Orthodoxy, even they don?t themselves hold that way. Given this long term view, perhaps the vehement opposition is an important part of the processes (as it may well have been with regard to chassidus). 4. Related to the prior point, RnIE (I think) suggested that this is less of a big deal in E?Y. And RSS posted a link to an article by Dr. Rachel Levmore that concludes with a list of reasons the situation may be different in E?Y and the US. For myself, WADR to those involved, who I am sure really feel they are acting l?sheim shemayim, I share RMB?s concern that they are aiming at a glass ceiling (extremely well put!). And, consequently, I suspect that there will eventually be a schism with at least some of that camp transforming into a neo-Conservative movement. After reading the above mentioned article by DrRL, perhaps another reason for the difference is that in E?Y these developments are fundamentally a response to a need. That is, there are specific issues having nothing to do with female clergy which are creating a need, and in some natural way it has come out that the best solution is the creation of these new roles for women. Whereas, in the US, the driver seems to be a conviction that there should be some form of female clergy, in and of itself. Which leads to a concern I?ve long had about many issues where people point to historical halachic change to justify contemporary changes. Perhaps certain changes are okay if they happen on their own, but we really shouldn?t be pushing for them to happen. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 14:25:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 17:25:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170608212546.GB25737@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 06:58:57PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam : Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way... But you neither explain 1- If it is a "distortion of history and Halachic : history" to claim that current yoreh-yoreh is an imitation of the elements of true Mosaic semichah that are still meaningful, how and why the Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq the Rama quotes lehalakhah all derive laws of yoreh-yoreh from Mosaic semichah for dayanus? Nor 2- How the CS's claim -- citation would be helpful -- that today's semichah is "merely" an Ashkenazi minhag means that this minhag was not set up to certify who is standing in the shadow of the true Mosaic musmach? Don't we need something explicit from the CS before we can just assume he would not deduce the rules of the minhag from the rules of true semichah. After all, you're setting him up against the precedent of doing just that (in Q #1). See the AhS YD 242:29-30. He explains that contemporary "semichah" is to announce to the nation that (1) he is higi'ah lehora'ah, and (2) his hora'ah is by permission of the ordaining rabbi. (He also requires a community to have a rav ha'ir, and others need the RhI's reshus to pasqen in his town as well.) This is much like what you said the CS says, as well as the Rivash. And the Rivash, which appears from your quote is the CS's source, talks about hora'ah -- just as the AhS does. In any case, I am looking for the Tzitz Eliezer's discussion of Sepharadim and their not accepting the notion of contemporary "semichah". Because IIRC, his discussion about semichah, not higi'ah lehora'ah. Recall, AISI the real question isn't the nature of a semichah, but how can be higi'ah lehora'ah. Semichah is only a good belwether, because it's not meaningful to say yoreh-yoreh to someone who can't give hora'ah with or without that permission. And it's semichah the CS dismisses as minhag; the extra gate can be minhag without changing who is allowed to enter. The discussion of semichah doesn't touch on who can give hora'ah, it is just out one precondition before actually doing so. : Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of : the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the : Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources... I don't know what you mean. Does the Rambam derive halakhah from dayanim musmachim with Mosaic semichah to today's morei hora'ah or not? Does Tosafos? Do they not take it for granted that the laws are consistent between the two, without which those derivations would not work? What exactly is your other understanding? (To reword Q #1.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 19:36:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:36:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will bow out. A few details: I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look up the underlying sources to be sure. The article is in Or HaMizrach 44 a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski(I hope the transliteration does him justice). There are other sources on the the Halachic/ historical aspects of semicha including one by R. Breuer in the journal Tziyon. and many others. I do not have time to find and read them all, but I think the point is clear in the article cited above. In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may explain my difficulty in finding it. I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot both of which are not applicable(or have not been applied) to modern semicha. So it is a stretch to state that this Rambam implies anything about current Hora'ah or semichah. I have not found any specific statements that a woman is not qualified to reach the state of 'hegiah l'hora'ah', and certainly not in the modern(non-Mosaic) context. I am not arguing that some of the sources cant be read to come to this conclusion, but it seems to be a novel halachic statement(similar to the OU rabbis making a new halachic category of "stuff that a shul rabbi does") and the only characteristic is that women are forbidden from it. I suggest that if someone on the left had made a similar claim, they would be accused of pretzeling the Halacha to support a pre-existing mahalach. I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable understanding of the Halacha. And perhaps even that those who oppose are the ones who are trying to find arguments when a fair reading of the sources indicate that there really is none specifically applicable to the issue at hand. Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical Ethics on the topic of triage. thanks Noam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 20:55:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 05:55:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Cherlow's Post Message-ID: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> https://www.facebook.com/RabbiCherlow/posts/1442987509096046 In response to a question regarding a psak that supposedly allows women to recite Sheva Brachot and an accusation that certain rabbis are distorting the halacha because of feminism, Rav Cherlow wrote a response. I am summarizing a few points. Full text is in the link above.. Introduction: Your words are a perfect example of how someone can break the Torah's most serious commandments and yet act as if he is a yirei shamayim. 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah. 2) Never mock rabbis (or anyone) because you disagree with their opinions. Mocking people publicly is one of the most serious aveirot. 3) Never use a nickname for others, in this case "Dati Light". 4) Always be careful about generalizing. 5) Never accuse someone of being guilty of what you assume to be their hidden motivations. You don't know and accusing someone violates "M'devar sheker tirchaq". More importantly, you're assuming that you're a tzaddiq and don't have an agenda. 6) Never use a group name to mock someone. The Torah world owes feminism a great debt for things its done (Talmud Torah for women, leading the fight against sexual harassment, etc) along with strong criticism for other things done in its name. 7) Always try and live according to Halacha as it is written. Don't have other gods, like opposition to chiddushim. 8) Bring halachic arguments to halachic discussions. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 02:15:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:15:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: On 6/8/2017 9:28 PM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah > > wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. > > An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. > Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos > chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. > Where is there any issur on taking revenge? Against fellow Jews, yes, of course. But generally? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 04:21:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:21:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Cherlow's Post In-Reply-To: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> References: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <9f3eaf48-0c03-fc88-cc90-e84a27b77ea9@sero.name> On 08/06/17 23:55, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in > Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to > do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you > guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah. And yet in this case the newspaper seems to have got it right, and R Cherlow's correspondent simply hadn't bothered to read it before fulminating. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:06:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:06:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption Message-ID: Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it. Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time before they went into exile was simply waiting time? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 07:32:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 17:32:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern > day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? Who says it was? > What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin > (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah > tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work > to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It > doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it. Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite. But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. I don't think their much more lengthy exile was a punishment. I think it was simply necessary. Had they rejoined us, by which I mean all of them, and not just those who Jeremiah brought back, and we had been exiled as a single nation, things would have been different. But viewing themselves as a separate nation from us, how would you envision things having worked in the ancient world? I don't think it would have been significantly different from what happened with us and the Samaritans. In fact, the Samaritans called themselves Israelites; not Samaritans. (That's the root of the mistake in the Christian "good Samaritan" story, btw.) > Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time > before they went into exile was simply waiting time? Not at all. Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 07:50:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:50:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 09/06/17 11:06, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern > day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? Assuming that it was, and that Yirmiyahu didn't bring them back. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:20:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:20:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <019f7de8-108b-d533-3e11-4556470c1c43@sero.name> On 08/06/17 22:36, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is > that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the > time of the Gemara. I think that is obvious, and it didn't occur to me that this could be what R Micha was referring to. I thought there must be some other Rambam, perhaps a teshuvah, where he discusses "modern" semicha to whatever extent such a thing even existed in his day and place. BTW I have seen it suggested that the original semicha was kept alive at the yeshivah in Damascus (they would cross into the borders of EY to confer it) until it was destroyed in the 2nd Crusade, which, if true, would mean there may still have been living musmachim in the Rambam's day. > Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. > That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar > statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical > Ethics on the topic of triage. But that article doesn't support the claim you made, that there exist poskim -- and in fact that it is the unanimous position of MO poskim -- that this halacha is no longer operative. The article cites sources relevant to the entire topic of triage, in all circumstances, including the mishneh and gemara in Horiyos, and I didn't see any suggestion that they are less authoritative or applicable today than they ever were. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:00:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1af6febd-3d16-f901-472d-92f0a5cd66e7@sero.name> Another idea: To expect a redeemer from the House of David one must first subject oneself to that House. Those who reject its sovereignty can't (by definition) expect one of its members to save them, so on being exiled they would naturally assume that this would be their new home and these their new neighbors, with whom they must assimilate. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 11:08:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 05:32:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: :> Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any :> modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? : Who says it was? First, I think we concluded among ourselves that the 10 lost tribes are really 9+1 lost tribes, with Shim'on, living in Malkhus Yisrael, being a separate case. With, perhaps, it's own spiritual malais. They lived amongst sheivet Yehudah; is it likely their culture was more like Yisrael than their own neighbors? With that tangent out of the way... It's a machloqes tannaim in Sanhedrin 10:3 (110b), no? "The 10 shevatim are not destined to return, 'Vayashlikheim el eretz achares kayom hazah' (Devarim 29) [derashah elided]... divrei R' Aqiva. "R' Eliezer omer: [his own derashah] ... even as the 10 shevatim went through the darkening, so too it will grow light for them. The gemara's discussion focuses on the previous part of the mishnah's machloqs -- their olam haba. But Rebbe says they do have olam haba and seems to be implying that the kaparah is total -- so they will return to EY. The Sifra (Bechuqosai 8:1) has R' Aqiva saying they won't return, but based on (Vayiqra 26:38), "vavadtem bagoyim..." And it has R' Meir as the one disagreeing with R' Aqiva. In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman, we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim. Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. R' Chaim Brisker uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. Which R' Aharon Lichtenstein uses as a snif not to support giving them Israeli citizenship in "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity." :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:19:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:19:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema Message-ID: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in the famous midrash about Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry halacha guide demands that they be sourced? Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 09:39:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:39:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170609163954.GA24832@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:36:08PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will : bow out. A shame, as we went in circles on one issue and didn't touch the others. Including my assertion that the Chinuch (142) speaks "ishah chokhmah hare'uyah lelhoros" and "assur lo leshanos letalmidav" -- whether someone who has the skills to give hora'ah shouldn't be teaching when drunk. No mention of hora'ah, but ra'ui lehora'ah and teaching. Because, he explains, their teaching will be accepted by those who look up to them, as if it were hora'ah. Similarly the Chida (Birkei Yoseif, CM se'if 7:12) rules out ordaning women, following the example of Devorah. People can voluntarily listen to Devorah (or, it would seem, to a yo'etzes), but she cannot be appointed a rabbi nor ordained as one because her opinion could not be imposed. Picture the town hiring a rabbi that any chazan can say, "Well, I don't follow him" and therefore can break from the shul's norm, or even "I don't follow him on this one." But more to the point, following the Chinukh (who is cited), he says "deDevorah haysah melamedes lahem dinim." R' Baqshi Doron mentions this problem in his letter, which RGS has scanned at http://www.torahmusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Rav-Bakshi-Doron-on-Women-Rabbis.pdf#page=2 REBD concludes that because of this, women should not be tested or given semichah, as that would be an appointment rather than voluntary acceptance of a particular teaching. And, while the Chida (and thus REBD) says "ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah", he is defining this as teaching law, not interpresting law -- nidon didan. Which is consistent with the Chinukh the Chida is building on. Nor did we get to my non black-letter-halakhah concerns. Including my concern that the whole project reflects a misrepresentation of Judaism's demands by thinking that anything that can fit the black letter of the law is in compliance with the Torah. That there is none of the more nebulous side of the law; an obligation to pursue a given value system and ethic. The fact that "Mesorah" is dismissed as political rather than a real Torah issue is to my mind a blunder; and your disinterest in discussing this aspect actually hightened those concerns. Nor the question of telling women that they are correct to seek value in a manner that has a glass cieling for them. Nor the question of whether a woman belongs in shul service, or whether it was designed to be a Men's Club. And if not designed, whether its function as a Men's Club is too useful to be sacrificed. As one example, but not the whole problem: Will male attendance lessen if we lose that character; will Tue, Wed and Fri (workdays with no leining) Shacharis attendance among O men go the way of Shabbat attendance among their C counterparts? But on, the topic we did discuss... : I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing : certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look : up the underlying sources to be sure. The article is in Or HaMizrach 44 : a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski... But having a reference in the CS itself would have been more ... : In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of : the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may : explain my difficulty in finding it. It's the Rama who says 113. (It's either that the copy in OhC is idiosyncratic, or, the OU copied a typo in the Rama and didn't check. I know that's what I did.) : I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he : is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the : Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz : Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot ... Limnos ledavarim yechidim is not always to be a dayan. One can get reshus lehoros be'issur veheter or lir'os kesamim but not ladun. It's the same process as geting reshus ladun or ladun dinei kenasos, or... Do you think "lir'os kesamim" was ever limited to dayanim? The fact that the Rambam treats reshus lit'os kesamim and reshus ladun as one topic that's the whole point! (And that addresses Zev's recent post, which I approved while this one was sitting around mid-edit.) Now that you found the Mahariq that the Rama se'if 6 says he bases himself on, I would have like to have heard if you disagree that he too is treating the rules for yoreh-yoreh and the rules for Mosaiq semichah as one topic. And Tosafos? : I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the : discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very : least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of : women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable : understanding of the Halacha... I haven't heard a complete defense, but I didn't see at all a positive case for. After all, the burden of proof is on the innovator. We didn't touch the whole conversation of proving that the innovation is positive enough *in Torah values* to justify settling for just what could be read as a not 'beyond the pale' understanding. On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 03:01:33PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? ... : 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My : example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were : huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are : today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher." ... : That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two : camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that : this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically : okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, : much as happened with the Conservative movement... My own concern is (as Avodah long-timers should expect) more meta. Why is the only quesiton that of black-letter halakhah? Why the ignoring of -- what do I call it, "gray-letter halakhah"? -- laws that don't codify cleanly, that require a feel for what seems in line with the Torah, that which RHS calls "Mesorah"? (Although "mesorah" has become an ill-defined concept, including both Torah-culture values and mimetic practice. For that matter, I find that R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's use of "mimeticism" also blurs both, as both are transmitted culturally.) To me, that's a critical meta-innovation that warrants asking if we're still all playing by (evolving our practice with) the same rules. I am not worried about a slippery slope to C. To my mind, that's worrying about when the problem, if there is one, becomes symptomatic. To me the question is whether procedurally, the process R/D NS is defending is already unlike the rest of O IN A DEFINITIONAL WAY. After all, once you define MO to include an openness to modern values, following the Torah becomes just using the halakhah as a test -- can this new idea fit black-letter law or do we have to do without? But also our test itself changes. Deciding which shitah to follow depends in part on our priorities, and in LWMO, those modern values also define the priorities. As R/Dr Stadlan put it: : ... I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very : least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of : women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable : understanding of the Halacha... Thinking something is okay to do as long as one can find understandings of shitos that can combine to show the idea is plausible and not "beyond the pale" is to my mind itself beyond the pale. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 12:07:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:07:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> On 09/06/17 11:19, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in the famous midrash about > Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem > Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a > source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry > halacha guide demands that they be sourced? > > Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice? I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. When we say the Rambam doesn't give his sources, we mean that he doesn't tell us where in the gemara he derives the halachos. He doesn't expect his audience to be familiar with the gemara, and he's not interested in convincing those who are, or in defending himself to them. But he always gives the pasuk where a mitzvah or halacha is stated, or tells us that it comes "mipi hashmuah", or was instituted by chazal or by the geonim. When he gives a psak which doesn't come directly from the gemara he says "ken horu hage'onim", "ken horu rabosai", or "ken nir'a li". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 12:51:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:51:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> On 09/06/17 14:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman, > we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim. Only if he's from the countries where they were taken. > Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his > day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact; the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. As for the men's descendants by nochriyos, according to the first lashon Shmuel derived from the pasuk that they're nochrim, and according to the second lashon it's a halacha pesukah ("lo zazu misham"). But according to either lashon the problem of the women was solved. Also, there's no "by his day". Either the problem was solved within one generation, or it was never solved at all. Not by his day. By at latest the 2nd BHMK. Either Yirmiyahu brought them back, so they're not there any more, or the first generation had no children so they died out then and there, or the Sanhedrin decreed them to be goyim. > R' Chaim Brisker Where is this R Chaim? > uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not > halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. On what basis? Unlike the ten tribes' descendants, these children exist. How can they not be Jewish? Even if you want to say the second lashon applies to both the men and women, and it means they lost their Jewish status, this was not a gezera, it was derived from a pasuk, that Hashem took away their Jewish status, so in the absence of any pasuk about other people how can it be extended? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:03:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:03:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >In Yevamos... : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. : : Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke; he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...") : the : women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there : never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. That's Ravina. Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu". Which is inconsistent with Ravina. Whom I forgot about entirely. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 11:31:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:31:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check In-Reply-To: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 01:14:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is : needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without : knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled : the commandment to wear tfillin... : Two questions: : 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha : by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status) : appropriate? We're discussed variants of this question before. Usually WRT whether a person in the same situation buit with their mezuzah will get less shemirah. My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was really cheilev. And if that is true of cheilev and timtum haleiv, why not the protection of mezuzah or the effects of wearing tefillin? But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely, are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome. And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... If someone is doing everything they're supposed to, and we're not talking about the teva necessary to allow for human planning, then why wouldn't Hashem just give a person as per their deeds. Why have a whole metaphysical causality if it doesn't aid bechirah, nor Din, nor Rachamim? .... : BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has : changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan : checking be appropriate? I take this as evidence of the "Litvisher" answer. If it were really a problem, why wouldn't halakhah reflect a greater need to check? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:33:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:33:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 12:15:04PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos : >chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. : Where is there any issur on taking revenge? Against fellow Jews, : yes, of course. But generally? "Revenge is bad" is not the same as "revenge is assur". The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim. In which case, he would hold that only lo siqom would hold for them, whereas only lo sitor would apply to a yisra'el chotei. But Shabbos is coming, so I can't check about "chaveirim". But in any case, the notion that hene'elavim ve'inam olevim shome'im cherpasam ve'einam mashivim, aleihem hakasuv omeir, "ve'ohavav ketzeir hashemesh bigvuraso" (Shabbos 88b) has nothing to do with who the counterparty is. Not a chiyuv or issur in and of itself. But the person who doesn't take offense nor act on taking offense is among "ohavav". Similarly, the Rambam (ibid) talks about lo siqom in terms of "ma'avir al midosav al kol divrei ha'olam", not just offenses by chaveirim. This appears to be included in his "dei'ah ra'ah hi ad me'od". :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:26:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check In-Reply-To: <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> References: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <781fc94e-241d-e738-5060-522eeeb4f325@sero.name> On 09/06/17 14:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When > something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell > the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about > the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was > really cheilev. But if it's nisbarer afterwards that it really was chelev the kelim need to be kashered. Ditto if it's nisbarer after someone toveled that the mikveh was pasul all the taharos he touched since then are retroactively tamei. In fact if a mikveh is found to have been pasul all the taharos touched by all the people who used it since it was last known to be kosher are retroactively tamei. > But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely, > are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk > to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the > case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome. That's not a mystical position, it's a plain rational Litvisher position on risk assessment. > And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... Now *there's* mysticism! To a Litvak that shouldn't be a consideration. The din is the din, and it's not up to us to justify it. But IIRC you never deal with the explicit gemara about mikvaos. A gemara that explicitly distinguishes the case of kohanim who were found to be pesulim from *every other case* in the Torah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:40:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:40:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <81e3d31e-aa58-5f1a-fefb-bdc0297298a2@sero.name> On 09/06/17 16:03, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : >In Yevamos... > : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his > : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. > : > : Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact > > "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke; > he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the > issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...") No, he wasn't. Lo zazu misham has no connection to finding a solution to any problem, and there's no indication that "they" were even thinking of this problem. It's simply a statement that it was agreed upon by all that the pasuk makes the ten tribes (or at least their men) nochrim. No connection to any practical problem. > : the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there > : never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. > > That's Ravina. No, it isn't. It's Shmuel himself, answering why the womens' descendants are not a problem -- they didn't have any. Ravina is the one who says the halacha we all know, that the child of a nochri and a Yisre'elis is a Yisrael. > Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu". > Which is inconsistent with Ravina. It's irrelevant to Ravina, because in this lashon he isn't citing the general halacha about the child of a Yisrael and a nochris being a nochri, but instead says those children (of the men with nochriyos) were ruled to be nochrim from the pasuk. The women's children still aren't a problem, because there weren't any. But even if you say that according to the second lashon Shmuel didn't say the women were sterile, and he meant the pasuk to apply to both the men and the women, still it's specifically about them, not meshumadim in general. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:51:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:51:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: > The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any > Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different objects. > I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only > those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim. I don't believe so. The only non-Jewish "chaverim" I can think of are the sect that ruled in Persia in the Amoraim's times -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 15:36:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 18:36:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not > Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, > but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min > ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world. Me'am Lo'ez (R' Aryeh Kaplan's The Torah Anthology, pg 293) explains: "You must realize that your brother is suffering very much because he has no place to go. If his soul comes to heaven, it will be all alone, since no one else is here. If it comes down to earth, it feels great anguish when it sees its body's blood spilled on rocks and stones." > Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source? > And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because > Kel Nekamos Hashem. I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples, but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than "yikom". In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean it's appropriate for us. RZS continues in another post: > But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an > issur on doing so against your own people, because you are > commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want > revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in > itself does not come from any Jewish source. Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 14:07:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:07:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> Message-ID: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other places. I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? This one stands out. On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and > sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the > previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons > for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third > parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha > four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 14:16:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:16:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' AM wrote: 'Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor" regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this "needed" comfort from someone else.' Halachos of contact between husband and wife are more strict than with strangers, vis all the harchakos during nidda which are unique to a spouse, due to the familiarity of pas b'salo. So I wouldn't be as surprised. Although just to return my theme for a moment, If I'm right then the act is one of outright mitzva, probably including kiddush hashem. If I'm wrong, then the act is one of aveira lishma. Now I realise that we don't hold with aveira lishma these days, but when the overall cheshbon is as stated, I think I'd be willing to chance it. Especially when you add the possibility, as R'MB mentioned, that if you don't do it you're a chasid shoteh. Because then the cheshbon becomes tzadik or chasid shoteh for not doing it vs big mitzva or aveira lishma for doing it. Given that in any given circumstance we wouldn't be able to be clear about which of these would apply, I think the worst of those four options is probably the chasid shoteh. If this was on Areivim I'd sign off with :) Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 19:04:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:04:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170611020429.GA20848@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: : >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any : >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. : : Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase : with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei : amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different : objects. See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. Gut Voch! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 20:45:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:45:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <720f24ed-7e17-74ae-afc7-3e7d2a0f3a7b@sero.name> On 10/06/17 17:07, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and >> sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the >> previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons >> for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third >> parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha >> four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. > Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the > Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other > places. > > I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he > often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat > haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? > This one stands out. He has to give the source, explain why we do this, and he uses as few words as he needs to. He says mesorah hi beyadeinu; what else could he say? How could he express that any more concisely? BTW he cites medrash all the time; that's where halachos come from, after all. But here he doesn't mention any medrash, just this mesorah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 22:39:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 07:39:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Who says it was? As was stated in other posts on this thread, it is a machloqet in the Gemara if they will or won't come back. That more or less proves my point - their return, if it happens will be something completely different than what happened with the rest of the tribes. Even if we take the claims of various people claiming to be descendants seriously, they still have to convert. Their return will be tipot-tipot, individuals, that have to be re-integrated and not whole groups. > > Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of > assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where > they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite. But > even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . . Not at all. > Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were people from the > northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first > posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two separate exilic > populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our exile to have ended successfully? The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, it doesn't speak well of our history. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 23:54:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 09:54:49 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03c78b43-410c-30ec-c2bf-33691b72f348@starways.net> On 6/10/2017 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > > R' Zev Sero wrote: > >> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because >> Kel Nekamos Hashem. > I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. > Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is > intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. You're mistaken about the Hebrew. Yikom is not "uphold". That would be yakim. Yikom has a dagesh in the quf because of the dropped nun. There is literally no question whatsoever that Hashem yikom damo means may God avenge his blood. > It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples, > but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an > experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh > apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem > mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 > hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both > numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than > "yikom". Yinkom is a mistake. Just like the future of nosei'a is yisa and the future of nofel is yipol, the future of nokem is yikom. > In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean > it's appropriate for us. Consider Bamidbar 31. In the second verse, Hashem tells Moshe: Nekom nikmat bnei Yisrael me-ha-Midyanim. Take the vengeance of Israel against the Midianites. In the next verse, Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael latet nikmat Hashem b'Midyan. To take the vengeance of Hashem against the Midianites. Moshe isn't arguing with Hashem here. When we take vengeance upon our enemies, it *is* Hashem's vengeance. I recommend that you watch the video of Rabbi David Bar Hayim debating Jonathan Rosenblum at the Israel Center back in 1991 (I think). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYefNy1D0DY They both bring sources for their arguments on the subject, and rather than repeat all of them here, have a look. > RZS continues in another post: > >> But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an >> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are >> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want >> revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in >> itself does not come from any Jewish source. > Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo > sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) It doesn't just say lo tikom v'lo titor. It says lo tikom v'lo titor *et bnei amecha*. Do not take vengeance or hold a grudge *against* your own people. Detaching the first part of that from its object is unjustifiable. It would be like taking lo tochal chametz, dropping the object, and saying that we're forbidden to eat. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 02:02:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:02:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. > Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is > intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. > "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will avenge". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 20:40:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:40:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68dacd1f-f6c7-8792-daad-b5b21531f3bc@sero.name> On 09/06/17 18:36, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not >> Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, >> but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min >> ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. > Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in > pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world. Interesting, I'd never heard that. But in that case why "eilai"? That implies wanting something from Me. >> Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. > I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source? Yismach Tzadik ki chaza nakam, pe`amav yirchatz bedam harasha. When Chushim knocked Esav's head off, his eyes fell onto Yaakov's feet and Yaakov sat up and smiled. >> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because >> Kel Nekamos Hashem. > I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. Yikkom does *not* mean uphold, it means avenge. There's no such word as "yinkom"; the nun disappears into the kuf and becomes a dagesh. Perhaps you are thinking of yakim. > experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh > apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem > mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 > hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both > numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than > "yikom". For a non-existent word that's pretty good. I'm relieved that it doesn't outnumber the correct word :-) > In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean > it's appropriate for us. It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not something to be ashamed of. >> But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an >> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are >> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want >> revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in >> itself does not come from any Jewish source. > Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo > sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) Es benei amecha. [Email #2. -micha] On 10/06/17 22:04, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: >: >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any >: >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase >: with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different >: objects. > See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. > This doesn't answer the question. Lo sikom has the same subject as lo sitor. It's not even the identical object, it's literally the *same* object. So how can we pry them apart? Beside which, if netira is forbidden against a Jewish non-chaver, then how is nekama against him even possible? Netira would seem to be a necessary prerequisite for nekama (which is why the pasuk lists them as lo zu af zu). [Email #3 -mi] On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" > (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will > avenge". Is yinkom even a valid form? AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that have it in Av Harachamim are in error. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 09:11:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:11:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <83aef0cf-edbb-3ac8-3727-cc086f348ffa@sero.name> References: <83aef0cf-edbb-3ac8-3727-cc086f348ffa@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > >> >> "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" >> (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will >> avenge". >> > > Is yinkom even a valid form? AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that > have it in Av Harachamim are in error. > > It's irregular, but I would hesitate to say it's a mistake: there are a few exceptions to the rule that the initial nun assimilates, e.g. yintor in Yirmiahu 3:5; yinkofu in Yeshayahu 29:1; or tintz'reni in Tehillim 140:2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 11:29:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <2f8fdb3a-11ac-11d2-eea8-d064a7265bda@sero.name> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> <20170611020429.GA20848@aishdas.org> <2f8fdb3a-11ac-11d2-eea8-d064a7265bda@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170611182926.GA20138@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:56:06PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase : >: with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei : >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different : >: objects. : : >See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. : > : : This doesn't answer the question... But you didn't ask the question. You asserted that what I said was "not true". Since the Maharshal and Avodas haMelekh said it, and I don't know of a dissenting interpreter of the Rambam, I would assume it is indeed true. This was a bit of a hasty judgement on your part. But you said a great question, and worth exploring. Doesn't change that the Rambam apparently does hold what I said he did: > The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any > Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 12:32:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 22:32:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> References: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 6/11/2017 8:39 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of >> assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point >> where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were >> Israelite. But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . >> . Not at all. Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were >> people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards >> that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two >> separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been >> disastrous in very many ways. > That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our > exile to have ended successfully? Why harsh? Causes have effects. > The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of > (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them > (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal > with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this > feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, > it doesn't speak well of our history. Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind. And we don't gloat over their downfall. Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, which they were. And what kind of attempts would you have wanted? Jeremiah brought some of them back. I'm sure others joined us in Bavel after we were exiled. But their exile was their own doing. Though it affected us as well. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 16:18:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:18:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170611231815.GA29585@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:32:22PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind. And we don't gloat over : their downfall. Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, : which they were. (Quibbling about the orogin of the word "Jews" and whether or not Malkhus Yisrael and their descendents qualify aside. We all know we mean "Benei Yisrael", right?) Actually, one of the topics raised was whether the descendents of Malkhus Yisrael exist, bdyond the refugees absorbed into Malkhus Yehudah. And if they do, R Chaim Brisker takes the gemara as concluding the descendents are not part of the community of Beris Sinai. Yes, but in either case, as we cited numerous source showing in the past, "binfol" is not only about the fall of fellow Jews... Which I then collected into a blog post : The most common reason we pass around [for spilling wine at the mention of the makkos at the seder], however, is that we're diminishing our joy out of compassion for the suffering of other human beings, even the Egyptians. This reason is relatively new, but it is found in such authoritative locations as the hagaddah of R' SZ Aurbach and appears as a "yeish lomar" (it could be said) in that of R Elyashiv (pg 106, "dam va'eish").... ... The Pesiqta deRav Kahane (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a) gives us a different reason [for chatzi hallel (CH) during the latter days of Pesach]. It tells the story of the angels singing/reciting poetry at the crossing of the Red Sea... ... This is midrash is quoted by the Midrash Harninu and the Yalqut Shim'oni (the Perishah points you to Parashas Emor, remez 566). The Midrash Harninu or the Shibolei haLeqet ... The Beis Yoseif (O"Ch 490:4, "Kol") cited the gemara, then quotes the Shibolei haLeqet as a second reason... Sources from RAZZivitofsky (same blog post): The Taz gives this diminution of joy as the reason for CH on the 7th day (OC 490:3), as does the Chavos Ya'ir (225). The Kaf haChaim (O"Ch 685:29) brings down the Yafeh haLeiv (3:3) use this midrash to establish the idea that we mourn the downfall of our enemy in order to explain why there is no berakhah on Parashas Zakhor (remembering the requirement to destroy Amaleiq). Amaleiq! R' Aharon Kotler (Mishnas R' Aharon vol III pg 3) ... Then I listed others' suddestions here: ... R' Jacob Farkas found the Meshekh Chokhmah ... R' Dov Kay points us to the Netziv's intro to HaEimeq Davar... (Since we're going from Maharat was to ethics wars, might as well play the game to its fullest...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 16:27:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:27:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170611232725.GB29585@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 06:36:45PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" : actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is : often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. : Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is : intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. : Hashem yiqqom damam does indeed refer to revenge. : In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean : it's appropriate for us. Keil neqamos H'. (A little obvious this discussion didn't span a Wed yet.) But the whole point, to my mind, for sayibng HYD is a longing to see Divine Justice in the world. HYD undoes the chilul hasheim of the wicked prospering. Hinasei shofit ha'atzetz... Ad masair recha'im ya'alozu... If we were to take neqamah (qua neqamah; pre-empting a repeat attack is a different thing) we rob most of the possibility of that happening. Even the Six Day War gave people the opportunity to say it was luck or human skill -- "Kol haKavod laTzahal" Implied in HYD is that revenge is G-d's, not ours, to take. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 19:49:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 22:49:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . When I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong. I was wrong, and I thank all the chevreh who pointed out my error. "Yikom" does mean to avenge. Thank you all. But the main question is our attitude towards revenge in general. R' Zev Sero wrote: > It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not > something to be ashamed of. He seems to feel that there's nothing wrong with wanting to take revenge in general, except that we're not allowed to do it if the object of the revenge is a fellow Jew. I suppose he might compare vengeance to eating meat: right and proper in general, but sometimes forbidden. (Pork in the case of meat, and Jews in the case of revenge.) Exactly *why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew? RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct source. But either way... I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be in the "Ribis" category. There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a non-Jew.) Setting Nekama aside for a moment, does anyone know of a source which goes through the various Bein Adam L'chaveiros, and categorizes them in that manner? (I can easily imagine that most people would avoid publishing such a list, to avoid supplying the anti-Semites with ammunition, but I figured I'd ask.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 20:07:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 20:07:35 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists Message-ID: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into hashem's business. And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the future even though they were right. One surmises he would not have been surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land... Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 22:57:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:57:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> References: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9b2f0d53-8794-4b0d-43b7-3bb0ee4d6e3c@zahav.net.il> On 6/6/2017 8:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW. > > Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'" > (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL > Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not! However one defines the Chareidi opposition to Zionism and Zionists, the former wrote book after book justifying it and explaining why Zionism is so awful and why it is so wrong to participate in the Zionist enterprise. It is still going on today. Back in the 20s, people used extremely strong language about Rav Kook, language which was much worse than anything used today, not to mention what the Satmar Rebbe wrote about RK. > There are two possible sources of division here. > > 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were > only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My > predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply > de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators, > and therefore in practice will be a separate community. Here I have a couple of questions. 1) Like my wife always tells me, if someone is triggered by something he has to ask himself why. I know people who would walk out of shul if a woman gave the dvar Torah on Friday night. Yet the same people are perfectly OK having a Rosh Hashana tefilla that incorporates a lot of Sefardi piyuttim. Completely different prayers, tunes, flavor. But in order to have an experience of "b'yachad" we do it. 2) What what exactly would change? Does one see more women in shuls that have a maharat? Do the maharats come to Tuesday afternoon Mincha? If they do they're behind the mechitza, yes? What changes are people talking about? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 03:09:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 06:09:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:49:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" : only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of : morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be : in the "Ribis" category. : : There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even : to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed : against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. : (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a : non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I : admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B : or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, : things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a : non-Jew.) IOW: (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited. (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition when you do them against your sibling. (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito neshekh vesarbit". As for neqamah, I argued from quotes like kol hama'avir al midosav and ne'elavim ve'eino olvin that it's in (B). I would add now that this is implied by the Rambam's inclusion of these two issurim (lo siqom velo sitor) in Hil' Dei'os p' 7 that he is considering the middah bad, not only the act wrong. Interesting to note, the Rambam puts them after LH. Also, I noted that the only commentaries on the Rambam that I could find that discuss his change in terminology between Dei'os 7:7 and 7:8 explain that he is prohibiting neqamah against all chaveirim but netirah "mei'echad meYisrael". Meaning you now need a B' and C' where the category is only observant Jews. (And I still have a nagging recollection that the Rambam's "chaveirim" in general includes geirei toshav and other observant Noachides.) And neqamah is in one of those. So, (B'). How you get such a distinction in two issurim that are written in the pasuq as verbs sharing the same object is a good one. But the Avodas haMelekh says that the Maharshal reaches the same conclusion in his commentary to the Semag, and I see the Semag uses the same difference in nouns. Lav #11 - "[Lo siqom.] Hanoqeim al chaveiro". #12 - "Kol hanoteir le'echad miYisrael". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 03:53:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:53:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> References: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> On 6/13/2017 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > IOW: > > (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited. > > (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition > when you do them against your sibling. > > (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family > nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito > neshekh vesarbit". I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews. Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 04:37:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal > judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C (Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 04:33:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:33:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> References: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170613113340.GA11269@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:53:18PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: ... : >(B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition : >when you do them against your sibling. ... : : I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an : outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly : doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against : non-Jews. Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal : judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. But there are things that are morally wrong and yet not prohibited. "Stretch goals" like the Rambam's take on ego and anger in Dei'os pereq 2, the Ramban's "hatov vehayashar". Here, the gemara talks about (1) a ma'avir al midosav, (2) taking insult and not responding, it even says (3) a tzadiq is one who never takes revenge -- which, if it were about neqamah when assur, would be heaping overly high praise on someone for just keeping the din. So, two or three times that I am aware of, the gemara talks positively of the middos that would avoid ever taking revenge. It seems neqamah in particular is a moral wrong even when the black-letter halakhah allows the act. The Torah does manage to relay to us goals beyond those it prohibit or demand in black-letter halakhah. (Something Chassidus and Mussar were each founded on...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 06:44:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:44:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] restaurants Message-ID: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From the OU: Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example, one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility. Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food. Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based? For example, in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in a treif restaurant, what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % threshold for concern? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 07:16:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 10:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6388500a-9329-9367-9de2-e75ed55d6022@sero.name> On 12/06/17 22:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Exactly*why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew? > RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that > "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct > source. But either way... It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. > There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even > to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed > against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh *re`ehu* basater". > (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a > non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I > admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B > or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, > things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a > non-Jew.) Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 19:11:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shelach Message-ID: " We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." (Numbers 13:32-33). One of the greatest teachers of Torah of our age, Nechama Leibowitz, zt'l, in one of her essays on this parsha, asks an important question: how did the spies know what the "giants" thought of them? If they really were giant beings, then one could understand the feeling that "we seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes," but how did they know if the "giants" even noticed them? Unfortunately, although Nechama Leibowitz posed this great question, she didn't give any hint as to an answer. The following is a Midrash in which God rebukes the spies: "I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11). On the other hand, Rashi says that the spies reported overhearing the giants talking to one another, saying that "there are ants in the vineyard that resemble human beings.? (Rashi is also quoting an ancient midrash from the Talmud). Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities and an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties. Harry S Truman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 09:10:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:10:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/13/2017 2:37 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R"n Lisa Liel wrote: >> Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal >> judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. > My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category > A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C > (Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)? I would have to say that, by definition, if it's permissible to speak LH against non-Jews, it isn't immoral. But of course there are numerous subcategories of LH, and it'd be interesting to see if all of them are mutar against non-Jews, and if so, why? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 10:49:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:49:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shelach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170613174946.GA24674@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 10:11:31PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The following is a Midrash in which God rebukes the spies: : "I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to : ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to : them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? : Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11). ... : Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear : not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies : but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon : His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, : and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). Good -- is the yeitzer hatov, *very* good -- is the yeitzer hara. But in any case, the spies are an imperfect example, because they had G-d's promise that this specific mission would succeed. We don't have such reason to be optimistic. Related: I wonder if the difference between Chassidic or the Alter of Novhardok's view of bitchon is related to history. The AoN said that sufficient bitachon generates success, to the extent that he felt that being a "baal bitachon is an objective reality provable by experience and he signed his name with a B"B without fear of it being bragging. The CI's view is that bitachon is not prognostic, but the attitude that everything is happening according to Hashem's plan. I may fail and suffer, ch"v, but knowing it is all for a purpose makes it easier to cope. The history that I think divides them -- the CI's Emunah uBitachon was written in the shadow of the Holocaust. (It was published in 1954, a year after the CI's passing.) Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:57:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:57:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists In-Reply-To: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> References: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> Or they were part of a self fulling prophecy. Instead of going in confident in themselves and in God's ways, they chose to second guess God. The Bnei Yisrael who had actually seen Yitziat Mitzrayim would have gone into Israel. Instead a weakened Bnei Yisrael went in and almost immediately got trapped in the lure of the local idol worship. Ben On 6/13/2017 5:07 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into hashem's business. And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the future even though they were right. One surmises he would not have been surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:53:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:53:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Does it make a difference that the woman in the hypothetical scenario is - unfortunately - no longer an eishet ish, and presumably at her stage of life also not a niddah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:22:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:22:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. Can one enter a non-kosher establishment to buy a can of soda or use the bathroom? Message-ID: <1497385351309.31544@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. Can one enter a non-kosher establishment to buy a can of soda or use the bathroom? A. Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example, one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility. Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 18:09:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:09:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists In-Reply-To: <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> References: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170614010904.GA6321@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:57:19PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Or they were part of a self fulling prophecy. Instead of going in : confident in themselves and in God's ways, they chose to second : guess God. The Bnei Yisrael who had actually seen Yitziat Mitzrayim : would have gone into Israel... Or not. After all, Hashem didn't pick that generation for a reason. Apparently they didn't just sin, but they sinned in a way that made working with them a bad idea. And even before that Vayehi beshalach Par'oh es ha'am velo nacham E-lokim derekh Eretz Pelishtim ki qarov hu, ki amar E-lokim, "Pen yinacheim ha'am bir'osam milchamah veshavu Mitzrayim" Remember, they were also stuck with a slave mentality. But I agree with your point, about the self-fulfilling prophecy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 18:33:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:33:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special > consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah > of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not > hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend > him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip > about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. I would think that killing and stealing are in this category too. But you would then point to the phrase "special consideration". In other words, there is a particular shiur of consideration. Some actions are below that shiur; they are so basic that they apply even to non-Jews. And other actions are above that shiur; it is "special" consideration that we extend to family, but not to outsiders. I would accept such a response, but it isn't very helpful. Exactly what is that shiur? Where do we put the line? I have always thought that *all* these things are basic menschlichkeit, and apply to everyone, Jewish or not. > Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? > The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh > *re`ehu* basater". That's just two pesukim. Sefer Chofetz Chayim brings a lot more than that - 31 if I remember correctly. Granted that one doesn't violate these particular mitzvos if the object of the Lashon Hara isn't Jewish. But the others aren't so simple. At the very least, you're gambling that the Lashon Hara will remain secret and not result in a Chilul Hashem. > Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. True. I have always thought of ribis in a class of its own, for the simple reason that the entire world considers it to be a generally acceptable business practice. This includes Chazal, who felt it important to find a way to structure certain business activities in ways that would skirt this issur. The point is that ribis is NOT inherently immoral. It *can* be abused and thereby *become* immoral. But if done properly, it is a neutral (or even benevolent) business tool. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 21:17:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:17:28 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Anyone have access to HaRav Sh Goren's Terumas HaGoren? Message-ID: Anyone have access to HaRav Sh Goren's Terumas HaGoren? I am looking for 3 pages to be copied [pictured?] and sent to me - meirabi at gmail.com Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 21:02:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:02:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ac357ec-2fb0-c5c8-e187-ccbd26cd60f9@sero.name> On 13/06/17 21:33, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special >> consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah >> of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not >> hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend >> him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip >> about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. > I would think that killing and stealing are in this category too. No, those are inherently wrong, no matter who is the victim. You don't need to love someone in order not to kill them, hit them, steal from them, damage their property, etc. They have the right not to have these things done to them, so you may not do so even if you actively hate them. They have the right to be treated with common decency. Or, in the lashon of libertarianism, non-aggression, i.e. not to have you initiate force or fraud against them. Whereas they have no right to any favors from you; you have no duty to lift a finger to help them or to give them anything. Doing favors for people is a gift which you naturally give only to those you love; the Torah therefore commands you to give it to those whom it wants you to love. > But > you would then point to the phrase "special consideration". In other > words, there is a particular shiur of consideration. Some actions are > below that shiur; they are so basic that they apply even to non-Jews. > And other actions are above that shiur; it is "special" consideration > that we extend to family, but not to outsiders. No, it's not a matter of degree but of kind. > I would accept such a response, but it isn't very helpful. Exactly > what is that shiur? Where do we put the line? I have always thought > that *all* these things are basic menschlichkeit, and apply to > everyone, Jewish or not. No, they are not. >> Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? >> The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh >> *re`ehu* basater". > That's just two pesukim. Sefer Chofetz Chayim brings a lot more than > that - 31 if I remember correctly. The hakama to CC is mussar, so he piles on pesukim, but it you look at them they all pretty much flow from a very few sources, all of which specify "re'echa" or "amecha", etc. > The point is that ribis is NOT > inherently immoral. It *can* be abused and thereby *become* immoral. > But if done properly, it is a neutral (or even benevolent) business > tool. So are all these other things. They're normal and natural behaviour between people who don't necessarily like each other, but one would never treat someone one genuinely loved like that, so the Torah tells us that we must not treat our fellow yisre'elim like that. [Email #2] Google produced this: http://www.havabooks.co.il/article_ID.asp?id=1046 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 00:50:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 10:50:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 241) explains the prohibition of lo sikom as follows (my rough translation): "A person should understand in his heart that everything that happens to him good or bad is caused by Hashem and between people there is nothing but the will of Hashem. Therefore when someone bothers or hurts you, you should know that your sins caused this and whatever happened is a gezera from Hashem. Therefore, you should not think about taking revenge because the other person is not the cause of your troubles, rather your sins are the cause. " Based on the Chinuch's explanation there should be no difference between taking revenge on a Jew or a Goy. In either case they are not the cause of your suffering they are just the instrument of Hashem and therefore there is no reason for revenge. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 06:44:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:44:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/06/17 03:50, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 241) explains the prohibition of lo sikom > as follows (my rough translation): > > "A person should understand in his heart that everything that happens to > him good or bad is caused by Hashem and between people there is nothing > but the will of Hashem. Therefore when someone bothers or hurts you, you > should know that your sins caused this and whatever happened is a gezera > from Hashem. Therefore, you should not think about taking revenge > because the other person is not the cause of your troubles, rather your > sins are the cause. " > > Based on the Chinuch's explanation there should be no difference between > taking revenge on a Jew or a Goy. In either case they are not the cause > of your suffering they are just the instrument of Hashem and therefore > there is no reason for revenge. That is the basis for Chazal's dictum that "Whoever gets angry [over *anything*] is as if he serves idols", but there is no actual mitzvah against anger. Obviously one who truly believes in and fully accepts what we on Avodah have dubbed "strong HP" has no need for either of these two mitzvos, because it will never occur to him to hold a grudge, let alone to take revenge; but one who *does* gets angry or upset at what a fellow Jew does to him, but doesn't hold a long-term grudge against him over it is not violating a mitzvah. One mitzvah is that even if you *do* feel upset you shouldn't hold it against the person who did it, and another mitzvah is that even if you do hold it against him you shouldn't punish him for it. Therefore despite the Chinuch's relating this mussar idea to these two mitzvos, it cannot be the actual reason. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 09:16:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:16:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Akiva Miller wrote: 'I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be in the "Ribis" category. There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a non-Jew, such as Ribis.' I think this categorisation may need refining. It assumes that the Torah doesn't want us to do unethical things to non Jews either by black letter law or by unlegislated preference. The problem with this is that the Torah assumes that non-Jews are ovdei Avoda Zara and some mitzvos are specifically intended to malign them as such. Take Lo Sechaneim - The gemara learns that we can't even praise a non Jew, never mind be kind in a more concrete way. Gerei Toshav don't have this prohibition but the pshat din of the Torah is that it applies to non-Jews stam. In other words the mitzvos of the Torah treat non-Jews as transgressors and so it's likely that at least some of thing the otherwise unethical things we are allowed to do to them are due to this status. So we need at least to distinguish between what is allowed to any non-Jew and what is prohibited to a Ger Toshav. For example Ribis is clearly allowed even to a Ger Toshav. It's not unethical per se, just prohibited to a family member viz a Jew. So we need possibly, categories of: A) forbidden to everyone B) Forbiden to Jews and Gerei Toshav but totally allowed to Ovdei Avoda Zara C) Technically allowed to non-Jews of whichever category but best avoided as a bad midda D) Forbidden to Jews but totally allowed to all non Jews Re nekama, I think, subject to correction, that it is only ever positive when by Hashem or on his behalf. The nekama on Midian is 'nikmas Hashem m'es HaMidianim'. We needed to be commanded in order to do it. Hashem is 'El nekamos Hashem' in Tehilim. If anyone has a source for it being a positive thing to take personal revenge then let's hear it. Not sure the agadeta of Yaakov waking and smiling fits that bill. Otherwise the Rambam's placing of nekama in De'os as a bad midda should tell us what we need to know about it. That would be consistent with nekama being forbidden against Gerei Toshav, although we haven't found a source for that (yet). Lisa Liel wrote: 'I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews. ' The Torah clearly allows things which it considers morally wrong - Shivya Nochris for example. And the gemara says that's assur to bring one's wife as a Soteh, yet it's a whole parsha in the Torah. And the Ramban's naval birshus haTorah. Seems to me the Torah sets a floor, not a ceiling, and prompts growth through the mitzvos. Isn't that the whole thrust of Hilchos De'os? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 12:45:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:45:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish optimism [was: Shelach] Message-ID: <23c6ce.6a161a0e.4672ec49@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah ... : Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear : not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies : but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon : His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, : and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). [--Cantor Wolberg] RMB wrote: >> ...But in any case, the spies are an imperfect example, because they had G-d's promise that this specific mission would succeed. We don't have such reason to be optimistic.... ....Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? << Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> I once heard a powerful and inspiring talk given by R' Joseph Friedenson a'h. He had survived a number of different concentration camps in hellish circumstances, and had lost all or most of his family. He said in his talk that the last time he ever saw his father, his father said, "I don't know if you and I will survive this war, but no matter what happens, remember this: Klal Yisrael will survive!" R' Friedenson said that he never saw his father again but he went through the war with an unshakeable optimism. That's what he called it, optimism. He underwent horrendous suffering, but nevertheless he had a firm conviction that the Nazis would ultimately fail. He always held onto his father's words, "Klal Yisrael will survive." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 13:25:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:25:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shoah Message-ID: <842320B8-8657-4A22-98E8-76CAA22765DC@cox.net> R? Micha wrote in regard to the Shelach posting: Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? Along the same lines there was a fascinating book written many years ago by a legitimate, authentic, respected orthodox rabbi who wrote that someone who was not a victim in the holocaust has no right to say there is no God. Here is what was really an astonishing and somewhat shocking statement he made: if someone was actually in the Concentration Camp, this person has the right to deny God. I can see many raised eyebrows, but I would greatly appreciate someone remembering this book. Since it was rather revolutionary to be coming from a musmach who is respected by other orthodox rabbis. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 15:39:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:39:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: <20170614223903.GA14026@aishdas.org> In some, more Zionist, circles, the Satmar Rebbe's position that Israel is a maaseh satan is often left not understood. Many of the RZ camp have summarily dismissed it as overly polytheist for their liking. However, it is possible -- even if I or you do not find it plausible -- that Zionism was a challenge to the Jewish People. To see if after the Holocaust we would be so desperate for political relief that we would stop working toward true ge'ulah. As per the title of the SR's response to the mood after the Six Day War -- Al haGe'ulah ve'Al haTemurah (About the Ge'uilah and about the Replacement; perhaps "Decoy"). And, there is a particular mal'akh charged with posing spiritual challenges for us to grow through overcoming -- the satan. Thus, such a temurah would be a maaseh satan. Pretty conventional metaphysics, even for those who find the other religious positions bothersome. I mentioned this because of R' Gidon Rothstein's latest column in TM on the Ramban. "Ramban to Re'eh, Week Two: Avoiding False Prophets, Hearing From Hashem" http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/06/avoiding-false-prophets-hearing-hashem Along the way, RGR writes: It Might Actually Be From Hashem In the last verse in this passage, Moshe warns that this false prophet is a nisayon, a test, from Hashem. Ramban points out that back inBereshit, he had already dealt with the question of why Hashem "tests" us (doesn't Hashem know the future, and therefore know the outcome of the test? There are many answers, this is Ramban's). It's only a test from our perspective, he said. Hashem indeed knows the outcome, and is engaging in it to bring our potential into actuality (that implies that everyone always passes these tests, which works well for figures like Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov. It seems to me less convincing about the nisayon here, since the Jewish people have in fact occasionally followed such false prophets). Still, that's the less surprising part of this Ramban, since it is the face value of the verse, that the wonder did in fact come through the Will of Hashem, Hashem showed him this dream or vision to test our love of Hashem. Ramban doesn't say more, but I think he means--and this is the part that is more surprising and a bit challenging- that all people involved must realize that this is not what Hashem wants. I think he means the prophet him/herself was supposed to refrain from giving this prophecy (the other option is that Hashem was commanding and condemning this person to be a false prophet, to forfeit his/her life in doing so, and that someone we would put to death as a false prophet is actually a hero of Hashem's service. I find that unthinkable, unless the prophet said "I had this vision, but you clearly shouldn't listen to because we're not allowed to ever worship any power other than Hashem." But it's logically possible). The prophet aside, anyone who hears that prophecy, even if it's supported by uncannily accurate predictions, must both refuse to obey and react to this person as a false prophet. That is what true ahavat Hashem would lead us to do, a reminder that acting on our love of Hashem sometimes means doing that which under other circumstances should be distasteful. Putting someone to death for sharing his/her vision is not usually conduct we applaud. Here, it would still be upsetting, but necessary for those whose love of Hashem fills their beings. If the Ramban could say that there could be a navi sheqer who gets his message from Hashem for the sould purpose of challenging us, is it such a far stretch to the SR's anti-Zionism? IMHO, it's easier to understand Satmar or Munkacz anti-Zionism than Agudah's classical position of non-Zionism. The former agrees with the RZ that the Medinah is a huge event of vast import, but disagree about what the import is. The Agudist (at least classically, there were exceptions in the early years of the state, and things seem to be wearing down now) believe that Jews can regain sovereignty over EY for the first time in 2 millenia without it being religiously significant. (I am not talking about those of Neturei Karta who protest with the Palestinians and their supporters, or who visit Iranian gov't officials. They pose a whole different and perhaps even more fundamental set of problems. The SR's anti-Zionism included praying for Tzahal, as these were Jews led to danger through a horrible (in his opinion) error; an error that exists in part for the purpose of putting Jews in danger.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: RGR -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 18 10:59:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:59:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Korach Message-ID: <2943596C-CE9C-488B-B333-D25328C619BD@cox.net> 1) 16:1 "Vayikach Korach...." "And Korach, the son of Yitzhar, the son of Kehoth, the son of Levi took, and Dathan and Aviram, the sons of Eliav,etc.? The question is what did Korach take? The verb has no object. Resh Lakish said: "He took a bad 'taking' for himself" (Sanhedrin). Rashi said: "Korach...separated [lit.,took] himself. Korach placed himself at odds with the rest of the assembly to protest against Aaron's assumption of the priesthood." Ibn Ezra said it meant: "Korach took men..." 2) In the Ethics of the Fathers 5, 17 it states: "Every controversy that is pursued in a heavenly cause, is destined to be perpetuated; and that which is not pursued in a heavenly cause is not destined to be perpetuated. Which can be considered a controversy pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And that not pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Korach and his congregation." An analysis of this by Malbim explains in quite a compelling fashion why the Mishnah was not worded as we would have expected it to be: "A controversy pursued in a heavenly cause...that is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. That not pursued in a heavenly cause is the controversy of Korach and Moses." Instead it reads: "Korach and his congregation." As Malbim explains-- they would be quarreling amongst themselves, as each one strove to attain his selfish ambitions. The controversy therefore was rightly termed "between Korach and his congregation." They would ultimately fight among themselves. And the denouement would be their self-destruction. 3) "Korach quarreled with peace, and he who quarrels with peace quarrels with the Holy Name." (Zohar, Korach 176a [ed.,Soncino], Vol. V, p.238). The bottom line here is "Don't Mess with Hashem." In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves. Buddhal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 18 17:07:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 17:07:22 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: the aguda made a very practical decision-- to not make a halachic decision, but rather to seek support economically and non-military . the only halachic issue was to determine that the State's money is muttar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 01:17:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shalom Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:17:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shoah Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg's reference to the Orthodox Rabbi who wrote about who has the right to disbelieve after the Holocaust is most likely Eliezer Berkovits in his Faith After the Holocaust. Shalom Rabbi Shalom Z. Berger, Ed.D. The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education Bar-Ilan University http://www.lookstein.org https://www.facebook.com/groups/lookjed/ Follow me on Twitter: @szberger NETWORK*LEARN*GROW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 09:40:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:40:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. I am required to attend a business meeting at a non-kosher restaurant. How do I avoid the issue of maris ayin? Message-ID: <1497890418438.2614@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. I am required to attend a business meeting at a non-kosher restaurant. How do I avoid the issue of maris ayin? A. The general rule regarding maris ayin is that one can avoid the prohibition of maris ayin if there is a heker (sign) that indicates that the action is permitted. For example, Rama (YD 87:3) writes that one may not cook meat with almond milk, since this gives the impression that one is violating the prohibition of cooking milk and meat together. This would constitute maris ayin. However, this situation is permitted if one places almonds near the pot, since the almonds will alert a bystander that the milk comes from almonds and not from an animal. Therefore, if one must enter a non-kosher restaurant, one should do so in a manner that makes it clear that one is entering for business and not for pleasure. For example, one should enter carrying a briefcase or a stack of papers. Rav Schachter, shlita said that in such an instance it would be preferable to wear a cap instead of a yarmulke. Rav Schachter also said that once seated, one may order a drink -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 12:56:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:56:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur Message-ID: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> This is a comment on R Yaakov Jaffe's article at http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2017/6/13/get-your-hashkafa-out-of-my-chumash Since the Lehrhaus doesn't take comments, I thought we could discuss it here. (CC-ing RYJ.) He writes: Lehrhaus Get Your Hashkafa Out of My Chumash! [R] Yaakov Jaffe ... It has become commonplace in Modern Orthodox circles to lament the lack of alignment between the beliefs of the movement and some of the editions, translations, and versions of ritual texts that members of the movement use. These critiques are often welcome, such as Deborah Klapper's[13] recent excellent essay about the Haggadah for Pesach, and tend to frame ArtScroll Publishers as the almost villain who has taken the ideologically open, natural, innocent, uncorrupted foundational texts of Judaism and colored them with an Ultra-Orthodox translation, skew, or commentary.... Okay, that's the general topic. Here's the point I wanted to discuss: For me, there is a more grave concern when Modern Orthodox Jews flock to a different ritual text because it aligns more purely with their own ideology, and that is that the ritual text ceases to be important for its own sake (as a Siddur, Humash, or Hagaddah), a vehicle for transmitting sacred texts and values through the generations, but instead becomes a mere bit player in a larger drama about movements and self-identification. ("I use this Siddur because in many ways it demonstrates that I am a proud Modern Orthodox Jew.") This carries the risk that readers will stop reading the text of the Humash or being taken by the poetry of the Siddur and instead become hyper-focused on ideological markers that appear in those ritual texts. And for reasons that we will demonstrate below, the subordination of prayer within the mind of the person at prayer, beneath the selection of outward identifiers of ideology undermines the very purpose and notion of prayer itself. In 1978, Rabbi Soloveitchik authored a[15] short essay entitled "Majesty and Humility" in Tradition, in which he poses a dichotomy critical for Jewish religious experience and prayer. He describes one pole as majestic humanity, striving for victory and sovereignty, as "Man sets himself up as king and tries to triumph over opposition and hostility." The other pole is humble humanity, full of "withdrawal and retreat," which appreciates the smallness of human beings in the scope of the cosmic order. In the essay, prayer is an example of man in the mood of humility, of withdrawal, who finds the Almighty not when humanity triumphs over the forces of nature, or in the scope of the galaxies, but when humanity recognizes its own limitations, and, as a result, causes that "God does descend from infinity to finitude, from boundlessness into the narrowness of the Sanctuary," or: All I could do was to pray. However, I could not pray in the hospital... the moment I returned home I would rush to my room, fall on my knees and pray fervently. God in those moments appeared not as the exalted majestic King, but rather as a humble, close friend. While at prayer, the individual is constantly focused on his or her own inadequacy compared to the Divine Creator and his or her own limitations. The individual cannot be engaged in the battles of denomination supremacy, as he or she is paralyzed by his or her own smallness while attempting to pray. Moreover, prayer is generally a uniquely unsuited vehicle for conveying specific, unique, or modern ideologies and beliefs. It focuses on requests and aspirations, not on statements of creed. The text of the Siddur also serves as a unifying tool for the Jewish people (given the enormous general similarity despite centuries of division and dispersal) and highlights what we have in common and not what we have apart. 13. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-haggadah-without-women-2/ 15. http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2017/No.%202/Majesty%20and%20Humility.pdf 16. http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/?author=5886cfaabebafbcb2d43550f My problem is that tefillah is all about ideology, and the siddur runs from statement of creed to statement of creed -- Yigdal to Ani Maamin. (Not saying AM is mandatory, but it's there...) For example, RYBS's is one approach to prayer. It's different than that of Nefesh haChaim, where the focus of baqashos are what the world needs for G-d's sake, not our own needs for our sake. Curing the sick because His Presence is enhanced when people are healthy. Etc... It's different than RSRH's approach to berakhos, where they are declarations of personal commitment. So that we ask for health so that we can contribute to His Say in the world -- "berakhah" lashon ribui, after all. Etc... (I think I dug up 7 different theological resolutions to how to undertand "barukh Atah H'" given that ribui and HQBH don't mix.) This is taking a specific hashkafah's side in order to argue that tefillah shouldn't be taking a specific hashkafah's side. As for Tanakh... It is true that in one community, maximalist positions that magnify G-d's Greatness -- whether it's a description of qeri'as Yam Suf or Rivqa's age at meeting Yitzchaq -- have a near-exclusive currency. Saying that the sea simply split vehamayim lahem chimah miyminam umismolam is seen as the product if ignorance; of course it split into 13 tunnels, each providing all of our needs, ready to be grabbed out of the walls. Whereas the other prefers more rationalist positions, and in any case there is a broader array of Chazal's statements taken as possibly true. Or, does an MO Jew relate to a chumash in which the only topic of footnotes on the berakhos of Yissachar & Zevulun is their possible precedent for kollel life? (Despite there never having been an entire community where kollel was the norm until the past century.) In a community where wearing hexaplex (the snail formerly known as murex) dyed strings is a significant minority, isn't there more interest in sefunei temunei chol than in a community where it's unheard of? Then there is just different communities having different tastes in what kind of Torah thought they find more appealing / satisfying / moving. People who gravitate to the words of the Rav like the ideas in Mesores haRav for that reason. Just as Chabadnikim are more likely to find things to their taste in the Guttenstein Chumash than in the Stone Edition. Shouldn't, then, all these options exist? And is that any less true when thinking of how to relate to some complex poseq in Tehillim or a line composed by Anshei Keneses haGdolah (or the typical Ashkenazi paytan) to be a palimpsest of meanings? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 03:25:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:25:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: <> R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah poisition basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful but is against the wishes of G-d. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 06:19:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yaakov Jaffe via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:19:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Hi, Regarding the first point that "This is taking a specific hashkafah's side in order to argue that tefillah shouldn't be taking a specific hashkafah's side." I confess that I am guilty as charged. But one approach to tefilah (let's call it the one that resonates with me) is that it is purely a communication between the speaker and his or her Creator, and that consequently, it is not the time and place to be focused on proclaiming our ideologies. Obviously others may argue, and there are numerous siddur options for them. But we shouldn't pretend that this is the only approach to prayer, or that every Jew must use ideology in chosing a siddur. Regarding the second point, which I understand to be saying "each occasion of Torah study involves someone chosing an approach they prefer to understand the text, so they should chose a Chumash that furthers the approach that they prefer" I also tend to agree as well, but here my post focuses on the reductio ad absurdum problem of splitting hairs and hyper-focus on details hashkafa. I did not conduct a comprehensive study of the stone Chumash, but wonder whether the troubling explanations are ubiquitous, occasional, or somewhere in between. The problem with a "Modern" chumash, is that there are many "modern" explanations that could be equally troubling, depending on how modern the chumash and conservative the reader. Did Bilaam's donkey talk or was it a dream (Ramban versus Rambam)? If Artscroll said he spoke, and for example a new chumash says that he did not - then which one most accurately reflects my hashkafa? And if you imagine 100 different texts that can be each read multiple ways, how do we find the chumash that on all 100 provides the perfect match? Hope this makes sense, happy to continue the conversation further, Yaakov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 08:07:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:07:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Shmitta fund Message-ID: <2A3CAC10-A501-4AF5-A666-AB7B0D35E90C@gmail.com> http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2017/06/proposed-law-shmitta-fund.html?m=1. Is that the general psak, that heter mechira is no better than nothing? Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 15:02:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:02:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] restaurants In-Reply-To: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170620220230.GB29839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:44:00PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From the OU: : Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher : restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would : be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness : the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad : (giving the appearance of impropriety)... A question about that "and"... I agree with their parenthetic definition, but I will rephrase to show why I think it's rare-to-impossible for something to simultaneously be both mar'is ayin and cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone who sees the action will assume it's mutar, or at least informally "not so bad". Cheshad is where someone who sees the action is sure it's assur, and therefore think less of the person doing it. How many actions involve two conflicting default umdenos? So, being confused, I looked up the Igeros Moshe. The teshuvah is primarily about a frum minyan in a room in a non-O synagogue. The last paragraph begins "Ubedavar im mutar le'ekhol berestarant..." ("Restaurant" transliterated in Yiddish or hil' gittin style.) The line is "yeis le'esor mishum mar'is ayin vecheshad". But if someone is mitzta'er tuva, so that these gezeiros do not apply, they could eat betzin'ah something that has no actual kashrus problem. Does "ve-" here have to mean both? Or could it mean that between the two, it is assur in all circumstances? Like "lulav hagazul vehayaveish pasul" doesn't refer only to a lulav that is both stolen and dried out. Chazal's "ve-" is more complex than "and". (I am tempted to discuss de Morgan's laws and ve-, but I will just leave in this hint rather than detour into a class in symbolic logic.) If it does have to mean both mar'ish ayin and cheshad, can someone : Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based? I am not clear how they could NOT be. : For example, in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in : a treif restaurant, what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % : threshold for concern? In NYC, if you see two people, only one of which in O uniform, entering a restaurant, it's common to just assume this is a business meeting and accomodations were made. Restaurants in Manhattan routinely take delivery for a kosher meal when catering a group; it's a matter of the minimum size of the group they'll make such accomodation for. (I have been one of three, and got Abigails delivered double-sealed.) In such a climate, I don't think people would assume you're there to eat treif even if it's just two people meeting and no kosher could possibly be brought in from the outside. It's just a known thing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 16:11:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 19:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170620231132.GC29839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:33:00PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. : : True. I have always thought of ribis in a class of its own, for the : simple reason that the entire world considers it to be a generally : acceptable business practice... According to the Rambam, it's a mitzvas asei. The SA (YD 159:1) holds like the Tur, it's mutar de'oraisa, and usually prohibited derabbanan "shema yilmod mima'asav". Bikhdei chayav, tzurba derabbanan and if the profit is only defined derabbanan as ribbis are three exceptions. (Charging ribis from a mumar shekafar be'iqar is also mutar, because we are not obligated lehachayaso; but paying ribis to him is not.) The Levush says "shema yilmod mima'asev" doesn't apply in the current economy. Chazal assumed a primarily Jewish economy where we have a few exceptional deals with non-Jews. So for us, ribis is always mutar lemaaseh. I wonder whether this heter of the Levush would apply to Jews in Israel today. In any case, halakhah pesukah (assuming the reader isn't Teimani) doesn't mention any mitzvah asei. In terms of the taam being because their own economy is based on interest... Would you argue that it's wrong to lend a Muslim or an Amish person money with interest? (Even in the Levush's opinion?) Particularly in a Moslem country. where they have their own parallels to heter isqa , and the person's whole culture (I presume) reviles interest. So is it whether or not ribis is considered immoral by the person being charged, or whether or not kelapei Shemaya galya ribis is moral? I argued the latter, but your wording left me wanting to articulate the chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 13:49:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:49:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting Message-ID: What would you like the first thing that HKB"H says to you at 120 when you report to the beit din shel maaleh(heavenly study hall)? Kt Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 13:50:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban Message-ID: What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:53:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:53:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 11:21:05PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : > I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi : > haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, : > like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" : > in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather : > than knowledge of abstract ideas. : No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these : were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi : haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and : that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? "They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..." :> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. : These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult : to understand them as having been written by the same person... Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position. ... :: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in :: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21... ::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us ::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the ::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers ::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their ::> practice on their upright fathers. :> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. : Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the : pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] : and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk... But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write: : Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the : context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting : up of schools)... Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's derashah. I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with "chadash assur min haTorah".) :> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. : Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas : etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody : define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at : all the experiential aspect... Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect? :> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when :> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an :> example to imitate. : The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is : as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with : Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her : ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." : The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard : to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, : excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of : Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily : in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education. After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior? In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49. : And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they : could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward : etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two : types of TSBP... Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah. : Is not the gemora etc filled with : this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it occuring... So I am toally lost here. Maybe the "this" has been stretched further than I can follow. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 19:00:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Message-ID: The gematria for Rosh Chodesh is 813. In the whole of tanach there is only one verse with the gematria of 813. It is B?reishis, Chapter 1, verse 3. ?Vayomer Elohim ohr, vay?hi ohr? ?And God said: Let there be light and there was light.? Music is moonlight in the gloomy night of life. Jean Paul, Author From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:42:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:42:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170621234200.GF18168@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 09:19:46AM -0400, Yaakov Jaffe via Avodah wrote: : But one approach to tefilah (let's call it the one that resonates with me) : is that it is purely a communication between the speaker and his or her : Creator, and that consequently, it is not the time and place to be focused : on proclaiming our ideologies. Obviously others may argue, and there are : numerous siddur options for them. But we shouldn't pretend that this is : the only approach to prayer, or that every Jew must use ideology in chosing : a siddur. But if a person wants to approach tefilah as a pure communication, then shouldn't they pick a siddur whose ideology is that tefillah is a pure communication? Having a siddur of a given ideology is not necessarily about proclaiming that ideology. (But if you want to rail about the fact that too often this call for an MO siddur /is/ about proclomation, there is room to do so.) It is about having a siddur that aids the kind of prayer you want to do. Which is why I never understood why people assign value to having "their siddur". I have a collection, as I go from more cerebral to more experiential moods, and want different siddurim depending on where my head is just then. For example, the as-yet-unpublished RCA siddur has something in it about shelo asani that would say something that a Mod-O Jew is more likely to be concerned about saying than someone who is less engaged with the more egalitarian west would feel a need to say. ... : I did not conduct a comprehensive study of the stone Chumash, but wonder : whether the troubling explanations are ubiquitous, occasional, or somewhere : in between... In my experience, occasional. But the rationalists are under-represented, given the chareidi tendency toward more maximalist approaches. That's not troubling, but it's promoting one worldview and not allowing the other to reach the market-share it deserves. : or was it a dream (Ramban versus Rambam)? If Artscroll said he spoke, and : for example a new chumash says that he did not - then which one most : accurately reflects my hashkafa? ... My ideal chumash would present both, or if space requires, inform me that both possibilities are discussed without full presentation. If two hashkafic ideas are viable, why should I let an editor choose between them for me? But that's a different story. The problem the MO nay-sayers have with the absence of a vaiable alternative to ArtScroll is less that there is a specific problem with a comment. As I wrote, those are rare. But that without variety, without a survey that includes ideas current and popular outside the Agudist community, those ideas will cease being thought of as normative. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:20:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:20:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170621222015.GB18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:50:41PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? #1 Qedoshim Tihyu -- naval birshus haTorah #2 The end of Bo (although you didn't ask for a runner-up) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:28:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:28:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170621232850.GE18168@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:07:45PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : >I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons : >and sources, and this chapter is a perfect example... In the Bavli "Mai ta'ama?" is a request for a reason. In the Y-mi, it is a request for a pasuq as source. Reasons and sources are different things, and I think the difference helps clears up the question. : Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites : the Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than : in other places. Zev was saying that the Rambam usually opens or close with a reason, a ta'am hamitzvah. (And, as he explains in the Moreh, he only expects these to cover the generalities.) Usually, these are unsourced. But, kedarko, when he can paraphrase a source he does. Which is what he is doing here. : I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he : often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or : "pashat haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a : Midrash? This one stands out. This paragraph addresses the Rambam's not spending much time on sources, not about reasons. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:16:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:16:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170621221634.GA18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:49:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What would you like the first thing that HKB"H says to you at 120 when : you report to the beit din shel maaleh(heavenly study hall)? (After introducing me to my daughter...) "I'm proud of you, son!" "I would help you get used to this, but techiyas hameisim will be underway..." "So THAT'S why I did that..." But according to Rava (Shabbos 31a) I should expect, "Nasata venatata be'emunah?" Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:24:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:24:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170621232402.GD18168@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 08:43:42PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : > How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of : > any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even : > punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of : > the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? : : The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an : extension of the beit din. Perhaps according to the Rambam (Rotzeiach 1:2), who says "mitzvah beyad go'el hadam..." and if the go'el doesn't want to or there is none, "BD memisin es harotzeiach besayif". Rashi al haTorah appears to hold that "ein lo dam" means the go'el is killing an already dead man, and therefore bears no guilt. Not a mitzvah, but a reshus. (But see below.) And if the go'el only has reshus, it's hard to say he is operating as beis din's appointee. Sanhedrin 45b says "mitzvah bego'el hadam", but if there is no go'el, BD appoints one. There is no sayif. BUT, Makos 2:7 has a machloqes: R Yosi haGelili says that if the killer is found outside the techum, it is a mitzvah on the go'el hadam and a reshus for everyone else to kill him. (According to the beraisa on 12a, if there is no go'el, there is reshus...) R' Aqiva disagrees, saying it's a reshus for the go'el and a non-punishable issur for anyone else. (According to the beraisa, they are chayav.) And here's the weird part -- despite what I quoted above from the Yad, the Rambam on the mishnah says halakhah is like R' Aqiva. Rashi on Makkos 12a says about Bamidbar 35:27 "ika leferushei lashon tzivui ve'ika leferushei lashon tzivui. In sum, I think RJR is understating it. It's not "only" the pesuqim that are unclear. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 01:29:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:29:00 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: : No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these : were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi : haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and : that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? And RMB replied: >"They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..." I like "the root principles and the general rules .." - thanks, that is better than my use of source - but I think "osmosis" is not quite right either. I don't think "osmosis" as we understand it would necessarily have been within the Maharil's conception, and that it is not a great translation for "al pi hakabala" - maybe "from tradition" - but osmosis isn't right. The girls in question probably learnt how to speak the local language by osmosis (even if eg Yiddish was spoken in the home), but you would not say that is "al pi hakabbala". There is a big difference. :> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. : These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult : to understand them as having been written by the same person... >Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position. I don't think you can say that. First of all, the second one, ie the one from Maharil HaChadashos, made it into the Shulchan Aruch, - it is quoted by the Rema - and you can't just dismiss that. And the first one was in the possession of the Birchei Yosef, who is very influential in a whole host of ways in terms of psak. I think rather you have to treat them as two different rishonic teshuvot, and give them weight on that basis. It may well be that they were influenced by, or even possibly penned by, the student of the Maharil who collected them (hence my note that they came from two different collections) , and we may never know which one was really the Maharil's opinion and which one was in fact that of his student or some other rishon from around that time and attributed to the Maharil, but they are both rishonic source material, and I don't think we can ignore either of them. ... :: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in :: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21... ::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us ::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the ::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers ::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their ::> practice on their upright fathers. :> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. : Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the : pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] : and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk... But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write: : Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the : context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting : up of schools)... >Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's derashah. Yes, but even in terms of pshat, it seems very difficult to come away from the idea of transmission of tradition from father to children when using this process. "Asking" is not about osmosis - it is about an attempt at formal learning, and answering in response to an ask is exactly the process of formal learning in pretty much all contexts (it is why we still have teachers even in Universities, and not just books). If you have system where you are supposed to "ask" and somebody else is supposed to then answer, you have formal education. This is a step up from where you are expected to learn by watching (but not asking) - but where at least sometimes the educational aspect is clear - eg, I want you to watch and see how I go to place X, so you can find it yourself next time, is a less formal process than asking, but it is still a form of education, which is a step up from osmosis, where nobody on either side necessarily realises that something is being learnt, it just seeps in (language is a classic case, or how about accent - kids pick up their accent from school by osmosis, it is not a conscious process, and maybe the parents would in fact prefer, and maybe even they would prefer, that they talk with the parent's accent, rather than that of their peers, but it doesn't happen that way, you send a kid to school, they start talking like the locals in their school). >I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with "chadash assur min haTorah".) Because the proof text resonates, it does even in the pshat. In the pshat it is clearly linked to "vshinantam l'vanecha" - ie is the flip side of it (which is why the extension into drash makes sense, just as v'shinantam l'vanecha is the basis of the command for Torah study, this is the basis of the need to listen to the master of Torah). And if you know the drash, even when you use it in the pshat form, you will get the resonance. "V'shinantam l'vanecha" is the pasuk from which the obligation for boys to learn is learnt (banecha v'lo banotecha) - with the emphasis then on the father's teaching - the formal school process came later, when the father's obligation was delegated to a school teacher. Ask you father (in the masculine) is similarly in the pshat about a boy's obligation to learn. Applying it to girls is an odd stretch in the first place. What you are saying is that the proof text when applied to girls suddenly doesn't mean what it means when applied to boys, in either pshat or drash, that to me seems odd. :> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. : Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas : etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody : define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at : all the experiential aspect... >Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect? Well the CC is explaining the Rambam. The Rambam says: ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????, ???? ??? ??????, ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????, ???"? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????, ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????, ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man, because she is not commanded and all who do a thing that they are not commanded to do, there reward is not like the reward of one who is commanded and does rather [their reward] is less than these, and even though she gains a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning, and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut. So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav (note that the Rambam himself in Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 Halacha 11 - says a man is required to divide his time into thirds, a third in Torah shebichtav, a third in Torah sheba?al peh, and a third in understanding and weighing - what he calls Gemora, so there he seems to have three categories, but the third requires a knowledge of the other two, and presumably cannot be taught). So, in terms of your question "does anybody force the CC to define the set of TSBP that was classically prohibited as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including the experiential aspect" - it seems to me that the Rambam does. Ie given that the CC is explaining the Rambam, and the Rambam has only two categories of Torah, then either the experiential aspect is Torah shebichtav or it is not Torah at all. But saying that the experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase. I therefore think it very difficult to say that experiential teaching, especially when linked with the formality of "asking", as the CC does, can be defined as not Torah at all. So that leaves Torah shebichtav. I did try and say that was the Tur's point, what you are should not teach are the laws as written down, but to say that the experiential is Torah shebichtav seems to me a very difficult assertion. :> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when :> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an :> example to imitate. : The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is : as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with : Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her : ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." : The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard : to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, : excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of : Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily : in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". >I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education. >After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior? Yes he does, the minute he is "asked", or if he says "watch what I do" (similar to when I take my children somewhere to show them how to get there on their own, eg a new school, including pointing out the landmarks, that is most definitely active teaching, despite the fact that it is experiential, and not done from giving them a map and teaching them to map read). >In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49. And "look, let me show you how ..." is formal teaching, whether it is a maths problem or it is how to bake chala. And if that particular aspect of teaching falls within the definition of Torah, then one is teaching Torah, albeit informally. And the danger with understanding "lelameid" to only mean formal teaching, not informal teaching, is that you then write out of a father's obligation to a son an awful lot, as it is not within the mitzvah. You can't have it both ways, either when a father teaches a son informally (eg shows him how to put on tephillin, as that seems very difficult to learn from a book) he is teaching him Torah or he is not. Which is it? : And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they : could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward : etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two : types of TSBP... >Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah. So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect, showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn?t take the bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid? Isn't that the consequence of what you are saying? That the only Torah that men are obligated to learn as Talmud torah are the formal abstract rules and regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially? : Is not the gemora etc filled with : this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. >The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it occuring... I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules. If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? -Micha Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 06:27:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:27:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> On 22/06/17 04:29, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: >> The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or >> memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it >> occuring... > I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the > formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the > formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules. > > If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of > the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? Indeed, it's an explicit gemara: "*Torah* hi, velilmod ani tzarich". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 09:32:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:32:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170622163247.GA19841@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:27:07AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: :>If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of :> the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? : Indeed, it's an explicit gemara: "*Torah* hi, velilmod ani tzarich". I am excluding informal education from "lelameid bito", not excluding the acquired info from "Torah". When the R' Eliezer (as quoted by the Rambam) talks about learning or teaching, is he thinking about mimetic osmosis and the like or is he referring only to formal education? It is indeed a key way to learn how to practice. In many cases -- eg milah, safrus, mar'os, tereifos, etc... -- it's the /only/ way to learn the necessary Torah. "Mimetic osmosis *or the like*" is my acknowledgement that Chana managed to convince me that my dichotomy is really a spectrum from the informality of unconscious imitation to raw text study. And therefore there will be gray are that is more or less likely to be included by R' Eliezer or the Rambam rather than a yes-or-no. My talk of mimeticism and osmosis overstates where I am going, and created needless problems with the CC's use of "she'al avikha". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 06:26:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:26:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Letter from Europe Message-ID: <84dd8782469149f99c23cf85a031e37b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I seem to remember a letter from a European (German) Jewish community to someone/thing in Eretz Yisrael with the general message that their hometown was where they intended to wait for Moshiach whether moving to Eretz Yisrael was possible or not. Does this sound familiar? If so, do you know the source? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 07:06:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:06:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple Message-ID: <20170623140615.GB17536@aishdas.org> SA EhE 62:11 says that if the benei hachupah have to divide up into chaburos, they all make sheva berakhos. Even if the locations are not open to each other nor is there a common server -- none of the normal things that combine a zimun. The AhS #37 adds that they each make their own 7 berakhos. Does this mean that if a man needs to leave a wedding early, he should really invest the effort to find 9 others and not just 3, not only because zimun requires trying, but also because the 10 of you would be passing up a chance to bentch the chasan & kallah! To add more weight to the idea, earlier in the siman the AhS discusses the function of panim chadashos at 7 berakhos. In #23-24 he says that the Rambam (Berakhos pereq 2) implies that the reason why we need panim chadashos for 7 berakhos is that the whole thing is to fulfill *their* chiyuv to bentch the chasan & kallah. As guests of the couple, they have a chiyuv to give them a berakhah, which is fulfilled at the minimum by their amein. Whereas if everyone there already fulfilled that obligation, the berakhos are levatalah. Then in #35 he gives besheim "rov raboseinu" the usually quoted reason (at least in my circles) that it's their addition to the simchah that legitimizes the berakhah. Which is why the neshamah yeseirah and Shabbos meal can serve in the same role. (However, he warns, this only works for a real se'udah shelishis. A yotzei-zain shaleshudis lacks that requisite simchah.) So, it could be that according to the Rambam, walking out of the se'udah without 7 berakhos is neglecting one's chiyuv to give the couple a berakhah! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 10:46:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:46:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> <20170621234200.GF18168@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170623174657.GA20760@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:00:14PM -0400, Yaakov Jaffe wrote: : Thank you for your perspective. I understand your argument - rather than : my three-options (hashkafa a, hashkafa b and hashkafa c), you suggest a : fourth with a & b side by side, for the reader to chose. I hadn't : considered it - but it does have a lot to offer! We need to distinguish between a specific commentary -- R' Hirsch's Pentateuch, Mesoret haRav works, Divrei Moshe -- and an anonymous collector of footnotes as in the Stone Chumush, the ArtStroll or RCA siddurim, etc... And I want to acknowledge the gray areas. R/Lord Sack's siddur can be either, depending upon whether someone bought it out of esteem for R' Sacks and wanting to know his position, or it's as just Koren's contender in that market. I am only talking about the latter category, the anonymous shul chumash or siddur. Chareidism is founded on the need to protect ourselves from the modern. And only after dealing with the thread, one considers the opportunities. And part of that defense mechanism is deffering decisions to those more knowledgable. In contrast, Mod-O embraces the West's admiration of autonomy. Thus leaving a gap between the communities about when one turns to gedolim for answers, and when not. A side-effect of how "daas Torah" is formulated is that it has little tolerance for plurality. "The gedolim hold" is an oft-repeated idiom, in my hometown of Passaic, even by people who -- if you made them stop and consider the question -- know "the gedolim" often disagree. Because if we need to choose between valid answers, we could run the risk of choosing wrongly, a dangerous variant of one, the other, or in combination. A comparative unknown yeshivish rav or collection of avreikhem providing such commentary, choosing a consistent style of comment over others is perceived from that mindset. As promoting one position as the sole truly normative approach. The same often happens with Rashi. We think of Rashi's position as the default, because it's girsa diyenuqa, and another rishon is seen as the machadesh. Did the brothers sell Yoseif or did they find the pit empty after the Moavim got there first and selling him? There is a machloqes tannaim about Rivqa's age when married, but Rashi quotes one, and that becomes the default in some circles. In other circles, peshat is more likely to trump medrashic stories. With the position of numerous rishonim and acharonim (are there cholqim?) that medrashic stories are repeated for their nimshalim, not the story itself. Which brings me to a second effect of daas Torah... The more one takes pride in deferring to authority the more likely one is to embrace the maximalist position, to accept that which is further from rationalist, from what the autonomous decision would have been. A second reason why Rivqa must have been 3 when married, not 15. Yes, many people know both, but isn't there a clear emotional attitude about one position being normative rather than the other? I therefore think that giving a survey of opinions is itself an inherently MO way of doing this kind of text. It allows someone to choose autonomously between rationalism, mysticism, maximalism, etc... without the relatively-unknown rabbi -- or anyone but my own rav, his rav, his rav's rav... ("my gadol" is a much more MO view than "the gedolim) -- setting himself to tell large numbers of the observant community what to view as the mainstream, and what is an acceptable but avant-gard alternative, even if they ever learn of the other options. If we want RYBS's position to be viewed as part of the mainstream, or R' Herschel Schachter's (which is far closer to yeshivish but still not something ArtScroll would quote too often) or R' Aharon Soloveitchik or RALichtenstein, R' Amital, R CY Goldvicht or any other rosh yeshivas hesder, R' Kook, etc... there has to be chumashim that put these ideas in the hands of the common people, the ones who aren't spending spare time hanging out in the sefarim store or following e-zines, blogs, email lists or even FB groups that discuss (usually: argue) such things. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 15:56:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:56:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d2ec73$fba1e110$f2e5a330$@gmail.com> R' Joel Rich: What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? ------------------------ The one about being a naval b'rshus haTorah. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 14:04:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 23:04:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: <2a88576c-335d-3d30-a014-301f177029c1@zahav.net.il> References: <2a88576c-335d-3d30-a014-301f177029c1@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <297327dc-ba39-c064-1bd4-0a61c750d11f@zahav.net.il> Mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisrael, including conquering it. Ben On 6/21/2017 10:50 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? > KT > Joel Rich > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 06:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 16:10:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple Message-ID: "Does this mean that if a man needs to leave a wedding early, he should really invest the effort to find 9 others and not just 3, not only because zimun requires trying, but also because the 10 of you would be passing up a chance to bentch the chasan & kallah!" Actually, even without regard for Sheva B'rochos, the din of zimmun requires that one not who has eaten with a minyan not bentsch with less than a minyan. There is mention on OC 193:1 that only where there would be difficulty in a minyan hearing, thus necessitating the bentsching calling attention to itself and thus offending the host, that it can be done in groups of three; it would seem to be a kal vachomer that gathering ten and saying Sheva B'rochos would be even more noticeable, and thus more hurtful. It would also seem that if one person has to leave, he should not request two others to join him in zimmun unless they, too, must leave early, since otherwise they should not violate their obligation of proper zimmun so that the one leaving have an incomplete fulfillment of his obligation. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:01:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 01:01:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: . R' Eli Turkel wrote: > R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He > understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah position > basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a > state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful > but is against the wishes of G-d. Could you please explain to me what the Agudah position is, and *how* it denies that G-d affects history? Personally, I do not know what the Agudah position is about the Medinah. I'm not convinced that they even *have* a position. Over the years, I have gotten the impression that they have deliberately avoided publicizing their views, because at this point in history it is so difficult to be sure of such things. You yourself concede that the state "APPEARS" to be successful. Who knows? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:21:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:21:57 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] perhaps not such a well-known RaMBaM, but ... Message-ID: in his intro to Sefer Shemos Matan Torah was just a device employed to re-attain the standards that had already been accomplished by the Avos when they came to Mount Sinai - made the Mishkan and HaShem returned His Shechinah amongst them, that is when they restored their status to be like their Avos .... and that is when they were deemed to be redeemed [from the servitude in Egypt] Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:42:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:42:05 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] redemption - The GoEl HaDam Message-ID: the family can come to terms with the killer. when circumstances are such that the killer is deemed too negligent, he can not seek refuge in the Ir Miklat and they MUST come to terms, of the aggressor lives his life in constant fear of being executed. Lo SikChu Kofer LeNefesh RoTzeach Hu - is a warning [to BDin] NOT to take redemption money, NOT to avert the death penalty, NOT to come to terms; but in other circumstances it seems we ought to seek strategies to come to terms. That may include but is not limited to offering money - it probably has more to do with Teshuvah, which is the need to persuade the victims that the regret is sincere, which is why BDin cannot provide a ruling, it can only be negotiated through direct communications, and finding friends of the victims and persuading them of the sincerity and getting THEM to intercede - this is the Shurah that is described in Halacha and RaMBaM. Why are they defined as the GoEl the redeemer? It is a redemption for the society - an evil [negligence of this magnitude, especially when Chazal indicate it is a reflection of other misdeeds, is an evil] of this magnitude leaves an impression on the collective mind of the community, the Eidah, those whose lives is a testimony to HKBH, and if it goes unpunished, the community is tainted. So the community requires redemption. This too feeds into the coming to terms with the aggressor - it is not only the friends of the victim who are impressing upon their traumatised consciousness the need to forgive to accept that the aggressor truly regrets [and that the victim is also as Chazal say, a contributor to his untimely own end] but the community is a sort of spectator to these negotiations and the aggressors feel a need to be accepted by the community and not be seen as being too harsh and vengeful or rapacious in their demands for compensation. This is a very redeeming experience for everyone Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 10:10:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:10:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] most famous ramban Message-ID: <000b01d2edd5$f855df80$e9019e80$@actcom.net.il> First Ramban in Yayera-polemic with the Moreh Nevukhim. After that, 'Kedoshim tihiyu', (which many people are horrified by or completely misunderstand and yes, the Ramban was an ascetic and makes a brilliant case for asceticism) but we could probably have a whole lot of fun on this list making a list of Rambans that everyone should know. In fact, we may actually have done this already. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 10:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:05:14 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting from God Message-ID: <000601d2edd5$3d08f5a0$b71ae0e0$@actcom.net.il> I'd be thrilled to hear: "It's okay-don't worry about it" but I'm not counting on it. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 07:06:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:06:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170626140643.GD29431@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 04:10:45PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : hurtful. It would also seem that if one person has to leave, he should not : request two others to join him in zimmun unless they, too, must leave : early, since otherwise they should not violate their obligation of proper : zimmun so that the one leaving have an incomplete fulfillment of his : obligation. OTOH, if they have an obligation to bless the chasan and kalah, perhaps the threshold for "must leave early" has to be raised. After all, there are cases of need where we do break a zimmun, but we would never (e.g.) walk out on a beris milah over the same motivation. "Need" is a relative term. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 09:15:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 12:15:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> On this thread, did any of us mention birkhas ge'ulah? "Ufdeih khin'umekha Yehudah veYisrael" expresses our expectation that Hashem will redeem both malkhios. Or is there another way to talk separately about Yehudah and Yisrael. So I would think the siddur pasqens, and this is in all traditional nusachos, that the 1- tribes are not permanently lost. I am assuming since this is a birkhas shevakh rather than baqashah, this is an expectation "you will surely redeem", and not a request. Requesting the impossible is a tefillas shav. So... As a baqashah, the berakhah would only prove they could be redeemed; as shevakh (which is, I believe, the correct category), the berakhah is expressing our faith they will be redeemed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 14:51:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:51:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Talmud Torah vs Mitzvah Maasis Message-ID: <20170626215120.GA8220@aishdas.org> Another data point... AhS EhE 65:4 says "mevatlin talmud Torah lehakhnasas kalah lechupah", even toraso umenaso. But limited to someone who sees them going to the chupah. If you just know of a wedding in town, you aren't obligated to stop learning to go. For sources, the end of the se'if cites 1- Semachos 11[:7], which RYME summarizes as "dema'aseh qodem leTT". The mishnah itselces cites both Aba Sha'ul and Rabbi Yehudah, that "hama'aseh qodem letalmud". (Rabbi Yehudah would enjoin his talmidim to participate as well.) 2- Qiddushin 40b which discusses whether talmud gadol or ma'aseh gadol. R' Tarfon: ma'aseh R' Aqiva: talmud "Ne'enu kulam ve'amru: talmud gadol" because talmud leads to ma'aseh. (And so on, discussion elided.) This gemara concludes that talmud is greater. 3- And for exaplanation of how to resolve Semachos vs Qiddushin, he points you to Tosafos BQ 17[a] "veha'amar". The gemara there says "gadol limud Torah shemeivi liydei ma'adeh", much like Qiddushim. Rashi says "alma ma'aseh adif". R' Tam asks on Rashi, from the gemara in Qiddushin. Tosafos then explains the gemara's distinction between learning and teaching in two opposite ways: 1- It's teaching which has priority, because it brings the masses to action. Whereas one's own learning or acting are one person either way. 2- It's learning, which tells one how to act, that has priority. But since teaching doesn't inform the teacher how to fulfilll a mitzvah, it does not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 08:22:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:22:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chukas Message-ID: <9B3AD7FA-3712-4F5A-B2FC-BAC8F688CD87@cox.net> Rashi picks up on the juxtaposition of the consecutive sentences where we first read of Miriam?s death and immediately following ? of the lack of water. This would indicate some connection which Rashi points out that the existence of the water was on the z?chus of Miriam. Nonetheless, the question of the Sifse Chakhamim is also quite valid. Weren?t Aaron and Moses worthy enough to warrant the existence of the water on their z?chus? As a chok has no rational explanation, so, too, there is no logical explanation as to why as long as Miriam was there, offering her inspired leadership, the waters of the be?er, the wells of Torah, flowed ceaselessly and with her death, the waters stopped; whereas, the greatness of Aaron and Moses paled in comparison. This shows the error of those who downplay the role of women in Judaism. Remember, it?s the mother who determines the child?s religion and it?s the mother who plays a major role in her children?s development. The dedication and devotion of the exemplary Jewish mother are a shining example to all who would seek idealism in a Jewish woman. "The Lord gave more wit to women than to men." Talmud - Niddah ??And the Lord God built the rib which teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, endowed the woman with more understanding than the man.? Niddah 45b ?A beautiful wife enlarges a man?s spirit.? [adapted from] Talmud, Berakhot 57b -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 15:15:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:15:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <78965e20-72ab-5232-fd11-bfbe6b3a4ee2@sero.name> On 26/06/17 12:15, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On this thread, did any of us mention birkhas ge'ulah? "Ufdeih > khin'umekha Yehudah veYisrael" expresses our expectation that Hashem > will redeem both malkhios. Or is there another way to talk separately > about Yehudah and Yisrael. > > So I would think the siddur pasqens, and this is in all traditional > nusachos, that the 1- tribes are not permanently lost. It is not in all traditional nuschaos. TTBOMK it's found only in Nusach Ashkenaz. Sefarad substitutes the pasuk "Goaleinu", Italians substitute "Biglal avot...", I don't know what other traditional nuschaot do. (Modern Nusach Ashkenaz and some versions of the Chassidic "Sfard" combine the old Ashkenaz and Sefarad endings; this was originally Nusach Tzorfat, back when that was distinct from Ashkenaz.) (The reason for the Sefaradi ending with the pasuk rather than the other two versions is that the bracha is about Geulat Mitzrayim, not the future Geulah, hence the chatima "Ga'al Yisrael" as distinct from "Go'el Yisrael" in the 7th of the 18, so ending with a prayer for the future Geulah is off topic. I don't know how the other two nuschaot would respond, but maybe that's why NA ended up adopting the Tzorfati combination.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 22:08:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:08:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Agudah [was: Support for Maaseh Satan] Message-ID: <15180d.31f3d54b.4685e552@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <> [--I don't know who is being quoted here] R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah poisition basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful but is against the wishes of G-d. -- Eli Turkel >>>>>> All through Tanach there are examples of reshaim who succeed (if only for a while). Obviously it is Hashem's wish that they succeed, even if it is not His wish that they sin. What is remarkable and miraculous about the last century of history in Eretz Yisrael is how Eretz Yisrael has been built up, the growth of agriculture, cities, the economy, the Jewish population, and most of all the amazing growth of Torah living and learning -- despite secular socialist Zionism. The Medinah gets some credit but what is most remarkable is that so much good has happened despite the Medinah or even very much against the will of the secular government. There is so much ohr vechoshech mishtamshim be'irbuvya. Nevertheless it is impossible /not/ to see the Yad Hashem in the overall course of events over the past century. How many prophecies are coming true before our very eyes! A thriving economy grew up under the very feet of the socialists! Is that not a miracle?! Has such a thing ever happened in any other country?! :- ) So what is the Agudah's position? In November 1947, when the UN voted for the establishment of the Jewish State, the Agudah made the following declaration: --begin quote-- The World Agudas Yisroel sees as an historic event the decision of the nations of the world to return to us, after 2000 years, a portion of the Holy Land, there to establish a Jewish state and to encompass within its borders the banished and scattered members of our people. This historic event must bring home to every Jew the realization that ***the Almighty has brought this about in an act of Divine Providence*** [my emphasis] which presents us with a great task and a grave test. We must face up to this test and establish our life as a people, upon the basis of Torah. While we are sorely grieved that the Land has been divided and sections of the holy Land have been torn asunder, especially Yerushalayim, the holy city, while we still yearn for the aid of Mashiach tzidkeinu, who will bring us total redemption, we nevertheless see the hand of Providence offering us the opportunity to prepare for the geula shelaima if we will walk into the future as G-d's people. --end quote-- [quoted in __To Dwell in the Palace: Perspectives on Eretz Yisrael__ edited by Tzvia Ehrlich-Klein, 1991] The above is still fairly representative of the hashkafa of broad swaths of Klal Yisrael who are charedi or charedi-leaning, yeshivish or chassidish, neither Satmar nor Dati Leumi. That is, the majority of all frum Jews in America and Eretz Yisrael. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 22:31:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:31:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? Message-ID: <151979.a3a1c08.4685eabc@aol.com> From: Chana Luntz via Avodah I Well the CC is explaining the Rambam. The Rambam says: --quote-- A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man, ...and even though she gains a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning, and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. --end quote-- That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut. So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav ... ....But saying that the experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase.... .....So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect, showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn't take the bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid? Isn't that the consequence of what you are saying? That the only Torah that men are obligated to learn as Talmud Torah are the formal abstract rules and regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially? Regards Chana >>>>> I think that different uses of the word "Torah" are being confused here. The very word "Torah" has many meanings, depending on context. It can refer to just the Chumash -- the Torah shebichsav -- about which the Rambam says "but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." Some chassidishe schools to this day do not teach girls Chumash. The word Torah can mean both Chumash and Gemara. "The Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut." There is universal agreement that "Torah" in this context means Gemara. NO ONE thinks that teaching halacha to girls is tantamount to teaching tiflus. The word "Torah" can refer to the vast corpus of everything that has ever been written by or about the Tanaim and Amoraim, Rishonim and Achronim. The word can refer to halacha, to hashkafa, to everything that makes up Jewish life and thought. "Torah" can also refer to that which is taught and learned by example, or by osmosis, or by a mother's tears when she bentshes lecht and davens for her children. "Al titosh Toras imecha." Every language has words like that, words whose precise meaning depends on context. Certainly in the Gemara itself there are many such words. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 29 06:18:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:18:11 +0000 Subject: What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem’s name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? Message-ID: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem's name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, HY"D the Av Bais Din of Shomloy in Hungary, once wrote a letter on this subject. It reads in part, "We have a tradition in our hands from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty, that the reading of the honored and awesome name of Hashem is AH -- DOY -- NOY (AH-DOE -- NOY or AH-DOW-NOY) using the vowelization of Chataf Patach for the Aleph, a Cholam for the Daled and a Kamatz for the Nun..." "Our master the Chasam Sofer and the author of the Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah, zt"l and a whole group of Geonim and Kedoshim have already warned us that unfortunately there are many mistakes concerning this. One needs to be very careful about this matter for a common mistake has spread among the masses and even among those with fear of Hashem. Through a lack of concentration, the Daled (of Hashem's pronounced name) is said with a Sheva as "AHD-ENOY." It is certain that whoever pronounces Hashem's name this way has not said Hashem's name at all and must repeat the bracha again, and so did the Chasam Sofer rule." Rav Shimon Schwab, zt"l in his classic work on Siddur, Iyun Tefilla (p. 25), adds that one should also be careful not to say AH -- DEE -- NOY. He writes: "One must pronounce the Daled with a Cholam (DOY, DOE or DOW) and the Nun with a Kamatz, and not use a Chirik under the Daled (DEE) as is the custom of some who are mistaken and think that they are pronouncing the Name properly... This is a disgrace of the honored and awesome Name. One who pronounces Hashem's name with a Chirik even a hundred times a day is not transgressing the prohibition of saying Hashem's name in vain." Rav Pinchas Scheinberg, zt"l was once asked if Ahd-enoy or Ahdeenoy are acceptable be'dieved, after the fact. His response was a resounding "No!" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 29 06:30:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zalman Alpert via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:30:39 -0400 Subject: What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem’s name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? In-Reply-To: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> References: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 29, 2017 10:18 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > From today's OU Halacha Yomis > > *Q. What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem?s name in Shmoneh Esrei > and other brachos?* There are different ways in Ashkenazi hebrew to pronounce many vowels like cholom zeira segol etc so this answer isof little meaning Galicianer Lithuanian German Ukrainian Hungarian and Central Polish jews each have their own pronunciation See Michtvei Torah by Gerer rebbe Imre Emes where opines different than what is written here Rabbi Heschel of Hamodia several yrs ago discussed this issue in a very cogent manner Although many American college educated frum Jews believe there is only 1way of halachic practice that is absurd,there are many authentic practices to the chagrin of a group of yedhivashe people seeking to impose uniform practicr namely their own Nehare nehare upishteh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 30 06:56:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:56:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Forgotten Fast Days Message-ID: <650c141a32674be8bd8ee65a52bc1d83@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see the article at https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5929 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 30 09:04:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:04:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Authority of Cherem deRabbeinu Gershom Message-ID: <20170630160442.GA20546@aishdas.org> AhS EhE 1:23,25 etc... refers to taqanos or gezeiros passed by Rabbein Gershon meOr haGolah and his contemporaries. Not the idiom I heard in the past, "cheirem deR' Gershom" -- not even the same last letter on the name. Since this was well after the last beis din hagadol / Sanhedrin (so far), we have discussed in the past where the authority to pass such laws came from. My own suggestion revolved around them being charamim for anyone who... rather than direct issurim. But the AhS would be more medayeiq to call them charamim if he thought that was a critical part of the mechanism. But here is something that had me wondering all over again. AhS EhE 119:17... The question is how a gett given without the wife's agreement would be valid if one holds "i avid lo mahani" (like Rava). And yet the Rama says "avar vegirshah ba"k" he is an avaryan (and thus in nidui) until she remarries. One it can't be fixed, because he cannot remarry his gerushah anymore, the nidui is removed. But the AhS writes, if this is true for a derabbanan (Kesuvor 81b) *kol shekein* dChdR"G hu kemo qarov le'isur Torah. Without explaining why. And I can't even figure out how it has the authority to be more than minhag altogether... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 13:45:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:45:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Aruch HaShulchan was not happy with the minhag that the baal haseder has his wine poured by someone else. He writes that it's a bit haughty to order his wife to pour for him and that in his city it was not the minhag. Aside from the interestingly contemporary sound of his concern, it seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for everyone to pour for everyone else, which would avoid the concern of the ArHaSh. 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? 2. If so is it a) based on the poskim, b) an old practice without formal endorsement, or c) a new-fangled sop to modernity? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 17:49:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzav: "As Long As The Soul Is Within Me, I Will Give Thanks Unto Thee, O Lord, My God And God Of My Fathers" Berakhot, 60b Message-ID: <476D9522-69B8-43D1-9E77-D0491911541D@cox.net> Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the korban todah, Thanksgiving Offering. The Medrash (Lev. R., 9.7) tells us that in the future all the sacrifices will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering. Rashi (Leviticus 7:12) states (paraphrased): A man offers a thanksgiving offering (in the Temple) when he is saved from potential danger. There are four types: sea travelers, desert travelers, those released from prison and a seriously ill patient who has recovered. As the verse says in Psalms (107:21), "They should give thanks to God for His kindness, and for His wonders to mankind.? Interestingly and providentially, the mnemonic for this group of four is Chayyim, which stands for [Chavush (jail), Yisurim (illness), Yam (sea), Midbar (desert)], (Shulchan Aruch 219:1). In our times, we fulfill this concept with the recitation of the blessing, HaGomel ("He who grants favors..."). There is a beautiful insight in the Avudraham on laws and commentary on prayers. The author was student of Ba'al HaTurim (R. Yaakov ben Asher) and was a rabbi in Seville. When the hazzan says Modim, the congregation recites the "Modim d'Rabbanan" (The Rabbis' Modim). Why is that? The Avudraham says that for all blessings in the Sh?moneh Esrei we can have an agent. For 'Heal Us', for 'Bless Us with a Good Year' and so forth we can have the sheliach tzibbur say the blessing for us. However, there is one thing that no one else can say for us. We must say it for ourselves. That one thing is "Thank You". Hoda'ah has to come from the individual. No one can be our agent to say 'Thank You.' (This is similar to asking for forgiveness. You must obtain it from the individual wronged. Not even the Almighty can forgive you for wronging a fellow human being). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 20:28:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:28:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: <5101c.42bfc52f.460fb895@aol.com> References: <5101c.42bfc52f.460fb895@aol.com> Message-ID: > "The Halachic Adventures of the Potato" ? by R' Yitzchak Spitz > https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5184 > [...] > In fact, and this is not widely known, the Chayei Adam does actually > rule this way, Sigh. This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location, but do *not* cheat by copying a citation from some secondary source; I will not accept it, because I know very well that there are many secondary sources who claim this, but none of them give a *valid* reference to where he wrote it. What I *have* seen in the Nishmas Adam is an aside, in the course of writing something different, that by the way in Germany they treat potatoes as kitniyos. In fact I'll go further: I don't believe that there has ever been a posek of any stature who forbade potatoes as kitniyos, nor any community that ever accepted such a practice. I have seen many sources claiming that someone else, somewhere else forbade it, or that some other community far away treats it as kitinyos, but never any first hand acccount. When the Rosh writes that in Provence they said Tal Umatar from Marcheshvan 7th I believe it, because he was there and saw it with his own eyes. But I have never seen anyone report having seen with his own eyes a community that forbids potatoes, or a psak din to that effect. It's always someone else somewhere else. Until I see a first hand account I don't believe it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 1 20:30:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:30:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked about guests in a shul where the guest's practices differ from the shul's. I am bothered by the question, and even more so by the responses. What has happened Porush Min Hatzibur? What has happened to Derech Eretz and simple good manners? (Previous discussions here on Avodah have claimed that some poskim actually hold that a visitor who davens Nusach Sfard should use that text even if he is in the tzibur of a Nusach Ashkenaz shul. Ditto for responding to Kedusha, so I will not discuss those particular examples.) But: > Would your shul allow a guest to say 13 middot aloud > by Tachanun (if local practice is not to)? We're not talking about a few words here, but approximately a whole page worth, that the tzibur would be forced to say. It's not clear from the question whether this guest is the shliach tzibur or not, but I think it is safe to say that in my shul, a shliach tzibur who tries this would be quickly informed of his error, and if it came from someone in the seats he'd simply be ignored. > Would your shul allow a guest to read his own Aliya? >From your use of the word "guest", I am presuming that this was not arranged in advance. If the guest had approached the gabbai a few days in advance to make this request, I don't know what the answer would be. But it sounds like the guest was called up, and at that point he asked the koreh, "May I read it myself?", as in the story that R' Josh Meisner told. I am horrified by the lack of consideration that this guest has toward the time and effort that the baal koreh put into preparing the laining. In RJM's story this happened on Rosh Chodesh, and I do concede that RC is by far the most frequently read parsha of all. But the question as posed was more general, applicable to any laining whether weekday or Shabbos. I am particularly surprised by the reaction of RJM's rav, who <<< insisted ... that the next two olim also read their own aliyos so as not to directly draw a distinction between those who read their own aliyah and those who do not. >>> While I appreciate the sensitivity involved, I am really surprised that this shul has such a large pool of people who can be called upon to lain properly, even for Rosh Chodesh - literally at a moment's notice. How common is this? Are there shuls where any randomly chosen person is able to lain? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 03:40:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:40:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chazkah that changed Message-ID: <> I would venture that according to everyone chazakot in financial matters can change. The famous case is a borrower who denies everything (kofer ba-kol) according to the Torah he doesn't pay anything and is not required to swear since no borrower would be brazen to completely deny a lie. The gemara says that "today" people are brazen and so we require a "shevua". I would guess that other financial chazakot for example that someone doesnt repay a loan ahead of time would depend on the current situation. If today there would be some reason for people to pay back a loan early that I would guess that the halacha indeed would change. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 04:01:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:01:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Visiting a Shul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJRich asked: > Visiting a shul questions-actual practices and sources appreciated: > * Would your shul allow a guest to read his own Aliya? > * Would your shul allow a guest to say his own nussach of kaddish (not as shatz)? > * Would your shul (in galut) allow the shatz not to say baruch hashem l'olam in maariv? > * Would your shul allow a guest to say 13 middot aloud by Tachanun(if local practice is not to)? > * Would the answers be different if requested before prayer (vs. gabbai intervention at time of event)? Me: In all those cases, in our shul, local minhag trumps the wishes of the guest, though we won't jump at anyone for adding vekooraiv mesheechay or werewa'h weassalah. Sometimes the reading of one's own aliya may be tolerated. When I was an avel, I mostly davvened in shuls that did not adhere to my minhag (though I layer "converted" to one of those other minhaggim), and as shaliach tzibbur, always followed their respective minhaggim. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Yours sincerely, Arie Folger Check out my blog: http://rabbifolger.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 06:15:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:15:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked about guests in a shul where the guest's practices differ from the shul's. I am bothered by the question, and even more so by the responses. What has happened Porush Min Hatzibur? What has happened to Derech Eretz and simple good manners? ----------------------------- I have seen them all occur. What triggered the question was a shiur on yutorah where a pulpit rabbi mentioned that a visiting guest sfardi scholar asked in advance and was granted the right to read his own aliya. I was surprised and then thought of other situations that I had a similar reaction to. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 2 19:16:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 22:16:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Poisoning in Halacha Message-ID: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> Tonight my chevrusa and I learned the sugya in Bava Kamma 47b of one who puts poison in front of his friend's animal. A brief synopsis and application of the sugya is at http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/infected: ?A person put some poisoned food in front of his neighbor?s animal,? Rabbi Dayan said. ?The animal ate the food and died. The owner sued the neighbor for killing his animal. What do you say about this case?? ?I would say he?s liable,? said Mr. Wolf. ?He poisoned the animal.? ?I?m not so sure,? objected Mr. Mann. ?The neighbor didn?t actually kill the animal. Although he put out the poison, the animal chose to eat the food.? ?Animals don?t exactly have choice,? reasoned Mr. Wolf. ?If they see food, they eat! Anyway, even if the neighbor didn?t directly kill the animal, he certainly brought about the animal?s death.? ?But is that enough to hold him liable?? argued Mr. Mann. He turned to Rabbi Dayan.?The Gemara (B.K. 47b; 56a) teaches that placing poison before an animal is considered grama,? answered Rabbi Dayan. ?The animal did not have to eat the poisoned food. Therefore, the neighbor is not legally liable in beis din, but he is responsible b?dinei Shamayim. This means that he has a strong moral liability to pay, albeit not enforceable in beis din (Shach 386:23; 32:2).? It struck us that it follows that if one poisons another human being by, say, placing cyanide in his tea, which the victim then drinks and dies, the poisoner is exempt from capitol punishment. It would seem that such a manner of murder falls into the category of the Rambam's ruling in Hilchos Rotze'ach u'Shemiras Nefesh 3:10: Different rules apply, however, in the following instances: A person binds a colleague and leaves him to starve to death; he binds him and leaves him in a place that will ultimately cause him to be subjected to cold or heat, and these influences indeed come and kill the victim; he covers him with a barrel; he uncovers the roof of the building where he was staying; or he causes a snake to bite him. Needless to say, a distinction is made if a colleague dispatches a dog or a snake at a colleague. In all the above instances, the person is not executed. He is, nevertheless, considered to be a murderer, and "the One who seeks vengeance for bloodshed" will seek vengeance for the blood he shed. (translation from http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1088919/jewish/Rotzeach-uShmirat-Nefesh-Chapter-Three.htm) Perhaps this was a davar pashut to everyone else, but for me, tonight, it was a mind-boggling revelation! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 06:05:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:05:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hilchos Chol HaMoed Message-ID: <1491224727245.62311@stevens.edu> >From the article at http://tinyurl.com/l8ll4lf The following is meant as a convenient review of Halachos pertaining to Chol-Hamoed. The Piskei Din for the most part are based purely on the Sugyos, Shulchan Aruch and Rama, and the Mishna Berurah, unless stated otherwise. They are based on my understanding of the aforementioned texts through the teachings of my Rebbeim. As individual circumstances are often important in determining the psak in specific cases, and as there may be different approaches to some of the issues, one should always check with one's Rov first. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 12:50:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:50:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> > RZS: > In fact I'll go further: I don't believe that there has ever been a > posek of any stature who forbade potatoes as kitniyos, nor any community > that ever accepted such a practice. I have seen many sources claiming > that someone else, somewhere else forbade it, or that some other > community far away treats it as kitinyos, but never any first hand > acccount. When the Rosh writes that in Provence they said Tal Umatar > from Marcheshvan 7th I believe it, because he was there and saw it with > his own eyes. But I have never seen anyone report having seen with his > own eyes a community that forbids potatoes, or a psak din to that > effect. It's always someone else somewhere else. Until I see a first > hand account I don't believe it. > This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade potatoes. David Riceman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 09:15:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 12:15:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: <7f1aa7e091a1468c8cc6c5df61f610ac@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <7f1aa7e091a1468c8cc6c5df61f610ac@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <29.EA.10233.B3572E85@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 11:57 AM 4/3/2017, Ben Bradley wrote: >The Aruch HaShulchan was not happy with the minhag that the baal >haseder has his wine poured by someone else. He writes that it's a >bit haughty to order his wife to pour for him and that in his city >it was not the minhag. > >Aside from the interestingly contemporary sound of his concern, it >seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for everyone to >pour for everyone else, which would avoid the concern of the ArHaSh. > > >1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? In my home the children poured my wine once they were big enough and now my older grandchildren do this. And they pour for my wife also. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 10:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:10:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bourbon no Longer an Automatic, Faces Kashrus Issues Message-ID: <1491239439011.48127@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/kh92xxv "Companies that once distilled just a few barrels of bourbon every year are now churning out dozens of other drinks-Sherries, brandies, flavored vodkas-which might not be kosher. They can contaminate the bourbon, Rabbi Litvin said, if the liquors are run through the same pipes or tanks." The Litvins, a family that lives in Louisville, "have taken it upon themselves to keep bourbon kosher." Despite the fact that Jews are proportionately poor Bourbon consumers (it is an $8.5 billion industry), there has been a dramatic increase in demand in recent years, particularly by younger kosher consumers. "Alcohol consumption has definitely increased manifold," said one kosher wine and spirits expert. Heaven Hill, one of the largest liquor companies in the world, is owned by a Jewish family, but only a few of the bourbons-Evan Williams, the company's largest brand, and the high-end single-barrel whiskeys-are still guaranteed to be kosher. The others are run through the same pipes and storage tanks as other products, including untold flavors of vodka, spiced rum and mint whiskey. ______________________________________________________________ I guess that I have been ahead of the trends, because I have been drinking bourbon for decades and never liked Scotch. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 12:21:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:21:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Good manners will open doors that the best education cannot. Clarence Thomas Message-ID: <708AB73F-9427-468E-AAEE-C0DD97D63B94@cox.net> One of my doors recently broke and I?m having a new one installed Wednesday. It brought to mind a MIdrash I once learned telling of the basic distinctiveness of the Jewish door and the secret of its architectural design, which served as a protection against annihilation. ?And strike the upper doorpost through the merit of Abraham, and the two side-posts, in the merit of Isaac and Jacob. It was for their merit that HE saw the blood and would not suffer the destroyer? (Midrash Rabbah XVII - 3 Exodus). It set me to thinking. Aren?t the doors to a home indicative of the nature and character of those who live beyond them? I began to think of doors with various emblems displayed upon them. Some say: ?We have given.? ?No Beggars or Peddlers Allowed.? ?Nobody lives here,? etc. But next Monday evening, the Jewish emblem on the entrance door will say: "Let all who are hungry, come and eat." On this Festival of Pesach, let not Judaism pass over our doors. When we open our doors to welcome Eliyahu Hanavi, let us keep it open wide, to welcome all that is positive, invigorating and creative in Jewish life. Let our doors be indicative of proud Jewish occupants. Let us display our Mezuzot not as mere adornments but as emblems which proudly proclaim for all to see: ?We are proud to be the sons and daughters of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and we are determined to carry on in their tradition. Grief is a room without doors but Passover?s power not only changes that situation but it sends Eliyahu Hanavi right through. Truncated clich?, rw From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:11:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato In-Reply-To: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> References: <7CBABB10-E6DF-4F2F-9553-D2208E69EC23@optimum.net> Message-ID: On 03/04/17 15:50, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: >> > This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a > friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly > gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one > ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. > Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras > kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade > potatoes. That comes close, but not close enough. If the name of the town were given, so that one could track down other families from that town and verify it, then I'd accept it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:17:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:17:00 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach Message-ID: *<<*This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location >> *Nishmas* *Adam*, *Hilchos* *Pesach*, Question 20 (from the article on Potatos) mentions retzke that are called tatarka which are used to make flour are kitniyot My yiddish is very limited I saw one place that translated this as corn while another used buckwheat later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called erdeffel which I saw a translation as potatos. If this translation is accurate then the Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that allowed potatos on Pesach in case of a major famine. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:43:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:43:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170403204335.GC6792@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:17:00PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not : true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or Nishmas or : whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the location >> : : Nishmas Adam, Hilchos Pesach, Question 20 (from the article on : Potatos) mentions : retzke that are called tatarka which are used to make flour are kitniyot It's Kelal 119, Q 20. : later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called erdeffel which : I saw a translation as potatos. If this translation is accurate then the : Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that allowed potatos on Pesach : in case of a major famine. And so, as Zev pointed out, it is untrue that the CA advocated this position. Which is what is commonly retold. (At least, in my experience.) The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 13:47:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:47:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 01:15:37PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What triggered the question was a shiur on yutorah where a pulpit : rabbi mentioned that a visiting guest sfardi scholar asked in advance : and was granted the right to read his own aliya. I was surprised and : then thought of other situations that I had a similar reaction to. Isn't there a problem that the second you let those who are able to lein for themselves, you destroyed the minhag of leveling the playing field with a baal qeri'ah? Along thse lines, my father -- who certainly doesn't have to -- reads the berachos from the card on the bimah. The whole procedure is built around avoiding embarassing those less educated Jewishly. And today, where so many who get aliyos may be newer baalei teshuvah who don't know the berakhos by heart, shouldn't everyone read the berakhos, just the way everyone has a shaliach do the reading? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 14:34:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:34:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> References: <20170403204747.GD6792@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 03/04/17 16:47, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Along thse lines, my father -- who certainly doesn't have to -- reads > the berachos from the card on the bimah. The whole procedure is built > around avoiding embarassing those less educated Jewishly. As I understand it, the purpose of reading the brachos from a card is to make it clear that one is not reading them from the Torah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 14:30:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:30:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> On 03/04/17 16:17, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> This claim comes up regularly, but as far as I can tell it's not >> true. If anyone has actually seen this inside the Chayei (or >> Nishmas or whatever) Adam, please correct me by citing the >> location > Nishmas/ /Adam/, /Hilchos/ /Pesach/, Question 20 (from the article > on Potatos) Yes, I'm obviously aware of this reference, which *does not say* what so many people cite it as saying, because they saw it cited to that effect somewhere else, and have not bothered looking it up. This is frankly getting up my nose, which is why I specified that I am not interested in citations that the poster has not looked up himself and verified that they actually say what they are represented as saying. > mentions retzke that are called tatarka which are used to > make flour are kitniyot My yiddish is very limited I saw one place > that translated this as corn while another used buckwheat Retchke, or Gretchke, means normal buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum). Tatarke means Tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum). > later on the Nishmas Adam talks about bulbus which is called > erdeffel which I saw a translation as potatos. Yes, bulbes are potatoes. as in the famous song "Zuntik bulbes, Montik bulbes". > If this translation is > accurate then the Nishmas Adam is quoting a bet din in Germany that > allowed potatos on Pesach in case of a major famine. He reports having heard that in 1771-72 there was a famine and the community of Frth convened a beis din which permitted potatoes and kitniyos, but not buckwheat. His purpose in citing this is simply to demonstrate that buckwheat is worse than kitniyos, since even in this extreme case they refused to permit it. Of course this immediately causes the reader to wonder why they'd need a heter for potatoes, so he throws in the explanation that in Germany they don't eat them on Pesach. Of course anyone who sees this can see immediately that (a) he reports this practise neutrally, without expressing any support for it, and (b) he doesn't claim first hand knowledge that it even exists, but merely repeat a rumour he'd heard about some other place. Somehow, in the hands of irresponsible people, this seems to have transformed into the received wisdom that he forbade potatoes, or wanted to forbid them, or thought they ought to be forbidden, etc, none of which has the slightest tinge of truth, and it's perpetuated by lazy and dishonest people who repeat it as fact, complete with a fake citation which they have not bothered to verify. This, in turn, by exaggerating the extent of gezeras kitniyos, is used to make it seem ridiculous, onerous, impractical, and ripe for reform. On 03/04/17 16:43, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. and did so merely as a rumour. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 20:11:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:11:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder Message-ID: R' Ben Bradley wrote: > it seems to me that the current widespread minhag is for > everyone to pour for everyone else, which would avoid the > concern of the ArHaSh. > > 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? The ArtScroll Haggadah says (in the instructions for Kiddush), "The participants fill each others' cups", without mentioning any minhagim to the contrary. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat, in Halachos of Pesach, on pg 468, cites Haggada Kol Dodi (Rav Dovid Feinstein) 7:2, writing: > The Ramoh (473;1) specifies that the leader of the Seder > should not fill his own cup, but should allow others to pour > for him, as this displays cheirus (freedom). > > Although the wording of the Ramoh seems to imply that this > requirement only applies to the host and leader of the Seder, > the general custom is to do this for all the participants. > Most people therefore pour the wine for each other at each > juncture of the Four Cups. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 03:40:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 06:40:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] potatos on Pesach In-Reply-To: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> References: <89312297-9946-8c93-9882-4b045a3e9ff6@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170404104004.GA3715@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 05:30:34PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >The Nishmas Adam merely reported that the ruling / custom exists. : and did so merely as a rumour. What he repeated was a story about someone making an exception to their minhag. The explanation as to why the minhag was needed isn't given as part of the story. And if the CA puts the story into writing and uses in halachic argument, he obviously thought it was more than mere rumor. Still, not his own position, not even something he advised in theory, even before ein hatzibur yakhol laamod bah considerations. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 05:52:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 12:52:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman Message-ID: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> There is a shiur about this at http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 3 19:29:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 22:29:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Isn't there a problem that the second you let those who > are able to lein for themselves, you destroyed the minhag > of leveling the playing field with a baal qeri'ah? Yes, that's what MB 141:8 says. Actually, that MB goes a bit farther, and points out that "harbeh" such people *don't* know the laining so well, and the result is that the tzibur isn't yotzay. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 06:42:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:42:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Adventures of the Potato Message-ID: "This doesn?t quite fit RZS?s request, but I heard a story from a friend who gave a shiur making essentially RZS?s claim. An elderly gentleman from Morocco told him that in his (childhood) town no one ate potatoes on Pesah because they puff up when they cook. Admittedly my story is third hand, and is not related to gezeiras kitniyos, but it is evidence that a community in Morocco forbade potatoes." This has nothing to do with potatoes but I was talking to the wife of a Moroccan this morning and she said that he told her (third-hand again) that many Moroccan towns had their own minhagim. For example, in one town they didn't use sugar because it was stored in bags near grain. So it's certainly possibly true about potatoes as well. Joseph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 06:23:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:23:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: from an OU bulletin My grandparents, may they rest in peace, would be startled to discover that I can purchase OUP kosher for Passover items such as breakfast cereals, pizza, bread sticks, rolls, blintzes, waffles, pierogis and farfel. OTOH the OU has many chumrot on what is kitniyot I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily be mixed up with chametz. It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 08:58:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:58:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> On 04/04/17 09:23, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer > makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as > kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. > > To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and > bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our predecessors made. Thus the machlokes acharonim about newly discovered legumes and pseudo-grains: was the original gezera only on certain species, or was it on the entire class? Most acharonim seem to say it was on the entire class, but then argue about how to define that class, and thus how to decide what it includes. But very few if any say zil basar ta`ma to include new things that definitely don't fall in the original definition of the banned class. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 09:45:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 19:45:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> References: <5d73e4b6-5cd1-b08e-3a2b-4d6ea3f08fc3@sero.name> Message-ID: <6bd3ddad-9fb6-b9ae-d7e5-edded0b2f267@starways.net> On 4/4/2017 6:58 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 04/04/17 09:23, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> >> It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer >> makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as >> kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. >> >> To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and >> bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. > > It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no > authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our > predecessors made. I was under the impression that gezeirot weren't something that could be instituted after the Sanhedrin. Even Rabbenu Gershom only instituted his rules as chramim, rather than gezeirot. And the minhag (not gezeira by any stretch of the imagination) was made by local rabbis for local conditions and local situations. Conditions and situations change. I realize that the reason we differentiate between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan law is because there's a meforash commandment of bal tosif. But we can learn out from that on some level that we shouldn't be jumbling up gezeirot and takkanot and cheramim and minhagim and siyagim and treating them like they're all the same. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:43:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 20:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58ee56f4-ffb7-2f3d-6cf8-93f18c2d7746@zahav.net.il> See my post a week ago in which I cited Rav Yoel Ben Nun and Rav Yosef Rimon as both taking the position that we need to ban flour substitutes and relax on kitniyot. Ben On 4/4/2017 3:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals > and bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:13:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:23:37PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer : makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as : kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. : : To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and : bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original. In this era of packaged foods and heksheirim, the whole minhag makes no sense. People aren't deciding on their own whether quinoa is qitniyos. Or whether some sack contains pure peas with no wheat from the bottom of the silo. Or would eat a porridge based on a guess about whether it was pea or oatmeal. (The fact that I get my *unflavored* gourmet whole-leaf teas without a KLP symbol -- something little different than buying any [other] vegetable -- makes my wife nervous.) The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:58:06AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no : authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our : predecessors made... Well, they lacked that authority too. This is minhag, not gezeira. And the notion that we should be bery mimetic and work with what our ancestors actually did rather than what their rationale would imply in our context works even better with minhagim than with gezeiros. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:01:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman In-Reply-To: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> References: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170404180132.GB8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : There is a shiur about this at : http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz So, I am listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on YUTorah at this link. He opens by saying that the afiqoman (epikomion) must be before chatzos, and very likely the 4th cup too. So, kol hamarbeh means adding to the END of the seder, not having a longer Maggid that will push past chatzos. (Eg tzeis is 8:12pm in NY, as MyZmanim computes it -- 36 min as degrees, and chatzos is 12:56. So, we're talking Qadeish to the end of Hallel in 4 hr 44 min. Unhitting pause...) The Avnei Neizer (R Avrohom Bornsztain, the first Sochatchover Rebbe, descendant of both the Ramah and the Shach) argues that if you are finishing by chatzos to fulfil R Gamliel's shitah, then you could eat other foods after chatzos. And if you are not eating the rest of the night, that's because you're worried that if the mitzvah is indeed alkl night (unlike RG), ein maftirin achar hapesach would also be all night. So, the AN suggests that a moment before chatzos, eat a piece of matzah al tenai that if the halakhah is like Rabban Gamliel, it will be your afiqoman. Then, don't eat the minute or two until chatzos -- for R' Gamliel's en maftirin. Then, go back to eating (as long as you finish before alos), concluding with another afiqoman, also al tenai -- thus fulfilling the other ein maftirin. (BTW, note that the seder in the hagadah that went until zeman qeri'as Shema didn't include Rabban Gamliel.) R Meir Arik in Kol Torah uses this to answer a problematic Rashbam (Pesachim 121). The Rashbam says you're allowed to bring qorbanos todah or nedavah on erev Pesach. But you're not allowed to bring a qorban where you are mema'et the zeman akhilah, and the zeman akhilah for these qorbanos is until the morning. So how could you bring them on a day where ein maftirin achar hapesach will limit the time in which they could be eaten? But according to the Avnei Neizer, you can fulfill ein maftirin for both shitos and only limit eating for a moment before chatzos, by eating that 2nd afiqoman at the last possible time. However, there is a lot of opposition to the AN's chiddush. RALebowitz says there are 6 questions, but he's running out of time. 1- The Baal haMaor and the Ran's explanation for why ein maftirin would work with the AN. But the Ramban says the problem was that having so many people needing to eat their kezayis qorban pesach bein hachomos before chatzos, there was a worry that people would eat early, when still famished. (Which is assur derabbanan, gezeirah maybe they'll break bones. The question of why ein maftirin wouldn't then be a gezeira al hagezeira was not raised in the shiur.) Which means that even if the zeman for the qorban is until chatzos, if people could still plan a late dinner, they could rely on that and still eat their pesach while very hungry. 2- RMF (IM OC vol 5, pg 123) brings several objections. One basic one: even the AN says he never saw anyone do this before. RMF found it tamuha to rely on a sevara be'alma to change so many generations of mimeticism. (An argument that touches on some hot topics today.) 3- RMF adds that one needs to prove that the zman akhilah and the zeman ta'am are the same. Maybe the chiyuv of having the taste in your mouth happens to run longer? 4- The Chasam Sofer writes against doing a mitzvah mitoras safeiq. Similar to Rabbeinu Yonah's (on Berakhos) explanation for why an asham talui is more expensive than a chatas. Because we need to correct the "I probably didn't do anything wrong" attitude. If you never know when you're fulfilling the mitzvah, kavah will be lacking. RALebowitz then gives eidus from R Wolf that R Willig finishes his 4th kos right before chatzos. And timing then becomes a central theme during the seder. R' Avraham Pam said on many occations that we have to be aware of those who spent all that time making the seder. (Typically the wives and mothers.) Sometimes we spend so much time on Magid, that we then rush through the beautiful se'udah they made to get to the last kos on time. RAP thought that this bein adam lachaveiro issue is sufficient to justify relying on the Avnei Neizer. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 12:21:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 21:21:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aruch HaShulchan and pouring wine at the Seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <496ab467-1c33-a721-97d2-48512539e648@zahav.net.il> Rav Rimon's Hagaddah specifies that the minhag is to pour the wine/grape juice of the ba'al habayit alone. He also notes that there are those who don't follow the custom. In the footnotes, he cites that when people put water in their wine, it wasn't derech cheirut for the home owner to do it himself. Today, that isn't the case and it is common for everyone to pour his own wine/grape juice. He also cites the AHS' opposition. Ben On 4/4/2017 5:11 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > 1. Am I right that this is most people's practice? > > The ArtScroll Haggadah says (in the instructions for Kiddush), "The > participants fill each others' cups", without mentioning any minhagim > to the contrary. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:21:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:21:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Fungibility of Mitzvos Message-ID: <20170404182125.GD8762@aishdas.org> As y'all know, I'm obsessed with this topic. The notion of metaphysical causality that interferes with "you get what you deserve / need" bothers me. So I appreciated RNSlifkin finding these sources. http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2017/04/can-you-do-mitzvos-to-benefit-others.html Tir'u baTov! -Micha Can You Do Mitzvos To Benefit Others? April 03, 2017 Can you do mitzvos in such a way that the merit for them will benefit other people? Can you designate them to receive the reward for your mitzvah in their mitzvah bank account, such that they receive more Divine favor? A friend of mine recently forwarded to me a request on behalf of someone who is tragically unwell. The community was requested to pray for his recovery, which is certainly a time-honored Jewish response. But there was also a request to do mitzvos on his behalf, as a merit for God to heal him. My friend wanted to know if there was any classical Jewish basis for this. In my essay "What Can One Do For Someone Who Has Passed Away?" I noted that classically, one's mitzvos are only a credit to those people who had a formative influence on you. One's mitzvos cannot help the souls of other people. Rashba cites a responsum from Rav Sherira Gaon on this: "A person cannot merit someone else with reward; his elevation and greatness and pleasure from the radiance of the Divine Presence is only in accordance with his deeds." (Rashba, Responsa, Vol. 7 #539) Maharam Alashkar cites Rav Hai Gaon who firmly rejects the notion that one can transfer the reward of a mitzvah to another person and explains why this is impossible: "These concepts are nonsense and one should not rely upon them. How can one entertain the notion that the reward of good deeds performed by one person should go to another person? Surely the verse states, 'The righteousness of a righteous person is on him,' (Ezek. 18:20) and likewise it states, 'And the wickedness of a wicked person is upon him.' Just as nobody can be punished on account of somebody else's sin, so too nobody can merit the reward of someone else. How could one think that the reward for mitzvos is something that a person can carry around with him, such that he can transfer it to another person?" (Maharam Alashkar, Responsa #101) The same view is found explicitly and implicitly in other sources, as I noted in my essay. There is simply no mechanism to transfer the reward for one's own mitzvos to other people. It seems that only very recent mystical-based sources claim otherwise. Now, I don't see any reason why there should be any difference if the person that one is trying to help is deceased or alive. Nor do I know of any source in classical rabbinic literature that one can do a mitzvah as a merit to help someone that is sick. Prayer, yes. And Tehillim are also a form of prayer (though it may depend upon which Tehillim are being recited). But I know of no classical source that one can honor one's parents or learn Torah or send away a mother bird as a merit for somebody else. (The most common example of people attempting to do this may be the custom of women to separate challah on behalf of a sick person. Here too, though, it appears that the classical basis of this is not that the mitzvah of separating challah is crediting the sick person, but rather that the person separating the challah thereby has a special time of power/inspiration, which makes their prayer more powerful.) If I'm wrong in any of the above, I'll be glad to see sources showing otherwise. But so far, I have found that while people are shocked when one challenges the notion that you can learn Torah on behalf of someone who is sick, nobody has yet actually come up with any classical sources demonstrating otherwise. Furthermore, if this indeed was a part of classical Judaism, we would certainly expect it to have prominent mention in the writings of Chazal and the Rishonim. We appear to have another situation of something widespread that is believed to be an integral and classical part of Judaism, and yet is actually a modern innovation that has no basis in classical Judaism whatsoever. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 11:33:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:33:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> References: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we > start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system > will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. > > Mehila, but aren't you being rather Chicken Little (or is your tongue somewhere in the direction of your cheek?) We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other minhagim that people are so set against any change? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 12:22:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 19:22:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot Message-ID: > The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we > start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system will > collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart. We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and many modern oils RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and cottonseed oil and this is being expanded by many I don't see this as destroying a Mimetic tradition the reason to include canola oil is that it is similar to Kitniyot even though it or even corn oil did not exist at the time of the generation So the question is why extend the minhagim to canola oil when the problem of the confusion doesn't exist but we don't extend it to non chametz cereal or breadstick where the possibility of mistakes is greater As previously mentioned rsza was against these chametz look a like products as are several contemporary rabbis OTOH the outside is nachman in lecithin in candies where there are many reasons to be making and they are making in chametz looking and tasting products where many are machmir From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 13:15:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170404181358.GC8762@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170404201511.GI8762@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:33:22PM +0300, Simon Montagu wrote: : We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha : hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other : minhagim that people are so set against any change? Sorry if this will sound like circular reasoning, but it isn't because of the time lag: Minhagim that are *currently* treated very seriously can't be broken *going forward* as readliy simply because of the psychological / experiential impact of bending or breaking something that is so vehemently held. Since my argument is about mimetics, halakhah-as-culture, you can't necessarily get a textual / theory-based answer. On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 07:22:32PM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote: : We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them : My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and : many modern oils RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and : cottonseed oil and this is being expanded by many .. Well, RMF didn't actively permit peanut oil as much as report that back in Litta, peanuts were commonly consumed on Pesach. According to R/Dr Bannet, within my lifetime peanut oil was THE go-to oil for Pesach. But that's Litta. Minhag Litta didn't expand qitniyos to legumes found in the New World, after the original minhag formed. (Although they did take on avoiding New World grain -- maize / corn.) Minhag Litta was also lenient on mei qitniyos, and a far broader range of the northern half of Eastern Europe (I don't know what Yekkes hold) were lenient on shemes qitniyos in particular. Yes, by my minhagim, there are two reasons not to need a special formula for KLP Coke. If we could get anyone to give a hekhsher to certify there is nothing "worse" than mei New World qitniyos in it. But other parts of Europe went by reasoning, and did have stringencies including liquids and oils. That's their minhag, and it always was their minhag. Which gets me to my point: It's not really that any rav is expanding minhagim. It's that the heksher industry is going to be cost efficient. Heksheirim that say something is okay for 2/3 of their audience don't survive. Causing a lest-common-denominator approach to the spread of minhagim. Like trying to find reliable non-glatt meat in the US; the larger hekhsheirim don't even try. And so, as more move into the area whose minhagim exclude using peanut oil on Pesach, it becomes harder to find KLP certified peanut oil, and all too quickly people forget what was once the norm. I think that framing it as pesaqim and machloqes is imprecise. It's more like watching the evolution of new minhagim as our new communities from mixtures of the old ones. Not necessarily in directions we would like, but at least that's the framework in question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:11:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:11:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/17 15:22, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We are not talking about eliminating Kitniyot laws but limiting them We have no more authority to limit them than to eliminate them altogether. > My personal observation is that very few of my friends avoid lecithin and > many modern oils What people do has no relation to what they have the right to do. > RMF and others already allowed peanut oil and cottonseed oil RMF (almost alone) holds that the original gezera was on particular species, and peanuts were never included. The machlokes about cottonseed oil is precisely about whether it is a kind of kitnis or not. > the reason to include canola oil is that it is similar to Kitniyot > even though it or even corn oil did not exist at the time of the > generation Whether the oil existed then is lechol hade'os irrelevant. If the species is included in the ban then all forms are included. RMF however would presumably say that since rapeseed was not an edible species at the time, it was not included. Most acharonim, who hold that the ban was on the whole category, would presumably include it. > So the question is why extend the minhagim to canola oil when the problem > of the confusion doesn't exist but we don't extend it to non chametz cereal > or breadstick where the possibility of mistakes is greater Once again, because no individual rav or group of rabbanim have the authority to permit what is already forbidden, or to forbid for the entire people what is currently permitted. > As previously mentioned rsza was against these chametz look a like products That he was against something doesn't make it assur. > as are several contemporary rabbis OTOH the outside is nachman in lecithin > in candies where there are many reasons to be making and they are making in > chametz looking and tasting products where many are machmir But what authority do they have for this? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:33:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 17:33:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Relying on the Avnei Nezer's Tenai for Afikoman In-Reply-To: References: <1491310356577.54880@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <0A.54.10233.A4114E85@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:01 PM 4/4/2017, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via >Avodah wrote: >: There is a shiur about this at >: http://tinyurl.com/lowndcz > >So, I am listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on YUTorah at this link. >R' Avraham Pam said on many occations that we have to be aware of >those who spent all that time making the seder. (Typically the wives >and mothers.) Sometimes we spend so much time on Magid, that we then >rush through the beautiful se'udah they made to get to the last kos on >time. RAP thought that this bein adam lachaveiro issue is sufficient to >justify relying on the Avnei Neizer. Rav Schwab in his shiur on the seder (to be found in Rav Schwab on Prayer) suggests eating very little during the Seder besides the required amounts of Matzah and Moror, so that one will have room and appetite for the Afikoman and not have to "force" oneself to eat it. I do not know what Rebbetzen Schwab prepared for the Seder meal, but I assume it was not an elaborate meal based on what she knew Rav Schwab would eat. I know that R. Miller would not allow his children or grandchildren to read from the sheets that they came home with from Yeshiva. He told them to save it for later, probably the next day. And since I mentioned all of the material that the kids come home with from school, let me say that IMO the schools "spoil" the seder. To me it is clear from the Gemara in Pesachim that the children are not supposed to be "primed" with all sorts of knowledge about the Seder. The things we do are supposed to be new to them so that they will ask questions. My children when they were young and my younger grandchildren now know enough to conduct the Seder themselves! There is nothing new for them. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:59:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:59:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah Message-ID: I understand that one cannot use Egg Matza for the mitzva of Achilas Matza, but I'm not sure exactly why. I'm aware of two different reasons, and they seem mutually exclusive. 1) The Torah requires that this mitzva be done with "lechem oni" - poor bread, plain and lacking the richness that it would have if it were made with eggs, juice, oil, or the like. 2) Matza must be something that could have become chometz, but was baked before chimutz could occur. According to those who hold that flour and pure mei peiros will not ever become chometz, "matza ashira" isn't really halachic matza at all. I suspect that I am conflating various shitos, and that according to any individual shita, one reason or the other will apply, but not both. Can someone help me out? Thanks! Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 14:27:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:27:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I understand it, the purpose of reading the brachos from a card is to make it clear that one is not reading them from the Torah. I believe that's the reason for turning one's head to the side, haven't seen that as the reason for using a card. And that's only according to the opinion that the oleh leaves the Sefer Torah open while making the brachos. The opinion that the Sefer Torah should be closed is for the same reason if memory serves, and then of course no card would be needed at all. So I presume the reason for the card is simply for people who need it. Given that the whole reason for having a designated baal koreh in the first place was to save the embarassment of those who can't read their own aliya, I'm bemused by the permission for someone to decide they'd like to read their own aliya. Unless you say that a well known talmid chacham, or a guest of honour, would not embarrass the other olim by reading his aliya since he's known as a scholar. It does seem that avoiding the chashash of embarrassment was more important to chazal than to many contemporary kehillos. Maybe it needs some chizuk. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 23:41:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 06:41:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot Message-ID: And so, as more move into the area whose minhagim exclude using peanut oil on Pesach, it becomes harder to find KLP certified peanut oil, and all too quickly people forget what was once the norm. Which is a difference between Israel and USA Israel with a large sefardi community has top level hasgacha on kiniyot products also many candies now list that they contain lecithin so that the consumer can decide rather than the hasgacha deciding -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 20:45:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 23:45:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/04/17 17:27, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > Given that the whole reason for having a designated baal koreh in the > first place was to save the embarassment of those who can't read their > own aliya, I'm bemused by the permission for someone to decide they'd > like to read their own aliya. Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone wants to do his own, why not? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 21:53:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:53:50 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Are Mitzvos Fungible Message-ID: Obviously, and in spite of all the stories of people selling their Olam Haba it is a nonsense - good and evil deeds cannot be redeemed or transferred by a financial transaction or any agreement HOWEVER if anyone is inspired to do a good [or evil] deed or desist doing an evil [or good] deed because of another persons influence clearly that influencing person is rewarded accordingly and so when we learn Torah or do any other other Mitzvah and we are inspired to do it because of an institution or a person be they in Olam HaEmes or in this world a Zechis accrues for that person Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 4 21:18:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:18:03 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru - We have no authority to decree new gezeros Message-ID: Although it has been said on these hallowed pages Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru - We have no authority to decree new gezeros yet many felt that the new stainless steel Shechitah knives were forbidden machicne Matza was forbidden Ben PeKuAh is forbidden they're even arguing that soft Matza is forbidden for Ashkenazim etc. But it is Kula Chada Gezeira Thus newly discovered foods are Kitniyos And whatever the truth is we are V lucky that potato was not included and not reversed remember when peanuts were KLP? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 03:01:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:01:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pate de Foie Gras Message-ID: <20170405100107.GA16249@aishdas.org> Daf Yomi learners just learned BB 73b. It looks to me like the gemara is condemning, although on an aggadic level, the preparation of pate de foi gras. Since I can't quote the gemara, here's R' Steinzaltz's commentary (from : And Rabba bar bar Hana said: Once we were traveling in the desert and we saw these geese whose wings were sloping because they were so fat, and streams of oil flowed beneath them. I said to them: Shall we have a portion of you in the World-to-Come? One raised a wing, and one raised a leg, [signaling an affirmative response]. When I came before Rabbi Elazar, he said to me: The Jewish people will [eventually] be held accountable for [the suffering] of [the geese. Since the Jews do not repent, the geese are forced to continue to grow fat as they wait to be given to the Jewish people as a reward.] Rashbam ("litein aleihem es hadin"): For in their sins, they delay mashiach. They, those geese, have tza'ar ba'alei chaim because of their fat. Apparently even the messianic se'udah is insufficient grounds to justify torturing geese for their fat. Also implied is that the sin of making the geese suffer in their obesity is not a sin so great at to itself holding up the mashiach's arrival. Otherwise, R' Elazar would be describing a vicious cycle. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 03:51:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:51:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on > kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU > gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be > prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily > be mixed up with chametz. > > It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if > no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the > same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot. I am both surprised and confused, by this post and almost all the ones that followed. It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and gebroks. Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right? So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate gebroks. I am not surprised that amei haaretz like myself have trouble understanding the definitions of kitniyos. But one thing is for sure: That our rabanim ought to understand that kitniyos and gebroks are two different things. Some might respond that today's "farfel, bread sticks etc" are being made not of matza meal but of potato and tapioca. I don't see that as relevant. *ANY* definition of kitniyos has to be one that doesn't include matza meal. And if matza meal is excluded, then you can't include potatoes merely because they are so useful. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 05:20:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:20:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <50BEA150-B533-4159-AFEB-ADE8B18EB7E1@sibson.com> > Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone wants to do his own, why not? > > -- Synagogue practices in particular are a very sensitive area, at least according to rabbi Soloveutchik. THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 08:56:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:56:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170405155630.GA29273@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:45:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Since knowing how to lein, and especially knowing how to lein any : given aliyah, is no longer an expected skill in most communities, : it's no longer embarrassing that one doesn't know how, so if someone : wants to do his own, why not? Since when does logic have to do with emotions? Your line of reasoning would work for robots, not people. If everyone else is leining their own aliyah that day, someone who can't may still be embarassed and decline taking an aliyah with the ba'al qeri'ah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 05:57:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 08:57:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Tefillin on Chol Moed Message-ID: R Samuel Svarc wrote on Areivim >This, as it turns out, is a minority view. Not all Ashkenazim hold >that way, nor do Sefardim, nor a nice junk of the Litvishe wing. From http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/tefillinONmoed.htm The Aruch Hashulchan notes that "recently" a practice among some Ashkenazic Jews has developed to refrain from wearing Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. He is referring to the practice of Chassidim, which was also the practice at the famed Volozhiner Yeshiva (as recorded by the Rav, Shiurim L'zeicher Aba Mori Zal p.119) And from http://dinonline.org/2014/04/07/tefillin-on-chol-hamoed-pesach/ The Rema adds that the Ashkenaz custom is to wear Tefillin and recite a berachah, but because of the sensitivity of the topic the berachah should be recited quietly. Later authorities espouse the compromise noted by the Tur, meaning that Tefillin are worn but the berachah is not recited (see Taz 31:2; Mishnah Berurah 31:8). YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 09:29:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:29:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170405162920.GB19562@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 06:51:14AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and : gebroks. I think the conversation works better as is. Gebrochts is a minhag to avoid the possible manufacture of real chameitz from any flour that happened to stay dry when the matzah was made. Qitniyos is a minhag or multiple minhagim to avoid things that either: 1- are stored in the same silos as with chameitz, in which case it's much like gebrochts in function. Or 2- are used in a manner similar to chameitz, and people might eat chameitz thinking it's pea porridge or mustard seed or whatnot. And these could indeed be divergant minhagim, where different explanations became primary drivers in different areas, leading to difference in how practice evolved. But explanation #2 does open the door for the original question. Pretzels made from oatmeal make it possible for someone to accidentally eat real chameitz pretzels. And if your ancestral version of qitniyos includes growing it to include new items that make the same mistake possible, eg corn, then why not all these gebrochts or potato / potato starch products -- not because they're gebrochts (if they are), but because reason #2 applies. : So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever : arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they : were rejected by communities that ate gebroks. No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) This really is a recent development. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 07:48:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:48:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Fungibility of Mitzvos In-Reply-To: References: <002801d2ae0d$a752e040$f5f8a0c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: R? Micha Berger quoted R? Natan Slifkin: <<< I have found that while people are shocked when one challenges the notion that you can learn Torah on behalf of someone who is sick, nobody has yet actually come up with any classical sources demonstrating otherwise. >>> I?d like to suggest a very slight difference between two scenarios: Suppose I say, ?Hashem, I am going to learn some Torah now, and I?d like the s?char for this mitzvah to go to Ploni, instead of to me.? That seems to be the situation that RNS is talking about. But suppose I say, ?Hashem, I am going to learn some Torah now, and I?d like *MY* s?char for this mitzvah to be that You heal Ploni, who is currently ill?, or ?? that You elevate Ploni to a higher level in Gan Eden?, or something similar. My point is that if there is no mechanism to transfer s?char from one person to another, perhaps we can still request that the s?char should take a particular form, and it would result in the same effect. I?m pretty sure that there *are* sources for requesting that the s?char should take a certain form. More accurately, I recall cases where one requests that his *onesh* should take a particular form, such as if it has been decreed that one should lose a certain amount of money, it should occur in tiny amounts over a long time, or some other similar request. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 08:52:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:52:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos HaGadol Message-ID: It is not easy to explain the origin of the Hagadol which is applied to this coming Shabbos. In the Haftorah, the prophet Malachi speaks of a Yom Hashem Hagadol which according to various customs is to be read when the Sabbath before Pesach happens to be Erev Pesach. And yet the term Hagadol as applied to the Sabbath before Passover has been accepted by all whether or not it falls on Erev Pesach. The Midrash offers additional insight as to why this Shabbos is termed Hagadol and tells us something most of us have learned that on the Shabbos preceding the 14th of Nissan (when the Pascal lamb was to be brought as an offering), the Egyptian masters entered into the homes of the Jews and noticed that each family had a sheep tied to its bedposts. The Egyptians asked: ?What are you doing with our sheep?!? The Jews replied: ?We are going to slaughter it as an offering to our God.? The Egyptian masters gritted their teeth in exasperation and walked out. This is another basis for the Shabbos preceding Pesach to be called the ?Great Shabbos.? It is the Shabbos that the Jewish people experienced a miracle ? they were not killed by their masters because of their subordination to the Will of the Almighty and they were not deterred by concern for their personal safety. THAT was ?greatness? and they were, indeed, truly ?great.? It is also interesting that every Shabbos symbolizes complete freedom ? freedom from technology and the mundane. Pesach typifies freedom and redemption. The parallel to Shabbos is profound. May this Shabbos be the ?GREATEST!? "The price of greatness is responsibility.? Winston Churchill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 14:25:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:25:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a5b4365-260b-ab41-7882-0043d896073e@zahav.net.il> On 4/5/2017 12:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone > who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from > gebroks, right? Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can get today which is no different than cake flour? [Email #2. -micha] On 4/4/2017 8:33 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and > halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all > other minhagim that people are so set against any change? If this one is different it is because people have set out to take down this minhag. Whereas something like changing from an Ashkenazi white with black stripes tallit to a more Sefardi all white one wouldn't be such a big deal because no one is making an issue out of it. In my community there is a back lash against the kitni-chumrot so I see it changing, somewhat. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 01:32:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:32:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Food in the desert questions Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: "In the mishkan, a mincha offering was brought. other offerings too. Some : required flour and oil. Where did they come from? " I just saw a Tosafos in Menachos 45b that discusses the question of flour in the midbar. Tosafos quotes Rashi as saying that they did not make the shtei halechem in the midbar because all they had was man (so they had no flour). Tosafos disagrees and says that they bought flour from merchants (based on the Gemara Yoma 75b). I would assume that Tosafos would say the same thing about oil. The Rambam in the Peirush Hamishnayos (Menachos 4:4) agrees with Rashi that they had no flour in the midbar. So to answer your question according to Rashi and the Rambam they had no flour and therefore did not bring anything flour based. According to Tpsafos they bought flour from merchants in the midbar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 5 22:03:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Meisner via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 01:03:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > I understand that one cannot use Egg Matza for the mitzva of Achilas > Matza, but I'm not sure exactly why. I'm aware of two different reasons, > and they seem mutually exclusive. > > 1) The Torah requires that this mitzva be done with "lechem oni"... > 2) Matza must be something that could have become chometz, but was baked > before chimutz could occur. According to those who hold that flour and pure > mei peiros will not ever become chometz, "matza ashira" isn't really > halachic matza at all. If matzah is baked with mei peiros and a kol she-hu of water, it would not be lechem oni but would be halachically matzah. Josh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 04:16:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:16:49 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller asked: "It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and gebroks. Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right? So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate gebroks." There is no question that this is a new problem, even 50 years ago no one made things out of matzo meal or potato starch that looked almost exactly like the equivalent chometz item. There has been an explosion of "imitation" chometz products over the last 20 years that look and even taste like chometz. This is more a spirit of the law issue. One of the reasons given for not eating kitniyos is that since kitniyos look like and/or can make things that look like chometz we are afraid that people will confuse them with chometz and come to eat chometz. This concern certainly applies much more to these modern products. If I can get kosher l'pesach cereal that looks exactly like chometz cereal there is certainly a risk of confusion. No one is saying that these things are kitniyos, what they are saying that in the spirit of kitniyos these should be prohibited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 05:06:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot Message-ID: Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those measures should be. I wrote: : So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? : Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200 : years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate : gebroks. and R' Micha Berger responded: > No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks > that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) > This really is a recent development. Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my mother made at home? I'm sorry, but I can't buy that. It is true that today's factory kitchens allow an amazing variety of technologies and abilities, including products that are almost indistinguishable from regular bread. But I maintain that this does NOT translate to an increased chance that someone will mix flour and water in their home kitchen, precisely because the factory and home are so far apart - both geographically and sociologically. If someone is enticed by the quality of a store-bought breadstick or pizza slice, I cannot imagine that they would attempt to duplicate it at home nowadays without a recipe. Seeing a breaded chicken cutlet at one's neighbor's home *IS* something that you might duplicate in your own home, and there is great danger there. But I just don't see that happening with factory-made goods. Anyone who is awed by the quality will read the box to figure out how they managed such a feat, and they will immediately see the potato and tapioca listed. (But I am willing to listen to other arguments.) My suspicion is that the anti-potato sentiments may have originated in the non-gebroks sectors. Pesach pizza and pancakes are very new to them, and I suppose I can understand their concern. But among those who have been eating gebroks for generations, I just don't understand why these new products bother them. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 03:35:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:35:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Egg Matzas Mitzvah Message-ID: R' Joshua Meisner wrote: > If matzah is baked with mei peiros and a kol she-hu of water, > it would not be lechem oni but would be halachically matzah. That's true. Theoretically, if one would bake it fast enough, before it becomes chometz, it would be real matza. But because of the mei peiros, it isn't plain matza, but it is "rich" matza - matza ashira, and thus disqualified from Mitzvas Achilas Matza. But as far as I know, no one makes such matza, because (there is a fear that) the combination of both water and mei peiros will allow the dough to become chometz much faster than usual. That's not the case with the stuff on the shelves that's labeled "Egg Matza" or "Matza Ashira" - This has no water at all, and its dough can never become chometz. If so, then it seems to me that the term "Matza Ashira" is a misnomer. It isn't matza at all, because it was incapable of becoming chometz. A better term for it might be "Matza-style squares" (which is the term that the industry has chosen for the potato and tapioca stuff). I suspect that at some point in history, some educator felt that the logic of "the fruit juice makes it rich bread" was more easily accepted by the masses, and the logic of "it can't be chometz and therefore it isn't matza" was too difficult for them. And from that point onwards, it was the go-to explanation, despite the technical shortcomings. Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 05:28:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat Message-ID: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I've been thinking (pun intended) about staam daat" . (I have in mind "whatever HKB"H wants me to have in mind without actually knowing what that is [e.g., to be yotzeih the chazan's bracha]). Firstly what is the source of the concept. Secondly, Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal says works, that's what I want to think/occur). [relatrd to daat makneh and koneh issues] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:07:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:07:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru Message-ID: We all assume we can't have new gezerot. Is this really true? At least according to some opinions bicycles and umbrellas are allowed on shabbat. According to RSZA electricity (without a heat or fire) is really allowed on shabbat and certainly yomtov. Years ago many held that electricity was allowed on yomtov. Today we have things like fitbit watches which many feel are allowed on shabbat. Yet in practice the poskim prohibit all these things. Other things are prohbited in davening because it is a slippery slope etc. In essence these are all new gezerot perhaps without the nomenclature -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:21:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:21:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:06:29AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos : understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect : people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is : acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those : measures should be. Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change a minhag. And if we were talking about gezeiros, then we'd need a Sanhedrin or universal consensus to create one. ("Universal consensus", eg RSZA on electricity.) But we would also need that level authority to modify or repeal one. So there too there is a high barrier to change. So in either case, while I could appreciate R' Aviner's reasoning, I don't know if I would be comfortable applying it lemaaseh. :> No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks :> that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) :> This really is a recent development. : Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in : the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my : mother made at home? While, really I'm suggesting that an environment where -- even a bagel or a loaf of bread -- could be a gebrochts or potato starch replacement poses bigger problems than we faced 50 years ago. Because a person can pick up anything and mistake it for a KLP alternative. Much like one of the reasons given for qitniyos. The same was not true when the only KLP pancakes were rare and homemade. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:41:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:41:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Working on Chol Moed Message-ID: <1491493270335.3143@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If I don't work on Chol Hamoed my paycheck will be much smaller. Is this a davar behaved (irreparable loss)? Am I permitted to go to work on Chol Hamoed? A. A loss of profit is generally not considered a davar ha'avud. As such one cannot automatically assume that it is permissible to work on Chol Hamoed. Nonetheless there are situations where davar ha'avud would apply. For example, if a person will use up vacation days by not working during Chol Hamoed, and there is a preference to take vacation at a more convenient time, this may be considered a davar ha'avud. (See Shmiras Shabbos Kihilchoso, vol. 2, chapter 67, footnote 47.) Furthermore, if a person is struggling financially, and not earning a salary on Chol Hamoed would be stressful, this may be treated as a davar ha'avud. Nonetheless these leniencies are not ideal, and Rav Belsky, zt"l stressed that it is preferable to not work on Chol Hamoed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 09:44:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:44:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat In-Reply-To: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3fca82ef13c34b249e5182ef51b6b5f4@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <958e2160-18d0-985e-70d4-9c571dea3a3f@sero.name> On 06/04/17 08:28, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Secondly, Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., > I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal says > works, that?s what I want to think/occur). Isn't that *exactly* what we do when we write in a shtar that we stipulate to having made whichever kind of kinyan is most effective ("be'ofan hayoser mo`il")? We don't know which of the various kinyanim we should be doing so we stipulate that whichever one it is, we did it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 10:01:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 20:01:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Al Zeh Gazru VeAl Zeh Lo Gazru In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/6/2017 6:07 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > We all assume we can't have new gezerot. Is this really true? ... > In essence these are all new gezerot perhaps without the nomenclature The nomenclature is vital. As I said in my previous email, we don't blur the distinctions between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan, and we don't blur the distinctions between gezeirot, takkanot, chramim, siyagim, minhagim, etc. Yes, it's forbidden to eat chicken parmesan. And it's forbidden to eat a pork chop. There's no wiggle room. Both are forbidden. So to someone on the outside, those prohibitions might look like the same thing, "perhaps without the nomenclature". But the nomenclature matters, because there are different rules for the two. Just as there are different rules for the various "add-ons". Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 08:49:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:49:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7c4f2947-d6c6-62b2-40fd-a9b977d026f4@starways.net> > Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy > in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes > that my mother made at home? Matza meal pancakes, which I grew up with as well, are nothing at all like regular pancakes. The difference is clear and obvious. Ditto for cakes. We used to have sponge cake at Pesach. And we thought of it as a Pesach cake. It wasn't something we had all year. I don't have a problem with fake treyf. So I don't really have a huge problem with fake chametz. But to pretend that there's no difference between what we used to have in the 60s, 70s, etc, and today is just silly. The difference is enormous. And while I don't have a huge problem with fake chametz, I see another distinction between fake chametz and fake treyf. You can't ever eat bacon. So making fake bacon is reasonable. But fake chametz? Really? We can't make it a week without waffles and pizza and pretzels? [Email #2. -micha] On 4/6/2017 6:21 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be > mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very > overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change > a minhag. WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be determinative. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 10:54:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:54:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:03:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept : of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be : determinative. Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei For that matter, the topic here is qitniyos -- which is itself a minhag avos, not halakhah. It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the accepted ruling in practice. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 13:59:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:59:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> I am confused by the term mimetic. I understand it in the sense of tradition, We are discussing various situations that didn't exist years ago, My parents didnt use Canola oil because it was not available but they did use cottonseed oil. What is my mimetic custom for lechitin? When I grew up we had mainly macaroon cookies. Any cakes even with matza meal tasted and looked different than chametz items. No one I knew used CI shiurim. In EY on the radio I still hear about the necessity of using CI shiurim at least lechatchila. I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. I recently heard a shiur from R. Aviner attacking much of these chumrot and R. Lior also has many kulot and these are considered right wing DL rabbis. As I stated before one difference between EY and the US is the existence of a large charedi sefardi community, This gives rise to kitniyot products with top level hasgachot. The easy availability of soft matzaot etc. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 12:10:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:10:26 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder Message-ID: is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a korban pesach? i think we all agree that the matzot to make a korech were soft matzot [and presumably mashiach will rule that's the way we should all be making them ]. if the zaytim were like larger then , would the sandwich have been the size of a big mac? or half a pizza? kiddush would have started the meal . then some form of maggid [ 3 hrs long? would the korban be edible that many hours later?] . so people washed and then what? hamotzi on 3 matzos? but the mitzva matza was to eat the korech no? so the rest of the meal was not matza followed by marror, but rather that of korech. so then the chiyuv-matza was the afikoman matza? or people would have chazon ish'ed it up twice---at the matza they washed on and again on korech? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 07:46:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:46:29 +0000 (WET DST) Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at Apr 6, 2017 11:03:15 am Message-ID: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> > > ... This is another basis for the Shabbos preceding Pesach to be > called the "Great Shabbos." > No, it is not. Haggadol is not an adjective modifying Shabbath, because Shabbath is feminine. No one who speaks Hebrew uses masculine adjectives to modify Shabbath, ever (pedantic footnote: except in the fixed expression "Shabbath shalom umvorakh", which is said by people who do speak Hebrew, but which for other reasons is clearly an idiomatic expression that does not follow the rules of grammar, unless you want to call it a mistake, which is also fine with me). It is the same reason why we know that Lshon Hara` and `Eyn Hara` are not nouns modified by adjectives, because lashon and `ayin are feminine nouns. No one who speaks Hebrew would ever use the masculine adjective ra` to modify the feminine nouns lashon or `ayin. They are nouns modified by other nouns, and so is Shabbath Haggadol. (Whether lshon hara` and `eyn hara` are the correct pronunciation turns on whether the smikhuth forms in Rabbinic Hebrew are the same as the smikhuth forms in Biblical and modern Hebrew, a question that is irrelevant to the current discussion. They are unquestionably smikhuth forms, however they should be pronounced.) This alone is not sufficient reason to reject your translation "The Great Shabbos", because languages do not have to be translated literally and word-for-word. I do not reject the translation "the holy tongue" for "lshon haqqodesh", even though "lshon haqqodesh" literally means "the tongue of holiness", because languages do not have to be translated literally. If you want to translate "lshon haqqodesh" as "the holy tongue", fine. But you cannot do that with "Shabbath Haggadol", because we do not say Shabbath Haggodel, or Shabbath Haggdula, we say "Shabbath Haggadol", and gadol is an adjective, albeit a masculine one. As for what it does mean, well, if you want to say that Hagadol is a kinuy for God ("the Great One"), I think that is far-fetched, but I won't post an article publicly saying that you are wrong. It is clear to me that we say Shabbath Hagadol for the same reason that we say Shabbath Xazon or Shabbath Naxamu or Shabbath Shuva. You may disagree. But what you cannot plausibly say is that it means "the great Shabbath". Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:24:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:24:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Matzah Meat (was Kitnios In-Reply-To: <728a7944561447f0984b79952cedf5a5@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <728a7944561447f0984b79952cedf5a5@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <86.ED.07959.212B6E85@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:03 PM 4/6/2017, Ben Waxman wrote: >On 4/5/2017 12:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone > > who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from > > gebroks, right? > >Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for >matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can >get today which is no different than cake flour? I must admit that I have no idea what you are referring to when you write about "roughly ground matza meal." Is this what is called cake meal? If so, it is good for making many things. See for example http://tinyurl.com/n6yo95b Also, do a google search for cake meal recipes, and you will see how many recipes come up I use "regular" matza meal to make matzah balls and they come out fine. See http://tinyurl.com/kl5tljs for a recipe for matza balls that calls for matza meal. I have never seen shmura cake meal. Has anyone? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 13:30:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:30:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 4/6/2017 8:54 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:03:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: >: WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept >: of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be >: determinative. > Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel > Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei > > It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering > cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the > accepted ruling in practice. I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:48:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:48:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitnoyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170406152104.GE13319@aishdas.org> <0f8250b5-42d3-7aef-008a-fe41655b2fc8@starways.net> <20170406175425.GG23297@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170406214806.GH26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:30:40PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : >It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering : >cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the : >accepted ruling in practice. : : I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi : is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that : we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea : that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible. You are only discussing the absolutes, the case where the halakhah isn't known, and that where it is, but common practice differs. But in the part I left above, I described the gray area. There are cases where the logic for one position is more compelling than the other, but not muchrach. In fact, this is more common than a case where two rishonim or noted acharonim disagree and one opinion is found to be outright wrong. Between the brilliance of the people involved and the "peer review" as to which ideas reach us, it is very rare for us to find a true incontrovertable mistake, and even harder to know if we really did, or if it is our own assessment that's in error. In that situation, where we have to choose between multiple viable shitos, there are a number of things a poseiq would weigh. Different schools of pesaq may give each different weights. This kind of comparison of apples and oranges requires real shiqul hadaas, and is why pesaq is an art, not an algorithm. This is my usual list of categories of factors that go into pesaq. 1- Textualiam 1a- Logicalness of the rationale 1b- Authority of those who back each postion: majority, expertise (eg the Rambam and Rosh carry more weight than some other rishonim) 2- Mimeticism 3- Aggadic concerns -- whether it's chassidim not wearing tefillin on ch"m or some of RSRH's innovations. My point in #2 is that there are many times that we continue following what we do because it has a sound textual basis -- even though some other shitah may have a stronger such basis. And again, this is minhag, not halakhah. The whole topic of qitniyos rests on mimeticism, not formal halachic reasoning. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Problems are not stop signs, micha at aishdas.org they are guidelines. http://www.aishdas.org - Robert H. Schuller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 14:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] P.O.P. Paradox Of Pesach Message-ID: <5204F12E-00B5-47B0-92DD-2D93AB3E7C87@cox.net> A great ambivalence is to be found in the symbolism of the Seder. On one hand, the white kitel is a manifestation of joy and purity, and on the other hand, it is also the shroud of death. An egg is a token of mourning, but at the Seder it recalls the korban chagigah, the additional sacrifice brought to assure joy on Pesach. The matzah is the bread of affliction as well as the food of freedom baked in haste as our forefathers rushed out of Egypt. The very word individual which refers to a single person ends with DUAL. Pesach brings out the duality of man but through the unity of the family, we are able to live with cognitive dissonance, paradox and conflict. ?We may have different points of arguments from perspectives of belief, faith and religion. But we must not hate each other. We are one human family.? ? Lailah Gifty Akita, (Think Great: Be Great!) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:04:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:04:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170406220429.GK26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:59:51PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be :> mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very :> overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change :> a minhag. : I am confused by the term mimetic. I understand it in the sense of : tradition, Mimetic is from the shoresh mime, to copy. (Like a mimeograph.) Mimeticism is Judaism as culture. Things like absorbing that "Shabbos is coming" feeling of the erev Shabbos Jew. The pious Jew of today may be able to work himself up emotionally on Yom Kippur, the mimetic Jew of 100 years ago was simply terrified, without such work. (Both kinds of religiosity have their pros and cons.) Mimeticism evolves because culture evolves. Textualism is also tradition. But it's the formal tradition passed off from rebbe to talmid. RYBS's dialog down the ages that he watched gather around his father's table, or later, in his own shiur room. So the mimetic-textualist axis is not quite the same as the tradition-ideology one. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:07:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:07:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> References: <14915079890.2ecd.39582@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> Message-ID: <20170406220711.GL26952@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 02:46:29PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote: : Haggadol is not an adjective modifying Shabbath, because Shabbath is : feminine. No one who speaks Hebrew uses masculine adjectives to : modify Shabbath, ever (pedantic footnote: except in the fixed : expression "Shabbath shalom umvorakh", which is said by people who : do speak Hebrew, but which for other reasons is clearly an idiomatic : expression that does not follow the rules of grammar, unless you want : to call it a mistake, which is also fine with me). What about Shabbos morning, and "veyanuchu vo"? The previous night it was "vahh". I agree with your thesis, I am more trying to get from you what the masculine noun "vo" refers to. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 15:27:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 18:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav Message-ID: Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik heh under my understanding and also be milera. Is my understanding of the word incorrect? Kol tuv and Chag Kasher v'Sameach to all, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 00:29:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:29:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot Message-ID: from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) BTW the sefer contains 3 sections ; main, dvar halacha and orchot halacha. I am assuming that all 3 are from RSZA or notes of students. I will do my best in the translation but have added some of the notes in Hebrew RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who determines this minhag?) He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat. He adda that PERHAPS there is a reason to prohibit potato flour (serach kitniyot - based on chiddishin of RSZA to Pesachim). Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be prohibited (ie even according to those that eat gebrochs) (yesh ladun behem - Pesachim 40b - Rashi that when people are "mezalzel one should be machmir) In the notes that this was what RSZA said in shiurim and when asked a question responded that one should follow the family minhag. Nevetheless he remarked several times that cakes with matzah flour that look like chametz cakes that he didn't understand the heter when we go to lengths to avoid things that might be confused with chametz -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 23:27:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 06:27:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?Afikoman_-_=93Stealing=93_and_Other_Rel?= =?windows-1252?q?ated_Minhagim?= Message-ID: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> Please the article at http://seforim.blogspot.com/2017/04/afikoman-stealing-and-other-related.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 6 20:28:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 23:28:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] staam daat Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: > ... Is there an equivalent theory in interpersonal issues? (e.g., > I want you to take possession of this object, whatever chazal > says works, that?s what I want to think/occur). [related to daat > makneh and koneh issues] I think Mishne Berura 649:15 might be exactly what you're looking for. I am paraphrasing him, and he was paraphrasing the Magen Avraham and Pri Megadim. But basically, the point is: >>> Suppose it is the first day of Sukkos, and you want to use someone else's lulav, but you can't, because on the first day you need to own it yourself. So l'chatchila, the best option is make it explicit that you want to acquire his lulav in a "matana al m'nas l'hachzir" (gift on condition of returning) manner. >>> But b'dieved, if you borrowed it in a "stam" manner so that you could be yotzay with it, then we presume that he gave it to you intending to do it in whatever manner would allow you to be yotzay, namely, "matana al m'nas l'hachzir". >>> However, if you explicitly used the word "borrow" rather than "gift", then you would not be yotzay. Also, if the lulav's owner is unaware that a borrowed lulav is pasul, it would not work then either. (End of Mishne Brura.) Here's my commentary: There are two requirements for "stam daas" to help us here. The first is that the conversation must be vague, because if it were explicit we would not be able to assign a meaning to the words. But the second requirement is very relevant to RJR's question: The lulav's owner has to be aware that a borrowed lulav is pasul. If the owner does have that awareness, then we say that his stam daas was to grant ownership to you. But if the lulav's owner is not aware of this halacha, then his stam daas is to *lend* the lulav, which would not be valid. We see from this that "stam daas" is not a magic wand that can be applied conveniently to any vague comment. Rather, it is applied with a lot of care and understand of what the person's likely intention really was. Please read the MB yourself and see what he means. Even better, check out the MA and PM that the MB was summarizing (because I did not go into that much depth. Maybe over Shabbos.) [Press Pause button... Okay, continue...] I have now reread RJR's post, and I noticed that while the MB ruled how the halacha views these two people and the lulav, RJR's post is much more "me"-oriented. He asks about the case where > I have in mind ?whatever HKB?H wants me to have in mind > without actually knowing what that is ..." It seems to me that this is an explicit vagueness. If "stam daas" works where outsiders are trying to figure out what Ploni probably meant, it should certainly work where Ploni himself is being deliberately vague. I never studied Logic to the depth that R' Micha and other have, but even I can see a serious flaw in the above paragraph. In the MB's case of the lulav, the owner had *something* in mind, and we are presuming to know what it was. But in RJR's case, the individual made an effort have nothing in mind at all, and I can easily understand someone who says that this simply won't work. I would suggest this as a practical solution: One should never say simply, "I have in mind whatever Hashem wants me to have in mind," because that is essentially admitting that he really has nothing in mind. Rather, one should use an explicit tenai: "If Hashem wants me to have A in mind, then I do have A in mind; but if He wants me to have B in mind, then I do have B in mind." Akiva Miller Virus-free. www.avg.com <#m_3151624698786785420_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:24:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:24:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav Message-ID: > Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH > translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". > Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik > heh under my understanding and also be milera. Upon reviewing the pshat in the word "bushala", it is possible that my understanding was incorrect and the structure would be similar to "yochLUha" where the translation of the suffix in both cases is "it" as opposed to "its" and thus not requiring a mapik heh. Shabbat Shalom, HT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:25:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:25:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67447a90-4764-0dce-4f82-b0f11d5c55af@sero.name> On 06/04/17 18:27, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: > Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH > translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". > > Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik > heh under my understanding and also be milera. It's a verb, not a noun. If it were written as you would have it it would be a noun, presumably meaning "its cooking", but then it would be "bishulah". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 08:46:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:46:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pshat in a word in Parashat Tzav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170407154652.GD32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 06:27:30PM -0400, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: : Vayikra 6:21 has the phrase v'im b'lich nechoshet bushala which RSRH : translates as "if it be cooked in a copper vessel". : : Question: I would normally expect the word "bushala" to end with a mapik : heh under my understanding and also be milera. That would make it a posessed noun, "if its cooking was in a copper vessel". RSRH is treating is as a verb. In more contemporary American English, "if it had been cooked in a copper vessel". :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:47:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Afikoman_-_=E2=80=9CStealing=E2=80=9C_and_Othe?= =?utf-8?q?r_Related_Minhagim?= In-Reply-To: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> References: <1491546491985.17356@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <0a933758-f6de-9e33-4fd0-33f89b9dc517@sero.name> > http://seforim.blogspot.com/2017/04/afikoman-stealing-and-other-related.html My father gives presents to all those children who *don't* steal. He also explains that if the hidden matzah is stolen he will not pay any ransom for it but will simply use a different matzah. Thus the purpose of the minhag is preserved but the bad chinuch is avoided. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 08:44:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:44:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:10:26PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a korban : pesach? I assume koreikh was the norm. Not that Hillel argued they were necessary and no one else made wraps, but that everyone made a wrap, which is why a machloqes could arise as to whether one is yotzei if not. : i think we all agree that the matzot to make a korech were soft matzot [and : presumably mashiach will rule that's the way we should all be making them ]. One could be yotzei koreikh just putting a tiny lump of meat on a cracker. Not difficult. OTOH, we seem to have proven in numerous years that until the acharonic period, softa matzos were the norm in every community. (Ashkenazim too; see the Rama.) : if the zaytim were like larger then, would the sandwich have been the size : of a big mac? or half a pizza? But they were smaller, so no problem. Another perrennial is whether the growth of the kezayis is halachically binding even after archeology proved the historical assumptions wrong. : kiddush would have started the meal... And Ha Lachma Anya would have been 4 days before, as you can only invite people to join the chaburah BEFORE the sheep is set aside. For that matter, I'm convinced Ha Lachma Anya is not part of Maggid. Maggid ought to begin with questions, so let's assume it does. HLA is an explanation of Yachatz. And then, once we fact out qwhat it's like to have to ration our lachma anya, we express empathy for the dirtzrikh and dichpin. So perhaps Yachatz too would be before picking the sheep. . then some form of maggid [ 3 hrs : long? would the korban be edible that many hours later?]. Sure! How quickly does meat go bad where you live? It looks like there is a fundamental machloqes about the seider. Notice that Rabban Gamliel wasn't present at R' Aqiva's seider in Benei Beraq. OTOH, in the Tosefta at the end of Pesachim Rabban Gamliel hosts big seider in Lod, where they spent the whole night "osqin behilkhos haPesach". (This Tosefta goes with "ein maftirin achar haPesach afiqoman". A whole answer-to-the-chakham vibe here.) Notice that at R' Aqiva's seider "vehayu mesaperim beytzi'as mitzrayim". R' Aqiva held that a seider is all about the story. R' Gamliel -- the mitzvos. Most of Maggid we do R' Aqiva style: 1- We follow R' Yehudah, and tell the story of physical redemption. Avadim Hayinu. 2- Then (after an intermission in which we explain why we're doing multiple versions -- 4 banim, etc...) we follow Rav, and tell the story of spiritual redemption. Betechilah ovedei AZ. 3- And we tell the story using Vidui Biqurim and other texts. 4- Then, at the very end, we make sure to do the least necessary to be yotzei according to Rabban Gamliel. So it would seem we basically hold like R' Aqiva, that the main role of the foods is as aids to the story-telling. But Rabban Gamliel would have Maggid as /during/ the other mitzvos of the seider. We discuss the foods. : washed and then what? hamotzi on 3 matzos? but the mitzva matza was to : eat the korech no? so the rest of the meal was not matza followed by : marror, but rather that of korech. so then the chiyuv-matza was the : afikoman matza? or people would have chazon ish'ed it up twice---at the : matza they washed on and again on korech? The afiqoman was the sheep, all matzos umorerim. Before that was the chagiga, re'iyah and shulchan oreikh. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 07:48:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Meisner via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:48:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:10 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > is there any clue as to how the seder was conducted when there was a > korban pesach? The Rambam in Ch. 8 of Hil. Chametz uMatzah provides a step-by-step description of the seder that includes the eating of the Korban Pesach, which is probably a good start. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 09:32:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:32:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4167b94e-52b7-16a4-0069-0697990750d6@sero.name> On 07/04/17 11:44, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And Ha Lachma Anya would have been 4 days before, as you can only invite > people to join the chaburah BEFORE the sheep is set aside. Not true. One can join or leave a chavurah right up to the moment of shechitah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 09:58:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 17:58:36 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Surely either we'd pasken like Hillel, and eat the full portion of Pesach, Matza and Maror in one sandwich, or else we wouldn't, and there'd be no Korech at all? On 7 April 2017 at 16:44, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > One could be yotzei koreikh just putting a tiny lump of meat on a > cracker. Not difficult. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 10:15:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:15:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] order of the then seder In-Reply-To: References: <20170407154434.GC32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170407171523.GI32239@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 05:58:36PM +0100, Allan Engel wrote: : Surely either we'd pasken like Hillel, and eat the full portion of Pesach, : Matza and Maror in one sandwich, or else we wouldn't, and there'd be no : Korech at all? I assume everyone ate koreikh. It's most reasonable to assume that a machloqes over an annual practice kept by everyone is theoretical, not pragmatic. Not that one person is saying what a significant number of people are doing is pasul / assur. For similar reasons, I assume that until the rishonim, people considered both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam tefillin to be kosher. Otherwise, how were both styles in existence and common use since the days of the Chashmonaim until some 1,300 years later when rishonim started voicing preferences? Note my use of the phrase, "I assume". Li mistaber, I have no strong arguments for it. Back to our topic... I figure everyone ate the matzah, marror and lamb in a wrap. Otherwise, how did Hillel come around and argue that what everyone was doing was pasul? And why would it stay with Hillel, wouldn't he have the Sanhedrin vote on it? Rather, the machloqes was whether one was yotzei if they did the weird thing and eat them separately. If this was a rare event, multiple opinions could persist without resolutions. Now when it came time to commemorate, rather than fulfill the mitzvah.... Matzah we have to eat separately from maror, because without the pesach, there may be a problem with our fulfilling the mitzvah of eating matzah without it being the only tast in the mouth. And then there's the question of what are we commemorating -- eating all three in one meal, and the wrap aspect was not a critical facet that needs commemoration, or are we commemorating a wrap? So, we do both. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 10:28:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel In-Reply-To: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> References: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:05:30PM +0000, Professor L. Levine wrote: : My son who lives in EY told me that Ashkenazim have to very careful : about the products that they purchase for Pesach, since many products : that are certified for Pesach contain kitnios. The item below reinforces : this. ... : Eretz Yisrael: Strauss Cottage Cheese Contains Kitnios : : April 3, 2017- from the Arutz 7 : : : "Badatz Mehadrin, the hashgacha of Rabbi Avraham Rubin Shlita, alerts... I was wondering about this. Qitniyos is batel berov. Ah, you may say: but they're intentionally mixing in the qitniyos, there is no bitul! So here's my question: If a Sepharadi makes cottage cheese containing qitniyos, he isn't really having Ashkenazim in particular in mind. And for him the qitniyos are mutar. By parallel, a non-Jew mixing 1:61 basar bechalav for his own use or for a primarily non-Jewish customer base isn't bitul lkhat-chilah, as a permitted person's intent doesn't qualify as lekhat-chilah. So, does this Sepharadi man mixing qitniyos in run afowl of the problem of bitul lekhat-chilah? Why can't one argue that as long as the qitniyos is a mi'ut of the cottage cheese, and as long as it's not against the mixer's own minhag or that of the main bulk of people for whom he is mixing, the food is permissible for Ashkenazim too? And does it have to be both the mixer's own minhag AND that of most of the people the cottage cheese if for? After all, this is minhag, not pesaq. It's not like an Ashkenazi holds a Saphradi ought to be holding like us too. What if an Ashkenazi was doing the mixing on a product where most of the target customer base is Sepharadi? (Now, add to that mei qitniyos, and whether corn should have been added to the minhag, the observation that it is primarily NOT made for Ashkenazi Jews, and ask the same thing about Coca Cola.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 7 15:48:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 18:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: <<< I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. >>> Is this only in the DL community? If so, can anyone suggest why this would be so? I can this of two very different possibilities: One is negative, that there is some sort of jealousy to the sefardim, or taavah for the many products that are available. The other is positive, that this is simply a natural development of how minhagim change over the centuries when communities mix. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 13:42:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 22:42:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel In-Reply-To: <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> References: <1491512756515.10763@stevens.edu> <20170407172841.GK32239@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <43acd44d-c45c-b481-7dfb-2671547565a7@zahav.net.il> This is part of the backlash. People want the labels to read "contains kitniyot", not "for ochlei kitniyot only". Ben On 4/7/2017 7:28 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Qitniyos is batel berov. > > Ah, you may say: but they're intentionally mixing in the qitniyos, there > is no bitul! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 10:44:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:44:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58E92189.9030803@zahav.net.il> [Part 2, a mid-post detour. -mb] And as long as I am writing, a comment on the next posting in the Digest 48. Matza meal is the coarse version and is used for making latkes and kneidlach. Cake meal is the fine ground version for making cakes. Both were on the market and used by my mother in the US some 70- 80 years ago. And R' Micha mentioned a week or so ago that R/Dr Bannet pointed out that in my youth, peanut oil had the most machmir heksher of all Pesach oils. Three comments: It is true that chasidim used only peanut oil made by a Shomer mitzvot Jew. I am neither a R nor a Dr, and my family name ends with two t's. PKvS. David Bannett From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 10:44:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 20:44:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbas Hagadol In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58E92189.9030803@zahav.net.il> [RCD tried to sneak multiple topics into the same email. For the sake of threading, I split it and fixed the subject lines. -micha] Without commenting on the meaning of Shabbat Hagadol, I'd like to comment on the "fact" that Shabbat is feminine and one would have to say Shabbat Hag'dola. The Rambam in Hilkhot Shabbat 30:2 says Shhabat Hagadol. I then looked in the Bar Ilan Shu"t and found that there are a dozen other sources for a male Shabbat. [End of part 1. Now, part 3. -mb] And then R' Micha on the vayanuchu va, vo and vam in the tefila: There were three nuschaot. One said Shabbat and va, Another said yom haShabbat and vo and the third said Shabbatot and vam. PKvS. David Bannett From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 20:22:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2017 05:22:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If the issue was jealousy of sefardim, people would want to drop the minhag entirely. There is that, but only on the fringe. These chumrot seem like a false imposition, something someone invented. You can only hear "when I was a kid, we ate X, Y, Z" or "I went to a shiur and the rav said X, Y, Z are muttar" so many times before asking yourself "so why don't we eat X, Y, Z"? And yes, intermarriage is a huge factor. On 4/8/2017 12:48 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I can this of two very different possibilities: One is negative, that > there is some sort of jealousy to the sefardim, or taavah for the many > products that are available. The other is positive, that this is > simply a natural development of how minhagim change over the centuries > when communities mix. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:00:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:00:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) > ... > He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak > was never accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat. > He adds that PERHAPS there is a reason to prohibit potato flour > (serach kitniyot - based on chiddishin of RSZA to Pesachim). > Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be > prohibited (ie even according to those that eat gebrochs) ... To me, it seems contradictory to allow gebroks yet forbid matza meal cake. Yet it certainly seems that this is how RSZA held. I think I'm going to have to retract most of my recent posts. Or add least append a big "tzorech iyun" to them. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:22:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimetics [was:kitnoyot] Message-ID: > Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be > mimetically defined, by definition, .... [--RMB] WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be determinative. Lisa >>>>> "Shema beni mussar avicha, VE'AL TITOSH TORAS IMECHA." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:19:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <23551cea-98c2-5446-2323-d0fb7e82cc09@starways.net> On 4/8/2017 1:48 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Eli Turkel wrote: > > <<< I agree with others that in the DL community in EY there has been > a backlash against kitniyot chumrot and large shiurim. >>> > > Is this only in the DL community? If so, can anyone suggest why this > would be so? I think it's because the DL community is the community that is (a) committed to the Torah and (b) not stuck in fear mode. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 01:16:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 11:16:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller asked why in the dati leumi community there is a backlash against kitniyos? I think there are a number of reasons for this: 1. Theological - The Dati Leumi community views the establishment of the State of Israel as a significant theological event, the beginning of the Geula. They view the state as having significance. Therefore, they view the Jewish people as much more of an organic whole and want to eliminate things that separate the Jewish people into groups. Kitniyos very much does that. There is no question that whan Moshiach comes the division between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no machlokes. The Charedi world on the other hand believes that we are still fully in Galus and nothing has changed. 2. The Dati Leumi community isw much less segragated between sefardim and Ashkenazim. There are no ashkenazi or sefardi yeshivas and there is quite a bit of "intermarriage". If your daughter marries a Sefardi do you suddently not go to her for Pesach because she eats kitniyos? 3. People realize the hypocrisy of not eating kitniyos while eating kosgher l'pesach pretzels. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 22:31:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 01:31:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avoiding Kitniyos in Israel Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > Why can't one argue that as long as the qitniyos is a mi'ut of > the cottage cheese, and as long as it's not against the mixer's > own minhag or that of the main bulk of people for whom he is > mixing, the food is permissible for Ashkenazim too? > > ... What if an Ashkenazi was doing the mixing on a product where > most of the target customer base is Sepharadi? I would like to focus on the words "target customer base". We have to distinguish the manufacturer's customer base from the hashgacha's customer base. The two might be identical for a small brand that markets only to frum neighborhoods, but not for an industry giant like Strauss. We can presume that the manufacturer and their target customer base is mostly not makpid about kitniyos. Therefore, the manufacturer is doing nothing wrong by putting kitniyos into the product, and once they have done so, it is acceptable even for Ashkenazim, exactly as RMB suggests. But the hashgacha cannot put their certification on it. The target customer base of this hashgacha seems to be people who *are* makpid on kitniyos. (If they're not the majority of the hashgacha's clientele, they are at least a very significant minority.) And as such, the hashgacha has accepted the responsibility to act in place of their clientele at the factory. This turns it into a "bittul lechatchila" situation, and the hashgacha cannot grant an official okay to such products without an accompanying warning, which is exactly what they seem to have done. > (Now, add to that mei qitniyos, and whether corn should have > been added to the minhag, the observation that it is primarily > NOT made for Ashkenazi Jews, and ask the same thing about Coca > Cola.) Not just Coca Cola. Weren't we discussing chocolate bars a few weeks ago? Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 8 23:42:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 02:42:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman Message-ID: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> I tend to agree with the negative aspect of stealing the Afikoman. Very similarly, I feel the minhag to get so drunk on Purim so that you can?t distinguish between blessed be Mordecai and cursed be Haman is a very bad minhag and more offensive than stealing the afikoman. You are encouraging people to get drunk and that also has caused many problems in recent times. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:02:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:02:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman In-Reply-To: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> References: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 02:42:40AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : I tend to agree with the negative aspect of stealing the Afikoman. : Very similarly, I feel the minhag to get so drunk on Purim so that : you can?t distinguish between blessed be Mordecai and cursed be Haman : is a very bad minhag and more offensive than stealing the afikoman. Yeah, I don't see how teaching kids to steal the afiqoman is going to weaken their knowledge that it's wrong to steal. Should kids playing baseball not steal home? Just because the rule of the game is called "stealing"? But there is backlash against the drunk-on-Purim minhag too. The OU and RCA each put out something like annually. Hatzola puts out warnings. There are black-n-white wearing yeshivos that clamped down on their kids getting drunk when doing their Purim fundraising. And there has been backlash to the backlash, by people who value minhag. Really, the treatment of the two has been pretty parallel. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:19:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:19:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Stealing the Afikoman In-Reply-To: <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> References: <4FFB2222-A902-4856-9C21-389144F90F41@cox.net> <20170409130218.GA23835@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <621677e8-92b7-ca89-7197-201a3af3f7e6@sero.name> On 09/04/17 09:02, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Yeah, I don't see how teaching kids to steal the afiqoman is going > to weaken their knowledge that it's wrong to steal. Should kids > playing baseball not steal home? Just because the rule of the game > is called "stealing"? That's a different sense of the word: "4. to move or convey stealthily". As in "with cat-like tread upon our prey we steal". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 06:48:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:48:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > There is no question that when Moshiach comes the division > between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The > Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no > machlokes. This is news to me. There is no machlokes here to be paskened. Everyone agrees that the halacha allows even rice to Ashkenazim. It is all minhag. Even if the Sanhendrin would want to, I don't know where they'd get the authority to do away with minhagim. On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim! > The Dati Leumi community is much less segregated between > sefardim and Ashkenazim. There are no ashkenazi or sefardi > yeshivas and there is quite a bit of "intermarriage". If your > daughter marries a Sefardi do you suddently not go to her for > Pesach because she eats kitniyos? That depends on your posek. By my memory, many poskim, including among the DL, hold that one can eat from the keilim, but to avoid actual kitniyos. And many other shitos in both directions. > People realize the hypocrisy of not eating kitniyos while > eating kosher l'pesach pretzels. I was arguing strenuously against this until a few hours ago, when I was reminded that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach held this way too. Perhaps I have overdosed on inoculations of matza meal cake and matza meal pancakes, and I cannot see myself ever sharing this view. But having seen RSZA's words, I cannot claim that it is only the little people who say this - it's the big guns too. And I would be indebted to any listmembers who would quote other gedolim on this topic. Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 9 15:47:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 08:47:40 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyos - Why do today's Poskim argue with the Mishneh Berurah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can anyone show some Halachic source that argues with the Mishneh Berurah who Paskens that Foods containing LESS THAN 50% Kitniyos that is at the same time not visually discernible Although its taste is certainly discernible, is Muttar during Pesach? Is a Rov permitted to refuse to identify a Kosher product as Kosher (or worse, declare a product not Kosher) because of other considerations? See this article http://www.kosherveyosher.com/chocolate-pesach-lecithin-1001.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 01:45:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:45:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] order of the seder Message-ID: < See "leil haPesach be-taludum shel chachamim" (Hebrew) by David Henshkr who has a detailed discussion -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 01:47:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:47:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Matzah meal Message-ID: <> In Israel it is readily available in many supermarkets -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 02:04:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:04:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism Message-ID: <> Doesn't answer my question of how mimeticism deals with new situations. Sticking to kitniyot by patents used cottenseed oil but knew nothing about Canola oil or Lecitisthin <> Let me use this to sound off. I have a major problem with textualiism. In some circles it means studying a sugya and coming to a conclusion without any regard to the outside world. In regard to shiurim the Noda Yehuda has a question. One doesn't suddenly change minhagim because of a question. In recent years this doubling of shiurim has become popular because of CI. First there is evidence that CI himself did not use his own shiur. It is well known that some descendants of the CC don't use his kiddush cup because it is not shiur CI. However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. Even a slightly smaller shiur would hit various walls making it impossible to walk around while various testimonies make it smaller. There is now a new exhibition of a virtual 3D reality of walking around the bet hamikdash. It is based on aerial photographs of the current Temple mount and supplemented by details in the Mishna and archaeology using the topography of the land. Theis construction places the holy har habayit on the currently raised portion of the Temple mount. This yields an amah of about 38cm (CI=57, CN=44-48) Other proofs included the length of the Siloam tunnel which is documents in amot and can be measured. One of the strongest proofs is based on the meitzah of the cohen gadol which could not possibly hold the shiur of CI (note that if his hands were bigger this would redefine the amah). As to changes over the generations olive pits from the Bar Chocba era are the same size as today. In spite of a preponderous evidence that the shiur of CI is way too large almost all seforim in Israel give the amount of matzah to eat and wine to drink based on CI (at least lechatchila). This is textualism at the extreme in contrast to common sense -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 03:15:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "I have an opportunity to kill the terrorist..." Message-ID: <20170410101557.GA14700@aishdas.org> Anyone want to try this one, with meqoros? RSE raises two issues: killing a neutralized terrorist, and (I guess) dina demalkhusa on the topic. Chag Kasher veSameaich (belashon "lo zu af zu"), -micha The Jewish Press Tzfat Chief Rabbi Was Asked in Real Time whether to Kill Ramming Terrorist By David Israel -- 11 Nisan 5777 -- April 7, 2017 http://www.jewishpress.com/news/jewish-news/tzfat-chief-rabbi-was-asked-in-real-time-whether-to-kill-ramming-terrorist/2017/04/07/ Chief Rabbi of Tzfat Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, who is not known for particularly leftwing sympathies (he encourages his flock to refuse Arab renters, for instance), on Thursday night told a class he was teaching that one of his students had phoned him from the scene of the ramming attack that killed an IDF soldier. The student posed a halachic inquiry: "He told me, I see my buddy here lying down dead," Rabbi Eliyahu recalled, adding that his student had asked, "I have an opportunity to kill the terrorist - should I kill him or not?" Advertisement Around 10 AM, Thursday, an Arab terrorist rammed his vehicle into two IDF soldiers waiting at a hitchhiking post on Rt. 60, outside Ofra in Judea and Samaria. Sgt. Elhai Teharlev HY"D, 20, was killed, and the other soldier was injured. The terrorist was arrested by security forces. Rabbi Eliyahu said that his response was that "this terrorist deserves to die. However, unfortunately, the laws in this country are not well constructed, and so there is no legal way to do to him what needs to be done." "I told him that had he been able to do it while the attack was on it would have been possible, but we were after the event, unfortunately." Advertisement From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 03:39:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 06:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed Message-ID: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ > Let me run an idea by you guys... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha > 2. Melacha is forbidden on chol hamoed > 3. One of the permits for doing melacha is for tzorech hamoed, but in this > case, if possible you should do the melacha before the chag > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. > 5. If you find yourself on chol hamoed without pre-torn toilet paper, you > can tear it, however preferably not on the lines. > Am I crazy? :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 04:54:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:54:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> References: <20170410103917.GA15884@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Apr 10, 2017 1:40 PM, "Micha Berger via Avodah" wrote... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha > 2. Melacha is forbidden on chol hamoed > 3. One of the permits for doing melacha is for tzorech hamoed, but in this > case, if possible you should do the melacha before the chag > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. > 5. If you find yourself on chol hamoed without pre-torn toilet paper, you > can tear it, however preferably not on the lines. > Am I crazy? Not at all. Please see Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa perek 66 footnote 78. RSZA was machmir for himself, though the author suggests that nowdays it would be unnecessary. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 06:39:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:39:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12e4046f8d104931a3a60fafe99b3947@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > There is no question that when Moshiach comes the division > between Sefardim and Ashkenazim basically will go away. The > Sanhedrin willl pasken the halacha and there will be no > machlokes. This is news to me. There is no machlokes here to be paskened. Everyone agrees that the halacha allows even rice to Ashkenazim. It is all minhag. Even if the Sanhendrin would want to, I don't know where they'd get the authority to do away with minhagim. On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim! --------------------------------------- Aiui there is some debate as to how much practice was/will be standardized-some believe (IIRC R'HS) that the shevet Sanhedrin set local practice and few issues went to great sanhedrin for standardization. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 06:41:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:41:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170410134127.GB29583@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:04:31PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> Mimeticism evolves because culture evolves. : Doesn't answer my question of how mimeticism deals with new situations. It answers your question by implying there is no answer. There is no rule for how common practice will evolve. Rules are textual. But the truth is, halakhah requires both. Not every evolution of a minhag is valid. That way lies Catholic Israel. It has to pass muster against the sources and sevara. :-)|,|ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 10 07:54:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:54:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Misc interesting Halacha questions from R Shlomo Miller shlitah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <035201d2b20a$5ef3d1a0$1cdb74e0$@com> Misc interesting Halacha questions from R Shlomo Miller shlitah http://baisdovyosef.com/rabbi-past-questions/ Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlitah for a printout of all the Q&As (100 pgs) https://www.dropbox.com/s/70y971r0ct2l7x8/RS%20miller%20bartfeld%20questions .doc?dl=0 or email me offline mcohen at touchlogic.com GYT, mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 12 12:45:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:45:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz Message-ID: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy A rav gave over some quick halachot and cited the Shulhan Aruch that if one finds chameitz in one's home, you cover it (if you find it on shabbat/yom tov) and later burn it, or burn it right away (cholo moed). I asked, if one sold one's chameitz, how can you burn it? It now belongs to the non-jew. This rav (and second rav) said that the sale only includes the chameitz that you specify. If you don't have a piece of chameitz in mind, you didn't sell it. OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz, everything in all of his properties. It makes no mention of what you have in mind. If a contract say "ALL" it means all, n'est pas? So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 12 21:09:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:09:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taanis Bechoros - Women? Message-ID: My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros. So I read her Mishne Berurah 470:4, which gives the reason as because there are no halachos in which female firstborns have any such kedusha. That seemed to satisfy her, but it didn't satisfy me. After all, if a boy is his father's first but not his mother's first, then he has no kedusha which would require Pidyon Haben. Aruch Hashulchan 470:2 gives that same logic, but explains that although the father's first doesn't get a Pidyon Haben, he *does* have special halachos about inheritance, and Aruch Hashulchan 470:3 says the same thing regarding a boy who was born after a miscarriage, or a firstborn Kohen, or a firstborn Levi. My question is: So what? Why is the special status of "firstborn for inheritance" more relevant than "would've been killed in Mitzrayim"? (Please note that there is another case that I'm *not* asking about, namely, where none of the people at home was a technical bechor, then whoever was oldest was subject to Makas Bechoros. Since that could vary depending on who was home in any particular year, I can easily understand why it never got included in the minhag.) Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 13 13:24:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 23:24:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefirot Ha`omer Message-ID: Every year I would like to get deeper into the combinations of sefirot (or middot) that appear in siddurim with the counting of the Omer, and every year I get lost and confused. For example, what is the difference between hesed shebigevura and gevura shebehesed? If tiferet is a synthesis of hesed and gevura, how does it differ from either of the above? And so on and so on. There seem to be a thousand books and websites that explain the sefirot and their combinations in modern terms, but I haven't found any that quote or even cite primary sources. Where might one look for such sources? Mo`adim lesimha! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 13 22:56:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:56:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "On the other hand, if they *do* have the authority to do that, then how can we know which way they'd pasken? Maybe they'd impose kitniyos in the Sefardim!" Given the illogic of the minhag of kitniyos I think not. Why would they impose a din that makes no sense in today's world. With regards to visiting children R' AKiva Miler wrote: "That depends on your posek. By my memory, many poskim, including among the DL, hold that one can eat from the keilim, but to avoid actual kitniyos. And many other shitos in both directions." I was saying that facetiously. WADR you missed the forest for the trees. Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child and can't eat all the food. You are looking at this from a pure halachic perspceticve but in truth, there is a non-halachic sociologcal perspective here that needs to be addressed as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 14 01:12:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 11:12:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sefirot Ha`omer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71537556-72e6-e4ec-3ea1-61c0f913fb9b@starways.net> Lama li kra? It seems pretty clear on the face of it. Hesed she'b'Gevura means that you're doing Hesed by means of Gevura. Your intended result is Hesed. The way you're achieving that Hesed is by an act of Gevura. So let's take R' Aryeh Kaplan's understanding of the two Middot, where Hesed means going above and beyond what is required, and Gevura is restraining yourself, and here are a couple of examples. You're at the grocery store, and there's one box of Wacky Macs left on the shelf. You see a mother with a bunch of her kids coming down the aisle, and the kids are beginning for Wacky Macs. So you don't take it. You're limiting yourself in order to do something nice (but not required) for the mother. That's Hesed she'b'Gevura. You're at the grocery store, and you've taken the last box of Wacky Macs. You know you shouldn't eat it, because it's all starch and fat, but you can't help it. You're standing at the checkout line, and there's a mother behind you whose kids are giving her a hard time because they wanted Wacky Macs, but the store is out. So you decide that this will help you keep your diet, and you offer the mother the box of Wacky Macs. You're doing something nice (but not required) for the mother in order to limit yourself. That's Gevura she'b'Hesed. It's a thin line, sometimes. Figuring out what the actual action (or inaction) is and what the purpose is. Means and ends. As far as Tiferet, while you can see it as a synthesis of Hesed and Gevura, which is nice if you like the thesis-antithesis-synthesis paradigm, it's really the point of balance between them. Where you aren't refraining and you aren't overdoing. Another term for Tiferet is Tzedek. Meaning doing what you're supposed to do, or what you're allowed to do: no more and no less. I think that one of the reasons there aren't books that cite primary sources about this is simply because there aren't any. There are primary sources about what the meaning of each of the Sefirot mean, but the combination should be fairly clear. That said, I know it isn't. When I was a camper as a kid, we had discussion groups about whether we were "Jewish Americans" or "American Jews". I was 12 the first time we did it, and it was a mess. The next time, I think I was 14 or 15, and I already realized what the problem was, although the counselor leading the discussion didn't. It's a matter of definitions. If you look at it in terms of language, one of those words is the noun, and the other is the adjective. The noun is what you *are*. The adjective just modifies it. So "American Jew" is putting being Jewish first, and "Jewish American" is putting being American first. But a lot of the other kids (and the counselor) were looking at it from the point of view of which *word* came first in the phrase. And theoretically, I suppose, you could interpret X she'b'Y in the opposite way from what I've described above, but I'm not sure there's a real nafka mina, because we cover all the combinations. It just seems to me that the first week, we deal with the concept of *doing* Hesed, with all 7 possible intents, since these 7 Sefirot are fundamentally Sefirot of action (and interaction), as opposed to the first three, which are Sefirot of mind. But can you say that the first week, we talk about the concept of *intending* Hesed, with all 7 possible methods? I suppose. It's not the way I look at it, but absent primary sources to determine which way is right, I suppose it's possible. Shabbat Shalom and Moadim L'Simcha, Lisa On 4/13/2017 11:24 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > Every year I would like to get deeper into the combinations of sefirot > (or middot) that appear in siddurim with the counting of the Omer, and > every year I get lost and confused. For example, what is the > difference between hesed shebigevura and gevura shebehesed? If tiferet > is a synthesis of hesed and gevura, how does it differ from either of > the above? And so on and so on. > > There seem to be a thousand books and websites that explain the > sefirot and their combinations in modern terms, but I haven't found > any that quote or even cite primary sources. Where might one look for > such sources? > > Mo`adim lesimha! > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 14 06:40:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:40:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <491b0760-73a4-cf76-550a-2c2dfb57aeb3@sero.name> On 14/04/17 01:56, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > I was saying that facetiously. WADR you missed the forest for the trees. > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child and > can't eat all the food. If you think that's a problem now, wait till Moshiach comes and you have parents visiting their daughter who married a Cohen. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 11:52:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 20:52:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8fe0a1db-6349-9011-e2d4-ea78a89684eb@zahav.net.il> I've said this before but it bares repeating. I was married to someone with multiple food allergies. Cooking even at home was always a challenge. Going out to eat at someone else's house and giving them the list of what yes, what no made that it even harder. Whenever we had guests, we always asked about food allergies, kashrut requirements, and preferences. Compared to allergies, kashrut stuff was kid's play. More than that, I learned that it is perfectly OK to have food on the table that not everyone can eat. Any vegetarian who came over expecting to be able to eat everything was disappointed. Not being able to eat rice and having to settle for the five other dishes doesn't even make it on my radar. Thinking that one should be able to eat everything is a sense of entitlement that I don't accept. Ben On 4/14/2017 7:56 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child > and can't eat all the food. > > You are looking at this from a pure halachic perspceticve but in > truth, there is a non-halachic sociologcal perspective here that needs > to be addressed as well. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 18:36:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:36:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > Given the illogic of the minhag of kitniyos ... ... > Why would they impose a din that makes no sense in today's world. I could easily argue that avoidance of poultry and milk "makes no sense in today's world." I'd like to hear whether other people think that din to be logical or illogical. (One is a minhag, and the other is d'rabbanan, but that's a side issue. My question is whether one is less logical than the other.) Akiva Miller

Virus-free. www.avg.com
From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 18:22:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:22:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini Message-ID: One of the main areas this portion deals with is kashruth. There is an overriding concept in the laws of kashruth that the characteristics of what we eat somehow have a great influence on the way we behave. We do not want to associate ourselves with cruelty, therefore we are forbidden to eat cruel animals, and in this case certain fowl. Among the fowl that are listed as being non kosher is the chasidah, the white stork. You may ask what cruel character trait does the stork possess. Rashi mentions that the reason it is called a "chasidah" is because it does chesed with its friends regarding the food it finds. On the surface this seems strange. If the stork acts kindly with its food, why is it disqualified as being kosher? A beautiful explanation to this difficulty has been given by the Chidushei Harim, a Chassidic 19th century Talmudic scholar, in which he explains the nature of the stork. He says that the fact the stork only shows its kindness with its friends defines its cruelty. A fowl who is not in the circle of the stork's good buddies is excluded from getting any help from the stork in finding food. In other words, the stork is very selective in its kindness. This type of kindness is misleading. We, as Jews, are commanded to help our foes. If we come across someone we dislike intensely who needs help, we are commanded to help. The stork, on the other hand, helps only his friends. It is this character trait of differentiating between close friends and others when it comes to providing food that makes the stork non-kosher. Chesed means reaching out altruistically, with love and generosity to all. The process of maturing involves developing our sense of caring for others. This is crucial for spiritual health. The Talmud likens someone who doesn't give to others as the "walking dead.? A non-giving soul is malnourished and withered. It is only through unconditional love that our successful future will be built. In the words of King David (Psalm 89:3): Olam chesed yibaneh - "the world is built on kindness.? May we live to see this kindness and care infused in all our lives. Kindness is the language the deaf can hear and the blind can see. Mark Twain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 12:40:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:40:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Shul Practices In-Reply-To: <042313fe1c2b495fbe8f8efad437f69d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <042313fe1c2b495fbe8f8efad437f69d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: I was reminded of this question this evening. Our shul is nominally nusach Sefard. However if someone (like moi) does daven Ashkenaz, the gabbi is OK, but insists on things like: Saying Shir Ha'ma'lot in Maariv Saying Keter during Mussaf Ben On 3/30/2017 2:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Visiting a shul questions-actual practices and sources appreciated: > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:45:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:45:27 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ff40b88-0f88-fb08-9c92-10e44bbdfc3d@zahav.net.il> A bit of perspective here: this is the Orthodox version of a first world problem. 100 years ago how many Ashkenazim and Sefardim even met, much less intermarried or lived in the same neighborhoods? At most, this is a bit of growing pain. Ben On 4/14/2017 7:56 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > Of course there are halachic solutions but it still makes for a very > akward situation for parents and children when parents visit a child > and can't eat all the food. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:34:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:34:27 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: How do we determine when the dough is baked to the point where it can no longer become Chamets? when there are no Chutim NimShaChim When the Matza is torn apart there are no doughy threads stretching between the two pieces. These days this test is not available because so little water is added to the flour that there is no opportunity for the chemical reaction that activates the gluten and even when the Matza, or the batch of dough is torn BEFORE it is put into the oven there are NO Chutim NimShaChim [this is noted by the Chazon Ish] So if one suggests that there is a possibility that some flour within [but not on the surface of] the Matza which is protected from the heat of the oven and does not become baked [as once it is baked, flour can not become Chamets] then the Chashash that this flour might become Chamets if it becomes wet pales into insignificance and is completely eclipsed by the much greater risk that the middle part of the Matza which may not have been baked may actually be Chamets [Gamur] The fact that it is now now dry means nothing that is simply dehydrated dough AKA Chamets, maybe Chamets Nukshe Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:40:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:40:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed Message-ID: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ > Let me run an idea by you guys... > 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha....... > 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the > beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. >>>>> It seems to me you are no more obligated to tear toilet paper for the whole week than you are to do all your cooking for the whole week before the yom tov. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 23:49:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:49:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Taanis Bechoros - Women? Message-ID: <63e57.57f1ef36.46246de8@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros. << Akiva Miller >>>>> That's a pretty obscure medrash. It is seemingly contradicted by the Torah itself, which specifies that a pidyon haben is required for a firstborn boy because the firstborn boys were spared makas bechoros in Egypt. Nothing about a pidyon habas. On the other hand, according to Sefer HaToda'ah (Book of Our Heritage), "There are different customs associated with this fast. Some say that every firstborn, male or female, whether from the father or from the mother, must fast on that day. If there is no firstborn, then the oldest in the house must fast.....However others say that only firstborn males need to fast and this is the generally accepted custom." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 21:50:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Martin Brody via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:50:12 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Fast of the First Born. Message-ID: Akiva Miller posted "My eldest grand-daughter asked me why girls don't go to the siyum on Erev Pesach, given the medrash firstborn girls *were* killed in Makas Bechoros etc." Maybe because the fast has nothing to do with the 10th plague at all? They should be celebrating, not fasting! Fasting is for repentance. More likely the Sin of the Golden Calf, when the firstborn lost their priestly status. On the 14th the first born have to watch the Aaronite priests slaughtering the Pascal offering instead of them. Cheers Martin Brody From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 15 20:55:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:55:38 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Cohen son in law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: when Moshiach comes parents will seek a cohen for a son in law because it's a great investment, they can feed their son in law and his family with their tithes. It's like having the Bechor reinstated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 06:28:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:28:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is > impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har > habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. > ... > This construction places the holy har habayit on the currently > raised portion of the Temple mount. This yields an amah of about > 38cm (CI=57, CN=44-48) > Other proofs included the length of the Siloam tunnel which is > documents in amot and can be measured. ... I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction as well. The minimum shiur for a mikveh is 3 cubic amos, as this is the size that a typical person could fit into. Who among us could fit into a space 38x38x114 cm? (15x15x45 inches)? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 06:41:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:41:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > If you think that's a problem now, wait till Moshiach comes and > you have parents visiting their daughter who married a Cohen. Indeed! And I think an even more common case will be a husband (regardless of shevet) who wants (or needs) to eat taharos, but his wife is nidah. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:28:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:28:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mimeticism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170416212823.GC13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 09:28:13AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Eli Turkel wrote: : > However, there are loads of proofs that the shiur of CI is : > impossible. First the 500x500 amot of the holy part of har : > habayit doesnt quite fit in the walls. I pointed out that we know length of the water tunnel in meters and rounded to two digits precision amos. In contrast, the current Har haBayis platform post-dates Hadrian y"sh lobbing off the top of the mountain and dumping it into the valley between the kotel and the current Moslem and Jewish Quarters. So we really only have part of one wall to go on. The floor can't possibly date back to either BHMQ. But that doesn't mean the shiur is impossible. The shiur may indeed be at odds with historical interpretations of the halakhah. Even perhaps by accident. But would that necessarily mean it's not binding? In either case, the CI's ammah is textual. RCNaeh's ammah is a textualist's attempt to formalize a precise number that is basicallhy consistent with the praactice of the Yishuv haYashan. Mimeticism-driven. RAM himself replied: : I think there is plenty of evidence in the other direction as well. : The minimum shiur for a mikveh is 3 cubic amos, as this is the size : that a typical person could fit into. Who among us could fit into a : space 38x38x114 cm? (15x15x45 inches)? According to http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13993-stature , in 1906, the average Jewish man was about 162cm high. Let's make his miqvah 165 x 31 x 31 cm. Same volume of water. A maximum belt size of something like 97 cm (39") would fit. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:49:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 10:29:56AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : from halichot shlomo volume on Pesach p89 (pe-tet) ... : RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who : determines this minhag?) Well, if it's mimetic, you just watch what people do. And if so, RSZA's statement is descriptive, not descriptive. As in: Lemaaseh, people are nohagim not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach. : He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never : accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason than the one given. ... : Certainly, cakes made from matza flour should certainly be prohibited (ie : even according to those that eat gebrochs) (yesh ladun behem - Pesachim 40b : - Rashi that when people are "mezalzel one should be machmir) Who is being mezalzel on chameitz? If he saying that because some people are questioning qitniyos, we should strengthen qitniyos, then what does that have to do with foods not already under that umbrella? And even among those who question the minhag's sanity, is there really a major zilzul going on among Ashkenazim doing less and less to avoid qitniyios? On the contrary, as your translation opens, avoiding shemen qitniyos has spread well beyond the communities that originally had that minhag, to the extent that it's being applied to foods that in the past weren't on the list of qitniyos! The questioning is a counter-reaction to the growth of the minhag. Who is being mezalzel? : In the notes that this was what RSZA said in shiurim and when asked a : question responded that one should follow the family minhag... Ascerting mimeticism over his own textualism. Sevara aside, minhag is whatever is the accepted practice. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:30:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:30:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach - Lecithin does not render chocolate non-KLP for Ashkenasim In-Reply-To: References: <0b78331e-194b-c586-6de0-fc623959e4e3@sero.name> <32449da1-df34-d5e8-7170-a2c8676adf0e@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170416213032.GD13509@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 07:25:10AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 2) The prohibition of being m'vateil an issur applies to the super : corporations that run the milk industry? This is a case where buying Chalav Yisrael, which is de rigeur in Zev's Chabad community, would be more problematic. After all, something done for CY milk is being done for Jews. Something done for stam OUD milk would not be. :-)||ii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:38:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Poisoning in Halacha In-Reply-To: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> References: <58E1B06A.7060902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170416213850.GE13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 10:16:10PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: : Tonight my chevrusa and I learned the sugya in Bava Kamma 47b of one who : puts poison in front of his friend's animal. A brief synopsis and : application of the sugya is at : http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/infected: ... : It struck us that it follows that if one poisons another human being by, : say, placing cyanide in his tea, which the victim then drinks and dies, : the poisoner is exempt from capitol punishment. It would seem that such : a manner of murder falls into the category of the Rambam's ruling in : Hilchos Rotze'ach u'Shemiras Nefesh 3:10: It might be similarly true, but I don't know if "it follows". After all, gerama in Choshein Mishpat has a more limited definition than in hilkhos Shabbos. So, it didn't have to be true that the same definitions of gerama and garmi apply in dinei mamunus as in dinei nefashos. Lemaaseh, they are consistent. I would ask the Y-mi-style question: How is retzichah more similar to mamon than it is to Shabbos? :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 14:10:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:10:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> References: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> Message-ID: <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 2:40am EDT, RnTK wrote: :> R Shlomo Katz asked the following on Facebook :> https://www.facebook.com/groups/1344775595566571/permalink/1468822016495261/ :> Let me run an idea by you guys... :> 1. Tearing toilet paper is melacha....... :> 4. Therefore, you should tear toilet paper for 7 or 8 days before the :> beginning of Pesach and Sukkot. : It seems to me you are no more obligated to tear toilet paper for the whole : week than you are to do all your cooking for the whole week before the yom : tov. Actually, the heter is that the food tastes better when made closer to eating time. But if one is talking about food that would taste as good if made days ahead (including the logistical limitations of storage), one is actually supposed to be cooking it before YT. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 5th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Chesed: What kinds of Chesed take Fax: (270) 514-1507 away my independence? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 15:44:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:44:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> References: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> On 16/04/17 17:49, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never > : accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... > > But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod > bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason > than the one given. again, no he doesn't. We just went through this last week. He never proposed it, even as a hava amina, and never gives a reason against it. He merely reports, as a matter of fact and completely without comment for or against it, that he heard that in Germany they forbid potatoes because over there they make flour from them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 16 15:36:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:36:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Toilet Paper on Chol haMoed In-Reply-To: <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> References: <63de2.7fffb69c.46246bcc@aol.com> <20170416211008.GA13509@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8d50d8fe-f514-fdbf-c460-9971ad347ed9@sero.name> On 16/04/17 17:10, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Actually, the heter is that the food tastes better when made closer to > eating time. But if one is talking about food that would taste as good > if made days ahead (including the logistical limitations of storage), > one is actually supposed to be cooking it before YT. But not before chol hamoed. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 20:00:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:00:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kitniyot In-Reply-To: <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> References: <20170416214926.GF13509@aishdas.org> <3f5a5c01-55bb-ebf5-5220-161b2e4a90c1@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170419030020.GA29092@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 06:44:54PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 16/04/17 17:49, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >: He brings that the CA prohibited potatos !! but that this psak was never : >: accepted. because they can't be confused with wheat... : >But the CA himself says it's a minhag she'ein hataibur yachol laaemod : >bo. He gives it as a hava amina and rejects it for a different reason : >than the one given. : : again, no he doesn't. We just went through this last week... And given the relatice abilities of RSZA and you to read the Chayei Adam, you're obviously mistaken. : never proposed it, even as a hava amina... He reports the existence of such a minhag, and recommends against its adoption. Close enough. You're setting yourself up as a baal pelugta of RSZA by splitting hairs to crration a distinction without a difference? Really? -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 19:56:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:56:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Isru Chag Message-ID: <68F6CB3B-3D32-4BF0-A68E-3AD77FD7EE69@cox.net> The gematria for Isru Chag is 278, the same gematria for l'machar found in Bamidbar, Ch.11, vs.18. This is in the Sidra, Beha?a'lotcha, where God has Moshe establish a Sanhedrin because Moshe complained that he could not carry on alone. God says to Moshe: "To the people you shall say, 'Prepare yourselves for tomorrow and you shall eat meat..." There is an interesting tie here. The day after a festival is the "morrow" and even though the holiday is over, we must always be preparing ourselves. (Also, in counting the omer, we are preparing ourselves for the climax of our faith in 50 days). A good Isru chag to all. ri ?By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.? Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 18 21:06:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:06:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: R' Meir G. Rabi explained his logic: > if one suggests that > there is a possibility that > some flour > within [but not on the surface of] the Matza > which is protected from the heat of the oven > and does not become baked > [as once it is baked, flour can not become Chamets] > then the Chashash that this flour > might become Chamets if it becomes wet > pales into insignificance > and is completely eclipsed by the much greater risk > that the middle part of the Matza > which may not have been baked > may actually be Chamets [Gamur] I do not follow this logic. He is comparing two distinctly different risks. For simplicity, I'd like to call one risk "insufficiently kneaded" and the other one "insufficiently baked". "Insufficiently kneaded" means that there might be some flour in the middle of the matza that never got wet and is still plain raw flour, and that if it gets wet it will become chometz. "Insufficiently baked" means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not get baked, and it is already chometz. And RMGR feels that the second of these is a "much greater risk". I don't know where he gets the statistics to say that "insufficiently kneaded" is a small risk (his words are "pales into insignificance"), and that "insufficiently baked" is a "much greater risk". Personally, my opinion is that *IF* one checks his matzos to be sure that they are uniformly thin, *AND* checks to be sure that they have none of the kefulos or other problems that halacha warns us about, then he can be confident that no part of the matza was insufficiently baked, and they are NOT chometz. Thus, there are steps that the consumer can take to minimize the risk that his matzos were insufficiently baked. In contrast, I don't know of any way that the consumer can check the matzos to verify that they were kneaded well enough; who knows if there might be a few particles of flour that never got wet? I guess the consumer has to rely on the manufacturer and hechsher to insure that they are doing a good enough job of kneading the dough. Anyway, my main point is that these two risks are distinct from each other. I don't see any logical connection between them. From the way he worded the subject line, it sounds like RMGR is making a "kal vachomer", that if one is worried about one of the risks, then he must certainly worry about the other one, but I don't see that. (In fact, I can't even figure out which risk he feels leads to the other.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 13:17:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:17:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: I am moving this to Avodah. >From: Ben Waxman via Areivim >To: Simon Montagu via Areivim , areivim > >Why is this even an issue? Meaning, why is it such an issue that people >with a different minhag are davening together*? Or is the issue that >both sides feel that the other is doing an aveira**? > >*Sefardim and Ashkenazim wrap their teffilin differently. That factoid >doesn't stop anyone from praying together. >** Which brings up other issues. >Ben My understanding is that people who wear Tefillen during Cho Moed are not supposed to wear them in a minyan where the custom is that no one wears Tefillen. I know that in a couple of shuls near me they are makpid that those who wear Tefillen and those who do not do wear them do not daven together until after the kedusha of shachris when Tefillen are taken off. In the Kivasikin minyan that I normally daven with, those who were Tefillen are upstairs in what is normally the ladies section. After Kedusha of Shachris, those upstairs join those downstairs for a Hallel. I have been told that in the Agudah in Baltimore those who wear Tefillen are on one side of the mechitza and those who don't are on the other side until after kedusha of shachris. So, apparently there is a problem with having a mix of Tefillen wearers and non-wearers during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 14:17:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:17:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:17:21PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : So, apparently there is a problem with having a mix of Tefillen : wearers and non-wearers during Chol Moed. Lo sisgodedu. The pasuq behind the whole notion of minhag hamaqom altogether. Eg see MB 31 s"q 8. The AhS OC 31:4 is okay with minyanim that are mixed between wearers and non-wearers. Nowadays, when the concept of minhag hamaqom is so weak and has so little to do with our sence of belonging, I think the psychology is the opposite as that assumed by those who apply lo sisgodedu. Having two minyanim is more divided, and certainly if it ends up an argument about which part of the minyan is behind the mechitzah. Look how in Israel, many minyanim ignore the halakhos of having a set nusach for the beis kenesses and just let each chazan use his own minhag avos! And this enables a single minyan to function in spite of diversity; a variety of Jews from different cultures able to daven together! Tir'u baTov! -Micha (PS: "wfb" summarized a nice list of sources about whether they should be worn from R Jacob Katz's article in Halakhah veQabbalah at .) -- Micha Berger Today is the 8th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed for another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 19 14:41:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:41:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Why would tefillin be any different to the various different practises about who does and doesn't wear a tallis? I have never heard of a non-tallis-wearing post-bar-mitzva boy being banished behind the mechitza at a yekkishe shul, or vice versa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 01:20:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:20:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> I didn't understand the question. My daughter married a sefardi and they eat kitniyot. I was by them for seder and everything served was without kiniyot. BTW I not aware of any shitah that there is a problem with keilim used for kitniyot. BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given modern communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a problem but there might be technological answers to that also. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 01:38:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:38:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RSZA on kiniyot Message-ID: <<: RSZA says the minhag is not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach (mimetic - who : determines this minhag?) Well, if it's mimetic, you just watch what people do. And if so, RSZA's statement is descriptive, not descriptive. As in: Lemaaseh, people are nohagim not to use cottonseed oil on Pesach. ... Sevara aside, minhag is whatever is the accepted practice. >> The question is "whose minhag". RSZA is stating what he saw. In my area of New York everyone used cottenseed oil. I recently saw a discussion of women saying kaddish. After a lengthy discussion the author concludes that the minhag is for women not to say kaddish. Well in almost all the shuls in my town women do say kaddish. I understand that even the Rama in SA in quoting minhag means Polish (Krakow) minhag and many other existing minhagim in Russia, or Italy were ignored. Similar things in the Sefardi communities. There are several cases that ROY opposes Morrocan customs as being against (sefardi) halacha but are heatedly defended by Moroccan rabbis. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 05:15:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:15:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> References: <897a84d0721c4839ada6d0c7b823baad@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <20170419211700.GH22754@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Look how in Israel, many minyanim ignore the halakhos of having a set nusach for the beis kenesses and just let each chazan use his own minhag avos! And this enables a single minyan to function in spite of diversity; a variety of Jews from different cultures able to daven together! ---------------------------------- Which gets to the heart of the matter - some see diversity of Minhag as lchatchila (all the shvatim had their own Sanhedrin/practice) while others see it as a result of galut. IMHO this debate will continue ad biat hagoel (may it be very soon) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 20 05:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41e2d260-e360-8e8e-4d15-6f524b655121@sero.name> On 20/04/17 04:20, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make > sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given > modern communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush > hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a problem but there might be > technological answers to that also. The simplest method of getting word of kiddush hachodesh to the whole world on Shabbos/Yomtov is to have a goy send a tweet, which every Jewish house or shul could be set up beforehand to receive. Amira lenochri is of course midrabbanan, so the Sanhedrin can authorise an exception. But there's an even better solution: Kidush hachodesh (as opposed to notifying people about it) is docheh Shabbos/Yomtov. Eidim can be positioned in advance in places guaranteed to have no cloud cover and a good view of the moon (perhaps Ramon Crater?), and they can then drive to Yerushalayim, arriving in plenty of time to testify as soon as the beit din opens in the morning. They could even be positioned on desert mountaintops in chu"l, and fly in. Thus we could guarantee in advance that Elul will never again have a 30th day, and everyone could rely on that without actually being notified on the day. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 09:38:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:38:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:20:04AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer make sense I : vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside Israel. Given modern : communications, the whole world would know the time of kiddush : hachodesh instantaneously.... I would like to suggest a different angle on YT Sheini. It's not so much that Chazal were afraid of the same problems might arise in bayis shelishi. After all, the language in the gemara isn't the usual that we find with (eg) chadash on Nisan 16 or other taqanos to avoid that kind of problem. I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh ought to be al pi re'iyah. It is that important to remember that the progression is "meqadesh Yisrael vehazmanim", that people sanctify time, rather than the times imposing themselves on people. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 10:13:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:13:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> On 21/04/17 12:38, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I would like to suggest a different angle on YT Sheini. > > It's not so much that Chazal were afraid of the same problems might > arise in bayis shelishi. After all, the language in the gemara isn't > the usual that we find with (eg) chadash on Nisan 16 or other taqanos > to avoid that kind of problem. The language is "sometimes the kingdom will decree a decree"; therefore in an era when -- according to all opinions -- we will never again be subject to hostile kingdoms, it would seem no longer relevant. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 10:45:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:45:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:13:27PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : The language is "sometimes the kingdom will decree a decree"; : therefore in an era when -- according to all opinions -- we will : never again be subject to hostile kingdoms, it would seem no longer : relevant. The language of the azhara to keep the minhag talks about zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah. Rashi ad loc says that the said gezeira would be against studying Torah, the community would lose the sod ha'ibbur and mess up their version of the calculation. But that's not the cause for keeping the minhag going. Because that rationale has nothing to do with where the messengers could arrive on time back when we needed them. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 11:23:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:23:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:58:36PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: :> The language of the azhara to keep the minhag talks about zimnin degazru :> hamalkhus gezeirah. :> Rashi ad loc says that the said gezeira would be against studying Torah, :> the community would lose the sod ha'ibbur and mess up their version of :> the calculation. :> But that's not the cause for keeping the minhag going. : The letter explicitly says that *was* the reason. You don't address my claim, just deny it. What the gemara says the letter read was: Hizharu beminhag avoseikhem! Zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah, ve'asi le'ilqalqulei. This is a motive given for "hizharu". (The letter expliticly says so.) Yes, it could mean that it's the motive for the minhag, which is so strong that that justifies not only keeping it going, but being warned But, given that the potential oppression does not justify the format of the minhag, this explanation must be for the caution alone. :> Because that :> rationale has nothing to do with where the messengers could arrive on :> time back when we needed them. : Those places never had a minhag of two days, so Chazal weren't going : to institute one now. Why not? If the problem is the unreliability of a computed calendar that is done once for centuries ahead without a Sanhedrin, this is new to those in Israel too! I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. Then they add, that one shouldn't say it's not /that/ important, because there is a pragmatic benefit as well. (In any case, Chazal were instituting a derabbanan based on a pre-existing minhag. I don't think you intended to imply that the "one" being instituted now was a minhag.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 11:42:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> On 21/04/17 14:23, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > What the gemara says the letter read was: > Hizharu beminhag avoseikhem! > Zimnin degazru hamalkhus gezeirah, ve'asi le'ilqalqulei. > > This is a motive given for "hizharu". (The letter expliticly says > so.) > > Yes, it could mean that it's the motive for the minhag, which is so > strong that that justifies not only keeping it going, but being warned > But, given that the potential oppression does not justify the format > of the minhag, this explanation must be for the caution alone. No, it's not the reason for the minhag in the first place; we know what that was, and it no longer applies. That's why they wrote to the Sanhedrin asking whether they should abandon it. Hizharu means don't abandon it, keep it going anyway, and the reason for doing so is Zimnin degazru. > : Those places never had a minhag of two days, so Chazal weren't going > : to institute one now. > > Why not? Because that would be an innovation and Zimnin degazru is not enough reason to do so. But it *is* enough reason to continue an already existing practise that has just become obsolete. It takes a lot more to justify changing existing practise than it does to continue it. > I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that > qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices > from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. But there's no hint of this, and the letter explicitly says otherwise. > (In any case, Chazal were instituting a derabbanan based on a pre-existing > minhag. Yes, exactly. It's a din derabanan that behaves *as if* it were a mere minhag, because that's what the rabbanan said it should do. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 12:26:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:26:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <01c4b83a-72ed-1dd3-aa7e-830bedc4acee@sero.name> <20170421174524.GA10651@aishdas.org> <738dd47a-637f-7095-2631-3714b864d328@sero.name> <20170421182343.GA6412@aishdas.org> <0eb846a8-c269-64fc-95c8-6cc8d21abb43@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170421192640.GA20001@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 02:42:49PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : No, it's not the reason for the minhag in the first place; we know : what that was, and it no longer applies. That's why they wrote to : the Sanhedrin asking whether they should abandon it. Hizharu means : don't abandon it, keep it going anyway, and the reason for doing so : is Zimnin degazru. No, hizharu means "be careful", not "keep it going anyway". This is NOT "kevar qiblu avoseikhem aleihem. Shene'emar 'Shemi beni musar avikha, ve'al titosh toras imekha.'" (Pesachim 50b) ... : >I am suggesting the problem being solved is peopole forgetting that : >qiddush hachodesh should be al pi re'iyah, and that's why practices : >from the era of al pi re'iyah were preserved. : : But there's no hint of this, and the letter explicitly says otherwise. Again, only once you mistranslate what it means lehazhir. This "explicitly" is not only far from explicit, it's not even there! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 21 13:37:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:37:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > BTW if the future Sanhedrin gets rid of gezerot that no longer > make sense I vote for eliminating the second day of YT outside > Israel. Given modern communications, the whole world would know > the time of kiddush hachodesh instantaneously. RH might be a > problem but there might be technological answers to that also. Shavuos mochiach. Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. If you can discover all of them, and explain all of them, and explain how Shavuos fits, *then* we can discuss "gezerot that no longer make sense". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 14:21:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:21:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> On 4/21/2017 7:38 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole > taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh > ought to be al pi re'iyah. That's a real possibility. In addition, I suggest that halakha is intended to be feasible without any technology. Just imagine changing something this fundamental to rely on an electronic network that will inevitably be subject to attack by EMPs at some point. I don't think it would be responsible. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 10:35:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 20:35:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > I would suggest that, like the format of birkhas hachodesh, the whole > taqanah was an excuse to keep alive the idea that qiddush hachodesh > ought to be al pi re'iyah. > It is that important to remember that the progression is "meqadesh > Yisrael vehazmanim", that people sanctify time, rather than the times > imposing themselves on people. Even more so once a Sanhredin is reconstituted and there is qiddush hachodesh ougal pi re'iyah.there is no use for YT sheni From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 19:18:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:18:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> References: <20170421163852.GF26548@aishdas.org> <50fc4727-f777-9084-4536-5e3facb1d2b9@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170423021813.GC19870@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:21:23AM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : That's a real possibility. In addition, I suggest that halakha is : intended to be feasible without any technology. Just imagine : changing something this fundamental to rely on an electronic network : that will inevitably be subject to attack by EMPs at some point. I : don't think it would be responsible. While I get your basic point... What EMPs? Even by Shemu'el's rather prosaic version of the messianic era, ein bein olam hazeh liyamos hamoshiach ela shib'ud malkhius bilvad. Gut Voch! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 00:03:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 03:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: <59924.64874017.462dabd2@aol.com> [1] From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" >> My understanding is that people who wear Tefillen during Cho Moed are not supposed to wear them in a minyan where the custom is that no one wears Tefillen. I know that in a couple of shuls near me they are makpid that those who wear Tefillen and those who do not do wear them do not daven together until after the kedusha of shachris when Tefillen are taken off. << YL [2] From: Allan Engel via Avodah >> Why would tefillin be any different to the various different practises about who does and doesn't wear a tallis? I have never heard of a non-tallis-wearing post-bar-mitzva boy being banished behind the mechitza at a yekkishe shul, or vice versa. << >>>> The difference between the tallis-or-not issue and the tefillin-or-not issue is that the former is in the realm of minhag while the latter is in the realm of halacha. People are not so makpid about differing minhagim in the same shul, but differing piskei halacha in the same shul -- that is much more serious. When you have some men wearing tefillin and others not wearing tefillin in the same minyan on chol hamoed, the presence of each subset implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 00:14:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 10:14:12 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> Hard to imagine that all communication would be lost for 15 days. It certainly is less likely than some problem with lighting fires between mountains. Remember that originally the "entire" galut knew the correct date of Pesach and Succot and so there was only one day of yomtov. Only when there was a deliberate attempt to mislead was the system changed. Also interesting is that there is no discussion of communities beyond Bavel. What was done in Alexandria and Rome? In any case even if locally they kept 2 days it was widespread. BTW I assume it took months to reach Rome. If there was a community in Spain (sefarad) it was even longer. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 23 12:34:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:34:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tazria Message-ID: <60DB8D20-7368-440D-830C-67A3C69835DD@cox.net> Rabbi Zelig Pliskin, in his book ?Love Your Neighbor,? quotes a hilarious true story about Lashon Hora. Someone asked a cerain woman if she wished to borrow a copy of ?Guard Your Tongue? to study the laws of lashon hora. Her response was: ?I don?t need it. I never speak lashon hora. But my husband really needs it. He always speaks lashon hora." We all know about lashon hora and how speaking ill of others is rather a poor reflection of ourselves. However, taken to another level, it was the S?fat Emes who said that it also can refer to having failed to speak lashon tov. This brings to mind the poignant story of a man weeping uncontrollably at the grave of his young wife. When the rabbi tried to console him by saying how good he was to her, he replied: ?Oh, rabbi, how I loved her so much and once I almost told her.? We have friends who take the time and effort to say nice things, and it would even be nicer if more of us did that. You never know the ripple effect a good word can have. ri After receiving another notice from school about bad behavior, a frustrated father sat to explain to his child the source of each one of the gray hairs in his once black beard. ?This one is from the last time the principal called about your misbehavior. This one is from the time you were mean to your sister. This one is from the time you broke our neighbor?s window,? etc., etc. The father looked at his child for a response to his appeal for better behavior, to which the child calmly replied: ?Oh, now it makes sense why Zaide has such a white beard!? Speech is the mirror of the soul Publilius Syrus, Latin Writer 85BCE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 22 11:47:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 18:47:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 256 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 25 15:03:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 22:03:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> "When you have some men wearing tefillin and others not wearing tefillin in the same minyan on chol hamoed, the presence of each subset implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment." Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people conscientiously following their family customs and davening together nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. Just a thought from a different perspective. Joseph Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 05:02:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:02:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "Shavuos mochiach. Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. If you can discover all of them, and explain all of them, and explain how Shavuos fits, *then* we can discuss "gezerot that no longer make sense"." The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 04:52:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:52:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Metzorah "LEPERS DO CHANGE THEIR SPOTS" Message-ID: On this, the Shabbos preceding Yom Haatzmaut, we read the Haftarah containing the following verse referring to the four lepers: ?And they said to one another: ?We are not doing the right thing; today is a day of good tidings and yet, we remain silent! If we wait until the light of dawn (until it?s too late), we will be adjudged as sinners; now come, let us go and report to the king?s palace.? Second Kings 7:9 It is fascinating that in our own times, this verse contains a challenging message. It is remarkable how the events of modern Israel ran parallel to the the story told in this Biblical chapter. The Arab armies besieging the Jewish community in Israel, their panic and sudden flight, the great deliverance which followed, and the birth of the State of Israel ? do we not see the hand of Providence in all these events? In one respect we are deeply worried. The lepers of the Haftarah possessed the moral obligation to proclaim the miracle. ?We are not doing the right thing. This is a day of good tidings and it is not proper that we should be quiet about it.? Many of us today (outcasts of yesterday) have still not risen to the moral height of recognizing that a miracle has transpired before our very eyes and therefore our duty to proclaim the greatness of the day! Let us, therefore, proclaim it to our children and to the world. Let us, with a firm belief in the future of Israel, do everything possible to assure its existence, strengthen its foundations, and thus look forward to the day of good tidings, the day of Israel?s total and quintessential Independence! rw John Adams: "I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations? They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews.? John F. Kennedy: "Israel was not created in order to disappear ? Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 13:29:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:03:43PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: :> implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This :> makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look :> bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. : Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly : perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people : conscientiously following their family customs and davening together : nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out : of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that : anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. I think we've lost sight of the original topic. Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. When I was a kid, we tefillin-wearers davened Shacharis in the basement, joining the rest of the shteibl only for the latter part of davening. We are therefore starting with data, the pesaq, and trying to figure out what that means aggadically. Not just blindly guessing about how things look in heaven. If things are as you portray it, the original question is stronger -- what you said doesn't resolve anything. BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos as self-identifications. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 15th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in Fax: (270) 514-1507 harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 14:42:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 21:42:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com>, <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> Lost sight of original topic? If that were a valid criticism we'd hear it at least once if not more in every issue. As to substance. I've been davening in shuls on chol haMoed for more than 50 years and every shul I've davened in, all Modern Orthodox led by rabbis who were well respected talmedei chachamim, had men with and without teffilin davening in one minyan together, sitting next to each other without problems or, I'm pretty sure, thinking of transgressors. That's MY data which I would hope is as valid as shteibl data. And that's what my response to my good friend Toby was trying to deal with. I wasn't the one to raise the perspective of Heaven but I found Toby's thoughtful comment refreshingly interesting and, as always, articulate, so I thought about it a bit and responded. I thought that what we do here on A/A. Joseph Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 26, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:03:43PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: > :> implies that the members of the other subset are transgressing halacha. This > :> makes the whole set, with its mutually contradictory halachic subsets, look > :> bad from a Heavenly perspective, and potentially brings down Heavenly judgment. > > : Far be it for me to know what things look like from a Heavenly > : perspective. But let me suggest this. Heaven sees different people > : conscientiously following their family customs and davening together > : nonetheless in peace and harmony understanding that all are acting out > : of a love for Torah and, in the sense of shivim panim, not thinking that > : anyone is a transgressor. And Heaven kaviyachol says, mi keamcha Yisrael. > > I think we've lost sight of the original topic. > > Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in > a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises > evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. > > When I was a kid, we tefillin-wearers davened Shacharis in the basement, > joining the rest of the shteibl only for the latter part of davening. > > We are therefore starting with data, the pesaq, and trying to figure > out what that means aggadically. > > Not just blindly guessing about how things look in heaven. If things > are as you portray it, the original question is stronger -- what you > said doesn't resolve anything. > > BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are indeed > motivated by a consciencous following of family customs and the > perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. And how much > is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification with Litvaks or > Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than identification with the > Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos as self-identifications. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Today is the 15th day, which is > micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. > http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in > Fax: (270) 514-1507 harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 16:11:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:11:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> Message-ID: <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:42:41PM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : As to substance. I've been davening in shuls on chol haMoed for more : than 50 years and every shul I've davened in, all Modern Orthodox led : by rabbis who were well respected talmedei chachamim, had men with and : without teffilin davening in one minyan together, sitting next to each : other without problems or, I'm pretty sure, thinking of transgressors. : : That's MY data which I would hope is as valid as shteibl data. And : that's what my response to my good friend Toby was trying to deal with. Those are both anecdotes. (BTW, it was a pretty MO shteibl. We had more professors and other PhDs than you can shake a stick at. R/Dr SZ Leiman, R/Dr David Berger, Rs/Drs Steiner, Rs/Drs Sachat, progessors of Asronomy, Physics (R/Dr Herbert Goldstein, likely author of you physics textbook), Topology...) What is data is that the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed between tefillin wearers and not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 18:24:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:24:46 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com>, <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB wrote: "What is data is that the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed between tefillin wearers and not." Here's some "data" from R. Chaim (Howard) Jachter: "Nevertheless, in many North American congregations on Chol Hamoed, some wear Tefillin and others do not wear Tefillin in one Minyan. Are all these congregations disregarding the Mishna Berura and the Aruch Hashulchan? One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent authorities. The Gemara (ibid.) states that the coexistence of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad ? two distinct communities maintaining disparate practices in one community ? does not violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 1:158 and 159) notes that in this country Jews have gathered from the various sections of Europe and continue the Halachic practices of their former communities. Subsequent generations continue the practices of their parents. Rav Moshe asserts that American Jewry constitutes ?a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad? and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. The Mishna Berura and Aruch Hashulchan addressed a situation in Europe, which radically differs from the situation in North America, as explained by Rav Moshe. However, it appears that one violates Lo Titgodedu if he wears Tefillin in public in Israel on Chol Hamoed." Joseph Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 26 22:54:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 01:24:46AM +0000, Joseph Kaplan via Avodah wrote: : One might respond that they are not ignoring these eminent : authorities. ... Rav Moshe asserts : that American Jewry constitutes "a massive Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad" : and we do not violate Lo Titgodedu. For example, the Rama (O.C. 493:3) : writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single : community violate Lo Titgodedu. Rav Moshe writes, though, that this does : not apply in cities like Brooklyn and Manhattan where the situation of : Shnei Batei Din Be'ir Echad pertains. : The same might apply to the dispute regarding Tefillin on Chol Hamoed... So, that answers the OP. Next question.. How long are we /supposed/ to continue being 2 BD be'ir echad, following the minhagim of our ancestral communities, rather than invoking lo sisgodedu and combining into communal minhagim in our current communities? EY is nearly there WRT tefillin on ch"m, with only a few holdouts like KAJ. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 04:29:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> References: <17DF57F7-8A6A-45AD-9B44-CD464DFAF80F@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426202927.GF1082@aishdas.org> <708E6438-D344-4DFE-A4C7-BD37AA14ECA5@tenzerlunin.com> <20170426231136.GA9796@aishdas.org> , <20170427055420.GA15451@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <36AE5716-00CB-4838-A9CE-5321370B72B4@tenzerlunin.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 27, 2017, at 1:54 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > > Next question.. How long are we /supposed/ to continue being 2 BD be'ir > echad, following the minhagim of our ancestral communities, rather > than invoking lo sisgodedu and combining into communal minhagim in our > current communities? Considering modern mobility, the world has been made so much smaller that I think the idea of strong communal minhagim imposed on all members of the community may be a thing of the past but not of the future. Joseph From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 16:48:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:48:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> Even with *ancient* communications, the whole world knew the correct date of Rosh Chodesh Nisan by the time Shavuos arrived. Nine weeks and one day later, it is Shavuos. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is irrelevant. Rosh Chodesh Sivan is irrelevant. If you know Rosh Chodesh Nisan, then you know Shavuos. It's just arithmetic. Obviously, uncertainty about R"C Nisan is NOT the only reason to have a second day of Shavuos. There must be other reasons too. ...<< Akiva Miller >>>>> I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 11:15:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent Message-ID: <20B9894A-31AD-494D-8049-66C38175C660@cox.net> It has been taught that a man must recite 100 b?rachot daily. There are different explanations why 100 and the following are a few: Rabbi Mayer said: a person is obligated to recite 100 Brachos each day. In the Jerusalem Talmud we learned: it was taught in the name of Rabbi Mayer; there is no Jew who does not fulfill one hundred Mitzvos each day, as it was written: Now Israel, what does G-d your G-d ask of you? Do not read the verse as providing for the word: ?what? (Mah); instead read it as including the word: ?one hundred? (Mai?Eh). King David established the practice of reciting one hundred Brachos each day. When the residents of Jerusalem informed him that one hundred Jews were dying everyday, he established this requirement. It appears that the practice was forgotten until our Sages at the time of the Mishna and at the time of the Gemara re-established it. There is an additional hint to the need to recite 100 blessings each day from the Prophets as it is written, Micah, Chapter 6, Verse 8: What does G-d ask of you (Hebrew: mimcha). Mimcha in Gematria is 100. There is also a hint to the need to recite 100 blessings from Scriptures as it is written in Psalms, Chapter 128 Verse 4: Behold, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the Lord (the Hebrew words: Ki Kain appear in the verse. The letters in those words total 100 in Gematria). I?d like to proffer another explanation. In most tests you take in school, a perfect score is 100 or an A+. Hence, when reciting a hundred brachot a day, we come as close to perfection as possible. ?If sin becomes an abomination to you, you will have a hundred percent victory over it.? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 17:35:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:35:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> References: <2673a9.6a0b846d.4633dd64@aol.com> Message-ID: <1210e77c-beca-a075-ee6d-2fb9df2cafe8@sero.name> On 27/04/17 19:48, via Avodah wrote: > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the > mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman matan toraseinu. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 18:13:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:13:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> On Areivim we were discussing how some activity could be labeled yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. Along the way I wrote that it couldn't be because the enviroment includes gender mixing. I concluded: : Arayos isn't yeihareig ve'al ya'avor until it's : actual relations. I'm not even sure that yeihareig ve'al ya'avor would : apply to bi'ah with a willing penuyah (who is not a niddah). Two people asked me off list to look at Sanhedrin 75a. In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he could speak to her; at least through a fence. According to either R' Yaaqov bar Idi or R Shemu'el bar Nachmeini, she was even a penuyah. (Peligi bah... chad amar...) But one could learn from that gemara that it would NOT be yeihareig ve'al ya'avor: Bishloma according to the man da'amar she was an eishes ish, shapir. But according to the MdA she was penuyah -- mah kulei hai? Two answers: R' Papa says because it's a pegam mishpachah, R' Acha berei deR' Iqa says "kedei shelo yehu benos Yisrael perutzos ba'arayos". So what's the exchange saying? That it is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor because of the consequent peritzus? Or that bishloma an eishes ish would be YvAY, but a penyah, who isn't, why wouldn't the guy be allowed to speak to her? As I said on Areivim "I am not even sure" which, because the gemara could be taken either way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:03:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:03:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: R' Micha Berger concluded: > BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are > indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs > and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. > And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification > with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than > identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos > as self-identifications. That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the MB and AhS were on. By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? Do we really want to accuse the MB and AhS of that? I think there is another way we can look at this whole topic. Let's ask what makes Chol Hamoed Tefillin so unusual. Why is this case different than so many others? Someone else asked why there isn't any enforced uniformity regarding unmarried men wearing a tallis in shul. Why is that different? How about the differing ways of avoiding simcha during sefira? One person will make a wedding during the last week of Nisan, and another person FROM THE SAME SHUL will make a wedding after Lag Baomer. Not only is this tolerated, but the entire shul is allowed to attend both weddings! Why don't we insist that the whole town should go one way or the other, like with the tefillin? Sometimes I feel that our perspective on these issues is so very different than what prevailed in the unified kehilos of yesteryear, that we cannot ever hope to understand it. I think the confusion comes from try to impose one perspective on a differing situation. Perhaps we ought to "agree to disagree". Specifically: *WE* get strength from our diversity; *THEY* got strength from their uniformity. I personally worry about the misfits in those cultures, and the losses they suffered. But perhaps their leaders accepted that as an acceptable price for the chizuk that came to the larger group. We have been trained to be unwilling to accept such a price, and we fight for every single individual. But that too has a price, and we are often unable or unwilling to admit it. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:12:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:12:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement > in the mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. Yes, there is a disagreement over whether the Torah was given on 6 Sivan or on 7 Sivan. And there are lots of cute vertlach about whether Shavuos is about *Matan* Torah, or *Kabalas* HaTorah (and whether or not they happened on the same day). But the bottom line is the the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after Pesach. If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty about Shavuos. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:52:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:52:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025454.YQWS32620.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Most posqim do rule that the guys wearing tefillin on ch"m should be in >a different minyan than those who don't. And barring that, compromises >evolved like hijacking the ezras nashim for the smaller group. There's something about this that I've never understood. Suppose a person is having a stomach problem -- isn't he supposed to refrain from wearing tefillin? So, in a shul, a guy is not wearing tefillin -- how do we even know what his reason is? (In fact, I think I recall hearing that R Moshe himself didn't wear tefillin many times towards the end of his life for this reason). So, of all the things regarding lo sisgadedu -- why tefillin? Why not all the other things that daveners wear differently? (E.g., different minhagim via-a-vis wearing a tallis before marriage?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:54:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:54:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Rabbi Mayer said: a person is obligated to recite 100 Brachos each >day. In the Jerusalem Talmud we >learned: it was taught in the name of Rabbi Mayer; there is no Jew >who does not fulfill one hundred >Mitzvos each day, as it was written: Now Israel, what does G-d your >G-d ask of you? Do not read the >verse as providing for the word: ?what? (Mah); instead read it as >including the word: ?one hundred? >(Mai?Eh). IIRC, there's a fun Ba'al HaTurim on this pasek: If you add the alef into the pasuk -- not only does it turn the word into "100" -- but the pasuk will then have 100 letters in it. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 19:58:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:58:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> > > I think one reason for keeping two days Shavuos is disagreement in the > > mesorah over which exact day the Torah was given. Indeed. Machlokes over whether it was Sivan 6 or 7. OTOH, the 50th day could also have fallen on Sivan 5, no? >The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed >calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman >matan toraseinu. Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? (I'm not being snarky -- it's a genuine question) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 21:45:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:45:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20170428044535.GC2155@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:58:07PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" : when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? The explanation I like (eg from Maadanei Yom Tov) is that "zeman matan Toraseinu" is not a date in Sivan, but a number of days after Yetzias Mitzrayim or of the omer. Your question is based on the idea that "zeman" is a time on the calendar, not a point in a process (be it redemption or of omer). The MYT I mentioned earlier explains why Matan Torah was on the 7th whereas our Zeman Matan Toraseinu is on the 6th: He (the Tosafos Yom Tov?) notes that omer is both tisperu 50 yom and sheva shabasos temimos. It is 50 days or 7 x 7 = 49 days? So, uusually we think 49 days of omer, Shavuos is the 50th. The MYT says that 49 days of omer and the first day of Pesach is the 0th. Zeman Matan Toraseinu is thus after 50 days of process. For our Pesach, that's day 1 of Pesach + 49 omer, yeilding Sivan 6th. The first Pesach, though, Yetzi'as Mitzrayim was at midnight. So the first full day, usable as day 0, was the 16th of Nissan. Shifting everying off one day, so that process from physical ge'ulah to matan Torah ended on 7 Sivan. But whether you like that vertl or not, the idea that would answer your question is just that "zeman" is not necessarily a date; just as Shabbos is a time based on interval, not date. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 16th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline Fax: (270) 514-1507 does harmony promote? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:33:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:33:49 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <40e6067e-a5cf-689b-619a-908d5249a8a8@zahav.net.il> When was that prayer written, before or after the calendar was set? Ben On 4/28/2017 4:58 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" > when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 02:33:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:33:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the Exodus. Lisa On 4/28/2017 5:58 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > The link between Shavuos and Matan Torah is an artifact of our fixed >> calendar; when kidush hachodesh was going Shavuos was not always on zman >> matan toraseinu. > > Leading to an obvious question: did they say "zman matan toraseinu" > when davening if Shavuos wasn't on zman matan toraseinu that year? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:18:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:18:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428061804.GA19887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : "Insufficiently kneaded" means that there might be some flour in the : middle of the matza that never got wet and is still plain raw flour, : and that if it gets wet it will become chometz. "Insufficiently baked" : means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not : get baked, and it is already chometz. And RMGR feels that the second : of these is a "much greater risk". But... If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently kneeded, would any of the dry flour that went through the oven be still capable of becoming chaneitz if wet? If the dough is now too baked to rise any further, wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be to toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5, which discvusses things not to do because "shelma lo qulhu yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is that possible? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 23:22:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. Lo zakhisi lehavin. All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty. Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays being of the form of an uncertainty. But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain about the date. What am I missing in the CS's sevara? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 27 22:03:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:03:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite Message-ID: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> I signed up for something called Carbonite, which uploads everything on your computer to the Cloud where it might be possible to retrieve it all if your computer dies or is stolen. The thing is, either I have way too much on my computer or my computer is way too old and slow, but anyway, Carbonite started uploading on Sunday afternoon and now, Thursday night, it is STILL uploading. It continuously shows what progress it has made, and it is showing me that it has uploaded 43% of my computer. I am no math whiz but I can figure out that if it took from Sunday to Thursday to upload 43% it is not going to reach 100% before Shabbos. I asked the Carbonite tech person what happens if you turn off your computer in the middle, and he said Carbonite will just continue where it left off when you turn your computer back on. Interestingly we had a test case on Monday when my neighborhood lost power for six hours. When the power came back on, Carbonite did NOT resume where it had left off. Instead, I had to call Carbonite and ended up being on the phone for an hour while they told me to do this and that and then they did whatever and finally got Carbonite to resume its weary work. So here is my question for the learned chevra here on Avodah: Can I just leave my computer on all Shabbos, in another room with the door closed where I won't see it and it won't fashtair my Shabbos, and let Carbonite keep running and running? (It looks like it will take a whole nother week to finish.) Or should I sell my laptop to a goy and buy it back after Shabbos? (That was a joke, for those of you in Rio Linda.) Should I turn it off and resign myself to talking to tech support again for another hour to get it working again after Shabbos? Oy, siz shver tsu zein a Yid! Is leaving a laptop on all Shabbos with Carbonite uploading more like [A] leaving your lights, fridge and air conditioning on all Shabbos or [B] leaving a TV or radio on -- dubiously muttar, definitely not Shabbosdik or [C] making your eved Canaani work for you all day Shabbos -- a no-no or [D] giving your clothes to the Greek dressmaker to fix and telling her you need them some time next week, and if she for her own convenience decides to do the work on Shabbos, that's copacetic? --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 06:44:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:44:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite In-Reply-To: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> References: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:03 AM, [Rn Toby Katz] wrote: > I signed up for something called Carbonite... > Can I just leave my computer on all Shabbos, in another room with the door > closed where I won't see it and it won't fashtair my Shabbos, and let > Carbonite keep running and running? (It looks like it will take a whole > nother week to finish.) ... What tzurus. I use crash plan. They each have their share of grief. I leave my computer on 24x7 except 2 day yomtov. I turn off the monitor and make sure the keyboard and mouse are secure before Shabbat. Why is it any different than leaving on the A/C? Back in the day, people would set the vcr to record a show over shabbat. That was a bit more dubious but was done. Good Shabbos From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 04:02:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:02:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org>, <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> Message-ID: From: Micha Berger Sent: 27 April 2017 13:13 ... > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he > could speak to her; at least through a fence... > Bishloma according to the man da'amar she was an eishes ish, > shapir. > But according to the MdA she was penuyah -- mah kulei hai? ... > So what's the exchange saying? That it is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor > because of the consequent peritzus? Or that bishloma an eishes ish > would be YvAY, but a penyah, who isn't, why wouldn't the guy be > allowed to speak to her? Of note, that gemara is brought in Rambam Yesodei HaTorah in the context of acheiving cure for illness through hana'as issur. Meaning that it's not a halacha of gilui arayos per se, rather hana'as issur. He paskens it's assur even with a pnuya so that bnos yisrael won't be hefker. No mention of pgam mishpacha. (Parenthetically this seems to be an din of yeihareig v'al ya'avor midrabannon (so that bnos yisrael etc..). Any other such cases? I'd assumed YvAY is always d'oirasa, almost by definition) The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought. There is no suggestion that conversation in any normal situation is an issur hana'a per se, so therefore is not assur, certainly not Yeihareig V'al Yaavor. Therefore can't see how this gemara would be relevant to the army issue any more than the familiar dinim of r'eiyas einayim, kirva l'arayos etc which are no less relevant in the workplace and on the street. [Email #2. -micha] On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua. Nonetheless the whole gemara is still only relevant to a case of clear hana'as issur. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 07:57:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:57:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Carbonite In-Reply-To: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> References: <2698e0.5ec009e0.46342709@aol.com> Message-ID: <247ffd82-32aa-3bf1-c6ef-36c008a1a4a3@sero.name> On 28/04/17 01:03, via Avodah wrote: > Is leaving a laptop on all Shabbos with Carbonite uploading more like > [A] leaving your lights, fridge and air conditioning on all Shabbos > or [B] leaving a TV or radio on -- dubiously muttar, definitely not > Shabbosdik or [C] making your eved Canaani work for you all day Shabbos > -- a no-no or [D] giving your clothes to the Greek dressmaker to fix and > telling her you need them some time next week, and if she for her own > convenience decides to do the work on Shabbos, that's copacetic? It's A, shevisas keilim, which is a machlokes of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. The halacha of course follows Beis Hillel, that we are not commanded on shevisas keiliim, so it's completely OK. The problem with B is hashma`as kol, which is a species of mar'is ho`ayin; passersby will hear the sound of work being done in your home and will suspect you, if not of actual chilul shabbos, then at least of amira lenochri. It is muttar if there are no Jews within a techum shabbos. C is of course completely out, mid'oraisa, even if the eved sets his own schedule. Avadim are obligated to keep Shabbos. D is amira lenochri, which is completely muttar mid'oraisa, but the chachamim forbade it lest you come to do melacha yourself. Thus it's muttar if the decision to do the work on Shabbos rather than during the week is completely up to the nochri. BTW you don't need to leave it to sometime next week; you can ask to have it ready when the shop opens on Sunday morning, and it's up to the cleaner whether to do it on Shabbos or to stay up all night motzei shabbos to get it done. It's only assur if there are literally not enough weekday hours between now and when you want it, so that the nochri *must* do some of it on Shabbos. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 07:27:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:27:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:14 PM 4/27/2017, R. Micha Berger wrote: >EY is nearly there WRT tefillin on ch"m, with only a few holdouts >like KAJ. This statement does not seem to be correct. See http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x Note the following from there. Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau?er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. and (I do not know what all of the ? stand for.) Here are a few names, a sampling of some past gedolim who wore tefillin on chol hamoed IN ERETZ YISROEL (either betzinoh or otherwise) ? Moreinu HaRav Schach, Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, Rav Michel Feinstein (eidem of the Brisker Rav), Pressburger Rav, and Rav Duschinsky, ????. The ???? ????? was in Eretz Yisroel. In his siddur Shaarei Shomayim, he has tefillin on chol hamoed. Rav Moshe Feinstein ???? writes in a teshuvoh that he knows of thousands of bnei Torah who put on tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel. ?????? ?????, ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????, ????? of Edah Charedis was heard also taking the position that someone whose minhog is to put on tefillin on chol hamoed cannot just suddenly drop it totally in Eretz Yisroel. The above and previous post is based on what I heard about this inyan ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????, ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????. I think there is an Oberlander minyan in Yerushlayim where they wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed as well, if I recall correctly. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 08:03:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:03:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7af7f734-f777-e833-2997-5d8daf3057af@sero.name> On 28/04/17 02:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos > : Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not > : differentiate between holidays, since the other holidays had a second day > : the Sages decreed a second day for Shavuos as well. The Chasam Sofer has a > : fascinating chiddush about this. He understands this to mean that for most > : holidays, the second day of Yom Tov was established based on a doubt. But > : the second day of Shavuos was established as a certainty. Therefore, the > : rules are even stricter than on the second day of other holidays. > Lo zakhisi lehavin. > > All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaintain. They are a > taqanah derabbanan, not the original uncertainty. > > Yes, let's say the taqanah was to continue acting AS THOUGH the > uncertainty was there. So, we saved the idea off the other holidays > being of the form of an uncertainty. > > But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was > like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain > about the date. I think what he means is that even in their days, when most YT Sheni were safek d'oraisa, the 2nd day of Shavuos was a vadai d'rabanan pretending to be a safek d'oraisa. Nowadays that describes *all* YT Sheni (except the 2nd day of RH, which is a vadai d'rabanan not pretending to be anything else, because even in their days this was occasionally the case). So his explanation is merely historical, that what we have is not a new situation, because they had it on Shavuos. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 08:27:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:27:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is > the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the > case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which > we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the > Exodus. Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th day but on the 51st. So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the pseudo-Julian anniversary. Therefore I assume they did *not* say ZMT. In fact I assume they didn't say it even when it *did* fall on the 6th, since that was just a coincidence. Only when it was set to fall on the 6th every year did it take on a new nature as ZMT. This is all, however, on the assumption that we hold like the opinion that yetzias mitzrayim was on a Thursday. This is the basis of the entire sugya in Perek R Akiva Omer that we all know. But right at the end of that sugya, at the top of 88a a new source is suddenly cited, the Seder Olam, that YM was on a Friday, and the gemara seems to say "Aha! Forget everything we said till now, trying to reconcile the Rabbanan's opinion, now everything is simple: the Seder Olam follows the Rabbanan, YM was on a Friday, and MT was 50 days later on the 6th of Sivan, and the sources we've been working with, that say YM was on a Thursday, follow R Yossi, who says MT was on the 7th. So for years I've wondered why it is that we seem to ignore this source and continue to maintain that YM was on Thursday, even though it means accepting the strained explanations the gemara comes up with to reconcile them before it found the Seder Olam. If the SO was enough for the gemara to overthrow its earlier discussion, why isn't it enough for us? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 11:16:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:16:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] Message-ID: <24769a.1d3ee4d4.4634e11b@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> But the bottom line is the the Torah says Shavuos occurs 50 days after Pesach. If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty about Shavuos. << Akiva Miller >>>> In the days when they kept two days Pesach because they didn't know when Rosh Chodesh had been, perhaps you can say that by the time Shavuos rolled around, the messengers had arrived to tell them when Rosh Chodesh Nissan (and therefore when Pesach) had been so by then they knew for sure when Shavuos was. But of course we still keep two days of Pesach until now, as we've been discussing, despite the fact that we no longer have a safeik about the date. So your statement, "If you know Pesach, then there is absolutely no uncertainty" is not really true or maybe is true but not relevant. After all, didn't you start counting Sefira on your [second] Seder Night? Was that not a stira -- counting sefira at the seder? After all, we're supposed to start counting "mimacharas haShabbos" -- the day AFTER yom tov, i.e., the first day of chol hamo'ed. So "fifty days after Pesach" turns out itself to be a slightly slippery concept. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 28 12:07:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:07:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] One Hundred Percent In-Reply-To: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> References: <20170428025455.HRYY4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Message-ID: I heard this from the late R Hershel Fogelman, of Worcester MA: The passuk says "ha'elef lecha Shelomo, umasayim lenotrim es piryo". What does this mean? The Gemara (Chulin 87a) says that the opportunity to say a bracha is worth ten golden coins. So we owe You, Melech Shehashalom Shelo, 1000 coins. But on Shabbos we are short 200. Who makes up these 200? Those who keep it with fruit. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 03:17:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 20:17:11 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:06:44AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: "Insufficiently baked" means that there is some dough in the middle of the matza that did not get baked and it is already chometz. RMGR feels that this is a "much greater risk" than the risk of Gebrochts. I hope the following clarifies my argument that G is an utterly fake concern IF one is Choshesh that the baking has NOT reached the central part of the Matza as are Choshesh all those who do not eat G [bcs if it is properly baked then even if some flour remains bcs the dough was insufficiently kneaded that flour which has been baked CANNOT become Chamets] The problem is once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash that the central part of the Matza is not fully baked then never mind the problem of flour which will BECOME Chamets when it gets wet and given time WE HAVE A MUCH GREATER PROBLEM according to the Gebrochts-nicks argument we ALREADY HAVE CHAMETS in the Matza since the dough that is insufficiently baked is ALREADY Chamets -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 19:44:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:44:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > If the matzah is sufficiently baked but insufficiently > kneaded, would any of the dry flour that went through > the oven be still capable of becoming chameitz if wet? > If the dough is now too baked to rise any further, > wouldn't lo kol shekein any flour -- a fine powder -- be > too toasted to be a problem? See Hil Chameitz uMatzah 5:5, > which discusses things not to do because "shema lo qulhu > yafeh." But where the flour is within baked matzah, how is > that possible? What's the shiur of "qulhu yafeh"? Maybe roasting flour is more time-consuming than baking matzah? You want to say they're the same, but who knows? If we had a better handle on these things, our Pesach breakfasts could be farina or oatmeal made with chalita, but we have forgotten how to do that correctly. I have a friend who has been a Home Economics teacher at the local public high school for about 40 years. She likes to point out how different baking is from cooking. Cooking, she says, is about flavors, and you can put just about anything you like into a pot, cook it for a while, and it will be okay. "But baking is all about chemistry." You have to get the right ingredients in the right proportions at the right temperatures for the right time, or it will be a disaster. This distinction doesn't show up in Hilchos Shabbos, but it certainly does in Chometz UMatzah. Timing is key. I have no idea what the poskim say about varied situations of "shema lo qulhu yafeh", but it is very easy for me to imagine that if there is some dry flour inside the matza dough, the matza could be adequately baked while that flour is still not yet roasted enough to prevent later chimutz. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 04:10:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 21:10:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe Message-ID: R Micha points out RaMBaM does record the Halacha that we may not cook in water during Pesach toasted grains nor the flour ground from them because Shamo Lo NikLa Yaffe perhaps they were not fully toasted and they may become Chamets one assumes this is because over-toasting the Camel grains ruins the taste and it was therefore far more likely that they were under-toasted than over-toasted Furthermore there is no test to apply to toasted grains as there is to baked Matza Matza is tested for being baked by tearing it apart and ensuring there are no doughy threads stretching between the torn pieces -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 19:17:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 22:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Acharei Mot Message-ID: Acharei Mot is the only Torah portion with the word ?death? in its title. The two words together are captivating: ACHAREI mot. In other words, we should be focusing on ?Acharei,? AFTER death. As depressing, difficult and mysterious as death is, we must not dwell on it. We must go on with our lives ?Acharei" AFTER. Life is eternal, and love is immortal, and death is only a horizon; and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight. Rossiter Worthington Raymond (April 27, 1840 in Cincinnati, Ohio ? December 31, 1918 in Brooklyn, New York) He was an American mining engineer, legal scholar and author. At his memorial, the President of Lehigh University described him as "one of the most remarkable cases of versatility that our country has ever seen?sailor, soldier, engineer, lawyer, orator, editor, poet, novelist, story-teller, biblical critic, theologian, teacher, chess-player?he was superior in each capacity. What he did, he always did well." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 20:58:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 05:58:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <97f2b44704cc44caa6d8160f1c5dd5cf@exchng04.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <24.47.20844.C4153095@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <77074713-e49c-4af3-1f69-39b611caa0e0@zahav.net.il> Read further down on the page: Your exceptions prove the rule. Sorry you are unfamiliar with minhagei eretz yisrael. They are esentially minhagei Hagra, brought here by the famous ?prushim? clan, and these minhagim have been accepted throughout Israel, with some exceptions.In Yerushalayim , they are accepted almost uniformly. The Tukotchinsky Luach for minhagim of the davening is a reflection of this and it is accepted by almost all. True, here and there, as your friend noted, there is a minyan that puts on tefillin. To each his own. But there are thousands of minyanim that don?t, and many of them do not hesitate to unceremoniously throw anyone out that dares put them on, even in the corner or in another room. I have seen this myself. Rav Schach?s custom, and certainly the Erlauer Rebbe indicate that the general custom is not to put on tefillin. None of the yeshivas, including Rav Schach?s yeshiva, adopted his minhag.None of the chassidim here do either except the relatively small numbered Erlauer. Ben On 4/28/2017 4:27 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > This statement does not seem to be correct. See http://tinyurl.com/3ouq78x > > Note the following from there. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 29 20:53:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:53:56 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I had asked whether people had a view on the halachic propriety or otherwise of using a sous-vide machine over Shabbos and received no response. The sous-vide is a method of cooking which one might call very slow cooking. Bags with the food (e.g. meat) are places in a bucket or the like, and the machine is placed inside the bucket together with water which covers the plastic bag(s). It can take a really cheap cut of meat and make it tender and delicious. It?s buttons can be covered if someone is worried about Shehiya, I think the issue is Harmono. It can?t be both. One thing I noticed is that nobody seems to fiddle or touch the bags until the ?given time period?, and then one just pulls the plastic bags out. One can pre-program to turn the machine off, or it can continue keeping the water at the set temperature. There are various scenarios. Where the food is ready on Friday night. Where another bag of the food has a different texture is left till lunchtime on shabbos Where the meat is Mamash Raw (let alone not Maachol Ben Drusoi) on Erev Shabbos but will be good on Shabbos Where the concept of Mitztamek Veyofe Lo has nothing to do with Mitztamek, but rather a quantitative improvement that is still possible without it shrivelling The final issue is whether you say that since it might have had another 12 hours cooking and the temperature does not rise, that the meat is of a different VARIETY as opposed to quality. For example cooked versus roasted steak. Either way, here is a link to the only Tshuva I know of on this issue. I?m interested in reactions. There is a touch of Choddosh Ossur Min HaTorah from Rav Asher Weiss, but in the main, I can?t think of a reason why it?s not Hatmono. Disclaimer: I have not reviewed Hatmono for many years, and started to in dribs and drabs with the Aruch HaShulchan. This is the link to the Tshuva http://preview.tinyurl.com/kvxswnp or http://tinyurl.com/kvxswnp I spoke to Mori V?Rabbi Rav Schachter about it, and interchanged with his son Rabbi Shay, but they haven?t managed to show him the device and he won?t pasken until he has seen it (of course). "It is only the anticipation of redemption that preserves Judaism in Exile, while Judaism in the Land of Israel is the redemption itself." ______________________ Rabbi A.I. Hacohen Kook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 06:34:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:34:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:02:19PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >: The Chasam Sofer explains based on the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos >: Kiddush Ha-Chodesh 3:12), that the reason for 2 days of Shavuos so as not >: differentiate between holidays... > All the other YT sheini are lezeikher an uncertaint[y]... > But then Shavuos's 2nd day is lo pelug. Which means that it too was > like the others, which would mean a taqanah to imitate being uncertain > about the date. The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about second day of Yom Tov apply. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 09:48:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:48:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: <20170428062233.GB19887@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170430164805.GA11800@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 04:34:17PM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: : The Chasam Sofer says that since it never was a safeik the takana was made : b'toras vaday and therefore none of the usual kulos about second day of : Yom Tov apply. I know. That's my question. He says YT sheini of Shavuos was mishum lo pelug. So, if it's really lo pelug, then how/why would it be different in form than YT Sheini Sukkos, Shemini Atzeres or Pesach (x 2)? If it's lo pelug, then the usual qulos of pretending we're dealing with the old-time safeiq should apply -- or else, there is a pelug. No? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 09:57:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 12:57:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:02:29AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : > In it, a man was so love-sick for a woman that he would die unless he : > could speak to her; at least through a fence... ... : The focus in the gemara and even more so in Rambam's context is someone : who's smitten. In that case even a conversation will give hana'as : issur. In fact that's the only reason the conversation is being sought. ... : [Email #2. -micha] : : On further reflection, the chiddush of the gemara (at least the man d'amar : pnyua), and it's a big one, seems to be that chazal were so concerned : with hana'as issur arayos that they were even gozer YvAY on an hana'as : arayos d'rabbanon ie a pnyua. Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy for letting his taavos get so worked up. I see a slight conflict in your answers. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 11:05:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:05:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From AudioRoundup at Torah Musings: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/864540/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-sous-vide-cooking-for-shabbos-(and-through-shabbos)/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-From The Rabbi?s Desk ? Sous Vide Cooking For Shabbos (and Through Shabbos) Sous vide cooking (another thing we?ve lived without but now sounds like it will be the next sushi). If you do it for, or over Shabbat, is there an issue of hatmana or shehiya? FWIW the hashkafa at the end of R?Asher Weiss?s tshuva is well worth thinking about ? we seem to live in an age where any sacrifice is difficult. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 13:50:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:50:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> , <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I didn't think I was giving two answers, just clarifying further. So, let's work through it again. I must admit I have looked at neither Rishonim (except Rambam) nor achronim. But here goes: The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of YaVY. The gemara then says that this works fine for an eishes ish, The first question should be why that's obvious? Since when is conversation with an eishes ish YvAY? We answered that by saying, al pi Rambam, that the point of the gemara is to clarify how far we apply YvAY to hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation carries the din YvAY. That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. However, the bottom line for our original reason for analysing this gemara remains that it's not part of the cheshbon governing any standard interactions in which any ben Torah might participate, as it only applies to someone sick enough to have inevitable sexual hana'a from a conversation. R Micha's two correspondents can feel free to challange that whether off or on list. BW Ben Unless, as in your first email, the issue is more about rewarding the guy for letting his taavos get so worked up. I see a slight conflict in your answers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:22:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:45:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy : ... : OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the : rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very : clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz.... : : So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? I think the "out" is the clause "sheyeish lanu ba'alus alava". So, chameitz that you didn't have baalus on, but was delivered on Pesach wouldn't be included. (And would be a davar shelo ba le'olam, even if you did try to include it.) No, that doesn't cover things you owned since before Pesach and were unware "delo chazisei" that you only found on Pesach. OTOH, wasn't that stuff already mevutal anyway? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:30:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430173012.GB27111@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are :> indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs :> and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. :> And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification :> with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than :> identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos :> as self-identifications. : That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the : MB and AhS were on. : By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they : putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, : ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on : identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? ... I don't see how they are. If someone says there should be a single pesaq for a location and the shul could be consistent is talking about unity. Not about whether our community's minhagim are better or worse than those of another community -- they aren't present to suggest we're comparing. I was contrasting two different motives for breaking that unity: The first archetype is the one who does so because he takes more self-identity from his Litvisher (eg) ancestry than in being in part of the observant community, or Jewish community in general. The second is the one who is motivated by the logic of the pesaq or the hashkafah payoff. Such as someone who is "into" qabbalah for whom "qotzeitz bintiyos" means something and motivates not feeling happy in tefillin on ch"m. I was suggesting that lo sisgodedu only rules out the first motivation, not the second. But the acharon who promotes everyone following one practice isn't a question of whether their motivation is more important than lo sisgodedu to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:30:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430173012.GB27111@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03:15PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> BTW, if I had to guess, it would depend on whether people are :> indeed motivated by a consciencous following of family customs :> and the perspective on Torah that comes with their subculture. :> And how much is simple ethnic pride and the actual identification :> with Litvaks or Hungarians or Yekkes, Mughrabi or Halbi than :> identification with the Jewish People, or shomerei Torah umitzvos :> as self-identifications. : That's an excellent analysis, until we ask which side of the aisle the : MB and AhS were on. : By insisting that the whole shul should do the same thing, aren't they : putting the main emphasis on family customs, their own subculture, : ethnic pride, and subgroup identification -- with LESS emphasis on : identification with the Jewish People and shomerei Torah umitzvos? ... I don't see how they are. If someone says there should be a single pesaq for a location and the shul could be consistent is talking about unity. Not about whether our community's minhagim are better or worse than those of another community -- they aren't present to suggest we're comparing. I was contrasting two different motives for breaking that unity: The first archetype is the one who does so because he takes more self-identity from his Litvisher (eg) ancestry than in being in part of the observant community, or Jewish community in general. The second is the one who is motivated by the logic of the pesaq or the hashkafah payoff. Such as someone who is "into" qabbalah for whom "qotzeitz bintiyos" means something and motivates not feeling happy in tefillin on ch"m. I was suggesting that lo sisgodedu only rules out the first motivation, not the second. But the acharon who promotes everyone following one practice isn't a question of whether their motivation is more important than lo sisgodedu to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 10:08:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:08:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] If You Are Choshesh for GeBrochts You MUST be Choshesh that Youir Matza is Chamets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170430170851.GD19139@aishdas.org> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 08:17:11PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The problem is : once the Gebrochts-nicks express a Chashash : that the central part of the Matza : is not fully baked : then never mind the problem of flour : which will BECOME Chamets : when it gets wet ... Again, if gebrochts were about the middle not being baked, it would be worries about chameitz whether or not the matzah later gets in contact with water. It's about flour that didn't become kneaded. As the SA haRav states, the Besht ate gebrochts because in his day the 1 mil timer was stopped for kneading. We came up with this chumerah of trying to fit everything, including the kneading in the time limit. Which caused us to start rushing the kneading. (Yet, the Alter Rebbe of Lub lauded this new chumerah, despite it coming with new risks.) And so he justified chassidim of his generation following a new hanhagah that the Besht did not. (We discuss this teshuvah annually.) The question I asked is based on the fact that toasted flour doesn't become chameitz. And by simple physics, we expect that if dough, a huge lump, can bake through, then of course we would have completed the toasting of the same chemicals present in fine powder form, like any dry unkneaded flour within the dough. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 17:49:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 10:49:28 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Sous-Vide cooking (before) over Shabbos: A Tshuva from Rav Asher Weiss In-Reply-To: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8a9a77e1ac5346939899381d702f3cba@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <384BCE1C-0255-4CD6-9547-033963F2DA9C@gmail.com> Rich, Joel wrote: > > > From AudioRoundup at Torah Musings: > http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/864540/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-sous-vide-cooking-for-shabbos-(and-through-shabbos)/ > Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-From The Rabbi?s Desk ? Sous Vide Cooking For Shabbos (and Through Shabbos) > Sous vide cooking (another thing we?ve lived without but now sounds like it will be the next sushi). If you do it for, or over Shabbat, is there an issue of hatmana or shehiya? > > > FWIW the hashkafa at the end of R?Asher Weiss?s tshuva is well worth thinking about ? we seem to live in an age where any sacrifice is difficult. > > KT > Joel Rich R Joel, yes indeed. I got the Tshuva from R Aryeh :-) The other question is why does Halacha entail sacrifice. IF it's halachically sound it may be a hiddur! I know we have it on Tuesdays and everyone loves it. It is a superior form of cooking. If it's NOT Hatmono then why (if one has the implement) would one not use it. I find that a Hungarian Posek approach in general. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 30 17:34:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:34:13 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on Monday besides Hallel on tues Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 08:39:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 08:39:29 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> References: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <138374BA-01AB-4BF3-8554-304B33684B81@gmail.com> Young Israel century city holds both kulot. No tachanun Monday. Hallel Tues. Curious how most chul shuls do it. .I expect most follow israel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 09:51:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 18:51:40 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/1/2017 2:34 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on > Monday besides Hallel on tues Mine didn't and that was my experience in other shuls as well. The Tfilion app doesn't have Tachanun (but does have an added chapter of Tehillim for the fallen). Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 06:15:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:15:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <823642398.2011839.1493644503198@mail.yahoo.com> On Monday, May 1, 2017 6:02 AM, saul newman wrote: > Can anyone quickly tell me if DL or MO shuls are saying tachanun on > Monday besides Hallel on tues Rav Ahron considered Hey Iyar to be Yom Ha'atzmaut and the day that Hallel (without a Bracha) is said and Tachanun is not said -- regardless of when Israel celebrates it (for whatever reason it may be delayed). I (and Yeshivas Brisk) did not say Tachanun at Mincha yesterday (Erev Yom Tov) nor today at Shacharis... nor will I say it at Mincha. I will say it tomorrow. HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 10:23:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 13:23:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Last year, in http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n055.shtml#10 , RHM gave R' Aharon Soloveitchik's shitah. Much like this year, although last iteration he added: One can review the Halachic sources RAS used in his book 'Logic of the heart, Logic of the Mind'. I responded in the post right below it, quoting RGS, http://www.torahmusings.com/technology-halakhic-change-yom-ha-atzmaut , who in turn was commenting on R/Dr Aaron Levin of Flatbush's evolving practice: In America, where the celebrations can be more easily controlled to avoid the desecration of Shabbos, many authorities did not recognize the change of date, among them Rav Ahron Soloveichik and Rav Hershel Schachter. They insisted that people recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar -- the day of the miracle of the declaration of the State of Israel -- regardless of when Israelis celebrate the day. Rav Aaron Levine's son, Rav Efraim Levine, told me that his father had to change his position on this question over time. Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a community to determine its own date to celebrate. To which I added: RAS might have decided similarly or not had he lived to see the day when the primary intercontinental communication was the telephone, not the aerogram. We can't know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 11:59:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 20:59:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: For Hebrew readers, Rav Yoni Rosensweig sums up Rav Rabinovitch's position on the matter: https://www.facebook.com/yonirosensweig/posts/1761639697197955 Bottom line: Moving Yom Aztmaout doesn't entirely remove the uniqueness of the day. While he does state that the rabbinate holds that one skips Tachanun only on the day Yom Aztmaout is celebrated, RYR doesn't accept that psak. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 12:35:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 15:35:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> On a lighter, more aggadic note, my father suggested that the existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to minimize chilul Shabbos is the very thing a Religious Zionist would be celebrating on Yom haAtzmaaut. Which reminds me of something Rav Dovid Lifshitz said about Yom haAtzma'ut. Rebbe said that Atzma'ut is something special, and certainly worth celebrating. But for now YhA is only half a holiday. We established the atzma'ut of Yisrael, but are still missing its etzem. To rephrase into my father's words: It is worthwhile to celebrate the existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to minimize chilul Shabbos, but what we pray for is the existence of a country that wouldn't have to! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 14:42:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 23:42:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the reading is pushed off until Sunday. Ben On 5/1/2017 9:35 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > It is worthwhile to celebrate the > existence of a country which would adjust its national holidays to > minimize chilul Shabbos, but what we pray for is the existence of a > country that wouldn't have to! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 17:38:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 20:38:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:42:18PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the : reading is pushed off until Sunday. Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 22:29:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 07:29:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> Message-ID: 1) It is part of a package deal, the first part of which can fall on Shabbat. 2) When we go back to setting the month based on witnesses, it could fall on Shabbat. Ben On 5/2/2017 2:38 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. > > -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 23:12:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 09:12:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> <20170502003845.GA9371@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:42:18PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: > : It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the > : reading is pushed off until Sunday. > > Yom haAtzma'ut can't fall out on Shabbos. > 5 Iyyar certainly can fall out on Shabbat, and as it happens it doe so in exactly the same years when there is Shushan Purim Meshulash: Adar has 29 days and Nisan 30, so from 15 Adar to 5 Iyyar is 29 + 30 - 10 = 49 days or exactly 7 weeks. In other words, Shushan Purim and Yom Ha`Atzmaut (when not postponed or advanced) are always on the same day of the week. This last happened nine years ago in 5768 and will happen again in 5781 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 1 21:39:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 14:39:34 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Looking Jewish Message-ID: Gemara AZara 58a - R Yochanan b Arza and R Yosiy b Nehuroi, were drinking wine - they requested someone nearby to fix their drinks. After he fulfilled their request they realised he was not Jewish. May they drink the wine, is the Gemara's Q. But how could they make such a mistake? And how might the wine be permitted? the Gemarah 58b explains it was clear to the G that the Sages were Jewish, it was also clear that he thought that they knew he was not Jewish, and it was also clear that he as a non-J knew that if he handled the wine, they wold not be permitted to drink it So he thought - they MUST be drinking mead [which he may handle and mix for them] so even though he was actually handling wine, thinking it was mead, he would not make his usual pagan worship and so it did not become disqualified. So here is the tough part HE was CERTAIN they knew he was not J [that's why he was certain that they were drinking mead and not wine] however the truth was they DID IN FACT THINK he was J [and that is why they did invite him to fix their wine drinks] could this happen today? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 04:48:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 07:48:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yom Ha'atzmaut Message-ID: <3866CC37-90C9-4337-8257-616B6EB01940@cox.net> The story is told of the Chafetz Chayim, zt"l, that he asked one of his visitors who had come from a great distance, "How are you?? which in Yiddish is, "Vos makhst du," literally, "What do you do?" So in answer to this inquiry, the visitor replied, "Thank God, I have a thriving business, I have no financial problems, I have a beautiful home with a swimming pool,? etc. etc. The Chafetz Chayim repeated, "Vos makhst du?" and the visitor, a bit confused as to why the question was repeated, gave the same reply. So for the third time, the same question was asked of the visitor, at which point the visitor looked at the saint and he said: ?I don?t understand why you asked me three times 'How I am.? I told you that thank God, I have a thriving business, a lot of money, a beautiful home, etc.? The Chafetz Chayim replied: ?You don?t understand. You told me what GOD is doing for YOU, but I asked, 'What are YOU doing?' I therefore repeat: 'Vos makhst du?'" How does this apply to Israel Independence Day? We know what Israel has done for US. The question remains: What are we doing for Israel, and what are we doing for each other? May we become ?Independent" enough to help others who "depend" on us. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 11:50:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Avram Sacks via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 13:50:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Cong Or Torah in Skokie said tachanun at shacharit, but not at mincha on erev Yom Ha-Atzmaut. On YhA, at ma'ariv we added additional tehillim at the end of davening, as found in the Koren siddur for Yom HaAtzmaut. At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. Kol tuv, Avi Avram Sacks From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 13:16:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 16:16:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Looking Jewish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170502201609.GB17585@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:39:34PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Gemara AZara 58a ... : the Gemarah 58b explains ... : So he thought - they MUST be drinking mead : [which he may handle and mix for them] : so even though he was actually handling wine, : thinking it was mead, he would not make his usual pagan worship : and so it did not become disqualified. ... : could this happen today? Their wine was this thick syrup that required dilution (mezigas hakos) to be drinkable. They also often had to add spices and/or honey to make it palatable. Inomlin / yinomlin (spelled with a leading alef or yud, depending on girsa; Shabbos 20:2, AZ 30a) was wine mixed with honey and pepper (Shabbos 140a). So, if the grapes were particularly sour, and more honey was added, perhaps it wasn't that easy to determine that it was wine (enomlin) and not meade. A problem 2 millenia of vintners eliminated through breeding better grapes. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 14:20:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 17:20:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5908F811.8040504@aishdas.org> Beautiful sentiments, to be sure, but 100% emotional and 0% halachic. Was there live music on 6 Iyar? KT, YGB On 5/2/2017 2:50 PM, Avram Sacks via Avodah wrote: > Cong Or Torah in Skokie said tachanun at shacharit, but not at mincha > on erev Yom Ha-Atzmaut. On YhA, at ma'ariv we added additional > tehillim at the end of davening, as found in the Koren siddur for Yom > HaAtzmaut. At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel > (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and > ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it > is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet > observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in > Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added > that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about > those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA > on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 15:17:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 18:17:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akrasia and Ritual Message-ID: <20170502221754.GA25834@aishdas.org> Akrasia is a classical Greek term for why we so often don't do what we believe. In more mesoretic terms -- the problem of akrasia is the question of "what is the yeitzer hara?" In http://www.thebookoflife.org/akrasia-or-why-we-dont-do-what-we-believe there is an interesting piece on how ritual helps solve akrasia. It might help one's qabbalas ol mitzvos: ... There are two central solutions to akrasia, located in two unexpected quarters: in art and in ritual. The real purpose of art... (Fans of RAYK or Dr Nathan Birnbaum might want to read the part I'm skipping here.) Ritual is the second defence we have against akrasia. By ritual, one means the structured, often highly seductive or aesthetic, repetition of a thought or an action, with a view to making it at once convincing and habitual. Ritual rejects the notion that it can ever be sufficient to teach anything important once - an optimistic delusion which the modern education system has been fatefully marked by. Once might be enough to get us to admit an idea is right, but it won't be anything like enough to convince us it should be acted upon. Our brains are leaky, and under-pressure of any kind, they will readily revert to customary patterns of thought and feeling. Ritual trains our cognitive muscles, it makes a sequence of appointments in our diaries to refresh our acquaintance with our most important ideas. Our current culture tends to see ritual mainly as an antiquated infringement of individual freedom, a bossy command to turn our thoughts in particular directions at specific times. But the defenders of ritual would see it another way: we aren't being told to think of something we don't agree with, we are being returned with grace to what we always believed in at heart. We are being tugged by a collective force back to a more loyal and authentic version of ourselves. The greatest human institutions to have tried to address the problem of akrasia have been religions. Religions have wanted to do something much more serious than simply promote abstract ideas, they have wanted to get people to behave in line with those ideas, a very different thing. They didn't just want people to think kindness or forgiveness were nice (which generally we do already); they wanted us to be kind or forgiving most days of the year. That meant inventing a host of ingenious mechanisms for mobilising the will, which is why across much of the world, the finest art and buildings, the most seductive music, the most impressive and moving rituals have all been religious. Religion is a vast machine for addressing the problem of akrasia. This has presented a big conundrum for a more secular era. Bad secularisation has lumped religious superstition and religion's anti-akrasia strategies together. It has rejected both the supernatural ideas of the faiths and their wiser attitudes to the motivational roles of art and ritual. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 21st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Tifferes: What is the unifying Fax: (270) 514-1507 factor in harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 21:48:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 06:48:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0a07acaa-4c79-5eb5-b387-1887573b3cd1@zahav.net.il> There is an oversimplification here, that the issue is the secular. Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed off even if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash. Getting the country ready for these days means hundreds, thousands of people have to be in place. This includes soldiers, policemen, etc who are 100% dati. Holding these events on a date that would force these people to work on Shabbat is simply a non-starter and everyone understands that point. I have to add the following: My dream is that people will come to understand how wrong it is to make people (including dati'im) work on Shabbat when Lag B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate steps. Ben On 5/2/2017 8:50 PM, Avram Sacks wrote: > He added that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 2 21:30:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 21:30:06 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] nidche Message-ID: since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on thurs, does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded this way already in the 50's? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 06:38:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 16:38:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:30 AM, saul newman via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on thurs, > does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded this way > already in the 50's? > To be precise, they are only nidche if Pesah starts on Tuesday, like this year. If it starts on Shabbat or Sunday they are brought forward to Wednesday & Thursday. If my memory is accurate, the bringing forward has always been in practice, but the postponement from Sunday-Monday to Monday-Tuesday was introduced later, within the last 10 or 20 years. When I was first in Israel in the 1980s, YHA was still sometimes observed on a Monday. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 06:06:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 09:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> On 5/3/2017 12:30 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > since these holidays are nidche in any year pesach doesnt start on > thurs, does anyone know when this practice developed? was it encoded > this way already in the 50's? It was instituted during the tenure of Rabbis Amar and Metzger. [Email #2. -micha] On 5/3/2017 12:48 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > There is an oversimplification here, that the issue is the secular. > Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed off even > if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash... > I have to add the following: My dream is that people will come to > understand how wrong it is to make people (including dati'im) work on > Shabbat when Lag B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate > steps. That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to 5 Iyar. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 14:34:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 17:34:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5a7c4dde-aeda-0d6e-0a6f-3824d06a66da@sero.name> On 03/05/17 09:06, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is > no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- > certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically > viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to > 5 Iyar. Why can't a religious holiday be defined by the day of the week, like Shabbos Hagodol and Behab? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 16:28:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 19:28:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: R' Micha Berger reposted from elsewhere: > Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this > subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on > the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his > position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, > Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut > celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with > perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a > community to determine its own date to celebrate. Why should telecommunications affect the day that my community says Hallel? Should we all start reading Megilas Esther on 15 Adar? R' Ben Waxman wrote: > Yom Hazikaron/Yom Azmaut are unique in that they are pushed > off even if they don't start on Shabbat but even on Motzash. Maybe not as unique as it seems. Isn't there a gezera against Motzaei Shabbos weddings for exactly this same reason - because of the likelihood that the preparations would begin on Shabbos? RBW also wrote: > My dream is that people will come to understand how wrong it > is to make people (including dati'im) work on Shabbat when Lag > B'omer falls on Motzash and will take the appropriate steps. Amen!! Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 20:43:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 05:43:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <6877b18e-238c-f621-7e2a-998a9cfa7a85@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: Someone pointed out to me off line that the reading is on Friday, Al HaNissim on Shabbat, and Seuda/Matanot is on Sunday. Ben On 5/1/2017 11:42 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > It always will need to be, just like on a Purim Meshulash the reading > is pushed off until Sunday. > > Ben > > \ > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 21:26:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 14:26:20 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: <26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com> Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can never fall on a Thursday. Under the current arrangements, it cannot fall on a Monday, so those who fast on BeHaB and also wish to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzma?ut no longer need to be concerned. In Hilchot Yom Ha-Atzma?ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim (ed Nahum Rakover, 1973), there is an article by Rabbi Meir Kaplan which discusses what to do when the two did coincide. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 21:29:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 07:29:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche In-Reply-To: <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> References: <20170501172303.GD1195@aishdas.org> <20170501193558.GE1195@aishdas.org> <1843443217.20170502135017@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Avram Sacks via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > At shacharit we did not say tachanun and davened full hallel > (but w/out a bracha at the beginning and end.) Betwen mincha and > ma'ariv on erev YhA, Rabbi Engel gave a similar drash, adding that it > is a beautiful thing that all of klal yisrael, observant, or not yet > observant, accepts that the day of celebration is as celebrated in > Israel, even when it is moved to avoid chilul shabbat. He added > that it is fitting and proper that we, as a dati community care about > those who are not yet observant, rather than say, we will observe YhA > on hey Iyar and not care about what others will do. ?Since the issue here is tachanun, hallel and suspending sefira restrictions, I fail to follow his logic. We are being asked to not say tachanun on the same day as the not-yet-observant?, on 6th Iyar. But why the 6th any more than the 5th. We should say hallel on the 6th, the same day as the not-yet-observant. Hardly. Sefira restrictions are suspended on the 6th like the not-yet-observant? If the entire sentiment is when we should have ceremonies to mark the significance of the State, you could that any day, or every day, as often as you like. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 3 22:11:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:11:39 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Nidche In-Reply-To: 26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com References: 26730eac02ffd694c091685dac438c9d@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: <8ff4cb3fb9929c8cf4af49714131daf8@mail.gmail.com> I wrote in haste. Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can fall on a Friday (as it does next year), in which case it is brought forward a day. David Havin *From:* David Havin [mailto:djhavin at djhavin.com] *Sent:* Thursday, 4 May 2017 2:26 PM *To:* Avodah *Subject:* Nidche Yom Ha-Atzma?ut can never fall on a Thursday. Under the current arrangements, it cannot fall on a Monday, so those who fast on BeHaB and also wish to celebrate Yom Ha-Atzma?ut no longer need to be concerned. In Hilchot Yom Ha-Atzma?ut ve-Yom Yerushalayim (ed Nahum Rakover, 1973), there is an article by Rabbi Meir Kaplan which discusses what to do when the two did coincide. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 07:53:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 10:53:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [From an Areivim discussion of how to be safe from house fires on Friday night.... -micha] On 03/05/17 18:26, Akiva Miller via Areivim wrote: > When eating the evening seudah elsewhere than where you're sleeping, > consider lighting at the seudah location, so that they won't be > unattended. My mitzvah is to light my own home, not someone else's. I know women have the custom of saying a bracha when lighting in someone else's home, but I'm not sure on what basis they do so. It seems to me they're not fulfilling their own mitzvah but rather helping their hostess with her mitzvah, just like helping someone else with his bedikas chametz. In that case (as opposed to doing the whole thing as his agent) one is supposed to hear his bracha, not make ones own, so why is this different? Thus it seems to me that this falls into the category of minhagei nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked, but the women have their own traditions and are not asking. But I don't see a basis for men, who don't have those traditions, to follow them. Yes, we are required to follow "toras imecha", but it seems to me that this means those things that women have traditionally taught their sons, not those that they have traditionally only taught their daughters. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 08:52:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:52:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <54B1C0DF-2CD4-49B5-92A0-AC29B878E3F2@sibson.com> The psak I receive many years ago is that you light where you sleep. One concern was to make sure the candles would run long enough so they were still burning when you came home so you could get benefit from them Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 13:50:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 20:50:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Tatoo Taboo and Permanent Make-Up Too Message-ID: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/ken8l8y There is a widespread myth, especially among secular American Jews, that a Jew with a tattoo may not be buried in a Jewish cemetery[1]. This prevalent belief, whose origin possibly lies with Jewish Bubbies wanting to ensure that their grandchildren did not stray too far from the proper path, is truly nothing more than a common misconception with absolutely no basis in Jewish law. Jewish burial is not dependent on whether or not one violated Torah law, and tattooing is no different in this matter than any other Biblical prohibition. Please see the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 15:13:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 18:13:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Tatoo Taboo and Permanent Make-Up Too In-Reply-To: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> References: <1493931063164.83255@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <72ddedb9-4172-c476-3fe6-acbb37a1e577@sero.name> > Jewish burial is not dependent on whether or not one violated Torah law, There are cemeteries, or sections within them, where only observant Jews can be buried, in line with the halacha that one may not bury a rasha next to a tzadik. But a person who qualified for burial there would not be rejected for having a tattoo, since it would be assumed that he had long ago repented. (The sin is *getting* the tattoo, not *having* it; once it's been done there's no obligation to remove it.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 20:54:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 21:54:36 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> On May 3, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is > no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- > certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically > viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to > 5 Iyar. My gut is with you on this. But then we do need to at least address the precedent of Purim. We don?t say Hallel, but we say a bracha on the Megillah. And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid chillul Shabbos. Now there are some important differences. For one thing, Purim seemed to be a concern of ignorance, not secularity. But it does seem to establish the precedent that it can be done. Whether it should be done is a different question. Following the precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off until Sunday, but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. Yom HaZikaron could be pushed earlier. ? Daniel Israel Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center of Santa Fe, President daniel at kolberamah.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 21:00:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 22:00:22 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> On Apr 30, 2017, at 11:22 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:45:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : http://bit.ly/2pui5Hy > : OK. But today i looked at the contract used to authorize the > : rabbinate to sell one's chameitz (linked above). It says very > : clearly, that they are selling ALL of a person's chameitz.... > : > : So my question returns: would someone burn chameitz that they found? > > I think the "out" is the clause "sheyeish lanu ba'alus alava". So, > chameitz that you didn't have baalus on, but was delivered on Pesach > wouldn't be included. (And would be a davar shelo ba le'olam, even if > you did try to include it.) I have been bothered by this same question for many years, and mentioned to my Rav over Pesach. It was his impression that contracts in EY more commonly did not use loshen including unmarked/unknown chametz. I think that is common in the US. I suggested that it is motivated by a desire to protect against the case of accidentally consuming chometz sh?evar alav haPesach where the person completely lost track and by the time he ate it, he didn?t remember he sold it. But it does seem that burning it would depend on how the contract was written. And I would take it a step further and point out that if it was sold, there is a serious geneivah issue. > No, that doesn't cover things you owned since before Pesach and were > unware "delo chazisei" that you only found on Pesach. > > OTOH, wasn't that stuff already mevutal anyway? Can I burn something that was hefker without acquiring it? If I declare something hefker (I?m not sure the legal implication of batel), and then I burn it, wouldn?t that imply I?m koneh it? Which makes things much worse. ? Daniel Israel Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center of Santa Fe, President daniel at kolberamah.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:08:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:08:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: On 04/05/17 23:54, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > . And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid chillul > Shabbos. The megillah only goes back, never forward. > Following the precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off > until Sunday, but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. The precedent of Purim is to pull it back to Friday *or Thursday*. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:40:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:40:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Nidche Message-ID: 5 Iyar can also be on Shabbos (as it will in 2021), and its commemoration is pushed back two days, to Thursday. Nonetheless, that Thursday can never be a part of BeHaB, since the fasts begin on the Monday after the first Shabbos following Rosh Chodesh Iyar, and the preceding Shabbos is either the 28th or 29th of Nissan. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 6 12:32:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 21:32:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <04a24079-f3e7-a7e9-d195-3dac00552ebe@zahav.net.il> Yom HaZikaron and Yom Azmaut are an inseparable pair. There have been call to break the connection (to make it easier for the bereaved families to celebrate YA) but so far no one is willing to do so. Ben On 5/5/2017 5:54 AM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > Yom HaZikaron could be pushed earlier. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 4 21:20:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 00:20:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> On 5/4/2017 11:54 PM, Daniel Israel wrote: > On May 3, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: >> That's fine. A secular holiday can and should be pushed off. But it is >> no longer a religious holiday that can allow someone to say Hallel -- >> certainly -- with a bracha and push off sefirah minhagim. The Halachically >> viable basis for Hallel and simcha during sefirah is only applicable to >> 5 Iyar. > My gut is with you on this. But then we do need to at least address > the precedent of Purim. We don?t say Hallel, but we say a bracha on > the Megillah. And Chazal were willing to push off Purim to avoid > chillul Shabbos.... > Whether it should be done is a different question. Following the > precedent of Purim would seem to argue for pushing off until Sunday, > but not until Monday, and certainly not Tuesday. Yom HaZikaron could > be pushed earlier. On Purim Meshulash, the Al HaNisim remains on Shabbos, and the Megillah with the bracha is relocated to the day everyone else is celebrating. Moreover, there is no clash between simcha on 16 Adar and some pre-existing minhag to diminish simcha. Those are some of the differences. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 5 11:01:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 18:01:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: Discussion of chametz ?received? during Pesach can be listened to here: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/877269/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbis-desk-girls-scout-cookies/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -From The Rabbi's Desk - Girls Scout Cookies KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 6 22:53:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 07 May 2017 07:53:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives today, certainly not in any practical manner. More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber). Ben On 5/5/2017 6:20 AM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote: > On Purim Meshulash, the Al HaNisim remains on Shabbos, and the Megillah > with the bracha is relocated to the day everyone else is celebrating. > Moreover, there is no clash between simcha on 16 Adar and some > pre-existing minhag to diminish simcha. Those are some of the differences. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 07:26:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 10:26:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Haircuts when Lag Baomer is on Sunday Message-ID: Rama 493:2 writes: "When [Lag Baomer] falls on Sunday, the practice is [nohagin] to get haircuts on Friday l'kavod Shabbos." What makes this Friday different from all other Fridays of sefira? If Kavod Shabbos is ample justification to get a haircut on Omer 31 (which is in the aveilus days by all reckonings), then it ought to justify a haircut on Omer 24 (the previous Friday) also, shouldn't it? But I have never heard of anyone allowing a haircut on Omer 24 simply because it is Erev Shabbos, so there must be an additional factor at work. For many years, I presumed the logic to be as follows: If a person would need a haircut on Friday Omer 31, or on Friday Omer 24, and fail to get that haircut, then he has failed to do Kavod Shabbos, but he did it by inaction. He did it in a "shev v'al taaseh" manner, and it is quite common for halacha to suspend an Aseh with a Shev V'Al Taaseh. (Compare skipping this haircut to skipping Shofar on Shabbos.) HOWEVER - If a person would go out of his way ("kum v'aseh") and actually get a haircut on Sunday, that is intolerable. To have been disheveled on Shabbos (even if justifiably), and then suddenly be all fancied up the very next day, that is an insult to Shabbos, and we cannot allow Shabbos to be insulted in that manner. So when the Rama writes that we allow the haircuts "for kavod Shabbos", what he actually means is that we allow the haircuts "to avoid insulting Shabbos." And this is what makes this weekend of Sefiras Haomer different from all the others: On the other Sundays of Sefira, no one is getting a haircut anyway, so the whole question doesn't exist. But in this year, on this particular weekend, we do have this problem. The Rabbis *could* have chosen to protect the kavod of Shabbos by forbidding us to get haircuts when Lag Baomer is on Sunday, but instead they chose to protect the kavod of Shabbos by allowing us to get haircuts when Omer 31 is on Friday. Or so I thought for many years. But I have questions on this logic. According to what I have written, getting a haircut on Sunday is a bad idea - no matter what time of year it is. Yet I don't recall ever hearing anyone advise against it. In particular, when this situation of a Sunday Lag Baomer occurs, I have often hear people cite this Rama as granting permission to get their haircut on Friday. But in actuality, shouldn't it be less of a permission, and more of a *recommendation*? When a person asks the question, shouldn't the answer be, "Yes, you can get the haircut on Friday, and that's even better than waiting for Sunday." But I have not heard anyone suggest this. That's about as far as I was going to write, but then I went to the seforim to make sure I understood the Rama correctly. Indeed, his phrasing, "nohagin to get haircuts on Friday l'kavod Shabbos", could easily be understood to mean DAVKA on Friday rather than Sunday. But although it *could* be understood that way, I don't remember anyone actually doing do. And then I came across Kaf Hachayim 493:33, who writes that the Levush held differently than the Rama in this situation: > The Levush writes that if the 33rd is on a Sunday when the > non-Jews are not barbering because of their holiday, *that's* > when you can get a haircut on Friday. Meaning that in a place > where you *can* get a haircut on Sunday, then you should *not* > get the haircut on Friday. But from the words of the Rama, who > writes "l'kavod Shabbos", he means to allow it in any case. > And Elya Raba #9 writes the same thing about this Levush, that > the Rama allows it l'kavod Shabbos in either case. To rephrase: If one has a choice between getting his haircut on Friday or Sunday, then the Levush gives precedence to the minhagim of aveilus during Sefira, and requires us to wait until Sunday for the haircut, and *not* get the haircut on Friday Omer 31. The idea of suddenly showing up with a haircut on Sunday does not (seem to) bother the Levush, and this is totally consistent with the lack of anyone ever being told to avoid Sunday haircuts the rest of the year. But the Kaf Hachayim (with support from Elya Raba) rejects the approach of the Levush. He seems to accept the word of the Rama, plain and simple, that we can get haircuts on Friday Omer 31 because it is l'kavod Shabbos. And, according to Rama, this applies whether the barbershops are open on Sunday or not. Even if one has the option of waiting until Lag Baomer, he can "violate" the aveilus of Sefira on Omer 31, because the haircut is l'kavod Shabbos. This leaves me stuck with my original question: If Kavod Shabbos is ample justification to get a haircut on Omer 31, then it ought to justify a haircut on Omer 24 also, shouldn't it? Obviously no, but why? with many thanks in advance for your thoughts, Akiva Miller PS: The Levush is not totally machmir; he does allow leniency, but only in the case of where Lag Baomer is on Sunday, AND the barbers are closed on that day. Only in such a case does he allow a haircut on Omer 31. I have to wonder why he would allow that exception, rather than disallowing it entirely. Here's my guess: The Levush was aware of poskim who allowed haircuts on Friday Omer 31, but he felt this to be an improper violation of the aveilus, and paskened that people should wait for Sunday Lag Baomer. But if the barbers would be closed, that means people would have to wait another two weeks for their haircuts, in which case he allowed the leniency. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 03:46:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 13:46:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: No, I'm pretty sure it was the 50th day. The first day after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the first day of the Omer. The 49th day after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the 49th day of the Omer. Shavuot is thus the 50th day after our leaving Egypt. On 4/28/2017 6:27 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 28/04/17 05:33, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >> I think it's a false dichotomy. We assume that zman matan Toratenu is >> the calendar date on which the Torah was given. Clearly, that's not the >> case. Zman matan Toratenu is 50 days after the calendar date on which >> we left Egypt. Our receiving the Torah was an inextricable part of the >> Exodus. > > Which would work fine except that the Torah *wasn't* given on the 50th > day but on the 51st. So when the the 50th day falls on the 5th or 7th > of Sivan it is neither the calendar anniversary *nor* the > pseudo-Julian anniversary. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 06:38:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 09:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Two days [was: kitniyot] In-Reply-To: References: <20170428025809.QGOW26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: On 07/05/17 06:46, Lisa Liel wrote: > No, I'm pretty sure it was the 50th day. The first day after our > leaving Egypt corresponds to the first day of the Omer. The 49th day > after our leaving Egypt corresponds to the 49th day of the Omer. > Shavuot is thus the 50th day after our leaving Egypt. Everyone seems to assume we left on a Thursday. The first day after we left was a Friday, so the 49th day was a Thursday. Mattan Torah was definitely on a Shabbat, thus the 51st day. There's no way out of that, unless we adopt the Seder Olam's view that the gemara suddenly springs on us at the end of the sugya that we left on a Friday. Then it all works perfectly, and as I read the gemara that seems to be the conclusion, but I've never seen any later source even deal with this view; everyone who mentions the day of the week on which we left Egypt takes for granted (as the gemara did for most of the sugya) that it was a Thursday. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 03:51:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 06:51:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minhagei Nashim Message-ID: In a thread about Ner Shabbos, R' Zev Sero wrote: > Thus it seems to me that this falls into the category of minhagei > nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked, > but the women have their own traditions and are not asking. But I > don't see a basis for men, who don't have those traditions, to > follow them. Yes, we are required to follow "toras imecha", but > it seems to me that this means those things that women have > traditionally taught their sons, not those that they have > traditionally only taught their daughters. That's an interesting way to classify things. I suppose it makes sense in the context of Ner Shabbos, which a mother would certainly teach to her daughters, but probably not to her sons. In this system, I suppose she would also teach Kitchen Kashrus only to her daughters, but Brachos to all her kids equally. Please consider the following scenario. I suppose it could happen even today, but it might be easier to imagine if you place it during the many centuries when there was no schooling for girls... A wife is preparing some food for dinner. She notices something unusual. Maybe it has something to do with meat and dairy, or maybe it has something to do with the just-shechted chicken she's kashering. Anyway, she concludes - based on what her mother (and both grandmothers and all her aunts) taught her - it's not a problem. Her husband happens to walk in, sees the same thing, and points out that it is a very clear black-and-white halacha that this food is assur. One could say that this sort of thing happens very rarely, because the men tend to stay out of the kitchen. But if you ask me, that only proves that the couple is unaware of the problem. It probably happened quite often, but no one noticed because the husband wasn't around. How could this *not* be a frequent occurrence? The men are busy learning, and the information never reaches the women. I concede that if a woman is unsure, she will ask, and some halachos will filter over to her side. But if she is *not* unsure, she could be blissfully unaware that her imahos have had a tradition for many generations, and it differs from the tradition that her husband got from generations of avos and teachers. And if this sort of thing can happen in Hilchos Kashrus, how much more often might it occur in Hilchos Nida? You may notice that I am taking pains to tell this story without prejudice as to which side is the truer halacha. Just because the women weren't in yeshiva, that does not prove them to be in error. All it proves is that there's been no opportunity for shakla v'tarya. Neither side can be discredited until they've carefully debated the issues. So who is right? As I wrote, these questions have been bothering me for years. But someone said that "Emunah is not when you have the answers; it's being able to live with the questions. " I got that chizuk from R' Haym Soloveitchik in his now-classic "Rupture and Reconstruction", which is all about these opposing chains of tradition, the mimetic and the textual. (The full text is on-line at www.lookstein.org. Just google the title.) He writes in footnote 18 there: > The traditional kitchen provides the best example of the > neutralizing effect of tradition, especially since the mimetic > tradition continued there long after it was lost in most other > areas of Jewish life. Were the average housewife (bale-boste) > informed that her manner of running the kitchen was contrary to > the Shulhan Arukh, her reaction would have been a dismissive > "Nonsense!" She would have been confronted with the alternative, > either that she, her mother and grandmother had, for decades, > been feeding their families non-kosher food [treifes] or that the > Code was wrong or, put more delicately, someone's understanding > of that text was wrong. As the former was inconceivable, the > latter was clearly the case. This, of course, might pose problems > for scholars, however, that was their problem not hers. Neither > could she be prevailed on to alter her ways, nor would an > experienced rabbi even try. There is an old saying among scholars > "A yidishe bale-boste takes instruction from her mother only". Somehow, these chains do find a way to work together. But I must be clear: I am NOT talking about a machlokes haposkim, where the wife was taught one thing and the husband was taught something else. In that case, there is much common ground, and they (or their rav) can go to the sources to figure out what the couple should do. I'm talking about a much more fundamental problem, where generations have passed on different traditions, without anyone ever realizing that there was a mismatch. (I'd like to close by pointing out that I am neither asking anything new in this post, nor am I trying to answer anything. But RZS mentioned a "category of minhagei nashim which differ from how men would pasken were they asked", and I simply wanted to expound on that category.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 7 09:43:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 12:43:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen Message-ID: In Avodah Digest 35:53 on Apr 19, R' Micha Berger wrote: > The AhS OC 31:4 is okay with minyanim that are mixed between > wearers and non-wearers. That's not what I see in the last line there: "In a single beis medrash, don't have some doing this and some doing that, because of Lo Tisgodedu." In Avodah Digest 35:55 on Apr 26, he seems to have corrected that: > ... the MB and the AhS agree that a minyan should not be mixed > between tefillin wearers and not. [You seem to have missed http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol35/v35n055.shtml#07 I didn't correct myself; I was forced to reread the AhS by RHK's post. -micha] This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. IF I understand that AhS correctly, he says that if there is only one Beis Din in town, then everyone must follow it, so Lo Tisgodedu doesn't apply. And if there is more than one Beis Din in town, then everyone can follow their own beis din, so again, Lo Tisgodedu does not apply. So when DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be factionalized like that. That is the AhS's explanation of why each town should be united and follow one set of days for the aveilus of Sefira: The question is totally minhag, and not under the jurisdiction of the local posek. It is a minhag of the people, and the people should get together and be united in one practice. The AhS doesn't mention it in that siman, but this explanation does help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 consistent with 493:8? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 8 05:32:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 15:32:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The relevance of the middle perakim of Bava Basra today Message-ID: Perakim 4-7 of Bava Basra (which Daf Yomi has been learning) deal with the sale of various things, what is included and what is not. The common denominator seems to be that these are seemingly solely based on the accepted business practice during the time of Chazal and what people expect to get when they consumate a deal. There are few to no Torah based sources for any of these. Here is a general outline of the perakim. Perek 4 - Hamocher es habayis discusses what is sold when you sell real property (houses, bathhouses, courtyards, fields, etc.) and what is not, for example when you sell a house the Mishna states that you include teh door but not the key Perek 5 - Hamocher es hasefina discusses the sale of movable objects, again detailing what is included in the sale and what is not (boats, wagons, animals, etc.) Perek 6 - Hamocher peiros lachaveiro discusses the sale of agricultural products. It details how much spoilage/wastage there can be in grain and wine etc. It also discusses selling land to build things on it like a house, graves, how much land is given, what access etc. Perek 7 - Deals with sales of real property how exact do the dimensions need to be. Given the above, are these at all relevant today? A house buyer in 2017 clearly has very different expectations as to what he is buying in comparison to the times of Chazal as does someone buying wine, a field, a boat, etc. The same goes for all of these categories. Since the mishnayos seem to be based solely on accepted business practice and have are not based on pesukim can we simply ignore these today? Am I missing something here? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 8 10:47:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 13:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The relevance of the middle perakim of Bava Basra today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170508174705.GA2335@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:32:57PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Perakim 4-7 of Bava Basra (which Daf Yomi has been learning) deal with the : sale of various things, what is included and what is not. The common : denominator seems to be that these are seemingly solely based on the : accepted business practice during the time of Chazal and what people expect : to get when they consumate a deal... : Given the above, are these at all relevant today? ... First reaction: They would be relevant to a poseiq trying to learn how to determine which of today's expectations have halachic import. It would require doing the saqme kind of mapping of market norms to law that chazal did, so the poseiq could learn from example. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 9 05:44:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 08:44:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor Message-ID: <4667BA80-CCF4-42D3-833D-99611C34F822@cox.net> ?And you shall count unto you from the morrow after the day of rest from the day that you bring the omer of the wave-offering; seven complete weeks shall there be.? (Vayikra 23:15) The Rambam included the counting of the Omer as Mitzvah 161 in his Sefer Hamitzvot. Those Rishonim who disagree, do count it as a mitzvah d?rabbanan and therefore, when we conclude the counting each night we pray: ?May the merciful One bring back to us the Temple service to its place speedily in our days, Amen, selah.? So the question has been asked why we do not say a ?sheheheyanu? when we first count the Omer on the second night of Pesach. The Rashba answers that according to most Rishonim who disagree with the Rambam, the counting is connected intricately with ktzirat ha?omer, harvesting the omer, ha?va-at ha?omer, the bringing of the omer and hakravat ha?omer, the offering of the omer as a sacrifice (Vayikra 23:10&16). So since these mitzvot are obviously inapplicable today it pains us to remember what we are missing when we count the omer. Therefore, the rabbis say, we pronounce no sheheheyanu which is said only when we experience joy. When I started counting my blessings, my whole life turned around. Willie Nelson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 06:33:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 09:33:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kedoshim Message-ID: It was brought to my attention that I hadn?t sent out a commentary on Parashas Kedoshim. Here is a belated d?var. ?In the presence of an old person you shall rise and you shall honor the presence of a sage and you shall revere your God ? I am Hashem.? (Vayikra 19:32) This verse is so rich with interpretation. According to Rashi, following one view in Kidudushin 32b, the two halves of the pasuk explain each other, i.e., the mitzvah is to rise and honor a sage who is both elderly and learned. Others hold that these are two separate mitzvot: to rise for anyone over the age of 70 and to rise for a learned righteous man, even if he is below the age of 70. The halacha follows the latter view, the rationale being that anyone can reach the age of 70 but it takes blood, sweat and tears to achieve scholarship and righteousness. I recall as a youngster being in awe when everyone in the beis medrash would stop what they were doing and a hush fell over the crowd as everyone rose immediately as soon as the Rosh Yeshiva entered the hall. There comes to mind the famous saying in Makkoth 22b: ?How foolish are those people who stand up when the Torah is carried by, but do not stand up when a scholar walks by,? indicating that greater than a piece of parchment upon which the Torah is written, is a human being who has put his whole life into learning and struggling in order to acquire a knowledge of Torah, and who in his personal life is a living embodiment of what the Torah teaches and represents. Along similar lines is the custom in some hassidic circles to kiss the hand of a talmid chochom upon first seeing him in the same manner as kissing the Torah when it passes by. The one thing we must never forget is the basic issue involved. It is not the mere person that is the center of the commandment; it is the ?v?yorayso mey-Elohechoh, Ani HaShem that is here involved. In rising before and granting honor to the talmid chochom, we affirm our profound belief in the Torah of God. Who sows virtue reaps honor. Leonardo da Vinci -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 13:24:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 16:24:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety Message-ID: In Avodah V35n60, RJR responded to RZS, who had responded to RAMiller: >>> When eating the evening seudah elsewhere than where you're sleeping, consider lighting at the seudah location, so that they won't be unattended. <<< >> My mitzvah is to light my own home, not someone else's. << > The psak I receive many years ago is that you light where you sleep. One concern was to make sure the candles would run long enough so they were still burning when you came home so you could get benefit from them < As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*); and as I learned as a kid every Pesach that my family was at a hotel (because my parents didn't have Pesach cooking utensils, dishes, etc. in their apartment), everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 10 14:55:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 21:55:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As RJR implies, I thought the key component of neiros Shabbos was enjoying their light (in contradistinction to neiros Chanukah); and as I learned as a kid every Pesach that my family was at a hotel (because my parents didn't have Pesach cooking utensils, dishes, etc. in their apartment), everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... All the best from Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA _______________________________________________ Except if they were incandescent bulbs in the individual hotel rooms. In that case I was taught that the women make a bracha on the bulbs in their room Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 04:54:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:54:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Lo Taamod Message-ID: Rav Asher Weiss discusses in parshat Vayeitzeih on lo taamod al dam reiacha that one would have to give up all his assets to save a single life if he is the only one who can do it. However, "it's pashut" that if others can also do it, that he doesn't have to give up all his assets. Why is it so pashut if others refuse? (i.e. why isn't it a joint and several liability?) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 04:55:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:55:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Local Government Message-ID: Anyone have any sources on how local government, if any, functioned in times of Tanach? Was there any besides the court system? What was the role of the nesiim of the shvatim? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 12:02:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:02:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App Message-ID: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Someone mentioned tahorapp.com on-line, so I took a look at their web site. To quote: > Keeping Tradition & > Keeping Your Privacy > Rabbinically Approved! Anonymously send pictures of your Taharas > Hamishpacha questions to a Rav right from your own home. Receive answers > quickly and privately. Download Tahor App For Free! I then thought of "The Dress" , a picture of a black-and-blue dress that floated around the internet that many of us perceived as white-and-gold. So, given that people guess at the background lighting when they see a picture and then subconsciously correct for it (see explanation on wikipedia page), how could a rav rely on a Tahor App image? So, I filled out their contact form with something to that effect, and a short discussion followed. They replied: : Color Precision: : Thank you for your inquiry, : To clarify (as this seems not to be clear): : "Tahor" is meant to serve as a halachically approved "filter" for a : majority of Shailos (many of which are straightforward and simple to : determine). It is meant to allow those who may not have access to a rov, or : who may not feel comfortable going to a rov, to have an option, when : halachically viable, to send in their sample anonymously. : What this app is not: : This app IS NOT meant to be an umbrella replacement for the process of : showing questionable bedikah cloths to Rabbonim. Rabbonim were all able to : pasken correctly because of our advanced white balance technology and : Rabbinic measurement capabilities. The cloths which are borderline or : questionable, will be told to show the actual cloth to a Rabbi. : It is obviously preferable to take the cloth directly to the Rabbi when : possible, but many many women are not doing it! This will allow them to : keep Taharat Hamishpachah and get accurate answers. I felt I was getting a barely touched form letter, so I paraphrased my original question: } But given that the human eye will misinterpret colors when the lighting } differs between the camera and the person looking at the picture, how } can you know the results are accurate? After all, the differences in } perception of the colors of The Dress is far far greater han that between } a tamei brown and a tahor one. And their reply: : Shalom, : Yes, this is true. : This is why the Rabbis will only answer questions through the app which are : clearly one or the other. : An example of this would be if a stain on underwear is less than a gris. : The Rabbi can with complete accurately declare this Pure/Impure. : If the Rabbi feels that it is not so clear, he will tell the user to go to : a Rav. I am letting it drop there, because I am not going to argue anyone into wondering whether or not his pet project works. But I myself am still wondering.... Given how pronounced optical illusions can be when it comes to color and how subtle many determinations are, can a rav even know when the question is "clearly one way or the other" rather than only seeming obvious? I saw the dress in a catalog, so I know I am getting it wrong when I look at the infamous picture. And yet, it's suprising. If it weren't for people reporting a different color set, I would have considered white-and-gold "clearly" right. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 30th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation Fax: (270) 514-1507 result in holding back from others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 11 12:57:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: See the following timeline: http://crownheights.info/jewish-news/575460 http://crownheights.info/chabad-news/575513 http://crownheights.info/communal-matters/575546 http://crownheights.info/chabad-news/575559 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 07:33:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 10:33:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> There is a definite dearth of rabbis on the site. I am somewhat conflicted on this. OTOH, the nuances of coloring will be distorted by many displays - perhaps all displays. OTOH, perhaps women who otherwise would not ask she'eilos would use this service. KT, YGB From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 08:37:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:37:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App Message-ID: <11c7f4.7c2a7fc4.464730a1@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org Someone mentioned tahorapp.com on-line, so I took a look at their web site. To quote: > Keeping Tradition & > Keeping Your Privacy > Rabbinically Approved! Anonymously send pictures of your Taharas > Hamishpacha questions to a Rav right from your own home. Receive answers > quickly and privately. Download Tahor App For Free! I then thought of "The Dress" , a picture of a black-and-blue dress that floated around the internet that many of us perceived as white-and-gold...... .....So, given that people guess at the background lighting when they see a picture and then subconsciously correct for it (see explanation on wikipedia page), how could a rav rely on a Tahor App image? -- Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>>> According to wiki the human eye can distinguish about ten million different colors. Other sources say "only" seven million. (Not relevant here but interesting: Some birds, some fish, some reptiles, even some insects, like bees, can see colors we can't see.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision A computer screen can display about 33,000 different colors -- only a small fraction of the number of shades in nature that the human eye can see. http://www.rit-mcsl.org/fairchild/WhyIsColor/Questions/4-6.html The takeaway -- to my mind -- is that the tahor app probably can't be relied on. The rav needs to see the actual color, not on a screen. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 08:36:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 11:36:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:33am EDT, R Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: : I am somewhat conflicted on this. OTOH, the nuances of coloring will : be distorted by many displays - perhaps all displays. OTOH, perhaps : women who otherwise would not ask she'eilos would use this service. Because of "The Dress" I am worried that "perhaps all displays" really understates the possibility of getting a color wrong. While the problem you raise is real. I would still recommend yoatzos as a better solution. Still, there are women who still wouldn't go to antoher woman, or who live in an area with no one to ask. RnTK wrote: : According to wiki the human eye can distinguish about ten million different : colors. Other sources say "only" seven million. ... : A computer screen can display about 33,000 different colors... : small fraction of the number of shades in nature that the human eye can see. ... : The takeaway -- to my mind -- is that the tahor app probably can't be : relied on. The rav needs to see the actual color, not on a screen. I think the problem I raised can lead to more profound misassessments. The precision of color displays will blur the edges. And the rabbis behind Tahor App say that it's only for more clear cases. What had me concerned is that that perception is based on more context colors and lighting specifics than the phone's camera may capture. Thus "the dress", which is explained, amongst other startling optical illusions involving color perception here . It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in different lighting than it was taken. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 09:33:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 12:33:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 517 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 11:53:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 14:53:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:33:14PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote: : The 33rd day of the Omer is a minor holiday commemorating a break in : the plague. The common translation of askaria is some kind of lung disease. However, the only explanation of the gemara that predates the late acharonim is R' Achai Gaon's -- that the word is sicarii. Meaning, they were killed by Roman dagger- or shortsword-men. Tying the deaths of the omer to the Bar Kokhva rebellion. (The sicarii of the events of Tish'ah beAv were Jewish dagger bearers. Same word, different people.) If I may add, which emphasizes the connection to shelo nahagu kavod zeh lazeh. The galus was started by sin'as chinam; it couldn't be ended by people who still hadn't mastered showing another kavod. (A scary thought about our own hopes...) : This day is observed as a day of rejoicing because on this day, the : students of Rabbi Akiva did not die. Actually, it's not a day of mourning because they didn't die. It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. Or perhaps it's the day Rashbi left the cave the 2nd time, or.... For Litvaks, Yekkes, and other communities, Lag baOmer as a holiday is a new thing. Also, as per other iterations, Lag baOmer at Meron appears to have originally been Shemu'el haNavi's yahrzeit (Mag beOmer? Yom Y-m) at Nabi Samwel, and only moved when Arabs going to Nabi Samwel (from Tzefat) dangerous. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 12:42:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 15:42:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/05/17 11:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while > convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in > different lighting than it was taken. But isn't that explicitly taken care of by the instruction to the user to take the photo only in direct sunlight, and by the instruction to the rav to look at it only on a specific monitor at a specific brightness? However reliable or unreliable the technology is, at least *that* concern has been addressed, hasn't it? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 13:01:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 16:01:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> References: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/05/17 14:53, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined > communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- > find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) > writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then > a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping > the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. No typo is necessary. What could "yom simchas Rashbi" mean if not his yortzeit, which he explicitly instructed his talmidim to celebrate as if it were his yom hillula? That's where the whole concept of celebrating yortzeits rather than mourning on them comes from, as well as the concept of referring to them as "wedding days". > Also, as per other iterations, Lag baOmer at Meron appears to have > originally been Shemu'el haNavi's yahrzeit (Mag beOmer? Yom Y-m) at Nabi > Samwel, and only moved when Arabs going to Nabi Samwel (from Tzefat) > dangerous. This paragraph got garbled enough that if I didn't already know what you meant I could not have figured it out. But it's my understanding that it wasn't danger from Arab marauders that put an end to the pilgrimages to Shmuel Hanavi (from all over EY) but rather a government decree barring Jews from the site. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 14:49:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:49:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag B'omer Am Yisroel Chai In-Reply-To: References: <20170512185342.GB3075@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512214922.GB4067@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 04:01:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> It's observed as a day of rejoicing because qabbalistically inclined :> communities -- Chassidim, and Sepharadim post-Chida and Ben Ish Hai -- :> find a lot of significance in R Chaim Vital (in the name of the Ari) :> writes in Peri Eitz Chaim that it's yom simchas Rashbi. And then :> a copying error turned that into "yom shemeis Rashbi", by dropping :> the ches. However, it could well be two phrasings of the same idea. : No typo is necessary. It happened. Necessity isn't at issue. We know what the older version was, and there used to be a ches there. "Shemeis" is simply not what RCV wrote. : What could "yom simchas Rashbi" mean if not : his yortzeit, which he explicitly instructed his talmidim to : celebrate as if it were his yom hillula? Well, isb't that what I said in the last sentence quoted? But it's only the most likely (in my opinion) possibility, and not -- as you are taking for granterd -- the only one. To continue from where you chopped off that text: > Or perhaps it's the day Rashbi left the cave the 2nd time, or.... Simcha, in the sence that seeing the man carry two hadasim for besamim -- zekhor veshamor -- yasiv da'ataihu. His simchah learning with his son-in-law, R' Pinchas b Ya'ir. "Ashrekha shera'isi bekakh..." Shabbos 33b-34a give you plenty of reason to believe he was joyous, and wanted to share that joy with the qehillah. Or maybe R Aqiva started teaching his 5 new students in earnest the very day the massacre or plague stopped. And therefore Lag baOmer is the day Rashbi started learning qabbalah. Or maybe... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 18:04:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 11:04:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The rabbi is shocked He realises After pesach is concluded That one of the contracts he's supposed to sell to the G Was not sold to the G If ownership According to Halacha Is determined by believing one is in control And when that control Is lost There's YiUsh Then this Chamets Had no owner During Pesach This Chamets For all intents and purposes During Pesach Has no owner. And Chamets can be Muttar Even if owned by a Y If it's abandoned For the duration of Pesach That's the Halacha Re the Mapoles The shed collapse On a crate of whiskey It's buried under at least 3 Tefachim It's Muttar after Pesach And it seems Even without Bittul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 12 14:33:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:33:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> <5915C7B7.7020804@aishdas.org> <20170512153606.GD15436@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170512213304.GA4067@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 03:42:59PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 12/05/17 11:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >It is easy to make a large mistake in color identification even while : >convinced the color is obvious. All it takes is seeing the picture in : >different lighting than it was taken. : : But isn't that explicitly taken care of by the instruction to the : user to take the photo only in direct sunlight, and by the : instruction to the rav to look at it only on a specific monitor at a : specific brightness? ... My wife and I saw The Dress for the first time together, and reported different results. in that picture it is obvious it was taken on a sunny day. And we both saw it in the same lighting. So, I don't think it sufficiently takes care of the problem. Maybe if the distributed a color sheet that must be included in the picture in proximity to the kesem, and the rabbinic side of the software corrects the colors displayed based on knowing what the sheet should look like. If the woman prints the color chart herself, you widen the uncertainty. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 14:23:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 23:23:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tahor App In-Reply-To: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> References: <20170511190245.GA12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I have also been in touch with them (the programmer and one of the rabbis). I haven't come to a final conclusion, but my impression so far is: (1) The people on this project are y'rei Shamayim who take what they are doing seriously and have worked very hard for a long time on developing something that will be reliable (2) It is definitely not as good as seeing a mareh in real life (3) It is not good enough for borderline or difficult-to-pasken cases, and when difficult marot are submitted the rabbis will tell them that they need to be evaluated in person (4) They have had quite good results testing this app with easier cases (and most marot that women ask about are easier cases), which is why they have the confidence to release it (5) There are clear instructions on photographing the mareh in sunlight (6) This is only available for iphone - and deliberately so. They have the camera and white balance technology to give a good enough image, and because everyone is using the same type of phone and operating system, there is more control. Developing an android version will be significantly more challenging. If asked, I think I would cautiously tell women that IF they have no way to get the mareh evaluated in person (they do not live near any qualified Rav or yoetzet, or they are traveling), and they have an iphone and carefully follow the instructions, this seems to be reliable. I have worked online with Rav Auman for a long time, and while I haven't actually met him in person, I do trust him to know what he is doing. I'm still checking into it. If any of you have iphones (like most Israelis, I have an android) and have installed the app, I would be very interested in hearing feedback. Thank you! Shavua tov, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 19:10:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 22:10:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Music on the night of Lag B'Omer Message-ID: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> It seems quite common that people have bonfires with music on the evening of Lag B'Omer. I haven't found a compelling reason for this custom - even those who are meikil like the Rama to lift the Aveilus on Lag B'Omer don't do so until the day, I thought, as miktzas hayom k'kulo. Does anyone have an explanation for this? KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 13 21:20:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 00:20:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Music on the night of Lag B'Omer In-Reply-To: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> References: <010a01d2cc57$31e073a0$95a15ae0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <112dafa9-5b8f-9e78-8b3e-2c0fcd51e25b@sero.name> On 13/05/17 22:10, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: > It seems quite common that people have bonfires with music on the > evening of Lag B?Omer. I haven?t found a compelling reason for this > custom ? even those who are meikil like the Rama to lift the Aveilus on > Lag B?Omer don?t do so until the day, I thought, as miktzas hayom > k?kulo. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Yes. If one is merely noting the end of aveilus, then it starts in the morning, tachanun (or Tzidkas'cha) is said at the previous mincha, and bichlal it's not a celebration, any more than one celebrates when getting up from shiva. I've never heard of people singing and dancing and playing music on such an occasion, even if it's permitted. But if one is celebrating Rashbi's yom hillula then it's a full holiday, an occasion for song and dance and music, and of course it starts at night, with no tachanun at the previous mincha. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 12:11:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:11:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin Message-ID: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 12:27:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:27:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin In-Reply-To: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> References: <96DF0BF5-B52C-4A7F-BF94-EAF4A38EF5E8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170515192700.GA20468@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:11:29PM -0400, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? MB 40:3 says that's the universal minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 15 14:49:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 17:49:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dropped Tefillin Message-ID: <5F399CEB-B043-4AB8-A067-A8E1495829DF@cox.net> Saul Newman wrote: Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin? To the best of my knowledge, YES. However, I also recall that one could give extra tzedaka in lieu of fasting. rw From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 16 19:26:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 22:26:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World" Message-ID: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> This Torah portion sets forth the blessings that are seen in this world in response to our deeds. It then continues with the Tochacha, words of admonition, "If you will not listen to Me and will not perform all of these commandments?" Interestingly, there are seven series of seven punishments each. God warns us throughout the portion that He will punish us in "seven ways for your seven sins. We are now counting seven days a week for seven weeks; the Torah has just recently given the laws for Shemita ? seventh year the land lies fallow and seven periods of seven years, we celebrate the Jubilee year. What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the diatonic scale, seven continents, etc. We wind the T'fillin straps around our forearm seven times. We sit shiva for seven days. At the wedding we chant 7 blessings (sheva b'rachos) and the wedding is followed by seven days of celebration. Even the Torah begins with seven -- the First verse has seven words also containing a total of twenty-eight letters which is seven times four. Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion. When we say "Baruch Hashem" we are praising God for something that is hopefully whole and complete. The acronym for Baruch Hashem (Beis, Hay) also equals 7. Finally, the patriarchs and matriarchs total seven: Avraham, Yitzchok, Ya?akov, Sarah, Rivka, Rochel, Leah. (Please don?t write me to say your phone number has seven digits or the rainbow has 7 colors or that there are seven letters in the Roman numeral system or that nitrogen has the atomic number of 7 or that there were 7 dwarfs with Snow White). :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 05:31:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 12:31:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality, Message-ID: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> See below concerning a frequently discussed issue: Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today, especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:30:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:30:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World" In-Reply-To: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> References: <8AFB7EC3-46FF-4EBF-AF07-236D34B7F15D@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170518143027.GB13698@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:26:19PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven : represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the : diatonic scale, seven continents... Although the diatonic scale and the division of the colors in the spectrum to fit the numbers 7 are human inventions. They say more about what 7 means to humans -- even without revalation -- than anything inherent. ... : Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion... As does the word. Without niqud, the letters /sb`/ could be read as "seven" or "satiated". (Or swear... go figure that out.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:18:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:18:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170518171844.GD26698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh : Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on : Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives : today, certainly not in any practical manner. A tighter comparison... The minhag as recorded in the SA clearly ran into Lag baOmer -- and ending mourning with the usual miqtzas hayom kekulo. Then the hilula deRashbi turned Lag baOmer into a holiday, and this new holiday overrode the older minhagim of aveilus. What's good for one new holiday ought to be good for another (YhA, where this conversation began), no? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:24:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:24:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:24:41PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was : enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*)... As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel YT") but it's "neir Chanukah". Their kids wouldn't forget. : everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get : enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel : dining room would have represented a fire hazard.... Fire hazard is safeiq piquach nefesh, and ein danin es ha'efshar mishe'i efshar. However, wouldn't the alternative been lighting in the dinig hall, near one's table? The point is to eat by neir shel YT, not to sleep by them! And in this case (combining the above with what RJR wrote), shouldn't they have provided incandescent lamps for each table? (Not that there were small bulbs of other sorts when we were growing up.) Wouldn't it be easier to justify making a berakhah on turning the light on than on lighting in a third room or a table off to the side of the dining room dozens of yards from where you are eating? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:35:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:35:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality, In-Reply-To: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <009e66eaadcd433ea373048ae7f8b23f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170518143502.GC13698@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:31:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why : there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters : of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the : masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as : all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak : halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would : contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today, : especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.] Not sure what this means. There are halakhos about triage. About how much tzedaqah to give and how to prioritize them. There are a lot of halakhos about morality. I fail to see how this isn't circular. The open moral questions RYBS is referring to are those too situational for every possible situation to be addressed with its own pesaq. Ar the Ramban puts it on "ve'asisa hayashar vehatov". If "morality" is being used in a sense to limit it to those quetions that did not get halachic resolution, isn't he just saying the interpersonal questions that didn't get a pesaq didn't get a pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 07:46:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:46:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] nidche In-Reply-To: <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> References: <5909D5D0.1070900@aishdas.org> <8C96FE6B-086B-4B7D-A94F-316661CF6F02@kolberamah.org> <590BFD72.4000800@aishdas.org> <358d015a-02ce-4425-4c4e-7f6c1997f00b@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170518144626.GD13698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei : Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events : of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber). It seems (but is not muchrach) from the AhS 394:1-3 . As I wrote (in part) in 2010 . The AhS distinguishes between a global minhag from the Geonic period not to marry and a later minhag bemedinos ha'eilu. He attaches the minhag of 1-33 (and including miqtzas yayom kekulo) to when the talmidei R' Aqiva died (s' 4-5) and the minhag of the last days to "minhag shelanu" (s' 5), localizing the last days to the descendent of those who fled the Crusaders east. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:14:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 11:04:32AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : If ownership : According to Halacha : Is determined by believing one is in control : And when that control : Is lost : There's YiUsh : Then this Chamets : Had no owner : During Pesach But if this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as -- it would be open and shut. I think ba'alus (as opposed to ownership) is defined by having the legal responsibility for something, and only as a consequence about having control or a right to use it. Which would explain why qinyan, a mechanism for eatablishing shelichus or shibud, is more thought of as a means of establishing baalus. Because baalus is also primarily on the hischayvus side. And so, it has as a consequence actual legal right of control, rather than depending on belief that one is in control. Which is why a ganav needs yi'ush plus shinui. Yi'ush, loss of belief of having control, is NOT enough to end ba'alus. But that's ba'alus. We don't have ba'alus over chameitz on Pesach. For example, an avaryan who dies on Pesach while violating bal yeira'eh bal yeimatzeih (BYBY) does not leave that chameitz to his sons. BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs from choshein mishpat, and is not baalus. ... : And Chamets can be Muttar : Even if owned by a Y : If it's abandoned : For the duration of Pesach ... : And it seems : Even without Bittul. ... The mishnah on Pesachim 31b says that if it's buried so deep a dog cannot dig it up, it is a form of bi'ur. R' Chisda in the opening gemara says it needs bitul. But in any case, the question is whether this is destruction. The gemara likens it to bi'ur. Not about a loss of ownership. Which would create a whole different question, as Tosafos (Pesachim 4b "mideOraisa") understand relinquishing ownership to be the very definition of bitul. (The majority opinion -- Rashi "bibitul be'alma", Ritva, Ran, and the Rambam 2:2 -- say it's a form of bi'ur.) Rashi and the Ran say the need for bitul after a mapolah fell on one's chameitz is derabbnan, a gezeira in case it gets unburied. But while buried, it's kebi'ur. The Samaq (#98) says the need for bitul is de'oraisa. And the MA holds that the Semaq would require buried chameitz not was not batul to be dug up and burnt on Pesach. The Mekhilta (on Shemos 12:19, see #2 ) says that chameitz owned by a nakhri which is in a Jew's reshus or a Jew's chameitz are excluded from BYBY by the pasuq's extra word "beveteikhem". "Af al pi shehu birshuso". The Mekhilta is making a split between reshus and BYBY. And it could be we are discussing three different concepts of "ownership", with reshus and baalu being different from each other as well. There is also a whole sugya about buried issurei han'ah on Temurah 33b-34a (starting at the mishnah) that I would need to understand better with rishonim and posqim to really comment in full. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 10:38:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:38:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] candles and fire safety In-Reply-To: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> References: <20170518172449.GE26698@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 18/05/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel > YT") but it's "neir Chanukah" In L's case, "neir shel shabbos kodesh", but "neir chanukah". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 13:53:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 21:53:30 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? Message-ID: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> A thought just struck me, and I wondered if this chimed with anybody. The Rambam says (Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 halacha 13): ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????. Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. The Tur says the same except that he has Torah shebichtav and Torah sheba'al peh around the other way (Tur Yoreh Deah Hilchot Talmud Torah siman 246): ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??"? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???"? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? The Sages said all who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking with Torah shebichtav but with Torah shebaal peh he should not teach her ab initio, but if he taught her it is not as though he taught her Tiflut The Beis Yosef says it is a scribal error in the Tur, and should be the same way as the Rambam, and that is how he has the statement in the Shulchan Aruch, and the Taz agrees, pointing to Hakel. The Prisha notes that the Beis Yosef says that it is a scribal error but adds: ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??"? In any event there is to give a small reason for this version in the books of the Tur, since with all of them it is written and published so, because there is a greater loss when Torah shebichtav is brought out as words of nonsense than with Torah shebal peh. However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil Siman 199, the Maharil writes: ?????? ????? ???"? ??????' ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?"? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ? - ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?????' ???? ???? ?? ??? ????' ?? ???????, ??? ??' ??"?? ?"?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????, ??"? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????, ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??'? ???? ???? ??????, ??? ??? ????? ????? ... ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???, ???? ?"? ????? ?????, And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut as it says in perek notlev and we learn it from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, when wisdom enters so does cunning since when wisdom enters the heart of a person there also enters into it cunning and according to the explanation of Rashi because of this she will do things privately, and if so we are concerned that she will come to damage since their knowledge is light and even though it is considered a mitzvah eit l?asot lashem so that one should not drown out the reward by loss and all the more so where there is not a mitzvah ... And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by way of tradition from outside, And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous generations: ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like it says ?ask your father and he shall tell you? and in this it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their upright fathers. But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in the form of the Mishna? That the Torah sheba'al peh was passed from father to son by oral transmission (albeit that at one point schools were instated for those lacking fathers who could teach them)? And on the other hand doesn't the Rosh (ie father of the Tur) famously say that today one fulfils the mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah by writing other seforim in Hilkhot Sefer Torah, chap. 1 as is brought by the Tur and Shulhan Arukh in Yoreh De'ah 270:2? So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al peh - as the vast majority of the details are sourced in Torah sheba'al peh, and if they were only to be taught what is in Torah shebichtav, they would all turn into Karaites! And indeed that women were, as the Chofetz Chaim suggests, taught in the home with the tradition handed over by their fathers in the same way as Torah sheba'al peh has always been learnt all the way back to Moshe Rabbanu. While if you understand Torah shebichtav as including mishna and gemora and rishonim, all so long as they have been written down, then one could indeed understand that as being a possible practical distinction - ie not to teach women to read and write and understand what is in the written seforim? Now perhaps one might say that if the Rambam had poskened like Rav Elazar in Gitten 60b as understood by Rashi, that Torahshebichtav is the majority and Torah sheba'al peh is the minority, because he includes in Torah shebichtav anything that is learnt out of the Torah by way of midrash or gezera shava etc, then it might be possible to understand that by and large women could both learn to do the mitzvot incumbent on them and simultaneously avoid Torah sheba'al peh, but he doesn't, as in his introduction the Mishna he categorises Torah Sheba'al peh into five categories, and is clearly in this poskening like Rav Yochanan. So how, according to the Rambam, did women know what to do if they were never taught Torah sheba'al peh, even ba'al peh, remembering that it is the Rema's addition to the Shulchan Aruch in the name of the Smag (actually Smak) via the Agur that adds in the halacha that women need to learn all the mitzvot that are relevant to them? Is not the Tur's version actually the one that makes more logical sense - especially if you explain Hakel as per the gemora in Chagiga that the women came to listen (ie hear it orally, without looking at the text)? Not that this would seem to explain Rabi Eliezer himself, as Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna in Sotah 21a - objected to women learning that sometimes drinking the Sotah water would not result in immediate death, and in the Yerushalmi, Sotah perek 3 daf 19 column 1 halacha 4 he objected to telling a woman why there are three different types of deaths listed vis a vis the chet haegel when there was only one sin - both of which pieces of learning were, at least in his day, definitely Torah sheba'al peh. So given that the Rambam poskened like Rabbi Eliezer, he would have needed, if a distinction was to be made, have to phrase it the way he did. But maybe what the Tur was saying is that, Rabbi Eliezer or no, the Rambam's solution is not workable, and given the way the gemora explains Rabbi Eliezer's limud from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, and that already in his day that kind of learning was found in Torah shebichtav, the whole thing can be made workable by turning it the other way around? Has anybody seen this suggested anywhere? Any thoughts? Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 18 15:56:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 08:56:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away In-Reply-To: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> References: <20170518171457.GC26698@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 19 May 2017 3:15 am, "Micha Berger" wrote: >: If ownership >: According to Halacha >: Is determined by believing one is in control >: And when that control >: Is lost >: There's YiUsh >: Then this Chamets >: Had no owner >: During Pesach > If this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as I don't understand. Please explain. One who is unaware of the loss of his wallet, believes he is still in control. We Pasken that he remains the owner. Famous story, woman lost her money at a trade fair, was found and taken to the Rov. Although there was no question that it was the money she had lost, there was no way to Pasken that it had to be returned to her. YiUsh. Until Reb Y ? explained that she was never the owner and her state of mind was not relevant. It was her husband's money and he, being unaware it was lost, still firmly believed he was in control. YSheLoMiDaAs suggesting that since he'd be in a different state of mind, if he knew the facts, in other words YSheLoMiDaAs, is still a Sevara that recognises and circulates around the principle that ownership depends upon ones state of mind. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 09:16:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 12:16:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts Message-ID: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Two Faces of Love Twice a day the Jew gives expression to one of the most potent forces in social life ? LOVE. In the morning we plead for ahavah rabbah, abundance of love, for in the morning we want love to expand and grow throughout the day. In the evening, however, when darkness descends upon us, we pray again for love, but not in quantitative terms. Instead we plead for ahavat olam ? enduring and eternal love. In the dark night love does not grow; it deepens. Two Philosophies of LIfe Sarah advised her husband to cast out Ishmael, when she saw he was ?Miitzachaik? and she feared he would be an evil influence on his brother ?Yitzchok.? Interestingly, both ?Miitzachaik? and ?Yitzchok? have a common root, meaning to laugh or to play. What is the disparity? The difference is compelling: ?Mitzachaik? is in the present tense and ?Yitzchok? is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael?s philosophy of life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future. Conversely, she saw that Yitzchok?s philosophy of life was to live life spiritually, delaying immediate gratification and living his life in a way that would provide genuine happiness and enjoyment in the future. The future depends on what we do in the present. Mahatma Gandhi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 11:14:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 14:14:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes Message-ID: <20170519181429.GA31873@aishdas.org> >From this week's emailing from The Halachah Center / Beis haVaad leInyanei Mishpat . There are a number of halachic discussions about e-cig use -- whether kashrus concerns apply, health issues, but then they close with this interesting (to me) more aggadic point. Note found interesting was that R' Yosef Greenwald assumes that venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem isn't about preserving life, but preserving one's ability to pull the ol mitzvos. (That sounds weird, but an animal "pulls a yoke", no?) Which includes preserving life. And thus includes intoxication and other mind- or mood-altering chemicals that could hamper one's ability to function. I could have seen argiong for each as separate values, but... Holy Smokes! A Halachic Discussion Regarding E-Cigarettes Are e-cigarettes problematic from a halachic standpoint? By: Rav Yosef Greenwald ... The Health Concerns of E-cigarettes ... 1. Are E-Cigarettes Any Better than Cigarettes? ... 2. Derech Eretz and a Life of Meaning Let us conclude with one more point about the general imperative to protect our health and its relevance to this case. Although as mentioned there is an injunction to safeguard our health based on v'nishmartem, we also have an assurance of shomer pesaim Hashem, that Hashem will protect those who engage in normal activities, as Rav Moshe explained, which is based on the Gemara (Yevamos 12b and elsewhere).[10] Consequently, eating greasy french fries, doughnuts, and the like, may not be the healthiest thing to do. However, doing so would not violate a halachic prohibition, as eating these foods is considered in the realm of normal behavior (like smoking used to be), and we can apply shomer pesa'im Hashem. There have recently been some questions asked about the kashrus on medical marijuana, due to the possibility that the recreational use of marijuana may be normalized soon. However, before discussing the kashrus questions, one must ask whether it is acceptable to consume marijuana. It would seem to be in the same category as significant alcohol consumption. Leaving aside any possible physical damage caused from overdosing, there is no specific halacha that forbids one from getting drunk, aside from being careful not to miss the proper time for Tefilla, and not issuing halachic rulings while in an inebriated state.[11] Nevertheless, it should be obvious that this is wrong, based on what could be called the "fifth section of the Shulchan Aruch," using common sense in living one's life. Clearly, Hashem does not want a person to waste away their life in a state in which one cannot serve Hashem properly. Rather, one should live life as an intelligent, sober person. One who overdoses on alcohol, or engages in mind-altering or mood- altering by ingesting marijuana, is taking away the ability to function as a normal person. This falls under the category of derech eretz, proper conduct, which precedes the observance of halacha. In other words, even if one does not directly violate the Shulchan Aruch, one must live in a manner in which the Torah and halacha can be fulfilled. To return to e-cigarettes, this notion of living healthy is an important reason why, even if it is concluded that they are 100% kosher even without certification, a non-smoker should not start using such a product. In the merit of being able to curb one's physical temptations, hopefully we as a people can merit to reaching great spiritual heights, and achieve the closeness to Hashem that He, and we, so desire. ... [11] Both of these issues are discussed in the Gemara (Eiruvin 64a) and are cited in the Shulchan Aruch. ... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 12:08:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:08:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Does Orthodox Commitment Provide What is Needed for Good Character? Message-ID: <20170519190815.GA24683@aishdas.org> From http://jewishethicalwisdom.com/does-orthodox-commitment-provide-what-is-needed-for-good-character Critical reading for anyone interested in what AishDas stands for. Jewish Ethical Wisdom Blog Does Orthodox Commitment Provide What is Needed for Good Character? Posted on April 6, 2017 Posted By: Anthony Knopf Does Orthodox commitment provide what is needed for good character? Not yet, I answer in this article. ... Rashei peraqim: Introduction Feeling and Thinking Ethically - Not Always a Matter of Halakha Exclusive Focus on Halakha Distracts from and Attenuates Moral Sensitivity More is Required :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 12:19:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:19:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts In-Reply-To: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> References: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170519191925.GA30260@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:16:28PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The difference is compelling: "Mitzachaik" is in the present tense and : "Yitzchok" is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael's philosophy of : life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as : much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future. However, "Yishmael", the name, is also in future tense, and later in his life, "Yitzchaq metzacheiq es Rivqah ishto" (26:8) -- in the present tense. And while "Yishmael's" name is about listening, not tzechoq, is not listening MORE fundamental to a healthy relationship? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 02:14:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Havin via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 19:14:00 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah at the Age of 12 Message-ID: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> My maternal grandfather, who lived in Lithuania until his late teens, told me on a number of occasions that he celebrated his bar mitzvah when he was 12 years old, as his father had died and he was considered to be an orphan. Some years ago I recalled this and decided to learn more about the custom, but each of the rabbis I asked had never heard of it. Recently, however, I was re-reading A Tzadik in Our Time: The Life of Reb Aryeh Levin and, at page 95, he recounts that he attended a bar mitzvah of an orphan in Jerusalem on his 12th birthday. Does anyone know anything of this custom? David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 13:39:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:39:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs > from choshein mishpat, and is not baalus. We can see a connection between BYBY and "responsibility" by the situation of a shomer. Even in a situation where a shomer is absolutely not the owner or baal in any sense of the term, he will still violate BYBY if he is responsible for the chometz that he is watching. (I don't know which side of the discussion this supports, but it seems very relevant to *some* side, so I figured I'd mention it.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 19:37:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'midbar Message-ID: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> Israel?s brithplace was b?midbar ? in the wilderness. It has been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced the monotheistic faith. Man is always in need of fulfillment and his promised land is far away. He is always on the road to the actualization of his dreams, seeking better things and yearning for a fuller, fulfilling life. The wilderness is the symbol of man searching for his destination. It is told that a Chassidic Rebbe, impatient at the sad, mad state of the world (sound familiar?) and overcome with longing for the happiness of mankind, prayed to God: ?If Thou cannot redeem Thy people Israel, then at least redeem mankind!? May we reach the promised land in our lifetime! rw ?Ay me! sad hours seem long.? William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 19:00:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 22:00:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "Krias Moshe Leynen"? Message-ID: <7c27ddbf-5df2-526c-c8bd-dbfd5a94b96e@sero.name> Has anyone heard of such a thing? I came across it in a Munkatcher publication. If it were buried in a block of text I'd take it for a typo for "Krias Sh'ma Leynen", referring to the children who come on the vach nacht to say Krias Sh'ma for the baby. But it's in a prominent position where I think surely someone would have noticed such a blatant typo and corrected it before it went to print, so my current working theory is that it's some minhag that neither I nor anyone I've asked so far have heard of. So I'm throwing it to the wider Avodah community; does anyone know what this is? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 20 23:08:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 02:08:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bar Mitzvah at the Age of 12 In-Reply-To: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> References: <6cd0e8ceb60551252acdc8b3aa4e64c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 20/05/17 05:14, David Havin via Avodah wrote: > My maternal grandfather, who lived in Lithuania until his late teens, > told me on a number of occasions that he celebrated his bar mitzvah when > he was 12 years old, as his father had died and he was considered to be > an orphan. > > Some years ago I recalled this and decided to learn more about the > custom, but each of the rabbis I asked had never heard of it. Recently, > however, I was re-reading A Tzadik in Our Time: The Life of Reb Aryeh > Levin and, at page 95, he recounts that he attended a bar mitzvah of an > orphan in Jerusalem on his 12^th birthday. > > Does anyone know anything of this custom? There is, of course, no such custom of becoming a bar mitzvah early. But it was a common custom that a child with no father would begin putting on tefillin a full year before his bar mitzvah, rather than a few weeks or months as is the usual custom. See Aruch Hashulchan 37:4, who says this is "murgal befi hahamon", but he knows of no reason for it, and disapproves of it. See: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=374&pgnum=295 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 19 14:40:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 17:40:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts In-Reply-To: References: <18C8F7C5-9D10-49A8-8309-7B4CCCAFB6CD@cox.net> Message-ID: <2B3DC5BF-D4C8-4C0D-A9B0-01AE8A89E41E@cox.net> > "Yishmael", the name, is also in future tense ...which means "he WILL hear or listen" which fits in with his personality and character. Presently he doesn't listen and does what he pleases. When he gets old, he will then listen. > And while "Yishmael's" name is about listening, not tzechoq, is not > listening MORE fundamental to a healthy relationship? A healthy relationship is fundamental with many elements: one of which is certainly listening NOW, not in the future. Can you imagine telling your child to do something and he says I'll do it in the future. He isn't even listening because as you point out "He WILL listen -- a lot of good that does for the present. And psychologists will tell you that a healthy relationship must have laughter and humor which can only increase the health of a relationship. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 22 07:47:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 10:47:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lag Baomer in pre WWII Mir Yeshiva in Europe In-Reply-To: <1494871334409.64146@stevens.edu> References: <1494871334409.64146@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20170522144737.GB29499@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:02:36PM +0000, Prof Yitzchak Levine posted on Areivim: : Please see http://mrlitvak.blogspot.com/ I can understand a desire to reaffirm the authentic Litvisher derkeh. But meanwhile, we have more learning than at any time in Litta's history, and kids are still uninspiring and fleeing in horrendous numbers. How often do people mention the RBSO? How much do we discuss or base decisions on the kelalim gedolim baTorah (cf RBW's recent review of RJB's The Great Principle of the Torah -- ve'ahvta lerei'akha kamokha, de'alakh sani, eileh toledos ha'adam, shema Yisrael, tzadiq be'emunaso yichyeh, etc...)? So, Lag baOmer may not be more than cheap sentimentality. But even if I were to agree this was true, I would still argue that we are in desperate need of sentimentality -- and will settle for the cheap kind rather than letting the pursuit of perfection become excuses for less emotional expression. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 10:54:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:54:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? Message-ID: We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that are on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv is al pi din. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 12:38:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:38:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Added textual mar'eh meqomos alongside the links. -micha] On 23/05/17 13:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would > like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. > Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that > are on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv > is al pi din. These would seem to be dispositive: [Rambam, Hilkhos Shekheinim 10:11:] http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/c310.htm#11 [SA CM 155:26:] https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9F_%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9A_%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9F_%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98_%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%9B%D7%95 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 13:35:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 16:35:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] My tree grows into your garden, can you force me to trim the tree? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170523203556.GC10104@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 08:54:41PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : We have a tree that is growing into our neighbors garden and they would : like us to cut down/off the branches that are growing into their garden. : Strictly speaking al pi din, am I chayav to cut down the branches that are : on/over their property? I would like to understand what the chiyuv is al pi : din. Related question, really came up last week. Someone had a tree that neighbors were complaining about, that it looked like it was dying and might fall on the neighbor's roof. On a windy day recently it actually snapped -- but not falling on the roof, instead the tree brought down the power lines. A number of people on the block lost food before power was restored and other expenses were incurred. Is the owner of the tree liable al pi din? What if the neighbor hadn't warned him, so that we cannot know if the owner was aware of an issue or not? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 42nd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliability crucial for universal brotherhood? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 13:37:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:37:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'Note found interesting was that R' Yosef Greenwald assumes that venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem isn't about preserving life, but preserving one's ability to pull the ol mitzvos. (That sounds weird, but an animal "pulls a yoke", no?) Which includes preserving life. And thus includes intoxication and other mind- or mood-altering chemicals that could hamper one's ability to function.' The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it either as far as I recall. So that leaves us fairly free to guess what it means, I suppose. I'd assumed it means preserving health, inasmuch as nefesh usually refers to life force, and we wouldn't need it to refer to preserving life itself, since that's covered by a) prohibition of suicide and b) al taamod al dam reyecha. And preserving health would presumably be in order to keep mitzvos the better, no? And I think an animal bears a yoke and pulls a plough. Lashon Hakodesh is always 'nosei ol'. Which corresponds better to bear than pull. So we carry/bear the ol mitzvos I think. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 23 14:25:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 07:25:01 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away - Mashkon Pikadon Message-ID: In Siman 440 chametz foods owned by a G in the care of a Yid (a ?shomer? / guardian) Siman 441 chametz foods owned by a G left in the care of a Yid as a ?mashkon? (lit. collateral) for guarantee of a loan from the Yid Pesachim 5b Two pesukim Shmos 13:7 ?Chametz shall not be seen to you and leaven shall not be seen to you in all your borders.? You may not see your own (i.e. keep in your possession), but you may see that of others (i.e. non-Jews)? Shmos 12:19 ?For a seven-day period leaven shall not be found in your homes.? a Yid may not accept Chamets deposits from non-Jews.? there appears to be an inconsistency Gemara Pesachim 5b If a Yid may see Chamets of non-Jews why does the Beraisa prohibit the chametz deposit of a non-Jew? It depends upon whether the Y has (monetary) responsibility for the Chametz, When a Y accepts monetary responsibility for the chametz he is considered to be owner to the extent that he is Over BYBY Mishnah Berura discusses whether the Y can sell the ?pikadon?. concludes yes If the Y has no monetary responsibility (i.e. for loss, theft or negligence) it may be kept in his house during Pesach but to ensure it is not mistakenly eaten must close it in a room The ?shomer? who assumes monetary liability becomes a part-owner therefore, a Jew's chametz with a non-Jewish ?shomer? does not absolve the Y he is Over BYBY A visiting non-Jew who brings his own chametz into the home of a Jew need not ask the non-Jew to remove the chametz and may even invite him into his home and eat the chametz right at his table provided the Y does not eat together with the G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 13:42:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Feldstein via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:42:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim Message-ID: > > > > I am not expressing an opinion here on the permissibility of maharats, or > of women's ordination. I merely wish to express my respect for those on > both sides of this important question, and my hope that the dispute will > remain on the level of a machloket l'shem shamayim and that ultimately all > of us will benefit from this challenging and passionate conversation. > > ---------------------- Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilana. I have found that discussions about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven ... and of not having a recognized posek to support their halachic position. The discussions rarely focus on the relevant halachic issues. It's nice to hear someone who is willing to respect the other side...and recognize that the discussion is a machlokes l'sheim shamayim. -- Michael Feldstein Stamford, CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 17:37:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 20:37:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170525003710.GA22308@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:42pm EDT, R Michael Feldstein wrote: : Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilana. I have found that discussions : about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because : those who support : shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven ... and : of not having : a recognized posek to support their halachic position. The discussions : rarely focus on : the relevant halachic issues. A discussion on Avodah can focus exclusively on the relevant halachic issues. A decision of what to do in practice has to include deferring to the position that actually is backed by recognized posqim. And one side's unwillingness to ask the question on this level itself becomes a relevant halachic issue. However, the following is true anyway: : It's nice to hear someone who is willing to respect the other side...and : recognize that : the discussion is a machlokes l'sheim shamayim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 24 20:03:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 05:03:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly accused of being agenda driven. Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. Ben On 5/24/2017 10:42 PM, Michael Feldstein via Areivim wrote: > I have found that discussions > about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support > shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 04:57:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 11:57:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> On 5/24/2017 10:42 PM, Michael Feldstein via Areivim wrote: > I have found that discussions > about the subject of hiring a maharat tend to get very personal because those who support > shuls hiring a maharat are quickly accused of being agenda driven _______________________________________________ Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:28:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:28:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? Message-ID: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:30:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:30:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shoftim-Mesorah Chain Message-ID: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&st=&pgnum=484 Fascinating article on the mesorah chain-were the shoftim really part of it ?(doesn't deal with broader question of why we don't see Sanhedrin in Nach). KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 07:46:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 10:46:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shoftim-Mesorah Chain In-Reply-To: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0868a59c663c4fa0bac48acceaa58b0b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170525144620.GA16912@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:30:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252&st=&pgnum=484 : Fascinating article on the mesorah chain-were the shoftim really part of it ?(doesn't deal with broader question of why we don't see Sanhedrin in Nach). Is this the right link? The article appears to be about the revalation of Tanakh "Dargot haNevu'ah baTorah, Nevi'im uKhtuvim", starting with Devarim vs the other 4 chumashim, then Navi vs Kesuvim. By R Moshe Menachem haKohein Shapira. I think you mean an earlier article, MEsoret haTSBP beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah Neustadt. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20252pgnum=474 Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:26:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:26:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Minhagei Nashim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526012654.GA29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 06:51:56AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I am NOT talking about a machlokes haposkim, where the wife was taught one : thing and the husband was taught something else. In that case, there is : much common ground, and they (or their rav) can go to the sources to figure : out what the couple should do. I'm talking about a much more fundamental : problem, where generations have passed on different traditions, without : anyone ever realizing that there was a mismatch. Is this really a problem? I highly recommend learning AhS. One of the things you get to watch is how much this conflict drives the dialectic of halakhah. Unlike the clean-room approach to halachic theory one gets from lomdus. You get a sense of how much acceptance of a practice in the field drives how much willingness to accept or draft a dachuq theory to explain how it could be justified in theory. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:43:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:43:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'midbar In-Reply-To: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> References: <5EF2A99A-A7EF-478A-BA74-FFB4F4CC1377@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170526014307.GC29809@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:37:34PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has : been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced : the monotheistic faith... But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged during the Exodus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:39:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526013946.GB29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, : and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying : observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes : when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ... : [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is : outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be : factionalized like that. .... : help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, : despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it : is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to : the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply : to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. : I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 : consistent with 493:8? Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag, as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin on ch"m either. It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the local court(s) or inherited. Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag side of the AhS's chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 20:53:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 23:53:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Holy Smokes Message-ID: R' Ben Bradley wrote: > The odd thing about v'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem is > that it's a 'blank pasuk'. Ie despite sounding like a tzivui > which we'd need Chazal to define more precisely it is in > fact not brought anywhere in Chazal at all. Not in halacha > nor aggadeta. Rishonim don't say much if anything about it > either as far as I recall. This surprised me so much that I looked it up. Here's what I found: These words are from Devarim 4:15. The only comment of the Torah Temimah is: "This is brought and explained above, in the pasuk Ushmor Nafsh'cha (#9)." So I look at Devarim 4:9, and the Torah Temimah quotes a lengthy story from Brachos 32b, which references both pesukim (4:9 and 4:15). The comments of the Torah Temimah that I found particularly relevant to RBB's comment are found in the second and third paragraphs in Torah Temimah #16, and I will quote them here: > The Maharsha writes here, "This pasuk is about forgetting > the Torah, and these pesukim have nothing at all to do with > a person protecting his own nefesh from danger." According > to him, the tzadik of that story said what he said to the > government official merely to get out of the situation, > because the pasuk is really not about Shmiras Haguf. Further, > the fact that it is a common saying, for people to quote the > pasuk V'nishmartem Me'od L'nafshoseichem for any physical > danger - according to the Maharsha that's a mistake. > > But isn't it the explicit opinion of the Rambam, who wrote > in Rotzeach 11:4, "It is a Mitzvas Aseh to remove any > michshol which could be a Sakanas Nefashos, and to be very > very careful about it, as it is said, 'Hishamer L'cha, > Ushmor Nafsh'cha Me'od.'" So it is explicit that the language > of these pesukim *is* about protecting one's body. At first glance, this seems to go against what RBB wrote. BUT: Even according to the Rambam as cited by the Torah Temimah, it seems to me that the most one can say is that Ushmor Nafsh'cha (Devarim 4:9) talks about physical danger; we don't necessarily know that about V'nishmartem (Devarim 4:15), and it is not clear to me why the Torah Temimah closes that paragraph referring to "THESE pesukim" (hapesukim ha-ayleh). Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 03:18:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 13:18:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Bmidbar Message-ID: Israel's brithplace was b'midbar -- in the wilderness. It has : been suggested that only the barren wilderness could have produced : the monotheistic faith... But we didn't develop monotheism in the midbar, we were taught it by our parents back to Avraham. We had some help being reconvinced during the plagues. But monotheism isn't the aspect of Yahadus that really emerged during the Exodus >> However, the avot were shepherds and it has been suggested that being alone with the flock and nature helped them perceive monotheism. BTW I am now reading The exodus you almost passed over by Rabbi Fohrman who demonstrates that the debate between Moshe and Pharoh and the 10 plagues all revolve about monotheism versus polytheism -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 18:39:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chol Moed Minyan for Those Who Wear Tefillen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170526013946.GB29809@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 12:43:36PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This morning I was learning some Aruch HaShulchan about Sefiras Haomer, : and he discusses the situation where a single community has varying : observances of which days of sefira are noheg aveilus. AhS 493:8 analyzes : when Lo Tisgodedu applies and when it doesn't. ... : [W]hen DOES Lo Tisgodedu apply? It applies to minhagim, because that is : outside of the purview of Beis Din, and it is "m'chuar" for Jews to be : factionalized like that. .... : help us with Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. That *is* a question of halacha, : despite the common wording of "My minhag is to do this." And since it : is a question of halacha, Lo Tisgodedu would *not* apply according to : the AhS. Except that in 31:4, the AhS says that Lo Tisgodedu DOES apply : to tefillin on Chol Hamoed. : I don't know where to go from here. Any thoughts? How can we make 31:4 : consistent with 493:8? Although as you note wearing or not wearing tefillin is called minhag, as in: there are minhagim about which pesaq to follow. People aren't going to rabbanim to pasqen the question anew. So, whether the town has one beis din and thus should conform to one pesaq or mutilple batei din and uniformity isn't expected has little to do with tefillin on ch"m either. It therefore seems to me that the relevant feature isn't whether the imperative is din or is minhag, but whether the decision is made by the local court(s) or inherited. Tefillin on ch"m or lack thereof are minhag enough to fall on the minhag side of the AhS's chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 25 19:22:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 22:22:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government Message-ID: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> There is a popular theory that the positive description of the gov't found repeatedly found in the AhS is self-censorship and an attempt to make sure his works make it through the government censorship and approval process. But there are times he goes far beyond this, complimenting them in ways no censor would have expected, never mind demanded. For example EhE 42:51, the discussion of marrying in front of witnesses \who are pesulei eidus deOraisa -- eg converts away from Judaism. Rashi has a case of an anoos who got married with other anoosim, and they all returned. Rashi ruled that she needs a gett, because maybe they had hirhurei teshuvah and at that moment were valid eidim. Then he adds Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed. They would never force someone to convert. Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah, we don't have to be chosheish for it. So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus? In terms of timing, the first booklets of EhE started coming out in 1905. (After YD, which came out 1897-1905.) He stopped sometime during or before 1908, his petirah; but he could have written this well before 1905 -- I only know the publishing date. 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other things. Which then led to a new Russioan Constitution, a multi-party system, the Imperial Duma... and 11 years later, the Soviets. So, it's hard to believe he meant it, but it's hard to believe he would risk empty flattery with those stakes! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 04:50:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 07:50:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> On 25/05/17 22:22, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Then he adds > Veda, dekol zeh eino inyan bizmaneinu > shemalkhei ha'umos malkhei chesed. > They would never force someone to convert. He goes on far longer than that. So long that no reader could possibly miss his meaning. > Okay, he could have remained silent. But he not only writes this, he > continues further with a pesaq based on this assumption: Since today's > converts are willing, they are so unlikely to have hirhurei teshuvah, > we don't have to be chosheish for it. > > So, to make a point he didn't have to just to slip by the gov't, he > suggests that a woman could remarry without a gett! Was it really SO > obvious that to unnecessarily add a little butter to his buttering up > to the gov't he would risk some LOR causing mamzeirus? This was a period when some publishers of siddurim felt it necessary to print "avinu malkeinu ein lanu melech bashamayim ela ata". He may very well have feared that including a practical psak about anoosim would arouse the censor's ire, especially since the censors were themselves mostly meshumodim. > 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which > was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other > things. Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would have been obvious to him too. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 07:57:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other :> things. : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would : have been obvious to him too. I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation audience. Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his contemporary readers. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 08:33:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 11:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Aruch haShulchan and the Government In-Reply-To: <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> References: <20170526022202.GA5670@aishdas.org> <6f2c61fa-e2e3-8223-707f-6771248f1565@sero.name> <20170526145747.GH15708@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2dc5d4d3-0686-0f3a-9692-24d0aa39595b@sero.name> On 26/05/17 10:57, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:50:44AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> 1905 was the year the empire survived the Russian Refolution, which > :> was over this very issue of Russification of minorities, among other > :> things. > > : Or, if you like, instead of calling it self-censorship you can see > : it as bitter irony, obvious to the intended audience, but to which > : the censor could raise no official objection, even though it would > : have been obvious to him too. > > I really find it incredibly unlikely that RYME included a false pesaq in > his work in order to share some bittere loichter with his first-generation > audience. candlesticks? I think you meant gelecther. But there's no false psak, just a false description of the metzius, which is so over the top that nobody could miss it. > Since he left in his tzava instructions about printing the remaining > qunterisin (which ended up including nidon didan) and about collecting > them into volumes, it is even more implausible he thought of only his > contemporary readers. How could he possibly know what future conditions might be? Any reference in any sefer to "our times" has to be understood as about the author's times, not the reader's. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 07:53:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:53:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly : accused of being agenda driven. : : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response. Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality. Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a non-halachic agenda by making it look holy. (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:57:32AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Aren't we all agenda driven? IMHO the challenge is living in "post : modern" times where there is little objective right and wrong, thus all : agendas are viewed as equally valid (or invalid) But there are limits to eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim Chaim. When in a halachic debate, one should be limiting oneself to the various answers that are objectively right. Thus presuming there is an objectively right, while still not being absolutist about it. And if we assimilated too much postmodernism to be able to see where eilu va'eilu ends (tapers off), we should be leaning on posqim who can. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 26 09:54:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 12:54:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Tvunah] St. Petersberg White Night Zmanim Message-ID: <20170526165420.GA22041@aishdas.org> >From the web site of R' Asher Weiss's pesaqim . I was told that they had a similar problem in the summer in Telzh. Motza"sh was havdalah, melaveh malkah, night seder, shacharis kevasikin, sleep. Tvunah in English Beit Midrash for Birurei Halachah Binyan Zion Under the Leadership of Maran HaRav Asher Weiss Shlita White Night Zmanim Questions: 1. During White Nights here in St. Petersburg we end Shabbat at midnight (2:00). This is also the time of alot ashahar. Accordingly, there is no opportunity to say a blessing on the candle and eat Seudat melawe malka. Question: Is it possible to rely on the opinion of rabbi Ovadiya Yoseph that alot ashahar is 72 dakot zmaniet before dawn, and accordingly there is a certain night after Chatzot for Bracha on the candle and melawe malka? 2. Can we finish fasts of 17 of Tamuz and the 9th of Av after tzet kahovim according Gaon (0:03 and 23:03)? Answers: 1. Since it is already the beginning of the light of the new day and hence Alot Hashachar, the bracha on the candle for havdala should not be said. However since it is still a few hours before Netz Hachama [sunrise] one could be lenient to eat Melave Malka. In fact, with regards to Melave Malka one could be lenient and eat before Chatzos, as long as 72 minutes have passed since shkiya [even though with regards to Melacha one should be machmir until Chatzos]. 2. With regards to ending Rabbinic Fasts, one could rely on the zman of Tzais Hakochavim according to Rabeinu Tam [according to the Pri Megadim that it is a set time in all places], waiting 72 minutes after shkiya. [Hebrew meqoros ubi'urim elided.] :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 45th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Malchus: What is the beauty of Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity (on all levels of relationship)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 27 12:11:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 22:11:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> On 5/26/2017 5:53 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:03:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > : If it helps, those who oppose hiring a maharat are also quickly > : accused of being agenda driven. > : > : Unity: we all assume that's the person we see in the mirror is OK. > > I think it's more accurate to say those in favor of hiring a maharat > believe that a certain trend is unchangable and positive, but their > halachic response to that metzi'us is a pure halachic response. > > Unfortunately too many who are opposed think that there is an agenda > to make halakhah more feminist. Rather, I see it as trying to have > a halachic response to a progressively more feminist reality. People keep using that word, "feminist". I don't think that's what feminism means. This is egalitarianism, which may overlap with feminism in some areas, but is a different ideology. And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to reality. That would imply that halakha comes first and responds to reality. I think that in the vast majority of cases, and if you want, I'll give you ample examples from the writings of JOFA/YCT people, it is a sense that egalitarianism is a moral imperative. That the egalitarian worldview is quite simply the *only* moral worldview, and that to the extent that halakha comforms to that worldview, it is a moral system, and to the extent that it does not, it is not. > Whereas those who are pro think that talk of "mesorah" is just a means > of cloaking agenda into jargon, so that the antis are following a > non-halachic agenda by making it look holy. It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality that predates this entire debate. When the egalitarians want to try and read their ideology back into Jewish history, they often do so with things like Rashi's daughters laying tefillin, a fiction which is accepted as fact by Conservative and Reform Jews, but has absolutely no historical basis. There is a legitimate argument to be made that those on the side of tradition are afraid of change. But not that they are *only* afraid of change. Casual change of halakhic norms has caused enormous damage in recent history, and wariness or even fear of such things is both rational and reasonable. Again, there may even be something admirable about trying to equalize the two sides the way you're doing here, but it doesn't match the reality. One has only to listen to the types of arguments that are used by the two sides to see that they are operating on the basis of vastly different paradigms, where one *starts* with the Torah and one *starts* with egalitarianism. > (My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about > fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" > a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos > that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, > etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or > resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and > general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha. The words of the Ramchal and Rabbenu Bachya are not as rigorously chosen as those in the halakhic areas of the Torah, and are far more easily "adapted" to foreign ideologies. I don't say that they are unimportant, but let's not let the tail wag the dog here. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 27 20:44:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 23:44:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: To quickly review an old question: If Rus and Orpah converted at the *beginning* of the story, then how could Naami send Orpah back to her people? But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews? Some answer this question suggesting that there was a sort of "conditional" conversion at the beginning, and while Rus later affirmed her conversion to be sincere, it was revealed that Orpah's was never valid to begin with. I have never understood this answer, because of the ten years that elapsed from the supposed conversion until it was retroactively nullified. (By analogy, suppose (chalila) that Jared and Ivanka would split up, and Ivanka would claim that she was only putting on a show all along. Who would believe her? Those who currently accept her geirus as valid, would anyone accept such a bitul of it?) Today I came across a different approach to the question. Like any other area of halacha, hilchos geirus has its share of halachic disputes. For example, which parts of the process require a beis din; perhaps a beis din is needed only l'chatchila, or is it me'akev? Or: If the conversion candidate admits that he/she has mixed motivations (such as being interested in a Jewish spouse, but also sincerely l'shem Shamayim), is this acceptable or is it posul even b'dieved? Pick either of those questions, or make up another one of your own. Let's say that both Orpah and Rus converted at the beginning of the story. Let's also say that everyone was up-front and sincere about whatever they claimed their motivations to be, such that no one was surprised ten years later. In other words, there was no disagreement about the facts of the situation. But there WAS a machlokes among the poskim of the time, about the halacha to apply to that situation. Machlon, Kilyon, Rus and Boaz all held like the poskim who said that the conversion was a valid one, at least b'dieved. But Naami held like the poskim who ruled it to be invalid, even b'dieved. Thus, Machlon and Kilyon were able to marry these women in good conscience. For ten years Naami held Orpah and Rus to be non-Jewish, but there wasn't much she could do about it, because their husbands held that they *were* Jewish. When the husbands died, Naami finally had the opportunity to express the view of her poskim. Orpah accepted Naami's advice (for whatever reason), but Rus was committed to continuing her new religion (for whatever reason). At this point, perhaps Rus had a second geirus to keep her mother-in-law happy, or maybe not. Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to speak of. A possible hole in my suggestion appears in pasuk 2:20, where Naami explicitly admits that Boaz is one of "OUR" relatives, and one of "OUR" redeemers. This would not make sense if Naami rejected the validity of the original conversion. However, this occurs AFTER pasuk 2:11, in which Boaz tells Rus (I am paraphrasing): "I know your whole story. Don't worry. I hold your geirus to be valid, and I hold you you be a relative." In the final analysis, Naami goes along. Maybe she decides to accept Boaz's shitah l'halacha, or maybe she merely goes along as a practical matter, given the fait accompli that both Boaz and Rus hold that way. Have I left any loose ends here? Previous approaches have focused on uncertainties of intention. This approach says that everything that happened in Moav was clear, and the only gray part was a machlokes haposkim, but we know which shitah was followed by each character of the story. I invite all comments. advTHANKSance Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 09:16:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 12:16:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0789e301-2374-0dd3-0f9e-8befc1c1052c@sero.name> On 27/05/17 23:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Boaz must also have held that the original geirus was > valid, for otherwise there would not possibly be any sort of yibum to > speak of. There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. What is the point of this mitzvah? It's to pay off his obligations and redeem his good name; Ruth -- whether Jewish or not -- was also his obligation, and had to be redeemed. Thus Boaz need not have believed that the initial conversion -- if there was one -- had been valid. But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:51:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:51:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Rut converted when Naomi tried to send her back, while Oprah chose not to convert. Ben On 5/28/2017 5:44 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > But if Rus converted at the *end* of the story (without > Orpah), how could Machlon and Kilyon have married non-Jews? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 10:50:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 17:50:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> >From last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should always follow the local custom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:16:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:16:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mezonos After Kiddush Message-ID: <1495995457275.89387@stevens.edu> >From Friday's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. Must Kiddush be followed by a meal with bread, or is it sufficient to make Kiddush and then eat mezonos? A. There is a halacha that Kiddush may only be recited at the place of one's meal. This requirement is known as Kiddush b'makom se'udah (Pesachim 101a). If one does not eat a se'udah after Kiddush or recites Kiddush in a location other than where he eats the meal, he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of Kiddush and must make Kiddush again when and where he eats. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch (OC 273:5) quote the Ge'onim who hold that one can fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush without actually eating a full meal at the time and place that he makes Kiddush. Rather, a person can consume a mere ke'zayis of bread or even drink an additional revi'is of wine as his Kiddush-time "meal" to fulfill the requirement of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. The Magen Avraham (273:11) and Aruch Ha-Shulchan (273:8) explain that, according to the Ge'onim, one can eat Mezonos food (e.g. cookies, pastry, or cake), after Kiddush to satisfy the rule of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. This view has become widely accepted, and many poskim permit partaking of Mezonos foods after Kiddush but ideally advise against satisfying the mitzvah by merely drinking an additional revi'is of wine (see MB 273:25). Some halachic authorities, including the Chasam Sofer, as quoted by Rav Moshe Shternbuch, shlita (Teshuvos V'Hanhogos 5:80), have ruled that if one makes Kiddush and then eats Mezonos foods, he must make Kiddush again later at his actual se'udah. This was also the opinion of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l. In the next Halacha Yomis we will discuss whether cheesecake is a proper pastry for one to fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush b'makom se'udah. For more on this topic please read Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer's excellent article "Eating Dairy on Shavuos" featured in the 5777 - 2017 Shavuos Consumer Daf HaKashrus. After eating pungent, strong-tasting cheese one should wait before eating meat, the same amount of time that one waits between meat and milk, regardless of the cheese's age. The following chart shows which cheeses require waiting: Aged Cheese List - Kosher -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 11:59:44 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:59:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros Message-ID: <1495998054786.63765@stevens.edu> I received the following response to my earlier email about this topic Sadly, you will always find 1 or 2 people in every shul who "sit" while the entire tzibbur stands. This strikes me as downright arrogant, and IMHO is done more to make a "statement" than to follow a minhag that might be prevalent in some communities. C'mon; if 100 or 200 people are standing, should someone stick out and sit because that's the way he was taught.....? To this I replied Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. And in light of this, may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed. I bet this never occurred to you. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:15:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:15:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> References: <1495993874261.54534@stevens.edu> Message-ID: Some people look at this as purely a matter of minhag, and so criticize those who do not follow the local minhag, calling them arrogant. Well, the Rambam thought this was an issue of an incorrect hashqafa, and worth ignoring any minhag started in ignorance. Part of the problem with modern Jews is that everything to them is an issue of minhag. They do not understand that sometimes there are really important hashqafa issues from teh Torah involved. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels at ou.org ________________________________ From: Professor L. Levine Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 1:50 PM To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? >From last Thursday's Halacha - a - Day Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? According to some opinions, one should not show more honor to one section of the Torah than to another since every word is equally holy and important. Nevertheless, the widespread custom is to stand for the Aseres Hadibros as did the Jewish nation at Har Sinai, and to demonstrate that these are the fundamental principles of the Torah. In any event, one should always follow the local custom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:34:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:34:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to : reality... It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem. ... : It may be attractive to present a way of seeing the two sides as : being mirror images of one another, but the mesorah is a reality : that predates this entire debate... True, as I wrote : >(My own reason for being anti is in line with my general monomania about : >fighting this identification of Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" : >a subset. And without aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos : >that cannot be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, : >etc... So, I feel it critical to ask: Are we supposed to respond or : >resist certain kinds of feminism? What does the flow of tradition and : >general feel that emerges from halakhah say?) >From this perspective, those who are in favor of change are advocating a definition of Torah that includes only black-letter law. ... : It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of : Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha... Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that halakhah must conform to and the law itself. Not "primacy over halakhah", but a voice in resolving between two positions when black-letter law could be drafted to support either. It may only get a quieter voice, it still must have its say. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:16:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 16:16:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the rituals above the menshlichkeit. There's a story I've heard many times. This version comes from Rav Frand at https://torah.org/torah-portion/ravfrand-5755-naso/ > At the eulogy of R. Yaakov Kaminetzsky, zt"l, one speaker > related the following: There was a nun in Monsey, New York > who complained about the way the Jewish population related > to her: Everyone used to walk right past her... The "correct" > people ignored her, and the "super correct" people spat. This > nun then related that there was, however, one old Jew with a > white beard that used to say "Good Morning" every single day. > (That Jew was R. Yaakov.) That?s Kiddush Hashem and "looking > the other way" is Chillul Hashem. Such stories are NOT hard to find. The "frum" newspapers and magazines and parsha sheets are full of them. I don't know why so few people greeted that nun pleasantly. I hope that it changed when that story started to get around. If I write any more, I'll get even more depressed than currently. Suffice it so say that the only reason I'm posting this at all, is to clarify the point that I think RMB was trying to make, and to agree with it. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 13:52:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:52:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as kedoshim tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in the sense of being like aggadeta. Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos would be incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give the value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan pesukim and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos. Most often that's implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the gemara of value based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the expense of what looks otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular dracheha darchei noam is cited. I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic. Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not operate in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how the value system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We ignore meta-halachic pesukim at our peril. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:18:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:18:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Ben Waxman wrote: > I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their > very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, pages 48-52. R' Zev Sero wrote: > There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the > mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. > But if you're positing an unknown machlokes (rather than > being willing to say that Machlon & Kilyon did wrong), why > put it in hilchos gerus, and not more directly on whether > it's permitted to marry a non-Jew? Perhaps they held it only > applies to the 7 nations, or perhaps they took the pasuk > literally and held it only forbade Elimelech from arranging > such marriages for them but permitted them to do it themselves. Good question, especially since my post explicitly allowed for "an unknown machlokes". The problem is that the machlokes would have to be one where Machlon, Kilyon, Ruth, and Boaz all held that Ruth's marriage was valid, with only Naami holding it to be not valid. My understanding is that Avoda Zara 36b allows for the *possibility* that it is muttar *d'Oraisa* to marry an Avoda Zara woman who is not from The Seven Nations. And Ruth, being from Moav, was *not* from those seven. But at the very most, that gemara would allow (on a d'Oraisa level) sexual relations, and even doing so "derech chasnus" - as a marriage. It does NOT go so far as to consider Ruth as part of the extended family such that Boaz would have any responsibility to her. I would want a source for that. Granted that there might be some "unknown machlokes" which would consider Ruth to be part of Boaz's family, even if she did not convert at the beginning of the story. But I think such a suggestion would be venturing into fantasyland. Here's why: Even if it is mutar d'Oraisa for a Jewish man to publicly marry an Avoda Zara woman (who isn't from the Seven Nations), the children from such a marriage would not be Jewish, and that's d'Oraisa. In other words, even if the marriage is legitimate, the children are not part of the man's family. And if the children are not part of his family, then kal vachomer, Boaz is certainly not part of his family. So unless you can show a valid source that Boaz held (or even *might* have held) by patrilineal descent, then I can't see RZS's suggestion as reasonable. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 15:07:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:07:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: "And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying, 'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them: May HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers 6:22-26] The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins between man and his fellow man. Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his or her face towards the offender. So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is equally important. Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 15:27:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:27:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: <4EECF03B-E505-4324-B37E-96A99F67F0A9@cox.net> "And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his children saying, 'This is how you shall bless the Children of Israel, say to them: May HaShem bless you and guard you; may He enlighten His face towards you and favor you; may He lift His face towards you and give you peace.' [Numbers 6:22-26] The Talmud [Rosh HaShanah 17b] records an interesting incident in which the convert Bluria came to Rabban Gamliel and pointed out an apparent contradiction. Here in our parsha, the Kohanim bless the people that God should "lift his face" towards them, or favor them -- and yet elsewhere, in Deut. 10:17, we read that God does not "lift his face" to people, that He does not show favoritism. The fascinating answer given is that one is talking about sins between man and God and one is talking about sins between man and his fellow man. Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his or her face towards the offender. So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is equally important. Ironically, there is an interesting parallel between next week's Torah portion, Naso, (following Shavuos) which is the largest parsha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses and the 119th Psalm which is also the longest in the Book of Psalms, also comprising 176 verses and in addition, this psalm carries the distinct title, "Torah, the Way of Life." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 16:14:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 19:14:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170528231426.GD6467@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:16:38PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : : > ... my general monomania about fighting this identification of : > Torah with halakhah; halakhah is "only" a subset. And without : > aggadita and a study of values, there are halkhos that cannot : > be followed -- qedushim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc... : : I disagree slightly, but my problem is less with the monomania and : more with how you're describing it. In my view, "halakhah" certainly : does include "qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisem hayashar vehatov, etc". But : for some reason, many people don't see it that way, and they value the : rituals above the menshlichkeit. : This is why I wrote that the hashkafah is necessary in order to observe halakhos like qedoshim tihyu. But I realized the language problem, which is why when I replied to Lisa I used the idiom "black-letter halakhah", to refer to the kind of laws that can be codified in the SA. Which isn't only ritual. Eg the limits of ona'as mamon is black-letter halakhah. One of the saddest things about the writings of the CC (other than the MB) is that they represent the realization that shemiras halashon and ahavad chessed were going to continue to get short shrift unless someone made black-letter halakhah out of them. When in reality, HQBH would be "Happier" -- I am guessing, of course -- if we would do things things simply because ve'ahavta lerei'akha kamokha. At the Alter of Slabodka put it: I don't love mtself because there is a mitzvah to do so. So too, the mitzvah is to develop of love of others, and therefore all these things would come naturally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 12:31:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 14:31:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: It seems to me that the opponents of ordination of women are hiding behind conflation of terms. What is first needed is an understanding of what ordination is in this day and age. The plain meaning of the Shulchan Aruch YD 242:14 is that it is permission from a teacher to a student to instruct in issur v'heter. it is perhaps more instructive to go through the process step by step and see where those who object have a problem. 1. women learn the subject matter 2. the teacher thinks they are capable 3. if the teacher dies, according to SA YD 242:14, nothing further is needed 4. the teacher gives the student permission(to avoid transgressing on the prohibition of moreh l'fnei rabo) So, if there is a problem, which step is the problem and why? is it that a teacher cant give a women permission to be mora l'fnei raba? what is the source for that? Essentially what we use the term semicha today is a teacher giving the student immunity from transgressing a particular prohibition. If the issue is that of a woman giving hora'ah, then it is necessary to establish exactly what that is in this day and age. Is it just 'mareh mekomot'? is it more formal hora'ah? we should keep in mind that R. Schachter, in defining terms for converts, writes that hora'ah in issur v'heter is NOT serarah, and that according to some opinions, judging dinei mamanot is not serarah. Furthermore, he writes of a difference of opinion whether semicha is a din in dayanus, or a din in hora'ah. So, if semicha is a din in dayanus, and not hora'ah, then there is no reason to bring the restrictions from dayanus over to hora'ah. and, if semicha is a din in hora'ah, then the restrictions on dayyanus don't apply to semicha. I would add that the entire basis for the claim that women cant get semicha starts with the restriction on women being witnesses, then that being extended to judges, and then being extended again to semicha. It is not necessarily a given that these extensions should be made. We should note that there are a number of others who are prohibited from being witnesses- those who lend with interest, deaf, blind, etc. The internet reports that there are those who were deaf that recieved orthodox semicha. I dont have any information on semicha for the blind. However, it does not appear that the OU has taken a position on these, nor has anyone accused the deaf and the blind who are seeking semicha of being heretics nor have they been threatened with being kicked out of Orthodoxy. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 17:00:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:00:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529000002.GA17436@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:01:37AM +0000, Ben Bradley via Areivim wrote: : 'that a pesaq is by definition someone eligable to be a dayan,' : Which surely most community rabbis are not, since most have yoreh yoreh but not yadin yadin. 1- Eligable, not qualified. 2- Who said one has to have Yadin Yadin to serve as a dayan? Yes, to judge fiscal matters, we need someone who knows CM, but for someone to decide questions of YD? On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 04:21:20PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Areivim wrote: : I was thinking along very similar lines. In which case, the main : (only?) difference between the yoetzet and the community rabbi is that : the rabbi's job also includes "masculine" roles like leadership, while : teaching and paskening are neutral and shared. As I wrote in every other iteratrion of this question, there is a difference between teaching halakhah pesuqah and applying shiqul hada'as. Someone who follows a rav's pesaq is obeying lo sasur, and therefore did the right thing even if the rabbi's shiqul hada'as was faulty. Any hypothetical qorban chatos would be the rabbi's. If the person is not among those covered by mikol asher yorukha, then the qorban chatas is yours for listening to her, not the Maharat's. On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 02:31:52PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that the opponents of ordination of women are hiding : behind conflation of terms. What is first needed is an understanding of : what ordination is in this day and age. The plain meaning of the Shulchan : Aruch YD 242:14 is that it is permission from a teacher to a student to : instruct in issur v'heter... I cwould use the word "hora'ah" rather than the misleading "instruct". One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in the same town as one's rebbe. ... : 3. if the teacher dies, according to SA YD 242:14, nothing further : is needed : 4. the teacher gives the student permission(to avoid transgressing on : the prohibition of moreh l'fnei rabo) I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. IOW, we have no indication that when the Rama says that if the rebbe was niftar, nothing else is needed that he is talking about anything more than needed to satisfy kavod harav ONLY. IOW, one of these two criteria is necessary, but -- even assuming competency is a given -- are they sufficient? Semchiah could well be hetero hora'ah plus. Both R/Prof Saul Lieberman and RHS argued they are not. And so it appears from Taosafos. And since we have no indication that the Rama is disagreeing with Torafos... For that matter, since the form "yoreh yoreh" is peeled off of the formula for ordaining a member of sanhderin -- "Yoreh? Yoreh! Yadin? Yadin! Yatir bekhoros? Yatir bechoros!" -- there is sme connection to dayanus as per Tosafos implied in the traditional ordination text itself. ... : I would add that the entire basis for the claim that women cant get : semicha starts with the restriction on women being witnesses, then that : being extended to judges, and then being extended again to semicha. : It is not necessarily a given that these extensions should be made. We : should note that there are a number of others who are prohibited : from being witnesses- those who lend with interest, deaf, blind, etc. : The internet reports that there are those who were deaf that recieved : orthodox semicha... Deaf? To you mean cheireish, a caegory we rule refers to the uneducable and thus does not mean today's deaf mutes? Blind? Chalitzah has a special gezeiras hakasuv, "l'einei", specifically because a blind man is allowed to serve as a dayan. (And as RHS points out, geirim can be dayanim for other geirim, so we see their disqualification to serve in most courts is not athat they are outside of lo sosuru, but another issue.) But I do not think those who lend with interest are kosher rabbanim. Refardless of social ills which may cause that din to be largely ignored in practice. Our discussion here should not be about whether you or I agree with the OU's priorities, but whether the shitah they are supporting in the particular question at hand is well-founded in principle. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 16:53:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 19:53:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg cited a story with an apparent contradiction, and resolved the contradiction this way: > Rebbe Yossi HaKohen taught that when it comes to sins between > man and God, God can 'turn His face' towards a person. He can > show favor and forgive, even where it isn't warranted. But > when it comes to interpersonal sins, God does not lift His > face. It is up to the person who has been wronged to lift his > or her face towards the offender. > > So just as religious or ritual behavior is important, the > Torah delivers a clear message that behaving appropriately > towards other human beings is equally important. It seems to me that although religious or ritual behavior is important, Rebbe Yossi HaKohen is teaching us that behaving appropriately towards other human beings is EVEN MORE important. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 17:18:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:18:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Naso In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 07:53:42PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems to me that although religious or ritual behavior is : important, Rebbe Yossi HaKohen is teaching us that behaving : appropriately towards other human beings is EVEN MORE important. Look at the list of holidays in parashas Emor. 23:21-22 describe Shavuos. Look which mitzvos are associated with Shavuos. Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which mitzvos are listed specifically? Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice of Shavu'os reading. To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani. We really need a flavor of O that takes Hillel's "de'ealh sani", or R' Ariva's or Ben Azzai's kelalim gedolim, or for that matter the oft-quoted medrash "derekh eretz qodma ... leTorah" as one's actual first principle for life. And not just a platitude for the early grades, a truism repeated unthinkingly to get nods during the rabbi's sermon. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:11:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:11:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Someone who follows a rav's pesaq is obeying lo sasur, and > therefore did the right thing even if the rabbi's shiqul > hada'as was faulty. Any hypothetical qorban chatos would be > the rabbi's. If the person is not among those covered by > mikol asher yorukha, then the qorban chatas is yours for > listening to her, not the Maharat's. L'halacha, I totally agree. L'maaseh, it is critical to determine who is a "rav" and who isn't. That is, who is "covered by mikol asher yorukha" and who isn't. It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these teachers, because, after all, *Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! > I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. > IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that > anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. I agree that YD 242 is about kavod harav. And if the rav is niftar, then that permission is no longer necessary, but that's not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about who is covered by mikol asher yorukha. So why wouldn't the semicha place a musmach into that category? In other words: Suppose a certain person *is* in that category, and then gives semicha "yoreh yoreh" to another individual. Doesn't the semicha announce to the world that the second individual is now covered by mikol asher yorukha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:15:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 05:15:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> If "black letter law" is the criteria, then issues like womens Megila readings and women dancing with a Sefer Torah disappear. All the opposition because these practices are not "Torat Sabba" doesn't even begin if all we do is ask "Muttar? Yes? Fine". Ben On 5/28/2017 9:34 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of > : Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha... > > Again, I agree. But it's also not quite halakhah to only follow the black > letter law and not recognize the overlap between the aggadic values that > halakhah must conform to and the law itself. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:20:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:20:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 05:15:03AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : If "black letter law" is the criteria, then issues like womens : Megila readings and women dancing with a Sefer Torah disappear. All : the opposition because these practices are not "Torat Sabba" doesn't : even begin if all we do is ask "Muttar? Yes? Fine". I am totally at lost as to your intent. Megillah reading or dancing with a sefer Torah are reducible to black-letter law. In contrast to, for example, deciding how to triage my tzedaqah donations. Wehther that reduction can be done within vanilla halachic process or by appeal to metahalakhah, or by appeal to the general "feel" of halakhah -- like the Rambam's "li nir'eh" -- is a different question. But either way, the question exists. So, what do you mean? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:06:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:06:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat/R. Micha Message-ID: R. Micha, thanks for the response. so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah. And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't necessarily apply to anything else. But the OU authors claim that some of YD 242 is based on classic semicha, and therefore all the restrictions of classic semicha should apply. But that makes no sense of you are claiming that YD 242 ONLY applies to the teacher/student relationship. So your own argument works against your claim. There is not a single hint that anything else about classic semicha applies to what we currently call semicha. (Incidentally I wonder when the first claim of more extensive connections were made, and why, if there is such a close connection, we dont mandate that semicha be done only in Israel, and all the other attributes of classic semicha, it seems that the ONLY aspect of classic semicha that is being brought forward is the prohibition on women). You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much against that possibility. It states: ??????? ???????????? ??????????? ????????? ??????, ?????? ??????????? ???? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ????? ??????????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ???????????, ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????????. ????? ??????????? ?????, ????????? ?????????????? ??????, ????????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????????.(???''? ?????? ??''? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ?' ?????? ????????). ?????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ???????????, ???? ???????????? ???????, ?????? ??????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????, ??? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????. (???''? ?????? ??' ?' ?????''? ??' ?''? ???''?). ?????? ????????? ???????????(?????????? ???''? ?????''?). ?????????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????????, ????? ??? ????????? ?????, ???? ????????? ???? ?????????? ???????, ???? ?''?. ?????? ?''? ?????????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???????????? ????????, ????? ??? ???? ??????????? ??????????? ????????????? ????????????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????, ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?????????? ????????. specifically, semicha IN THIS TIME, so that people know that....he has permission. So if his teacher died, there is no need for semicha. The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general" It is very forced to claim that there is more here. You basically have to read things into it that are not there. I am not sure if you are claiming that women cant have semicha? or that they cannot be moreh hora'ah. because it seems very clear here that those who can be moreh hora'ah can get semicha b'zman hazeh..And there is a long list of poskim who agree that women can be moreh hora'ah. Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable. And also, that even though the Talmud specifically states that someone in a particular category cant be a judge or witness, when the understanding of that person's abilities changes, there is potential for them to be witnesses and/or judges- essentially in some cases, where the understanding of the Talmud was at variance with what we know now, the restrictions on some categories is not fixed. If I am reading correctly, R. Herschel Schachter in b'din ger dan et chavero (available at YUTorah August 2002), seems to state that hora'ah in issur v'heter is NOT a issue of serarah. and, according to some opinions, being a dayan for dinei mamanot is similarly not an issue of serarah. Perhaps more to the point, In 'Kuntrus HaSemicha"(published in eretz hatzvi and it seems to be the basis for a talk given at an RCA convention- the talk is available at YUTorah(1985) Smicha in the talmud and today), if I understand correctly, R. Soloveitchik made a distinction as to whether Smicha was a din in dayanus or in Hora'ah. It would seem that such a distinction would indicate that restrictions on dayyanus via semicha do not automatically apply to hora'ah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 00:14:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:14:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 5/28/2017 10:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >: And I disagree with you about it being a halakhic response to >: reality... > It's clear from Avodah's LW that that's how they see it. If there are > other, less defensible, ideologies, that's not their problem. I'm not sure that the views of Avodah's LW are the point. To the extent that they argue in favor of those with "other, less defensible, ideologies", it's reasonable to argue against those "other, less defensible, ideologies". And I would be willing to supply examples of where members of Avodah's LW do appear to see it that way, but I suspect such examples would be bounced as "adding more fire than light to the discussion". On 5/28/2017 11:52 PM, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of > Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' > I don't think that is what R' Micha is doing. The mitzvos such as > kedoshim tihyu and v'asisa hatov v'hayashar are not non-halakhic in > the sense of being like aggadeta. I don't see that. They are halakhic in the sense that they are commandments. > Using aggedata to try to trump established halachos would be > incorrect. Rather these and other similar pesukim explicitly give the > value system by which the whole of Torah functions. As such they are > part of the framework of Torah which informs the way Chazal darshan > pesukim and thus arrive at the deoraisa details of mitzvos. Most > often that's implicit but there are plenty of explicit examples in the > gemara of value based pesukim being part of the cheshbon at the > expense of what looks otherwise like the ikar hadin, in particular > dracheha darchei noam is cited. There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what can be done today. When members of the left claim that brachot should be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old. > I.e. such pesukim are not non-halachic, they are meta-halachic. > Or to put it another way the system of halacha doesn't and can not > operate in an ethical vacuum, even if we sometimes struggle to get how > the value system underlies invidual sugyas or details of sugyas. We > ignore meta-halachic pesukim at our peril. The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum". If you mean that the system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to respectfully disagree. The ethics must themselves come from within our own cultural framework, based on our own traditions. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 19:32:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:32:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:11:37PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least : equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, : because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has : not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself : included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these : teachers, because, after all, *Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! I do not think the typical yo'etzet is qualified under mikol asher yrukha regardless of how capable she is. The term only applies to be elegable to recieve full semichah -- if the chain hadn't been lost, or could be restored. THat's the thesis of what I'm pushing here; that even the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services. And, since this seems ot be turning into a full reprise, even though we should all know the other's position by now, my third problem is with egalitarianism in-and-of itself. It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah. By justifying finding worth in this way, we are indeed teaching girls their traditional role is inferior and they can't reach equality. Rather than trying to find equal meaningfullness without egalitarianism. Second, the fact that we can't reach full eqalirianism implies something about the anature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely consistent with our religion. It should mean that we should really think through our even wanting to make halakhah more egalitarian, and how to balance that with the clear message of laws like davar shebiqdushah, talmud Torah, esrog, sukkah, shofar... Again: 1- Who can pasqen 2- Who was shul designed to serve 3- Trying to accomodate agalitarianism is both strategically and in terms of values, a bad idea. Notice the absense of the word "serarah". Trying to minimize or eliminate the role of serarah in our conversation won't do much to sway me, as it has little to do with my arguments to begin with. Now, back to R/Dr Stadlan's email: :> I disagree with both of these. YD 242 is about kavod harav. :> IOW, it says that such permission is necessary, but not that :> anyone with permission is necessarily a rabbi. : I agree that YD 242 is about kavod harav. And if the rav is niftar, : then that permission is no longer necessary, but that's not what the : discussion is about. The discussion is about who is covered by mikol : asher yorukha. So why wouldn't the semicha place a musmach into that : category? It could or couldn't -- I believe couldn't. (Following R/Prof Lieberman and RHS.) But SA 242 can't be cited on the topic either way, since the se'if is not on topic for our discussion. R/Dr N Stadlan brought it as the defintion of the role of semichah, so I wanted to dismiss taking this siman that way.` "Mikol asher yorukha" is written in the context of dayanim. The only reason why we say it applies to today's musmachim, despite the lesser kind of semichah and the lack of sanhedrin is that "yoreh yoreh" is framed as a splinter of dayanus (which is where the phrase "yoreh yoreh" comes from) and that they are appointed to act as the surrogate of the last (so far) sanhedrin. None of which pro forma can be applied to women. Only someone who could be a dayan, if the situation were such that they could become qualified and real semichah were available can serve as their fill-in. On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:06:06PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : so we agree that we are discussing hora'ah. : And, we agree that references in YD 242 are only to kavod ha'rav, and don't : necessarily apply to anything else. But the OU authors claim that some of : YD 242 is based on classic semicha... They note that the Rama in 4-5 is drawing from the Mahariq, and then explain that the Mahariq tells you he is basing his conclusion on the idea that what's true for classic semichah should be true for our current Yoreh-Yoreh (YY). They also cite the AhS 242:30, who assumes that only those eligable for classic semichah can be ordained YY. Those are the ony two mentions of siman 242 in the paper, neither of which refer to the se'ifim you did. And what you are attributing to the OU is actually the Mahariq and the Ah -- a source and an interpreter (who is for us a source in his own right) of the SA -- not their own take. : You think that there is the possibility of more, but cannot say exactly : where it fits in, and I suggest that the wording of YD 242:14 is very much : against that possibility. It states: ... : The only possible conclusion is the semicha is permission. period. and the : ending: "now it is only the extension of permission in general" YD 242:14 isn't trying to define semichah. It's in a siman about kevod harav, not a siman about semichah. You are nit-picking in the wording about se'ifim that are only tangentially related, and ignoring the Rama's stated source. I disagree with how you read the se'if, since his "only" would be about kevod harav, not "semichah is only". But really that's tangential. Your read of the Rama contradicts one of the sources he names. ... : Thank you for agreeing that the statement that "all who are cannot be : witnesses cannot judge" is not universally applicable... I do? Where do I say that? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 22:01:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 01:01:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the entire aliya in which the dibros appear. For those who feel the dibros merit standing, they are indeed standing. For those who feel that the dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria of the dibros begins. Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since their end is always the end of the aliya. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 28 20:04:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 23:04:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28/05/17 15:18, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Ben Waxman wrote: >> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their >> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. > > Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that > Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent > introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, > pages 48-52. Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation that has such "gedolim". > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the >> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. > > It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it > something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus > and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus > then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. On the contrary. If it were a matter of yibum then it would depend on whether there was an original marriage. But then why would it be connected to redeeming the field? It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations would not be settled. Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz agreed with them. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 00:10:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:10:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/28/2017 10:18 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Ben Waxman wrote: >> I always assumed that of course they married non-Jews. Their >> very names show that the two men were problematic personalities. > Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that > Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." Yes, but the dor in question was one where "each man did what was right in his own eyes". So their being gedolei hador doesn't mean they were any better than, say, Yiftach. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:23:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:23:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation : that has such "gedolim". According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah Neustadt , this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam. Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim". But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el... If this is the Rambam's intent, it would fit a number of gemaros which refer to various shofetim as amei ha'aretz. See the article. OTOH, Tosafos's treatment of the question of how Devorah could serve as shofetes presumes the role includes being a dayan in the halachic sense (and then explains why Devorah is neither role model nor eis-la'asos exception), rather than only the serarah question of her being a civil leader. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:17:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:17:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29/05/17 01:01, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > I believe there is a simple solution allowing everyone to keep his > minhag, whether it be to stand for the reading of Aseres haDibros or not > to single out the Dibros for special treatment, and yet not have two > different practices taking place in the shul: let everyone stand for the > entire aliya in which the dibros appear. For those who feel the dibros > merit standing, they are indeed standing. For those who feel that the > dibros should not be singled out, they aren't, since no one stands up > specifically for the dibros -- they are already standing when the k'ria > of the dibros begins. Nor is there a problem when the dibros end, since > their end is always the end of the aliya. Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. (Personally I stand for the whole leining so it's not an issue for me, but this is what I've seen.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 05:33:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:33:29 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <10c1c9ed-6b4e-cb90-8297-cdeb5a507e94@zahav.net.il> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <13c3a1e0-26da-f70b-7b13-b80c95bf5d1d@zahav.net.il> <58F44DE5-8AE0-4CF7-BC79-7048F752624D@sibson.com> <10c1c9ed-6b4e-cb90-8297-cdeb5a507e94@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: > Ok let's accept your presumption-Who that has the authority to determine which changes are with in the halachic system and which aren't. Can I say libi omer li if I have smicha and that's good enough? If not , how do you draw the line? ------------------------ I can't say that I can draw a clear line. Certainly someone who passes a 2 year smicha program (a change, BTW) shouldn't be doing this type of thing. It seems that change doesn't require unanimous agreement and very possibly it can be done even if the greatest rabbis disagree. My example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher. Ben ----------------------- Yup, as said, the wheel is still in spin with regard to this and the other current thread Maharat/smicha. Now "everyone knows" it was obvious that Chassidus would be accepted and Conservative not (see Kahnemaan Tversky on how we all do this) Anyone who thinks these or those are simply matters of black letter law discussions (hat tip R'Micha) IMHO is fooling themselves. Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 06:09:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 09:09:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > One does not need to have smichah to give a shiur in QSA in > the same town as one's rebbe. If the shiur-giver is very careful to merely read and explain the QSA, then I'd agree with you. But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require require semicha? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 06:12:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joseph Kaplan via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 13:12:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] (no subject) Message-ID: "Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. And in light of this, may I suggest that everyone sit so as not to have those who cannot stand be embarrassed." Do you also sit for the musaf amidah on Rosh Hashana and Ne'ilah on Yom Kippur? And since there are those who cannot and do not stand for those because of physical infirmities, would you suggest that everyone sit for those teffilot so as not to embarrass the ones who truly must sit? Joseph Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 09:41:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Should one sit or stand for the Asseres Hadibros Message-ID: <33c01f.93b651f.465da93b@aol.com> From: "Professor L. Levine via Avodah" Let's be dan l'kaf zechus. People like me who have knee problems find it difficult to stand for any length to time. I sit during the Aseres Hadibros. YL >>>>>> I want to thank RYL for the reminder we all need -- myself very much included -- not to be too quick to assume we know other people's motives. Sitting during the reading of Aseres Hadibros may indeed be an indication not of arrogance but of arthritis. Let us be kind to one another, even in our thoughts. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 07:26:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 29/05/17 08:23, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:04:06PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Yiftach was also the "godol hador", but woe is to the generation > : that has such "gedolim". > > According to the article RJR pointed us to last Thu, Mesoret haTSBP > beTequfat haShofetim uviYmei Sha'ul haMelekh, by R' Daniel Yehudah > Neustadt, > this is a machloqes between Rashi and the Rambam. > > Rashi shares your identification of the Shofetim with the zeqeinim > of "Moshe qibel Torah miSinai umasruha liYhoshua, viYhoshua lizqainim". > > But the Rambam does not assume the shofetim were the standard bearers > of our mesorah. Which would explain why he uses Pinechas to skip past > that whole era: Moshe, Yehoshua, Pinechas, Eli, Shemu'el... I actually had that article in mind, but was not taking Rashi's side. Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel Bedoro". So even if Machlon & Kilyon were considered "gedolei hador" that wouldn't seem to be sufficient reason to assume that they acted properly, even in the sense that they had an opinion which is one of the shiv'im panim and followed it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 09:46:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 12:46:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum," or you call it something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. Akiva Miller >>>>>> There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events in Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 13:01:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 20:01:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <92dae2a6-a1ea-f563-f350-cddd9a9fbade@starways.net> References: , <92dae2a6-a1ea-f563-f350-cddd9a9fbade@starways.net> Message-ID: 'There is an enormous difference between what the acknowledged leaders of all Jewry can do -- such as during the time of the Gemara -- and what can be done today. When members of the left claim that brachot should be thrown out and other fundamental practices should be modified on the basis of "kavod ha-briyot", for example, they are not using "kavod ha-briyot" as Jews have always used it, but rather using it as a label to apply to external cultural norms that aren't even a century old.' No argument there at all. The point was really to buttress the truism that halacha and Torah are not synonymous. Halacha works within the larger structure of Torah and is guided by principle and values. Your point that this idea is mangled and misused throughout heterodoxy is well taken though. I was not suggesting that someone can pick a favourite value, decide that it doesn't shtim with a particular halacha and proceed to mangle the halacha into submission. Not for a moment. 'The question is what you mean by "ethical vacuum". If you mean that the system of halakha doesn't and can't operate without paying heed to the ethical imperatives of the society surrounding us, I have to respectfully disagree. The ethics must themselves come from within our own cultural framework, based on our own traditions'. Again, agree 100%. Don't think I suggested otherwise. I'm a neo-Hirschian after all. What I was taking issue with was your contention that it is 'It is extremely dangerous to attempt to use non-halakhic elements of Torah in a way that gives them primacy over the halakha.' That's true for the heterodox tendency to sidestep halacha (or worse) due to what they consider to be ethical issues. But it doesn't take into account the centrality of of values in the whole system of Torah, including underlying TSBP. Just for example, Pirkei Avos is not halachic but it's vital and has implications for halacha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 12:38:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:38:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> References: <33c300.639ad426.465daa5a@aol.com> Message-ID: <2ba3e007-8860-37d6-2941-c41f1aac13bf@sero.name> On 29/05/17 12:46, RTK wrote: > There was a difference of opinion about this even at the time the events > in Megillas Rus were taking place. Ploni Almoni held that there was no > mitzva of yibum in this case while Boaz held that there was. 1. How could anyone hold there was a mitzvah of yibum, when the Torah explicitly limits it to brothers? 2. If he held as a matter of halacha that Boaz was wrong, then he should have insisted on redeeming the field without marrying Ruth. The fact that on being informed of this requirement he backed out of the whole deal shows that he acknowledged Boaz's point. Therefore that point was not about yibum but about mitzvas geulah. Boaz pointed out that Machlon had an obligation to Ruth, and so long as it remained outstanding the mitzvah to discharge his obligations would remain unfulfilled. Ploni agreed, and since he could not do that he waived his rights. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 12:51:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:51:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel : Bedoro". The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah". Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so? Yes, it's dachuq. But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include the generation's gedolim. I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology, but that doesn't mean I share it. However, given Chabad's linking HQBH medaber mirokh gerono shel Moshe to Moshe bedoro keShmuel bedoro to yield the notion that every generation has a Yechidah Kelalis, a single tzadiq who is uniquely that generation's person in that role, I would think the notion that Yiftach as that person but not one of the baton-passers of mesorah to be even harder to fathom than within my own hashkafah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 13:25:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:25:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> References: <20170529122339.GB30164@aishdas.org> <20170529195143.GD26658@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <46edbb0e-6394-3e98-a574-f1c53410f0bf@sero.name> On 29/05/17 15:51, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : . Whether Yiftach was a link in the chain through which the > : mesorah reached us is a machlokes, but lechol hade'os he was the > : "godol hador" -- that's an explicit gemara, "Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel > : Bedoro". > > The article in question cites Tanchuma (Bechuqosai #5) in describing > Yiftach, "shelo hayah ben Torah". Yes, precisely. And yet he was the "gadol hador". > Is it possible that Yifrach bedoro has to do with our > obligation to follow their leadership, even though the gemara is ignoring > whether we are speaking of Torah of of civil leadership in doing so? > > Yes, it's dachuq. > > But I find the idea of talking about somoene being the hadol haor but > not part of the shalsheles hamesorah at least equally dachuq. I'm > not even sure what being a link means, if it doesn't necessarily include > the generation's gedolim. Your unstated but clear assumption is that "gedolei hador" means "gedolei *hatorah* shebador". I am challenging that assumption. I am saying that when Machlon & Kilyon are described as "gedolei hador" it does not mean that they were talmidei chachamim, any more than it means that when Yiftach is described as "kishmuel bedoro". It just means they were the generation's leaders, and thus if they did wrong everyone else would follow their lead. Meanwhile Pinchas was still the gadol hatorah. Remember, "Yiftach bedoro" is an explicit gemara, so the Rambam can't dispute it. So how can this machlokes between Rashi & the Rambam, that the article posits, exist? This is how. The Rambam accepts Yiftach bedoro, that Yiftach was indeed the "gadol hador", but that is irrelevant to his topic; he is listing who passed the Torah down from that generation to the next, and that was not Yiftach but Pinechas. > I also do not share your assumption that there was /a/ gadol hador. I > think I know the roots of your having that assumption in Chabad theology, Wow. Just wow. No, it has nothing to do with Chabad *or* theology. It's an explicit pasuk and gemara. Yiftach was the one and only gadol hador, because the pasuk says so, and he had the same authority as Shmuel because the gemara says so. But one wouldn't ask him a shayla about "an egg in kutach". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:03:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing. Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R. Micha's interpretation: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/ Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to understand the Rama, but one of them is: " The first and simplest view, drawing the logical conclusion from the above depiction of semikhah and adopted by Rama in both the Darkhei Moshe and Shulh?an Arukh, concludes that anyone is eligible to receive semikhah when their teacher certifies they have acquired requisite knowledge and licenses them to issue halakhic rulings. The scope of this license may be limited to certain areas of law (depending on the studentVs actual knowledge and qualifications) and may be granted to one who is ineligible to receive Mosaic ordination that was present in Talmudic times. As such, basic contemporary semikhah is based on oneVs knowledge and competence to answer questions of law". the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have sources to rely upon. I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong with semicha for women. The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 05:08:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 08:08:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am going to revise and restate my original post, which got sidetracked onto issues of marriage to a non-Jewess, and of the role of a "redeemer", which I confess to knowing very little about. But it is very clear to anyone who has looked at it (again, pages 48-52 of ArtScroll's Ruth is an excellent summary) many of Chazal were uncomfortable with the possibility that Machlon and Kilyon would marry women who had not been converted at all. At the same same, they are also very uncomfortable with Naami telling women who *had* converted that they should leave. Some have tried to resolve this by suggesting some sort of "tentative" conversion, but I cannot imagine that we'd allow such a conversion to be cancelled after ten long years. Instead, my solution is that there was a genuine halachic machlokes involved, such that Machlon and Kilyon held the conversion to be valid (at least on some minimal b'dieved level), while Ruth held it to be totally invalid. This simple approach answers all the problems listed above. (It also allows you to think whatever you like about the level of Machlon's and kilyon's gadlus.) I will leave it as an open question whether Ruth reconverted to satisfy Naami's shita, or whether Naami resigned herself to accepting the first geirus. I also retract all my comments about Boaz, as they will turn on topics that I am woefully ignorant about. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:32:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 17:32:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging > Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an > obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he > owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations > would not be settled. > Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages > were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz > agreed with them. I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a related question which is probably simpler: What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then there was no kiddushin. I'll repeat that: Even if it is mutar to marry a woman AZ-nik (not from the Seven Nations) that marriage is one of convenience, maybe even love, but not of kiddushin, and I'm not aware of any halachic obligations that the husband has toward such a wife. I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have towards the husband himself, and we see in pasuk 4:4, that Ploni Almoni was willing to buy the field from Naami in order to meet those obligations to Elimelech. But in 4:5, Boaz pointed out that buying it from Naami would be insufficient. He'd have to buy it from both Naami and Ruth, at which point Ploni declined and Boaz himself accepted the responsibility. My question is: *What* responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid? (I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so, then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech left. Why did they wait ten years?) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 14:51:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 23:51:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > RMB: the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. > All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and possibly the latter. > > RMB: Then I have separate problems with changing the "Men's Club" feel of > shul, believing that it was (1) intentional and that (2) still of use > to today's man. IOW, I have problems with women as synagogue rabbi > in a role that changes who is running or speaking during services. > On the one hand, I completely agree with you. One of the things I love about Orthodox Judaism is the all-women spaces - women's shiurim and batei midrash and tehillim groups and ladies' auxiliaries and all-girls schools. I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have comfortable space for women as well. I understand that the "men's club" gets to run the tefillot and be the gabbaim and the ba'alei tefillah and ba'alei korei and rabbi - and that losing that space would not be good for men. But I hope that having an ezrat nashim open for all tefillot (during the week, Shabbat mincha) would not ruin the mens' club atmosphere. Does having a woman give the drasha go too far in this regard? I think it depends on the community. > > > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah.... > Second, > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about > the > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely > consistent with our religion.... > Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. I think you have presented some compelling reasons for declining to endorse or promote the institution of maharats. I see no reason for maharats to be universally accepted. However, I believe that the maharats personally, and the communities they serve, remain clearly within the Orthodox community. We can disagree strongly with another Orthodox sector's practices (Hallel on Yom Ha'Atzma'ut comes to mind) without declaring them out-of-bounds. Finally, a perspective from Israel. Women rabbis/maharats are a particularly contentious issue in the US, because (a) it is similar to changes made by the Conservative and Reform movements, (b) a very common career path for American male rabbis is the shul rabbinate, which is particularly problematic for women, and (c) it seems to have perhaps been instituted in a manner designed to provoke controversy. In Israel, Conservative and Reform are a small minority with little influence. Most male rabbis work in education, writing/translating/publishing, or computer programming - all perfectly acceptable careers for learned women. Full-time shul rabbis are almost unheard of. And I can think of three or four respected, mainstream, dati leumi institutions that are essentially giving women the equivalent of smicha, without a lot of fanfare. Some people think this is great, some people think this is awful, and many people have not really noticed - but there isn't a big brouhaha and questioning of Orthodox credentials. Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it seems to be shaping up as the latter. Chag sameach, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 03:10:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 06:10:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170530101006.GA10791@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have : sources to rely upon... Again, the Rama cites the Mahariq... So, so rule leniently is to read the Rama and ignore his source. : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the : specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. Well, in the case of Maharat in particular, the big bold print in the middle of the certificate reads "heter hora'ah larabbim". http://www.jta.org/2013/06/17/default/what-does-an-orthodox-ordination-certificate-look-like Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 49th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 7 weeks in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Malchus: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 goal of perfect unity? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 04:51:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 06:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R Micha. You did not answer my question. When you and/orthe OU panel use the word semicha when you forbid it to women, what exactly does it mean? Heter hora'ah? Something more? Something different? Clarity please. Thank you Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 07:27:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shavuos (Lifeline) Message-ID: <448A28D9-D7AC-47C4-807C-08E3C10A0318@cox.net> The Rabbis tell us the Book of Ruth teaches neither of things that are permitted or forbidden. Why then is it part of Holy Scriptures? Because its subject matter is gemilus chassodim. Along the same line, three times a day we recite ?God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob.? However, we conclude the blessing ?mogen Avraham? ? only with Abraham. Why? In explanation, a Chassidic Rabbi explains that each of the patriarchs symbolizes one of the three essentials as articulated in Pirkei Avos 1:2). Jacob represents Torah; Isaac, Avodah; and Abraham, gemilus chassodim. Though all three principles are vital, kindness is sufficient to stabilize the world (how we need it now more than ever!). An interest in the performance of good deeds was the quality that marked Abraham ? a quality which can be a shield and support to us even when other qualities in our nature are weak ? hence, MOGEN AVRAHAM. Ruth was no ordinary convert. Her name gives us a clue to her essence. In Hebrew, Ruth's name is comprised of the letters reish, vav, tav, which add up to a numerical value of 606. As all human beings have an obligation to observe the seven Noachide commandments ? so called because they were given after the flood ? as did Ruth upon her birth as a Moabite. Add those seven commandments to the value of her name and you get 613, the number of commandments in the Torah. The essence of Ruth, her driving life force was the discovery and acceptance of the 606 commandments she was missing. Another lovely aspect is the meaning of the name "Ruth." In Hebrew the name is probably a contraction of re'ut, ' friendship,' which admirably summarizes her nature. The meaning in English is also very apropos: ? Compassion or pity for another ? Sorrow or misery about one's own misdeeds or flaws. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 29 15:46:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 01:46:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Naso In-Reply-To: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> References: <20170529001852.GA28884@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > Go to the instructions for how to prepare a conversion candidate on Yevamos > 47b. We teach some mitzvos qalos and some mitzvos chamuros, and which > mitzvos are listed specifically? > > Interestingly, these same mitzvos are central to Megillas Rus, our choice > of Shavu'os reading. > > To my mind, this is because while we may think of "observant" in terms > of Shabbos, Kashrus and ThM, Tanakh and Chazal assume the paragon of > observance is leqet, shichekhah, pei'ah and ma'aser ani. > Barukh shekkivanti. I made exactly this comparison in a Tikkun Leil Shavuot this time last year, and a parallel observation in a shi`ur last Shabbat: when the Zohar needs an example of how Basar veDam can make a hit`aruta dil'tata which will cause a hit`aruta dele`ela and kickstart the process of atzilut shefa from the upper to lower worlds, it typically says something like "hoshiv ani al shulhanecha". Because for Hazal, the Torah is above all Torat Hesed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 06:06:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:06:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. ---------------------------------------------------- Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the debate on black letter law? KT Joel Rich (full disclosure-kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-not everything that is permitted to you should be done) THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 07:22:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:22:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Probably the best and most succinct historical analogy I've seen for this question. Ben On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > > Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women > rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the > vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it > seems to be shaping up as the latter. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 13:59:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:59:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation. Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. How can this be? Dare we imagine that he did such things unauthorizedly? Certainly he must have had/received some sort of Heter Hora'ah. If so, then when and how did he get it - and without getting semicha at the same time? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 30 10:22:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] matched soldier and praying for them In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014801d2d969$41c5c800$c5515800$@com> A while ago on Avodah, a well known (chareidi) Baal machshava was quoted as disagreeing strongly with the concept of matching frum people with a nonfrum soldier in order to pray for them. "we have no brotherhood with secular Israelis" Recently, I posted to Avodah a link to a collection of 1400 short tshuvot from HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlitah (of Toronto) On the above topic, he writes there.. #600 Pray As They Go Q. There are two organizations here in Eretz Yisroel, one called; Elef LaMateh, and the other; The Shmirah Project. Basically, their intent is to match Israeli soldiers with Avreichim and bochurim learning. Each Avreich and Bochur who volunteers, receives the name of a specific soldier (his name and his mother's name) that he takes responsibility to daven for and learn specially for so that in the merit of the tefillos and learning, that soldier will merit to return home alive and well. (Is this a good idea) A. HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is a great mitzvah to pray, learn Torah and accomplish mitzvos for the benefit of all our brethren B'nay Yisroel in times of peril and need, especially for those who put their life in harm's way to save and protect others. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 00:39:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:39:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should be identical for each community and each generation? - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 20:01:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:01:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: . I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start farming? I suppose it was pretty desolate after a ten-year famine, but did she even try? She must have at least gone there to see the place, if for no other reason than to be sure that no squatters took over while she was gone. Without making sure of such things, how could she even hope that anyone (even a goel) would buy it? Maybe she expected to get a better profit from Boaz than she'd get from farming it herself, but maybe there are other answers? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 20:05:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:05:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the distinction? When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on this. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 02:14:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (ADE via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:14:59 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are still being machshiv some pesukim over others. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk > *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:32:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:32:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <510d4fd4-6c91-fb85-0c23-f6cdfa7ffcbf@sero.name> On 02/06/17 05:14, ADE wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one >> pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this >> reason. > Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are > still being machshiv some pesukim over others. There is no requirement to treat all pesukim exactly the same. One is entitled to stand or sit during KhT as one wishes, and has no obligation to choose one policy and stick to it. The problem is only with standing up for special pesukim, such as Shma or the 10D. Since there's nothing special about the pasuk before the 10D, there's no problem with deciding to stand for it. And when the special pesukim come along one is already standing, so one has no obligation to sit down. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 18:46:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:46:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> In our personal religious commitments there are those among us scrupulous in performance of the ceremonial mitzvot but at the same time displaying reckless disregard of our elementary duties towards our fellowman. Halacha embraces human life in its totality. One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social trait from our behavior! A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 08:31:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:31:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought In-Reply-To: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> References: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50@cox.net> Message-ID: <20170602153131.GA15356@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made : a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study : of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social : trait from our behavior! Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, among the aphorisms of his listed in R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 21:28:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:28:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4dd6e4f1-2d00-a274-ace0-e5d2a803039a@sero.name> On 01/06/17 23:05, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I only see four instances of "Ruth Hamoaviah", three in ch 2, and only one in ch 4, in Boaz's description of the situation to Tov. Since his purpose was to scare him off, it made sense to mention her origin, so Tov would be reluctant to risk his future. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:20:16 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:20:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/2/2017 6:05 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I can't cite a source for it, but I remember once reading that Ruth HaMoaviah was intended to praise her, since she gave up her position in Moav to join us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:31:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:31:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Actually if the land had lied fallow for 10 years, it should be in good shape. Granted it needs weeding but the soil should be good. It only requires a relatively small amount of rain for grass to grow and re-invigorate the soil. Maybe she was too old to work the land and figured that a sale would provide her with enough money to live out the rest of her days in dignity? Ben On 6/2/2017 5:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 00:04:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 09:04:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? They came back on Pesach, at the beginning of the barley harvest. Nothing was growing on their land, presumably. Planting is after Sukkot, at the beginning of the rainy season. If they planted, it would be a full year until they could harvest the first barley. As we see from Megillat Rut, the barley then had to dry and wasn't threshed or winnowed until after the wheat harvest (early summer?). When they come back, they have nothing. They need to eat. And two women alone will not be able to do all the work of planting and cultivating in the fall. They would need money to hire workers and probably buy or rent an animal to help with plowing. And to buy seed. They didn't have the capital to go back into farming, or the means to support themselves until the first crop. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 1 21:17:52 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:17:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <272b8698-d5c1-55a1-560b-2bc6d0c39b74@sero.name> On 01/06/17 23:01, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? It seems to me that finding a buyer for the property was not at all important to her, and in fact she had shown no interest in doing so until she saw how she could use it to get Boaz to marry Ruth. It was Boaz who spun the story out for Tov in order to scare him off; first he drew him in with the prospect of an easy transaction for Naomi's portion of the field, but then he threw in the Ruth monkey wrench. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:18:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:18:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/2/2017 6:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the > halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I > think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: > > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? In the set of priorities that we had back then, the principle of yerusha was more important than simple economics. As I understand it. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 03:21:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:21:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22efff8f-5ee7-d47e-8701-b1541a7a8e41@zahav.net.il> And of course the irony is even greater in that many yeshiva rabbis will tell their guys to go to a community rav because they, the yeshiva rabbis, don't deal with shailas. Ben On 5/29/2017 4:11 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > It is my opinion that the typical yoetzet and maharat are at least > equally qualified (and likely more so) than the typical gemara rebbe, > because they have been trained in answering such questions, but he has > not. And yet, it is an everyday occurrence for students (myself > included, until I learned better) to ask all sorts of shailos to these > teachers, because, after all,*Rabbi* Ploni is obviously a rabbi! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:16:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:16:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> On 6/1/2017 10:39 AM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly > egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the > experiences of women and couples and families and communities to > affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian > direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. > > RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument > is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically > permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically > forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without > asking whether HKB?H prefers it? > > Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should > be identical for each community and each generation? > I'm not sure that's the question. The problem is, as I see it, that when one adopts an external -ism as an ideal, and try and "move in a somewhat more -ism-friendly direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted", they're essentially saying that their motivating principle is that -ism. That halakha isn't the motivating principle, but merely bookends. Limits to how far they can push the -ism that's important. It's the difference between a static principle and a dynamic one. What you're describing has egalitarianism as the dynamic force, and halakha as a static one. A fossil. And there's no way to maintain that worldview for long without starting to chafe against the static limits. At which point, people put their shoulders into it and *push* those limits a little bit further. And then a little further than that. And they feel frustrated by those limits. That's probably the biggest problem. It turns halakha into shackles and frustration. And you only have to read articles written by certain YCT teachers and grads to see the hostility that comes out of that. Yes, there are people who can manage to walk the tightrope and not fall into that kind of frustration, but they are few in number, and not representative of the "movement", as such. And many of them, in my observed experience, eventually fall off. Permit me to illustrate this mindset with something that just happened *as* I was writing this. My 17 year old daughter was reading a comic book from the early 1990s. In the comic, the hero (Superboy) is 16, but all of the women he dates are in their 20s. Today, we call that statuatory rape, and have little to no tolerance for it. But if you recall the early 90s, that idea was rather new, and while the writers of the comic gave lip service to the idea, even having characters laughingly calling Superboy "jailbait", it wasn't nearly as taboo as it is today, at least when the younger person was male. But my daughter is livid about it. Appalled. And she isn't able to imagine a world in which that was the way people thought. Similarly, people immersed in the egalitarian ethos so prevelent in the Western world today cannot *imagine* a world where that isn't the universally accepted ideal, except for barbaric and backwards societies. It's a given that egalitarianism is the more advanced worldview. The more civilized worldview. That to the extent that a worldview is less egalitarian, it is less civilized. More backwards. So now consider what it means to say, "I want to be as egalitarian as possible, within the bounds of halakha". It means "I want to be as civilized as possible, within the bounds of the less civilized and more backwards system of halakha." How can that help but breed disrespect, discomfort, and eventually contempt for halakha? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 01:50:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:50:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> Message-ID: > > LL: The problem is, as I see it, that when one adopts an external -ism as > an ideal, and try and "move in a somewhat more -ism-friendly direction > WITHIN what is halachically permitted", they're essentially saying that > their motivating principle is that -ism. That halakha isn't the motivating > principle, but merely bookends. Limits to how far they can push the -ism > that's important...... > > Similarly, people immersed in the egalitarian ethos so prevelent in the > Western world today cannot *imagine* a world where that isn't the > universally accepted ideal, except for barbaric and backwards societies. > It's a given that egalitarianism is the more advanced worldview. The more > civilized worldview. That to the extent that a worldview is less > egalitarian, it is less civilized. More backwards. > > So now consider what it means to say, "I want to be as egalitarian as > possible, within the bounds of halakha". It means "I want to be as > civilized as possible, within the bounds of the less civilized and more > backwards system of halakha." How can that help but breed disrespect, > discomfort, and eventually contempt for halakha? Yes, if one defines one's ideology and worldview primarily as feminist, one is going to struggle with halacha. Some people struggle and still maintain Orthodox practice. Some become "halachic egalitarian." But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah live in an increasingly egalitarian society. Even women who would never dream of making a women's zimmun (range of psak on this goes from obligatory to optional to assur) have their own credit cards and vote in elections and choose whom they want to marry. Halachic psak does not exist in a vacuum; it applies to a particular metziut in a particular time and place. I can certainly see room to argue that the institution of maharat is an example of an attempt to "push" halacha to evolve artificially to conform to feminism. But to some extent, increased involvement of women teaching and learning all areas of Torah, at all levels, is a natural halachic development in response to changing reality. Each posek will draw his own line as to what is a positive development (maharats? yoatzot? Rebbetzin Heller?), and what needs to be reined in. Halacha is dynamic. (This is true even if the Conservative movement also says it!) Obviously, there are boundaries, but there is also plenty of room for different opinions, and for development over generations. I am not advocating always choosing the most feminist interpretation possible within the bounds of what is mutar. I am pointing out that increasingly egalitarian psak within halacha reflects the reality in which we live. Shabbat Shalom, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 10:00:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Martin Brody via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:00:09 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat etc. Message-ID: "R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation" Did the Chazon Ish have semicha?.I think not -- Martin Brody -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 11:35:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:35:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <960df966-7387-baf7-202b-5a6624127fed@sero.name> On 30/05/17 16:59, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura > did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the > ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite > involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send them to the rav. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 11:46:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:46:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37d489e2-09cc-d836-f973-74d1b831ec0a@sero.name> On 29/05/17 17:32, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> It seems obvious to me that the issue was discharging >> Machlon's and Kilyon's obligations, and Ruth was such an >> obligation. Whether or not she was ever his lawful wife, he >> owed her, and unless she was taken care of his obligations >> would not be settled. >> Thus, even if you wish to say that M&K thought their marriages >> were legitimate, it's not necessary to believe that Boaz >> agreed with them. > I honestly don't know enough about this whole "redeemer" business to > respond intelligently. I wish I did. This geulah is probably too > complicated to explain in a few paragraphs, so instead, here's a > related question which is probably simpler: > > What obligations are you referring to? If Ruth had not converted, then > there was no kiddushin. I don't see how this matters. Machlon was shacked up with this woman for ten years, and left her high and dry. She was now in Beit Lechem living in poverty, and everyone who saw her would say "there's Machlon's widow, poor thing". Thus seeing her settled was an unsettled obligation that Machlon had left behind, so taking care of it was part of the goel's duty, just like paying off his credit cards and returning his library books, so that nobody should be left with a claim against his memory. > I'm certainly not aware of any obligations that the husband's > relatives would have. I can see obligations that the Goel would have > towards the husband himself [...] My question is: *What* > responsibility? What responsibility does the Goel (whoever he might > be) have towards Ruth, if Ruth's conversion was absent or invalid? Yes, the goel's duty is to his relative, not to the relative's creditors. But that duty *is* to discharge the relative's obligations, which he is himself unable to discharge, whether because of poverty (as in the Torah's example) or death (as here). Neither Tov nor Boaz owed anything to Ruth, but Machlon did. > (I anticipate an answer similar to: "Regardless of the status of the > family, Elimelech's field was owned by both Naami and Ruth, so if we > want the field to return to Elimelech's family, then the money must be > paid to the owners, namely both Naami and Ruth." But if that is so, > then Ploni or Boaz could have redeemed it right away when Elimelech > left. Why did they wait ten years?) Redeem it from whom? At that point it still belonged to Elimelech. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 2 12:55:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 15:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <20170529023215.GA30147@aishdas.org> <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <3b36f02b-7a0f-01a2-cc81-d8de47b9e2fc@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170602195535.GA7359@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 09:09:10AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this : other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that : question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require : require semicha? Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also not an open question that requires decision-making rather than just reporting the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:51:26PM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: : > the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur, and therefore : > can't be a "rav" in the sense of pesaq. : All I can say on this is that I, personally, am not sufficiently learned to : offer an opinion on whether you are correct here - and kal v'chomer, not : sufficiently learned to pasken. But there are women who are the former, and : possibly the latter. I am missing something. My assertion was that "the most able woman would never be covered by lo sasur" for the same reason that she could never give hora'ah as a dayan either. I wasn't denying the reality that there are women who know enough for their knowledge not to be a barrier to their pasqening. ... : I wouldn't want men to change the feel of (ruin?) those spaces. On the : other hand, the shul might need a men's club feel but it should have : comfortable space for women as well... I think there should be comfortable space for women too, and that it makes sense for it to be in the same building. Our topic was women rabbis. My first point was my belief that the Mahariq holds like Tosafos, the Rama like the Mahariq, and therefore we cannot ordain a poseqes. In this, my 2nd point, I was arguing that since shul and minyan as Anshei Kenses haGadolah invented them are men's spaces, we shouldn't want women speaking from the pulpit or otherwise making it a co-ed experience, a second element of the rabbi's job. : > RMB: It runs counter to much of halakhah to say that we should try for : > egalitarianism in religious roles. First, such an attempt would be : > frustrated, as we can't reach full egalitarianism within halakhah.... : > Second, : > the fact that we can't reach full egalitarianism implies something about : > the : > nature of gener roles, and whether egalitarianism as a value is entirely : > consistent with our religion.... : : Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that : is highly egalitarian... And this was my third point. That the notion doesn't fit the gestalt built of numerous halakhos. I don't think our living in a world where opportunity is increasingly egalitarian changes that. The disjoin poses a challenge, not a license. : And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the : experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect : religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction : WITHIN what is halachically permitted. I tried to explain why that can't happen. You're not moving into a setting of greater equality; you are aiming women toward hitting a glass cieling. The implied message of "as much egalitarianism as allowed" is that it's the role traditionally given to men that is meaningful, and women can't fully take on that role. To my mind the long-term outcome, once there is little room for further innovation left, will be worse that trying to find different but equally valuable roles. Aside from the "minor" problem that that message about male roles is simply sheqer. On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 01:06:28PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that : as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted : (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by : r'mb's black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether : HKB"H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all : or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the : debate on black letter law? I don't think that's fair. We all learn in the early grades that derekh eretz qodmah laTorah, but we'll talk about frum theives, but not frum shellfish eaters. Our culture's focus on those mitzvos and dinim that can be reduced to black-letter is a problem we need to work on, and not a given to be leveraged further. On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:50:32AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: : But even those who try to define our worldview primarly based on the Torah : live in an increasingly egalitarian society... Egalitarianism as metzi'us, the fact that gender roles are progressively becoming more similar, is different than eqalitarinism as a value -- the notion that they should. At the very least, halakhah is telling us there are a number of greater values that override egalitarianism. I argued that some of them actually impact who enters the rabbinate. But really the burden of proof lies in the other direction: It is change that needs justification. One has to prove that whatever those conflicting values are -- and I guess this would require identifying them -- they are not issues that impact the desirability of ordaining women. So, to get less abstract, here's an example. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 04:03:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha disagrees with my reading of YD 242:14 and also insists on quoting : R. Shaul Lieberman as opposing. : Regarding R. Lieberman, I would point you to the statement by his talmid : muvhak(who happens to be my father in law) who does not agree with R. : Micha's interpretation: : http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/no-rabbi-student-professor-liebermans-responsum-does-not-apply/ But lemaaseh he wrote a letter against ordaning women that held up JTS changing policy until after R/PSL's passing. has a complete translation by Rabbi Wayne Allen. The issue isn't how RGS read the letter, but the letter itself. And I understood your father-in-law differently than your (and your wife's, judging from her choice of subject line) take. He writes: Professor Lieberman might have been opposed to any clerical role for women. Nevertheless, he only cited the classical sources that indicate that only men may be dayyanim or even serve on a bet din as laymen (hedyotim). Since Yeshivat Maharat is careful to remain within the bounds of Halakhah by not ordaining women to roles that are proscribed by Halakhah, Professor Liebermans responsum does not apply to the yeshivah or to any of its graduates. So he agrees with RGS that R/PSL was opposed to orgaining women as rabbi. After all, most of the letter is about what we mean today by "Yoreh Yoreh", and how it's NOT dayanus. It was about admitting women to JTS's semichah program, to "being called by the title 'rav'", not "dayan". It would seem that minus the political pressures within JTS, R/PSL's letter would at most permit "Rabbah uManhigah". Your FIL writes that R/PSL only cites sources about dayanus, not that his point was only about dayanus. And as we saw, there is a connection made between who can become a dayan and who can give hora'ah. His only mention of the political dynamics at JTS at the time is to explain his own position -- why he was against ordaining women when he was among those starting UTJ, but is in favor of Yeshivat Maharat. His letter to your wife does not speak of this issue in terms of his rebbe's position. For that matter, his description of R/PSL's lack of proving his point WRT non-dayan rabbanim reads as explaining why his own position was justified despite R/PSL's letter, rather than justified by that letter. He doesn't say RGS is wrong, he says it's "beside the point". : Regarding the reading of YD 242, I would point you towards R. Broyde and : Brody in their article in Hakirah who admit that there are two ways to : understand the Rama, but one of them is: But the burden or proof is on the innovator. You can't simply say your read is possible -- and given the aforementioned citation of the Mahariq, I don't see how this se'if can be, you would have a self-contradictory siman. But in any case, you have to prove your read is the Rama's intent; saying "it's possible" is not enough to justify a mimetic rupture. ... : the point being that those who want to outlaw ordination for women have : sources to rely upon, and those who find nothing wrong with it also have : sources to rely upon. I suggest that, rather than nitpicking, R. Brody and : Broyde agree with me that the plain meaning of YD 242 finds nothing wrong : with semicha for women. "Rather than nitpicking"? How do we learn a sugyah without nitpicking? In any case, you jumped from "could be read as someone to rely upon" to "someone to rely upon". : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? it seems that the concentration on the : specific issue of semicha has skirted the perhaps more important issue. Sorry I made you wait long enough that you felt a need to re-ask this question. Semichah today may well be a heter hora'ah, but that doesn't mean that it's the only barrier to hora'ah. And if one's rebbe passed away, there is no need for heter hora'ah -- and yet still other barriers could exist. Tosafos, and the Mahariq cited by the Rama link the authority for hora'ah with being eligable to gain the qualifications and become a dayan. That's a barrier to hora'ah even if someone's rebbe wrote them a "qlaf" or passed away. We would have to find another shitah about hora'ah, show it's not dekhuyah -- and given we're talking about an opionion that disputes 3 pillars of Ashkenazi pesaq (if I include the Rama's se'if 4), for someone of Ashekazi background, that's a tough row to hoe. And then there are my other two problems.... Both of which would also reflect on Rabbah uManhigah. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 3 20:23:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 23:23:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . Is semicha required for hora'ah? To illustrate the possibility that it is *not* required, I wrote: > Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura > did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the > ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite > involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. R' Zev Sero responded: > Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, > and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send > them to the rav. And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression of his personal opinion. Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"? I had written that a non-semicha person could give a shiur in Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, provided that he is careful to merely read and explain the text, but ... ... > But inevitably, someone will ask, "But what is the halacha in this > other, similar-but-not-identical situation?" May he answer that > question? Wouldn't that count as shikul hadaas? Wouldn't that require > require semicha? R' Micha Berger responded: > Well, sometimes it does, and often the similar situation is also > not an open question that requires decision-making rather than > just reporting the dominant shitah in the sho'el's community. "Black-letter halacha" is often not as black as we might think. Who gets to decide which shita is the dominant one? If the community has a recognized rav who issued a ruling on this exact question, then I can quote that. But in the great majority of cases, there are two or more shitos, and I have no idea which is "dominant". Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 3 22:51:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 07:51:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] L'sheim shmayim In-Reply-To: <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> References: <11833069-18ba-35d9-0f96-52d9b45d2c71@zahav.net.il> <6902f3bb40a242e6bafc9a09016dda0d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170526145343.GG15708@aishdas.org> <516bb5da-2ecc-984f-c8db-543e1a4ed698@starways.net> <20170528193430.GA24939@aishdas.org> <9a987ecd-1e42-8770-d0e0-b73aca080faf@zahav.net.il> <20170529022024.GA28521@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c3c1e25-04b7-878e-d93b-d6b5edc10a0f@zahav.net.il> My intent, or my desire, is to reduce the number of issues on which we decide to break Torah community into even more pieces. If these issues are meta halachic, or have a bad feeling, then let's take the argument between the RWMO and LWMO down a notch or two. Let's lower the tones. For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi community consider to be kefira. If so, than kal v'chomer many of the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in getting hung up on multiple non-issues. Ben On 5/29/2017 4:20 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I am totally at lost as to your intent. Megillah reading or dancing with > a sefer Torah are reducible to black-letter law. In contrast to, for > example, deciding how to triage my tzedaqah donations. > > Wehther that reduction can be done within vanilla halachic process or > by appeal to metahalakhah, or by appeal to the general "feel" of halakhah > -- like the Rambam's "li nir'eh" -- is a different question. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 04:36:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 07:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8a0d51cd-f693-b8a0-f2bd-a23a15a3e44a@sero.name> On 03/06/17 23:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > >> Hora'ah means paskening shaylos; that was the town rav's business, >> and I'm sure if anyone would ask the CC a shayla he would send >> them to the rav. > And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to > find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim > wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us > which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other > expression of his personal opinion. > > Is this not "shikul hadaas"? Is this not "horaah"? Is this not "paskening"? AIUI no, it is not. Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a specific shayla for a specific person. Writing books does not involve any shikul hada`as, it merely involves setting down the halacha as one understands it, including, if applicable, the range of options available to a moreh hora'ah when applying his shikul hada`as. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 09:40:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 12:40:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170604164052.GA8050@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 11:23:05PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : And yet, he DID write a six-volume work, in which it is difficult to : find even a single page where he merely reports what other acharonim : wrote. Rather, he frequently brings various opinions and tells us : which one is the ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other : expression of his personal opinion. Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone know what has been said in the years since the standardization of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh. I argued that the difference between the AhS and the MB was not that one was a mimeticist and the other a textualist, but that the AhS was out to justify accepted pesaq, and the other is a collection of texts, a tool for the poseiq -- not pesaq. The personal opinion is just that, advice, not hora'ah. Or, other assumed you need to dismiss the MB's self-description as reflecting the CC's anavah, and not to be taken at face value. But then one has to explain the numerous stories of the CC personally not following the MB's conclusion -- the size of his becher, his tzitzis were tucked in, he supported the building a a community eiruv, etc... (Something is broken on my blog right now. It may take a 3-4 refreshes before getting anything but the AishDas "page not found" page.) In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable. And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving R Ploni answering questions. (The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the model.) This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads -- or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her rebbe's license? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 08:48:37 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:48:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you understand the OU panel as defining it. Otherwise you are just using a nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning. The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here: http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah ). There was a period when leaders did not have semicha, The Tzitz Eliezer points out that Sephardim for a long time did not have semichah, yet communities had religious leaders. So one does not need semikhah to be a communal religious leader(in keeping with the Rama in 242:14). Furthermore, R. Lichtenstein points out(Leaves of Faith vol 2 293) "originally a samukh would pronounce a decision that was binding by don't of his authoritative fiat. ...Now, he essentially serves as a reference guide, providing reliable information about what the tradition and its sources, properly understood and interpreted, state; but it is they, rather than he, that bind authoritatively." (quoted in the name of the Rav, in the name of his father, Rav Moshe.) Furthermore, as R. Lichtenstein points out, the Rambam viewed that Smikhah applied to hora'at issur v'heter as well as din. However, as R. Schachter himself points out, (see Kuntrus Ha semicha in Eretz Hatzvi chap 32) the other Rishonim hold that Semichah is a Halacha in beit din, NOT Hora'ah. AND, there are lots of authorities who clearly state that women can give Hora'ah. So you really need to define exactly what you mean by Semicha and how you are using it So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that apply to beit din. That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist. The semikhah for that type included wearing a specific garment, only being given in Israel, and according to most(but not all), prohibited to women. According to most Rishonim, that category did not apply to Hora'ah, just beit din. And, R. Lichtenstein illustrates that there is a clear and gaping difference in authority. There have been many years and many communities where leaders did not have any formal semikhah. But obviously there was some sort of Hora'ah going on. So it is clear that Hora'ah doesn't require semikhah, unless you want to argue that they were doing it all illegitimately. granting a degree of ordination was re-established(perhaps in response to universities, perhaps other reasons, see "The Emergence of the Professional rabbi in Ashkenzic Jewry by Bernard Rosensweig in Tradition, especially references in note 6) and the word Semikhah was used(although not always and not always exclusively). But you are arguing that somehow someway the restrictions from ancient Semikhah still apply- well, actually you are only arguing that the restrictions on women still apply, you have conveniently neglected to argue for the restriction of semikhah to Eretz Yisrael, for the wearing of special clothing, and all the other restrictions that were in place on ancient Semikhah. I have not had a chance to see the Maharik inside. But just because he applies halachot of relationships between teacher and student doesn't seem to be a reason to generalize that everything that applied to ancient Semikhah applies to today's neo-semikhah. That logically makes no sense. Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus tradition trope. It is a false dichotomy. First of all, as R. Shalom Carmy wrote, the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism. More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of our Masoretic values has changed over time. We don't value slavery or polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more. And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah. Furthermore, our Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a women. L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 07:40:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:40:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is becoming increasingly clear to me that I need a very basic lesson in the concepts of "redemption" and a "redeemer's" responsibilities. In my experience, we find two different sorts of redemption in Judaism. (I was going to write "in Halacha", but it seems that Boaz's actions were more sociological and ethnic than halachically mandatory.) One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and "redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many others. The other sort of kedusha has nothing to do with kedusha, but rather ownership of land. If I'm not mistaken, we find this in Shmitta, Yovel, and ordinary land sales in a walled city (and maybe elsewhere too?). In these cases, land has been sold outright, but under certain circumstances, the original owner has a right to buy it back from the new owner. AFTER WRITING THE ABOVE, I remembered another sort of redemption, that of the Goel Hadam. That seems irrelevant, because even though Naomi is now destitute, and her husband and sons are dead, no murder was committed. I also found yet another kind of Goel, described in Vayikra 25:47-54: If a person became poor and sold himself, then close relatives are obligated to redeem him and purchase his freedom. Although Naomi and Ruth did not reach that level (slavery), I can easily imagine that a social sort of redemption would require Tov or Boaz to help them out. I would call this "tzedaka" (not geula) but I suppose this might be the origin of the rule that one's primary obligation in tzedaka is to relatives. Many thanks to all who wrote to me (both on- and off-list), who put so much effort into helping me learn this subject. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 03:01:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:01:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= Message-ID: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a commentary how do you read it? Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 02:59:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 09:59:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] support? Message-ID: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah restrictions are generally not observed (e.g., hello includes a social hug between the sexes), although Reuvain is meticulous in his observance of them. He is in his office in a conference with two colleagues when Miriam, the wife of a third tier social friend, also well past childbearing age, comes to the office door and says with a tear in her eye, "Reuvain, I hate to do this to you." Reuvain quickly asks his colleagues to excuse them, and Miriam blurts out, "David (her husband) just passed away," and she begins to slump, crying. Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to comfort her and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not make any request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but she did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion of the community which did not presume a social negiah restriction. Was Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, what should he have done? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:23:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 15:23:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:01:10AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a : commentary how do you read it? I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq venimtza qal" were written out. That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:43:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 22:43:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?va=E2=80=99v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <30b106b1-2a2d-f8dd-e692-4af1979063c9@starways.net> v'doke On 6/4/2017 1:01 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you see the abbreviation va?v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a > commentary how do you read it? > Kt > Joel rich > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:33:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 15:33:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] support? In-Reply-To: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <87d6b09740d74f0c8c23d9cc7b0ebf72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170604193342.GA24739@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 09:59:23AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Not a maaseh shehaya but I'd appreciate your thoughts: Reuvain is a : Modern Orthodox senior citizen. In his community, presumed social negiah : restrictions are generally not observed... A real maaseh shahayah, which would liely garner the same thoughts. One day, around 10am, the woman sitting in the cubicle next to mine gets a call on her cell, and after a few moments had her screaming and crying. It was the Salvation Army, where her son volunteered and lived. He didn't wake up that morning. Another co worker of ours, a yehivish guy who grew up in Israel but lives in Lakewood, got us a conference room, dialed some phone calls for her -- the coronor's office and the like. He was clearly cfrom communities in which persumed social negi'ah restrictions are fully observed. But when our co worker broke down in a fresh round of crying, he put his arm around her. I think to do anything else is to be a tzadiq shoteh. But I never asked a she'eilah; that was just my gut reaction at the time. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:01:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 23:01:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Noam, It's not a "trope". While there can be situations in which egalitarianism vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them. Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not. It seems a poor argument, as well. I don't believe there is anyone who, without the impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical concepts of justice demand that we ordain women." Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Distinctions are one of the hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and non-Jews or men and women. We have never viewed having different roles as indicating superiority and inferiority. That judgment is foreign to our tradition. Foreign to halakha. Foreign to the Torah. Please note that I'm not talking about whether, given the assumption that having different roles conveys inferiority, one could argue in favor of equalizing roles in the name of justice. I am talking about that assumption itself. It is an assumption that comes from egalitarianism, and cannot be found in Jewish tradition, which is not subject to Brown v Board of Education. Different does *not* necessarily mean unequal in Judaism. Polygamy was never a "value". To Mormons, perhaps. Not to us. It was simply something permitted. Slavery is out of the question purely on dina d'malchuta dina grounds. Were that not the case, we might still engage in it. We certainly haven't changed the halakha pertaining to either kind of avdut (K'naani or Ivri). You say that modern values have been the impetus for us to re-evaluate what we value in our Mesorah. Can I ask where the need for such a re-evaluation comes from? It was my understanding that we value all of our Mesorah, and do not sift through it, deciding what parts of it we value and what parts we do not. Also, please note that I have specifically referred to egalitarianism, and *not* to feminism. I don't believe that feminism requires egalitarianism, and the moves by the left to try and force Orthodox Judaism into an egalitarian framework have nothing to do with the basic idea that women are fully competent adult human beings, which is what feminism was originally about. On 6/4/2017 6:48 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > Lisa Liel- please stop with the feminism/egalitarianism versus > tradition trope. It is a false dichotomy. First of all, as R. Shalom > Carmy wrote, the desire for more roles for women can be attributed to > Biblical concepts of justice, it doesn't have to be egalitarianism. > More importantly, it is a simple fact of history that the balancing of > our Masoretic values has changed over time. We don't value slavery or > polygamy as much as we used to. we value autonomy and democracy more. > And it is actually the 'modern values' that have been the impetus for > us to re-evaluate what we value in our Masorah. Furthermore, our > Mesorah is more egalitarian now than before. For example, the mishna > in Horiyyot says that we should save the life of a man before a > women. L'halacha, most don't hold that anymore. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:53:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:53:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: . I wrote that the Mishneh Berurah, despite a lack of semicha, > frequently brings various opinions and tells us which one is the > ikar, or tells us how to follow both, or some other expression > of his personal opinion. R' Micha Berger responded: > Turn to the title page. Or, look at the intro. We've discussed > this in the past. The MB self-describes as a book to help someone > know what has been said in the years since the standardization > of the SA page. Not halakhah lemaaseh. Yes, he does self-describe as a summary and teaching/learning tool. But he does *not* specifically disclaim being a posek for halacha l'maaseh. The Igros Moshe and many other recent seforim do that, but I do not see it in the Mishneh Berurah. As an example, let's open to the very first page. He writes in MB 1:2 (near the end) about Netilas Yadayim upon waking in the morning: "Some say that for this, the entire house is considered like four amos. But (4) do not rely on this except in a shaas hadchak." Let's analyze that: He cites an unnamed lenient opinion, and clearly tells us not to rely on it. Note 4 leads us to his own Shaar Hatziun, where he gives his source, the Shaarei Teshuva. The Shaarei Teshuva, fortunately, is printed on this same page, and I direct your attention to the last four lines of #2, where the lenient opinion is named as being the Rashba. It is not clear to me whether the psak to *not* rely on that Rashba comes from the Shvus Yaakov, or whether it is from the Shaarei Teshuva himself. But either way, it is clear to me that the Mishne Berurah is taking sides, and IS PASKENING TO US that we should be machmir unless it is a shaas hadchak. > In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in > every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, > which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise > unreachable. Then we need to figure out what *is* required for hora'ah. Because it seems clear to me that the Chofetz Chaim felt that he met the criteria, and (perhaps more importantly) Klal Yisrael agreed. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 12:58:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 19:58:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?va=92v_apostrophe_daled_vav_kuf?= In-Reply-To: <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, <20170604192351.GA18218@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2F566ED7-C27E-4141-9BAA-E81C69F30CE1@sibson.com> > > I mentally pronounce it "vedoq", and translate it as though "vedayaq > venimtza qal" were written out. > > That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. > > HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" > -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. ------------ I had always been taught the latter. The bar Ilan data base uses the former. I suppose one could rationalize one person's try and it will seem easy is another's it's a bit of a stretch. Then again Kuf lamed could be kal lhavin or kasheh li. :-) Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 15:56:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 17:56:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > It's not a "trope". While there can be situations in which egalitarianism > vs tradition is a false dichotomy, the current topic is not one of them. > Though your first example (beginning with "First of all") doesn't speak to > the question of whether it is a false dichotomy or not. It seems a poor > argument, as well. I don't believe there is anyone who, without the > impetus of the egalitarian ethic, looked at halakha and said, "Biblical > concepts of justice demand that we ordain women." > Judaism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Distinctions are one of the > hallmarks of Judaism, whether it be between kohanim and zarim or Jews and > non-Jews or men and women. We have never viewed having different roles as > indicating superiority and inferiority. That judgment is foreign to our > tradition. Foreign to halakha. Foreign to the Torah. Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" It isn't an issue of being like men, it is an issue of fairness and justice. Regarding 'modern values' and Mesorah. please read Rabbi Walter Wurzburger, regarded as one of R. Soloveitchik's most prominent students here: http://download.yutorah.org/TUJ/TU1_Wurtzburger.pdf Since chazal owned slaves and the Gemara didn't outlaw them, obviously owning slaves was not seen as odious as it is now. I doubt that current rabbis have the same positive view of slavery as you do. in fact, one published author does not. see R. Gamliel Shmalo here: http://download.yutorah.org/2013/1053/798326.pdf Similar to polygamy, I doubt that any current rabbinical authority thinks that polygamy should be instituted(except in the very rare situations of heter me'ah rabbonim when in practicality there is only one wife) Many authorities, including Rav Lichtenstein, R. Nachum Rabinovitch(and see R. Wurzburger's article for citations to classic authorities of the past) and others state clearly that encountering 'modern values' helps us figure out which how to better balance the values already in our Masorah. And, as I pointed out, our Masorah has already moved towards egalitarianism, as demonstrated that most MO poskim don't hold by the Mishna in Horiyyot. And who was denying that there are different roles? no one denies that there are different roles for the genders. But Halacha should be the determinant of what those differences are. Not someone saying, "well, there have to be differences, and I am going to tell you what those differences should be." If there are no good Halakhic arguments against women's ordination(and there aren't), then claiming that there should be different roles for different genders is not a coherent argument. Basically you could use the same argument for everything and anything, since there is no Halachic basis for it. You could say that women shouldn't ride bikes because gender roles have to be different. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 13:47:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf In-Reply-To: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <65bf21d2794a4ba8b86657825e8dddf0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <6736acd1-ba2d-c1bc-1762-d8e55bb8e473@sero.name> On 04/06/17 06:01, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > When you see the abbreviation va'v apostrophe daled vav kuf in a > commentary how do you read it? Vest du velen kvetchen, kadoches vest du vissen On 04/06/17 15:23, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > That's the Arhkh haShulchan's use. I think it's more common. > HOWEVER, there are mechaberim who use "vedoq" for "vedochaq qetzas" > -- pretty much the opposite of saying the idea is qal. Or "vedayeq vetimtza qashe" -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 4 20:38:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 23:38:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605033858.JVPC32620.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> >Hora'ah is not writing books, it's paskening a >specific shayla for a specific person. I guess the question is: is that related to semicha? Note the following (by Joel B. Wolowelsky, from that Tradition issue last year that focused on women's leadership issues) The standards of the semikha might vary from yeshiva to yeshiva even though the text of the klaf certificate is generally the same. I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters of grave import. Very few rabbis are viewed as posekim, and their authority surely does not rest on any formal semikha they were awarded at an early stage in their professional career. Most rabbis even most pulpit rabbis are relied upon to relate what the accepted halakha is, not what it should be. They are not assumed to be posekim. Rabbi Menachem Penner, Dean of RIETS, recently made this clear when he stated that: not all individuals given the title of rabbi are entitled to serve as decisors of Jewish law... Following the halakhic opinion of a scholar or rabbi who is not recognized as a posek would represent a fundamental breach in the mesorah of the establishment of normative halakha... Musmakhim of RIETS, along with all learned individuals, are entitled to their personal opinions on halakhc matters and the halakhic system as it functions today and may publicize their views as opinions that are not halakhically binding. If this is true of musmakhim of RIETS, who have completed many serious and demanding years of study, all the more so for the myriads of rabbis who earned their semikha by simply sitting for a less-demanding final exam after self-study or learning in a beit midrash up until their wedding, at which time they received semikha. We should quickly note that this is not intended to imply a diminution of the value of semikha. Rather it reflects an unprecedented expansion of Torah study in our community. Which raises the obvious question: if so many men have semicha that shouldn't engage in hora'ah, what's the problem of having a woman in a similar position? [Email #2.] Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that in Israel, this doesn't seem to be so much of an issue. May I recommend an utterly fascinating article on this: A VIEW FROM THE OTHER SIDE By Rachel Levmore, Ph.D. - Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 05:42:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 12:42:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" ----------------------------------------------------- As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question (chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", on what basis are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a Halachic reason to do so?" I'd say the debaters on this issue would be well served to read J Haidt's The Righteous Mind https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj_nMSM3abUAhUG7CYKHRfcAJgQFghZMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Frighteousmind.com%2F&usg=AFQjCNH2OB9Ny75lbVswde2ndpkNKXvilQ&sig2=hBXRmEu1I6x-J0radUdXqA to better understand why they aren't convincing each other KT Joel THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 12:00:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lo Taamod In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605190033.GD3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:54:06AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Asher Weiss discusses in parshat Vayeitzeih on lo taamod al : dam reiacha that one would have to give up all his assets to save a : single life if he is the only one who can do it. However, "it's pashut" : that if others can also do it, that he doesn't have to give up all his : assets. Why is it so pashut if others refuse? (i.e. why isn't it a joint : and several liability?) I am not sure halakhah has the concept. The nearest I can think of is a zeh vezeh goreim, such as if a shor tam pushes another ox into a third party's bor bereshus harabbim. SA CM 410:32 rules that the baal habor must pay 3/4. Hezeq by a shor tam need only be reimbered 50%. So, the owner of the shor tam only has to pay 50% of his half of the guilt -- 25%. The baal habor therefore would cause the loss of the other 75%, so he has to reimberse it. But there is a machloqes about what happens when one of the two doesn't have the money -- does the other have to pick up the difference, or not? If not, then wouldn't that mean halakhah doesn't have a notion of joint and several liability?" But even if he does have to pay what the other can't... One may still be choleiq between someone who did something that incurs a fine and a chiyuv to spend money. It's not really a "liability". And this is beyond the usual limits of a chiyuv.... If there are others who can save the guy, RAW says I'm not chayav to spend all my money, but what about spending up to a chomesh, like for any other chiyuv? Maybe even if there is joint and several liability, it stops at 1/5 rather than 100%. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 12:33:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:33:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? In-Reply-To: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim : b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman : shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? The SA says "yekhavein lehispalel besha'ah shehatzibur mispallelim". Your question is why the Rama -- or is the Semag, I couldn't find the citation -- doesn't mention minchah. I think the MB s"q 31-32 *implies* that the emphasis is on Shacharis and Maariv since the solar landmarks vary the most, and therefore the minyan is more likely to have their own idiosyncratic time -- late Shacharis or early Maariv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The waste of time is the most extravagant micha at aishdas.org of all expense. http://www.aishdas.org -Theophrastus Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 11:49:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:49:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Burning sold chameitz In-Reply-To: <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> References: <81eaa5b1-ac79-9af8-224b-2dbdd8030783@zahav.net.il> <20170430172233.GA27111@aishdas.org> <17A40D99-4220-4E90-8F98-F6954C6E26A1@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170605184905.GC3500@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 10:00:22PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : Can I burn something that was hefker without acquiring it? If I declare : something hefker (I'm not sure the legal implication of batel), and then I : burn it, wouldn't that imply I'm koneh it? Which makes things much worse. We might argue whether bitul chameitz means something other than hefqer. But even if it does, how can a formula that ends "vehefqer ke'afrah de'ar'a" not render it *also* hefqer? I am not sure what kind of qinyan burning would be. (Shinui? but shinui to something worthless is back to not having anything shaveh perutah to own.) Taking from hefqer means there is no maqneh, does that mean there is no qoneh? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 11:37:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:37:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a : conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of : YaVY... Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because there is no actual issur la'avor. : Since when is conversation : hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes : the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation : carries the din YvAY. I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from hirhurim. And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA: : That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, : causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of : hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and : certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? : : The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya : due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the downward character spiral. Tie'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:13:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is Mincha Different? In-Reply-To: <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> References: <87b0f18a1b7b44e89f046e262278685d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170605193307.GE3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5424769a-057e-b1d6-87b8-130dad06850d@sero.name> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > : S"A 90:9 the following statement appears-"V'hu hadin bnai adam hadarim > : b'yshuvim v'ein lahem minyan mkol makom yitpallu shacharit v'arvit bzman > : shehatzibur mitpallim (smag)." Question - why isn't mincha mentioned? It seems to me that "shacharit v'arvit" here may not mean the tefillot but the times: they should daven each morning and evening when they know the minyan in the city is davening. The city minyan presumably does mincha and maariv together in one evening session, so that's what individuals should do. This is so especially if this is from the Smag, and we know from Rashi and Tosfos Brachos 2a that the minhag in France at that time was to daven maariv immediately after mincha, while it was still daylight. We also know from elsewhere that minhag Ashkenaz at a later time was similarly to go straight from the Kaddish Tiskabel after Mincha to Vehu Rachum and Borchu, with no Aleinu or Shir Hamaalos/kaddish (or Ledavid in Elul) in between. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:55:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:55:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:40:56AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : One sort of redemption relates to things which have kedusha, and : "redemption" is a process which transfers that kedusha elsewhere (usually : to money). Examples include Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, and many many : others.... I think that bringing up pidyon and temurah just cloud the issue. IMinsufficientlyHO, it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that strikes me as a progression): - the go'el hadam - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) - and of people (ibid v 48) - the end of galus To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on its nachalah. But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first -- "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why there are different words in lh"q. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 14:06:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:06:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another approach to Ruth's geirus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170605210617.GB23709@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 03:18:13PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Yes, but see Bava Basra 91a: "Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said that : Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon were gedolei hador..." An excellent : introduction to this problem is in the Overview to ArtScroll's Ruth, : pages 48-52. Which ties to the other thread about how we're to view Yiftach or Shimshon -- baalei mesorah or amei ha'aretz? It's possible that at the nadir points in the days of shofetim, being the gadol hador didn't rule out also having fundamental flaws. : R' Zev Sero wrote: :> There was no yibum; marrying Ruth was seen as part of the :> mitzvah of redeeming her husband's land. : It doesn't matter whether you call it "yibum", or you call it : something else. My point is that there is no connection between Rus : and Boaz unless Rus was indeed married, and if there was no geirus : then she was *not* married and not connected to Boaz. If it was some general Semitic notion of ge'ulah, then perhaps being common-law spouses in a 7 Mitzvos b' Noach sense would be enough to trigger ge'ulah, even if yibum would require real qiddushin. After all, the basis for ge'ulah was likely that the woman came to depend on the family for her support, and it would be wrong to let her down. Which is true of a Moaviah intermarrying into a Jewish family, even if the marriage only seemed real to her. I am also reminded of the Rambam IB 13, discussed hear repeatedly ad nauseum. Shimshon's and Shelomo's wives were p[resumed Jewish until their actions showed that they not only had ulterior motive, they lacked a true motive (qabbalas ol mitzvos) altogether. Geirei `arayos all are in that boat -- if we think they were mequbalos al mitzvos along with wanting to convert to marry, we presume they're kosher Jews but suspect and watch whether behavior matches presumption. Rus would be in a similar situation, no? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 14:55:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 17:55:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land In-Reply-To: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> References: <20170605205526.GA23709@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4674ee8c-5f5e-c740-051a-00191c18b4fb@sero.name> On 05/06/17 16:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > IMinsufficientlyHO, it pays to just stick to trying to find a common > theme to all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that > strikes me as a progression): > > [...] > > - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's not an > actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) Where is the word found in this context? My position is that the use in Megilath Ruth is an instance of the next meaning. > - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) - and of people (ibid v 48) This one. AIUI the underlying theme of this mitzvah is discharging ones own obligations, or those of a relative who is unable to do so himself. When one has sold the family patrimony, one must buy it back so that people will no longer look at one as someone who had to do that. If one can't, then whoever in the family can afford to do so must buy it back, to clear ones name. Included in this is a sub-obligation that if one is aware that a relative has to sell family land, and one can afford to buy it, one must offer to do so, so he is never subjected in the first place to the ignominy of selling it out of the family. (That, as near as I can tell, is what was happening in Ruth. Naomi and Ruth, having claimed Elimelech's property for their ketubot, were now purportedly looking for a buyer, and turned to the family to give them first refusal.) By extension this also includes discharging other obligations, not to do with the family land, such as ones obligation to a woman whom a relative has left destitute, so that her state will not be a disgrace to the family. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 5 13:56:12 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 20:56:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Reuvain quickly gets up and walks to her and hugs her to comfort her > and keep her upright. As he does so, he realizes she did not make any > request or action alluding to any need prior to his action, but she > did seem to very much appreciate it. She also belonged to the portion > of the community which did not presume a social negiah restriction. Was > Reuvain's action preferred, acceptable, or prohibited? If not preferred, > what should he have done? I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to include any contact in any social situation in addition to more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly consistently not included are professional scenarios where your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors, nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says there that even in his generation he was unique in being able to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for this situation. But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei aveira then there is no issur of negia. I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred option. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 03:08:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 10:08:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? I heard from Rav Matis Weinberg that the final reference to Ruth Hamoavia emphasises that, despite the way we usually think of geirus, and despite everything she's gone through, she remains a Moavia. Meaning that she retains her Moavi roots and personal context, and brings the positive from that into Klal Yisrael. I understand him as polemicising against the tendency to destroy ones previous identity, consciously or otherwise, in order to join the Jewish world either as a ger or a baal teshuva. Ben ________________________________ From: Avodah on behalf of via Avodah Sent: 02 June 2017 03:34 To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 72 Send Avodah mailing list submissions to avodah at lists.aishdas.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org You can reach the person managing the list at avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." A list of common acronyms is available at http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms Avodah Acronyms ? The AishDas Society www.aishdas.org Here?s a hopefully useful but incomplete list of acronyms that are standard to Avodah, but aren?t in common usage. I marked each either ?A? for those specific ... (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) Today's Topics: 1. Re: Maharat (Rich, Joel via Avodah) 2. Re: Maharat (Ben Waxman via Avodah) 3. Re: Maharat (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 4. matched soldier and praying for them (M Cohen via Avodah) 5. Re: Maharat (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) 6. Elimelech's land (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 7. Ruth Hamoaviah (Akiva Miller via Avodah) 8. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (ADE via Avodah) 9. Re: Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? (Zev Sero via Avodah) 10. A Holiday Afterthought (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) 11. Re: A Holiday Afterthought (Micha Berger via Avodah) 12. Re: Ruth Hamoaviah (Zev Sero via Avodah) 13. Re: Ruth Hamoaviah (Lisa Liel via Avodah) 14. Re: Elimelech's land (Ben Waxman via Avodah) 15. Re: Elimelech's land (Zev Sero via Avodah) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:06:28 +0000 From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" To: 'Ilana Elzufon' , "'The Avodah Torah Discussion Group'" , Micha Berger , "Akiva Miller" , Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <550c503804d54cb990c680ad2b42fa05 at VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Yes! But on the other hand, most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian. I think many of us, perhaps without conscious thought, have an egalitarian relationship with our spouse that would have been very rare a few generations ago. We aren't going to give up voting, or having our own bank accounts, or attending top universities, or entering just about whatever profession we like (as long as it isn't rabbi, sofer, chazan, etc...). And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. ---------------------------------------------------- Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? If the answer is no but he does prefer it (for all or subgroup is another question), then why do we spend so much of the debate on black letter law? KT Joel Rich (full disclosure-kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-not everything that is permitted to you should be done) THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:22:13 +0200 From: Ben Waxman via Avodah To: Ilana Elzufon , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Micha Berger , Akiva Miller , Avodah Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Probably the best and most succinct historical analogy I've seen for this question. Ben On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote: > > Twenty years ago, I used to say that I wasn't sure if Orthodox women > rabbis would end up being a "mechitza issue" or a "sermon in the > vernacular issue." Today, at least from my position in Israel, it > seems to be shaping up as the latter. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:59:33 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" R' Noam Stadlan asked: : The other point which really hasn't been adequately unravelled is whether : semicha is synonymous with heter hora'ah? something different? can someone : have heter hora'ah and not semicha? I agree that an answer to this is crucial to the conversation. Many times, people have told me that the author of the Mishne Berura did not get semicha until very late in life when he needed the ordination for some government paperwork. And yet, he was quite involved with hora'ah, and we rely on his paskening even today. How can this be? Dare we imagine that he did such things unauthorizedly? Certainly he must have had/received some sort of Heter Hora'ah. If so, then when and how did he get it - and without getting semicha at the same time? Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:01 -0400 From: M Cohen via Avodah To: , Subject: [Avodah] matched soldier and praying for them Message-ID: <014801d2d969$41c5c800$c5515800$@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A while ago on Avodah, a well known (chareidi) Baal machshava was quoted as disagreeing strongly with the concept of matching frum people with a nonfrum soldier in order to pray for them. "we have no brotherhood with secular Israelis" Recently, I posted to Avodah a link to a collection of 1400 short tshuvot from HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlitah (of Toronto) On the above topic, he writes there.. #600 Pray As They Go Q. There are two organizations here in Eretz Yisroel, one called; Elef LaMateh, and the other; The Shmirah Project. Basically, their intent is to match Israeli soldiers with Avreichim and bochurim learning. Each Avreich and Bochur who volunteers, receives the name of a specific soldier (his name and his mother's name) that he takes responsibility to daven for and learn specially for so that in the merit of the tefillos and learning, that soldier will merit to return home alive and well. (Is this a good idea) A. HaRav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a opinion is that it is a great mitzvah to pray, learn Torah and accomplish mitzvos for the benefit of all our brethren B'nay Yisroel in times of peril and need, especially for those who put their life in harm's way to save and protect others. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:39:53 +0200 From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah To: "Rich, Joel" Cc: Avodah , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , Micha Berger , Akiva Miller Subject: Re: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Me: ...most of us also live in an "outside world" that is highly egalitarian...And I don't think it is wrong for those changes in the experiences of women and couples and families and communities to affect religious practice, to move us in a somewhat more egalitarian direction WITHIN what is halachically permitted. RJR: Would it be correct to say that the general case of this argument is that as long as it can be argued that something is halachically permitted (which many seem to define as not totally halachically forbidden by r?mb?s black letter law), then we can accept it without asking whether HKB?H prefers it? Me: No!!! But does HKB"H really prefer that psak and practice should be identical for each community and each generation? - Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:01:50 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" . I expect that this thread will have little or nothing to do with the halachic questions we discussed recently. I am asking questions that I think are based on purely financial and economic considerations: Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start farming? I suppose it was pretty desolate after a ten-year famine, but did she even try? She must have at least gone there to see the place, if for no other reason than to be sure that no squatters took over while she was gone. Without making sure of such things, how could she even hope that anyone (even a goel) would buy it? Maybe she expected to get a better profit from Boaz than she'd get from farming it herself, but maybe there are other answers? Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:05:01 -0400 From: Akiva Miller via Avodah To: avodah at aishdas.org Subject: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the distinction? When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on this. Akiva Miller ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:14:59 +0100 From: ADE via Avodah To: Zev Sero , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are still being machshiv some pesukim over others. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one pasuk > *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 06:32:23 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: ADE <9006168 at gmail.com>, The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] Should one stand for the Aseres Hadibros? Message-ID: <510d4fd4-6c91-fb85-0c23-f6cdfa7ffcbf at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 02/06/17 05:14, ADE wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Everywhere I've been, the baal korei stops and people stand up one >> pasuk *before* the 10 dibros and the shira, specifically for this >> reason. > Not sure how this solves the difficulty, the people who do this are > still being machshiv some pesukim over others. There is no requirement to treat all pesukim exactly the same. One is entitled to stand or sit during KhT as one wishes, and has no obligation to choose one policy and stick to it. The problem is only with standing up for special pesukim, such as Shma or the 10D. Since there's nothing special about the pasuk before the 10D, there's no problem with deciding to stand for it. And when the special pesukim come along one is already standing, so one has no obligation to sit down. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:46:10 -0400 From: Cantor Wolberg via Avodah To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <30AFE2B8-8415-4327-A5ED-FD4856D72C50 at cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In our personal religious commitments there are those among us scrupulous in performance of the ceremonial mitzvot but at the same time displaying reckless disregard of our elementary duties towards our fellowman. Halacha embraces human life in its totality. One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social trait from our behavior! A quitter never wins, and a winner never quits. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:31:31 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah To: Cantor Wolberg , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Subject: Re: [Avodah] A Holiday Afterthought Message-ID: <20170602153131.GA15356 at aishdas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One of the great Lithuanian mussar sages made : a fascinating remark that it is much easier to complete the study : of the entire Babylonian Talmud than to extricate a single anti-social : trait from our behavior! Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, among the aphorisms of his listed in R' Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar vol I. :-)BBii! -Micha ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:28:00 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Akiva Miller via Avodah , "akivagmiller at gmail.com >> Akiva Miller" Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: <4dd6e4f1-2d00-a274-ace0-e5d2a803039a at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 01/06/17 23:05, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I only see four instances of "Ruth Hamoaviah", three in ch 2, and only one in ch 4, in Boaz's description of the situation to Tov. Since his purpose was to scare him off, it made sense to mention her origin, so Tov would be reluctant to risk his future. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:20:16 +0300 From: Lisa Liel via Avodah To: Akiva Miller , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Ruth Hamoaviah Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 6/2/2017 6:05 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Many times she is called simply "Ruth", and many times she is > described as "Ruth Hamoaviah". Is there any reason or pattern to the > distinction? > > When I first thought of this question, I thought that perhaps the > description was dropped after her geirus, but the megillah goes back > and forth all the way through. Surely someone must have commented on > this. I can't cite a source for it, but I remember once reading that Ruth HaMoaviah was intended to praise her, since she gave up her position in Moav to join us. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus [https://static2.avast.com/11/web/min/i/mkt/share/avast-logo.png] Avast | Download Free Antivirus for PC, Mac & Android www.avast.com Protect your devices with the best free antivirus on the market. Download Avast antivirus and anti-spyware protection for your PC, Mac and Android. ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:31:41 +0200 From: Ben Waxman via Avodah To: Akiva Miller , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group , avodah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Actually if the land had lied fallow for 10 years, it should be in good shape. Granted it needs weeding but the soil should be good. It only requires a relatively small amount of rain for grass to grow and re-invigorate the soil. Maybe she was too old to work the land and figured that a sale would provide her with enough money to live out the rest of her days in dignity? Ben On 6/2/2017 5:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 00:17:52 -0400 From: Zev Sero via Avodah To: Akiva Miller via Avodah , Akiva Miller Subject: Re: [Avodah] Elimelech's land Message-ID: <272b8698-d5c1-55a1-560b-2bc6d0c39b74 at sero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 01/06/17 23:01, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Why was is so important for Naomi to find a goel/redeemer for > Elimelech's land? Why didn't she just move back there and start > farming? It seems to me that finding a buyer for the property was not at all important to her, and in fact she had shown no interest in doing so until she saw how she could use it to get Boaz to marry Ruth. It was Boaz who spun the story out for Tov in order to scare him off; first he drew him in with the prospect of an easy transaction for Naomi's portion of the field, but then he threw in the Ruth monkey wrench. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/avodah http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org ------------------------------ End of Avodah Digest, Vol 35, Issue 72 ************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 04:24:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:24:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <545028A09009CEB1.0C33F862-E0BD-4F09-B72B-2B14A928A471@mail.outlook.com> I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter, the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat, is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin and relay the answer. We have fine female educators like Shani Taragin etc and we have Yoatzot Halacha as above. I consider this ordination movement as a Western valued and inspired institution. Indeed, these days I know Shules look for husband *and* wife teams. The Rebbetzin occupies an increasingly important place. This is most certainly also true of successful Chabad Houses, and here I speak of people like Rivki Holtzberg hy'd whom I knew well personally and I watched as the women gathered around her and the men around her husband. This is the mimetic tradition not withstanding exceptions. That, I believe is the thrust of the OU proclamation and it is dead on the money. Judaism certainly adapts but it is not the plasticine for Western values and aspirations. Even at a funeral, where one expects little hope for Yetzer Hora, the Halacha mandates the Shura to be separate for males and females. This category of notion underpins our Mesora and always did; right back to the days when our tents were arranged with Tzniyus in mind. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 07:26:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:26:41 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap Message-ID: can anyone explain and show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from non-Kosher fat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 07:23:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:23:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh Message-ID: regarding Chamets buried under a collapsed building where we remain the owner - we intend to salvage it after Pesach but are not transgressing BY and BY without needing to make Bittul I explained that Halachic ownership is determined by ones perception of control and explained this is the reason that YiUsh means one is no longer an owner for example you forget your wallet holding your ID and some money in a restaurant even though you go back in the HOPE of finding it or are HOPING an honest person will return it this is nevertheless YiUsh you no longer believe you are in control although RaMBaM encourages that the finder return it Halachically the finder is entitled to tell you Once upon a time this was yours - but you were MeYaEsh so it is no longer yours and I picked it up AFTER you were already MeYaEsh This is the foundation for the Pesak of R Y E Spektor that money lost by a woman at a trade fair MUST be returned because there was NO YiUsh the money had been found and taken to the local Rav it matched perfectly the description given by the woman who lost it but the finder insisted he wants to keep the money unless he is obliged to return it even though the woman had Simanim Muvhakim there was no doubt the money found was the money she lost she was certainly MeYaEsh she is not the owner Reb Y E Spektor Paskened that there was no YiUsh her husband is the owner and he, sitting many miles away was unaware of the loss of the money so there was no YiUsh R Micha argues that this is not correct he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost so there is no YiUsh however if they would know it is lost they would be MeYaEsh I would suggest that there is no problem the Machlokes is simply a dispute about ACTUAL belief one is in control versus POTENTIAL belief one is in control for example walking behind a fellow Yid you notice a diamond fall off his ring he would be unaware of his loss if we say YiUsh requires DaAs then there is no YiUsh yet you would have to wait until you see the fellow stop and look around for something then you can take your foot off the diamond and take it home [BTW is such a person a Rasha? or worse, not a Mentsch?] If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs then you can take the diamond straight away because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 10:48:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:48:13 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> , <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a : conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of : YaVY... Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because there is no actual issur la'avor. I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where there's an issur involved? That's why I'm suggesting that since it's on pain of yeihareig then we know there must an issur la'avor so the point of the sugya is to work out what that is. The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below. : Since when is conversation : hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes : the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation : carries the din YvAY. I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from hirhurim. >From hirhurim? Chazal were gozer yeihareig on hirhurei aveira? If that were true we'd find the same din in a lot of other places. Which is why is seems to me we must be dealing with something else here. And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA: : That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya, : causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of : hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and : certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai? : : The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya : due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc. It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the downward character spiral. Me'heicha teisi that we're dealing with Hilkhos De'os here? Where do you find a din of yeihareig in Hilchos De'os? Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does. Your partially stated assumption is that this din in both man d'amrim is d'rabanan. Rambam strongly implies otherwise. Kol tuv Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 09:19:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Micha wrote: "In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable. And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving R Ploni answering questions. (The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the model.) This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads -- or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her rebbe's license?" me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using. They are hiding behind ambiguity. if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do hora'ah. AND, you cant use the model of semicha to prohibit women from hora'ah, becuase in the Venn diagram of the topic, there is hora'ah outside the lines of semicha. So R. Micha et al need to provide some other basis for their issur of hora'ah, AND, address all those who write that a woman can provide hora'ah. AND, address the quote from R. Penner that the semicha for REITS graduates is not one to pasken(or perhaps even to give hora'ah). AND, address why(rather than simply say) the Rabbanut semichah test system, perhaps the most popular semicha in Orthodoxy, does not undermine his entire thesis. One can give a woman 'heter hora'ah l'rabbim' because there has not been a cogent argument presented not to do so, and there are many poskim who write that a woman can give hora'ah. The argument regarding 'what would HKBH' want is interesting. Does he want us to restrict women from doing things just so that we can say there are differences between men and women? Or, did He establish Halakha to help us sort out those that He wants, rather than ancient ones that and are gradually being re-evaluated, similar to how we have gradually moved away from embracing slavery, polygamy(in the vast majority of instances), restrictions on the deaf/dumb, the devaluation of women(see Mishna in Horiyyot 'men's lives are saved prior to women....), the idea that a women's wisdom is only with the spindle, one who teaches his daughter Torah has taught her tiflut, etc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 11:28:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:28:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/6/2017 7:19 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all > those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to > clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using. They are > hiding behind ambiguity. if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then > saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do > hora'ah. Are you suggesting that the burden of proof is on those *opposed* to a radical change in Jewish practice? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 11:18:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:18:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> (And also some "Re: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim".) On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:48am CDT, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you : understand the OU panel as defining it. Otherwise you are just using a : nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning. To me, "semichah" is a secondary concept. My focus was to assert whose halachic decision-making can qualify as hora'ah. That question involves semichah in the discussion. We were discussing the Rama YD 242:14. The Mechaber writes in strong terms that a higi'ah lehora'ah is obligated to actually provide hora'ah. The Rama there adds that this is only if there is no barrier of kevod harav -- his rebbe passed away, gave him semichah, is a rebbe-chaver, or the like. He doesn't make semichah a definition of magi'ah lehora'ah, but only a removal of a barrier, a necessary condition in the usual circumstances. Not a defining feature. If we look at the Rama in se'ifim 5-6, he tells you he is basing himself on the Mahariq (113.3, 117 [and the OU panel adds, cf 169). The Mahariq's position is based on assuming that what was true for classical semichah is still true for modern day semichah. The Rambam (Sanhedrin 4:8) agrees with that comparison -- he derives the need today for netilas reshus from Mosaic semichah. IOW, who needs reshus for hora'ah? Someone who is magi'ah lehora'ah and has kevoad harav issues in giving hora'ah without one. A magi'ah lehora'ah can only be someone eligable to sit on a BD of [Mosaic] musmachim (or according to the Rambam, other mumchim). Not because "rabbi" is defined by "has semichah", but because "yoreh yoreh" or Yesivat Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim" declares someone to be a hegi'ah lehorah. I find the OU's argument compelling, fits the words of R/Prof SL's letter and is probably his intent, and how I understood the sugyah in general before the notion of an O woman as rabbi became a topic people would seriously discuss. I am interested to know if you asked R/D Novak which one of us understood his intent. Did he mean to explain R/Prof SL's position or explain why he differs with it in ways that makes Yeshivat Maharat an option? Agreed that few rabbis pasqen, and that we could have female clergy that avoid this first issue that I have even if a Maharat's semichah read "Rabbah uManhigah" instead of "heter hora'ah lerabbim". : The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship : between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah : to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here: : http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah ... : So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that : apply to beit din. That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist... And yet the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama all think that one continues enough of the other that we can draw conclusions across that bridge. It's not me doing the category taking, it's the Rambam and the SA. What greater authorities do you need? While on the topic of magi'ah lehorah... On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 11:24am GMT, Isaac Balbin wrote: : I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his : students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the : aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was : a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter, : the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat, : is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is : 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin : and relay the answer. There is a difference. Hopefully, someone who get "Yoreh Yoreh" is first magi'ah lehora'ah. But that's a sliding scale. They could get reshus to pasqn because there are less weighty or less involved questions they can and should be answering, while still being aware when they are in over their heads and should call RMF. Whereas the impression I got from RYHH's posts here on Avodah is that a Yo'etzet isn't supposed to ever be giving pesaq; only answering questions that the community has definite answers for -- reporting halakhah pesuqah. But then there's the second and third issues.... 2- How do we know shul is no supposed to be a men's club? Men's clubs work, or at least the Rotary and the Masons have for centuries. Movements that went egalitarian now have issues getting male participation in shul; this is a big topic in Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs (C umbrella organization) discussion. And more fundamentally, how do we know that this social dynamic was not Anshei Keneses haGdolah's intent? I would assume indeed it was. This would rule out having a woman for much of the congretational role of rabbi. 3- Halakhah is inherently non-egalitarian: a- Importing an external value over those implied internally. And more functionally, we are telling women that indeed, the traditionally male role is the better path to holiness -- let us help you run at that glass ceiling. b- This is bound to lead to greater frustration as soon as LWMO has gone as far as it could up to that halachic limit. and c- It is making a claim that is false. One is sacrificing Judaism's model of equal worth despite hevdel for the sake of egalitarianism and erasing havdalah. The last being more of a perceptual issue. And this may explain why you can get a bit further not using the word "rabbi". It's not merely a word game, there is an issue at stake; are we trying to be egalitarian, or to accept a system in which kohanim not only defy egalitarianism, but apparently start out holier than I am. Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW. On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 7:51am IST, Ben Waxman wrote: : For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community : that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like : Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi : community consider to be kefira. Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'" (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not! : If so, than kal v'chomer many of : the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are : some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in : getting hung up on multiple non-issues. There are two possible sources of division here. 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators, and therefore in practice will be a separate community. Comfort zone isn't only a psychological issue. it nostalgia, mimetic tradition, Toras imekha or minhag Yisrael sabba, communal continuity is a big issue. 2- The ideological problem isn't in the bottom-level issues but in how they highlighted the loss of common language. The opposition to these changes are talking about Mesorah, values, etc... and the proponents just see the issue as "if it's halachically allowed, why are you giving us a hard time?" This lack of common language, more specifically, the lack of a notion of metahalakhah* is disconcerting. So to my mind the schism-level battle isn't over ordaining women, Partnership Minyanim, or whether Document Hypothesis is a viable option without O as much as these decisions are apparently being made by a different set of rules. And that could quite validly be a schismatic level issue. (* In this sense of the "word" "metahalakhah". We on Avodah have also used "metahalakha" to refer to the halachos of making halakhos, even when the rules are more black-letter. Such as discussions of when we say halakhah kebasrai, or whether there is acharei rabbim lehatos in this post-Sanhedrin era.) Back to R/Dr Noam Stadlan... I believe in a role for women in the clergy that isn't that of poseiq, part of minyan, nor claiming to be egalitarian. The OU thinks that categorizing the resulting role set as "clergy" is itself too egalitarian. Again, I see that as a perceptual issue. But they too end calling for finding more venues for women to contribute communally and to be visible role models. (An Areivim-esque tangent: It would be interesting to see if the OU acts on these closing remarks as rapidly as they did about the 4 member shuls that already have Maharatos.) But then, the only difference between the position now taken by Aish or Chabad kiruv today and the actual permission granted in the driving responsum is perception as well. In terms of dry facts, both were premitting causing the non-observant to drive on Shabbos rather than let them remain disconnected. They only differed in how they let the person perceive his own driving. And yet one was a major part of a broad collapse of observance, and the other is apparently increasing observance. Presentation and perception matter. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:03:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:03:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606150330.GB26549@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:23:51AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : R Micha argues that this is not correct : he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control : then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs : i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost : so there is no YiUsh : however if they would know it is lost : they would be MeYaEsh Rather, I was saying ownership hinges on responsibility, which I suggested was both a consequence of and license for having actual control. : I would suggest that there is no problem : the Machlokes is simply a dispute about : ACTUAL belief one is in control versus : POTENTIAL belief one is in control It would help if you can find a case where somone has potential of believing they control an item for reasons other than having actual control, and has the din of ba'al, OR someone has potential to believe they lost control of an item for reasons other than actually losing control, and does not have ba'alus. Yi'ush is giving up on finding it again, not knowledge of loss of control, real or potential. Let me use your example to explain how I see it: : for example : walking behind a fellow Yid : you notice a diamond fall off his ring : he would be unaware of his loss ... : If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs : then you can take the diamond straight away : because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss But this is a case where he loses actual control. The yi'ush shelo mida'as is more of an expectation not to regain it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:06:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170606150633.GC26549@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:26:41AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : can anyone explain and : show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim : to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from : non-Kosher fat "Preferable"? Because we make a point of using dish soap that is ra'ui la'akhilah. So, using a treif one means taking a position on akhshevei. I believe the OU knows they are just pandering to the market when they give such a heksher, though, and don't lehalakhah require it. (But you did say "preferable", and avoiding even a shitah dechuyah could be deemed preferable.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 08:55:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 09:53:30PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil : Siman 199, the Maharil writes: ... :> And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive :> commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we :> should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut ... :> And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible :> to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules :> and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in :> our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and :> hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by :> way of tradition from outside, I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather than knowledge of abstract ideas. However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. There I ass more promise. he quotes the Rambam (which you already discussed) and the Sema"q's haqdamah (from near the end). There the Maharil talks about oseiq beTorah as in kol ha'oseiq beparashas olah kei'lu hiqrivu qorban, and that this should apply even to mitzvos in which they are NOT obligated (like qorbanos). Is this exclusively TSBK? It might; the Maharil talks about men saying birkhos haTorah before reading pesuqim they do not understand. Ayin sham. : And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in : Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous : generations: :> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their :> upright fathers. Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. Which the Maharil you cited appears to be doing as well. I place more hope on the second Maharil. Which is why I disagree with: : But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the : ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach : women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was : taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in : the form of the Mishna?... Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an example to imitate. (Tosafos believe Rabbe compiled the mishnah; writing down didn't happen for centuries. So what the mishnah was to the amora'im was an official text to memorize and repeat. As in "tani tana qamei deR' ..." Not that it really touches on our discussion.) : So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what : the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women : to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al " peh... True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask why, etc... but it's not an "education" setting. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 16:57:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men gather. Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis. So that women can gather around women rabbis. certainly it is not an argument against women rabbis. And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals does not apply either. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 18:50:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:50:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: - R' Shalom Simon wrote: > I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value > as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters > of grave import. No one?!? I imagine this might be true about people who are relatively learned, and relatively savvy in the ways of certain yeshivishe circles. But I can testify that it is certainly not true of a typical less-learned nominally-Orthodox person. Towards the end of my first year in yeshiva in Yerushalayim, as I made my plans to returns back to the USA, my friends were nudging me to stay for a second year. I felt that the proper thing for me to do was to return, as per my plans. But their annoying reached a certain level, and I felt the most effective response would be to ask my gemara rebbe (who I was very close with), and then I'd be able to tell them to keep quiet. Surprise! He answered me honestly, that leaving the yeshiva would be a mistake, I needed a second year of chizuk, etc etc etc. I was devastated, having to choose between his p'sak and what *I* felt to be right. In the end, I wasn't strong enough to follow Hashem's halacha. I left the yeshiva, returned to YU for the one remaining year to get my degree, and then returned to my yeshiva in Yerushalayim. All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha. Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 19:25:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 22:25:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support? Message-ID: - R' Ben Bradley wrote: > I'd vote for preferred. Sevara would be that negia is assur > derech chiba, and the question through the poskim is what > consitutes derech chiba. The fairly consistent answer is to > include any contact in any social situation in addition to > more obvious situations of derech chiba. The situations fairly > consistently not included are professional scenarios where > your mind is presumed to be solely on the job eg doctors, > nurses, physical therapists etc. Then we have indviduals who > can rely on themselves to have their mind lshem shamayim like > the amora who lifted kallas on his shoulders. The gemara says > there that even in his generation he was unique in being able > to rely on himself to have his mind only lshem shamayim for > this situation. > > But the consistent point is the when you can be objectively > certain enough that a given situation will not cause hirhurei > aveira then there is no issur of negia. I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses, physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her, she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia. But in the case at hand, the physical contact is not incidental. It is the goal. Nay, I would argue even more strongly: The mere physical contact isn't the goal -- The EMOTIONAL RESPONSE to the contact is the goal! The whole point of hugging this person is for emotional support. I certainly agree that this sort of hugging is on a lower level that the sort of hugging that leads to sexual relations. But at the same time, it *IS* more intimate than the examples you cited. A person will choose a doctor, nurse or therapist, based on their medical ability -- but the sort of hugs we are discussing here are valued more when from a friend than from a stranger. > I'd have thought the example above would fit that. And > preferred rather than acceptable because if I'm right in > sevara then the weight of the need to comfort the bereaved > in such a fashion would make physical contact the preferred > option. "The need to comfort the bereaved..." Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor" regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this "needed" comfort from someone else. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 6 20:28:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 03:28:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R Meir Rabi asked for mekoros. I suggest Yechaveh Daas 4:43 Although Chacham Ovadya is Meikel he does bring Rishonim who would hold its an Issur Derabonnon as in Pesach for 'off' Chametz. This is probably the place to look but I don't have the Sefer in front of me at the minute. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 03:38:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 06:38:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607103838.GC10990@aishdas.org> There are also sources in RAZZ's column in Jewish Action https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_kosher_soap (He sent me the link privately. Perhaps R/Dr Zivitofsky wanted to spare me being corrected in public.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 06:35:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:35:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> >Lisa- thanks for the response. I think you have the question framed >incorrectly. It isn't " we have to ordain women". It is, on what basis >are we denying women the opportunity to serve God and their community >in a way that they think is appropriate -- is there a Halachic reason to >do so?" >----------------------------------------------------- >As they say, half the answer is in how one formulates the question >(chazal and Tversky/Kahnemann) . The other side might rephrase as ", >on what basis >are we changing millennia old halachic mesorsa -- is there a >Halachic reason to do so?" But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no? We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni or Tzlophad's daughters. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 06:49:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 08:49:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maharat Message-ID: R. Micha- if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL). It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is one of them. You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get semicha. You obviously hold that a woman cant be a judge, and the barrier to the woman is actually not semicha, but her not being qualified to be in the category of hl. Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness. There are others in that category. Since there is no reason to differentiate between those in the category, you are saying that all those others in the category also are forbidden, not from semicha, but from being in the category of HL. We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be dayyanim in some cases. So, the disqualification of women from HL actually wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot. So your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not claiming to be eligible for semicha. I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive lomdus. Is there a source that specifically states that women are forbidden from being HL? The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age. It seems that you may be distinguishing between hora'ah, and HL, there being hora'ah that is not in the category of being given by someone that is HL(if not, you have to deal with the myriads of sources that state specifically that women can give hora'ah). So you and the OU authors may be referring to HL in the mosaic understanding, and moderns, including YM, are using it in a different fashion, to refer to non-formal HL. Because if there is hora'ah that is not part of the formal HL, there is no restriction on women. And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? what is the basis for that? It seems that even assuming that you are correct(for which I have not found any support in any references), there is no basis for excluding women from having non formal hora'ah, someone acknowledging that they are capable of that non-formal hora'ah, and them functioning as a rabbi and doing what rabbi's do in shuls and elsewhere. Your restriction only keeps them from occupying a formal title which is not neccessary or needed for the job description. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 07:05:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 14:05:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> References: <20170607133516.RFTG26070.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo306.cox.net> Message-ID: <94258eaf26e94a0ea0c49de3630ef2ce@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent this", no? We learn from the Torah, that sometimes it just takes somebody to ask/request it (with, presumably, a pure intent): e.g., Pesach Sheni or Tzlophad's daughters. ========================= So just to complete the loop-the question is who gets to answer this request for whom Kt Joel rich _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://hybrid-web.global.blackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rn0JnHwKAKxEU5lYbmGXrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yfm5DGWm5q4mhsFBBsamlgbGDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-jmZxSXFeomZxRkpicV6-UXpYJHMvDSgqvRM_cSy_JTEDF0keQYGhp2LGBgAF5osAg&Z THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 09:38:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 12:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607163850.GA12495@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:49:45AM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : if I understand correctly, you posit a category of 'higeah l'hora'ah'(HL). It's not me positing it. Look again at YD 242:13-14, warning against the talmid shelo higia' lehora'ah against giving any, and the chakham who did higi'ah lehora'ah and was not moreh, applying condemnatory pesuqim to each. The SA is based on R' Abba amar R' Hunah amar Rav on AZ 19b. : It is not clear if you say that only those who fall in that category can : give hora'ah, or if there are different categories of hora'ah, and this is : one of them. So yes, it is clear. The SA says so outright. : You then are saying that in order to be a judge, one has to be HL, and get : semicha... Again, not me, Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq all assume comparability between the two. A Mahariq the Rama then cites (se'if 6) as the basis for his concluding how a musmach should behave toward the rav who gave him semichah, when not his rebbe. So it would seem the Rama buys into the notion that our "semichah" of declaring someone a hegi'ah lehora'ah (and in the case of a rebbe, implicitely that he has permission to be moreh) follows the rules of Mosaic semicha for beis din. So, thinking you are arguing against me, rather than centuries of dissentless precedent, you propose a line of reasoning at odds with the Rambam and Tosafos: : Let us go back and remember that the reason a woman cant be a judge(for : those who hold that way) is based on her not being a witness... The Sema and Be'eir heiTev (on CM 7:4) does say yalfinan lah mei'eidus. See Nidah 49b But see the Y-mi, Shevuos 4:1 (vilna 19a) brings several derashos. One of them (R' Yosi bei R' Bun, R' Huna besheim R' Yosi) does learn is from a gezeira shava from eidus. ... : We also have to keep in mind that not only semuchim but hedyotim can be : dayyanim in some cases. So, the disqualification of women from HL actually : wouldn't keep them from being dayanim as long as they are hedyotot. So : your construct actually allows women to judge as long as they are not : claiming to be eligible for semicha. One thing at a time. Eligability for true Mosaic semichah and how it reflect on who can give hora'ah is what's relevant now. Not who can serve in other judicial roles that did/will not require semichah. : I have not found any proof for your contention, except for the impressive : lomdus. Is there a source that specifically states that women are : forbidden from being HL? There are numerous sources that say women can't get real Mosaic semichah, and numerous sources that say that the laws of today's "semichah" are derived from those. The fact that I don't know anyone before the current dispute actually connect the two to deny something no (O and pre-O) observant community considered a plausible question even as recently as the late 1990s (including a statement by R' Avi Weiss) really doesn't make the argument less compelling. If you have A =/= B and B = C, do you really demand a source telling you that A =/= C? : The next issue is that you are claiming that HL in the time of the gemara : and Sanhedrin is the same as HL in the modern age... No, that HL in the SA is the same. ... : And finally, are you claiming that only someone who can fulfill the : requirements of formal HL can be shul rav? ... Never claimed that. I separated my problem with declaring a "heter hora'ah lerabbim" for women from my problem with a woman serving during services and from my 2 or 3 problems with giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings in halakhah. You have only responded to the first. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 10:33:38 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:33:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607173338.GB9596@aishdas.org> As I see it, the question WRT hora'ah is whether we follow the Rama's lead and hold like the Mahariq, or the Birkei Yoseif CM 7:12 a viable shitah -- and then, does "viable" mean "advisable"? (We aren't heter shopping, after all.) The Birkei Yoseif says Af de'ishah besulah ladun, mikol maqom ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah basing himself on one of the opinions in Tosafos (Yevamos 45b "mi", Gittin 88b, ve'od) about what it means that "Devorah melamedes lahem dinim". (Devodah vs. ishah asurah ladun is the topic of 11.) It seem to me that "melameid lahem dinim" is a different use of the word "hora'ah" than the SA is using in YD. And thus it seems to me that Birkei Yoseif would explicitly permit a yo'etzet, who is teaching established halakhah and defering questions that require shiqul hada'as to a rav. But he is not describing hora'ah as assumed in a Maharat's heter hora'ah lerabbim and the YD 242 sense of magi'ah lehora'ah and who needs such a heter when he does. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 10:12:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:12:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607171230.GA2858@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:25:57PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I see a flaw in the logic. In the example of "doctors, nurses, : physical therapists etc.", the physical contact is incidental in a : "melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa" sort of way: The same way that one : will argue "I did not mean to dig a hole, I just needed some dirt", so : too the doctor will say, "I did not mean to touch her, I just checked : her pulse", or the therapist will say, "I did not mean to hold her, : she just needed help walking." Those are examples of incidental negia. "Melakhah she'inah tzerichah legudah" is specific to the 39 melakhos, so "sort of" indeed. Besides, might be more of a pesiq reishei. In any case, when a professional violates negi'ah, the heter is ba'avidteih tarid (BM 91b). And it's specifically to professionals and the air of professionalism. (As well as the lowered odds of a problem for someone who has a license at risk.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 12:22:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 21:22:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/7/2017 3:50 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > All the while, a cloud hung over me, for going against his p'sak. I > will not attempt to describe how much guilt I felt over this. But I > *will* tell you that a year or two later, I traded that guilt for > disillusionment, when I learned that although we called him "Rabbi > Ploni", he was not a rabbi at all, never having received semicha. > > Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but that simply means that similar > things happen to other people too, just not to such an extreme extent. I would agree that this is an extreme example. I don't know you so I can't say anything about you in particular (not that I would anyway, not on a forum) but I would expect a yeshiva guy who had been learning with a teacher/rav for a year to take the teacher/rav's words much more seriously than the average ba'al habayit. The first thing a ba'al habayit would do is say "Well, I went to him for advice, not psak, so I don't have to listen to him". >I think it safe to say that no one takes semikha at face value >as authority to pasken difficult halakhic questions on matters > of grave import. I don't know what constitutes grave import - an abortion? learning Biblical Criticism? Marrying someone of questionable yichus? Whether or not a particular business maneuver constitutes fraud in the eyes of halacha (or if it isn't but is illegal)? Accepting charity from criminals? Would the average MO Jew speak a rav and get his psak on these issues? Or do people limit themselves to strict Orach Chayim issues like eating on Yom Kippur? Are there issues that people will do whatever the rabbi says and ignore what he has to say about other things (obviously people ignore what rabbis have to say about a lot of issues, but I mean a straight psak)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 11:57:26 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] maharat Message-ID: R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress. You are engaging in a theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls. (they were not arguing against specific wording on a claf, they were arguing against holding a specific position). Given what you wrote, we both agree that the OU argument against does not hold water. Even if they are technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are capable of doing so(even if according to you they actually do not need permission from their rav). Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R. Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and others. Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav) have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and the authority is in the sources, not the person. You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments. You have admitted that the issue of women semicha has not been considered until recently. So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong. (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an arguement, that it be consistent. So if you are claiming that the reason women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot. you cant have it both ways). Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.' Please read the article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier. He makes it very clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that external 'modern values' are an important part of that. Modern values are neither positive nor negative. Those that find resonance in the Mesorah are elevated. R. Nachum Rabinovitch and R. Lichtenstein point out that our goal is to make moral progress. You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'. It isn't about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion. As R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice. I happen to be married to a Maharat student and personally know many of them and their teachers. It is the ultimate in hubris and mansplaining for you and the others to claim to know what their motivation is. It was reprehensible of the OU panel to claim to know what the motivation is when they failed to talk to anyone actually involved in the enterprise. Even if we incorrectly grant that it is due to 'egalitarian yearnings,' is that wrong? I suggest that our Mesorah has incorporated egalitarian yearnings. The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way, and those that would probably would give all sorts of apologetics and rationalizations for it. (I am aware of the different shitot, and know that RSZA for example gave so many other rationales to decide that even though l'halacha he held this, there were so many other bases for deciding ahead of gender that practically it never would have been applicable.) Even the OU panel said that we value women the same as men. Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women. The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large or as small as possible? Because as we have decided above, if we go by strict halacha, there is no problem with women serving as shul rabbis. is it a value to have differences, and because you want to have differences, you are going to prohibit women from doing things? Just to have differences? There are differences between Jews and Converts. Is it a Halachic value to maximize the differences, or minimize the differences between Jew and Gerim? R. Moshe wrote that a convert can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah is not a problem. Would he have agreed that a women can be a Rosh Yeshiva because serarah is also not a problem for her? (rosh yeshiva does not require semicha). Mishpat echad yehiyeh lachem, ka-ger ka-ezrach. The OU paper brought up tzniut. I do not think that the MO community thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a violation of tzniut. So there is no violation of tzniut when women or men perform the functions of clergy on their side of the mechitzah(one could designate a man to take of things on the men's side of the mechitzah if you were worried about interactions across the mechitzah). if you are claiming that this is a tzniut problem, then it applies to every interaction of women and men, inside the shul and outside. The OU paper claimed that a synagogue required greater tzniut, and therefore women cant perform rabbinical duties. That is a non-sequitor. First of all, it hasnt been demonstrated that appropriately dressed and acting people are a problem with tzniut. and, why is this particular action the one picked to fulfill the mandate of more tzniut? perhaps the men fulfilling EH 21 would be a better starting place. I understand you and others not being comfortable with ordination for women. no one is asking for you to be comfortable with it. If you dont think it is a good idea(halacha v'ain mori'in kein), that is fine to say. But it isn't fine to say that Halacha bans it when it doesn't, and it isn't ok to try to kick people who are shomrei Torah u'mitzvot out of the tent because of your comfort or lack of comfort. I would hope that you are at least as uncomfortable with some of the people on the far right wing. No one is asking for you to go to their shul, ask them a shailah, or learn their Torah if you dont want to. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:10:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:10:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:57:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress. You are engaging in a : theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU : rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls... Well, my first point is a discussion of hora'ah, and consequently for whom is semichah meaninful. But my argument on this point is a subset of the OU's argument on that point. See their paper, pp 8-9 : Given what you wrote, we both agree : that the OU argument against does not hold water. Even if they are : technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give : hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are : capable of doing so (even if according to you they actually do not need : permission from their rav). HOW do you get from what I wrote an implication that we have agreement on that? I think it's firmly established by aforementioned rishonim (plus others in the OU's footnotes) that if someone is ineligable for Mosaic semichah they are ineligable to give hora'ah and therefore have no use for today's yoreh-yoreh. Or the Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim"? : Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch : who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R. : Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a : later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't : invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and : others. Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav) : have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and : the authority is in the sources, not the person. Asked and answered, although in a post after the one to which you replied. Some use the word hora'ah to mean "melameid lahem dinim". Which is not hora'ah as the Rama is discussing it. I pointed you to the Birkei Yoseif. The Chinuch is similar; his : You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments... Another? What's the first? : So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only : poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong. The OU paper doesn't make that argument. Not that I see everything the way the OU panel does. (But halakhah lemaaseh, I would be more likely to follow their opinion than my own.) Nor did I find RJF's analysis of this claim in neither (his general position on ordaining women) nor the only place where I saw him discuss the OU panel on Lehrhaus. As an activist on the subject, I'm sure you've spent more time reading up on it than I. Could you kindly provide more specific references? But let me deal with what you wrote: IOW, you are saying that because our ancestors thought the idea was absurd, we ought to go ahead? What such an argument would say is that we historically had numerous women capable of being rabbis and even so no one even considered making any of them one. The OU's section on mesorah should explain why such attitudes have precedential authority. But again, none of this reflects on what I myself was arguing : (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an : arguement, that it be consistent. So if you are claiming that the reason : women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from : being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including : that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot. you cant : have it both ways). I argued the opposite causality. Lo sosuru mikol asher YORUKHA refers to dayanim. So, someone who is excluded from becoming a dayan can't be the subject of the pasuq, and their decisions don't fall under the halakhos generated by this pasuq. Their decisions are not hora'ah, in the pasuq's sense. (YOu had me saying: Can't give hora'ah implies can't be dayan. I am really saying: Can't be dayan implies can't give hora'ah.) : Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.' Please read the : article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier. He makes it very : clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that : external 'modern values' are an important part of that. Modern values are : neither positive nor negative... Not because they're modern, no. But obviously some are positive, some negative. We can judge them. Mesorah and its values are logically prior to modern values. Numerous halakhos are unegalitarian. Even if egalitarianism is a good idea for benei noach, as a perspective it is inconsistent with that the Torah expects of Jews. : You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'. It isn't : about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers : to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion. As : R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice... The motive I attributed, really echoed back from what I heard in prior iterations, is not that anyone is about making halakhah more egalitarian, but a desire to make halakhah fit a more egalitarian reality. So I don't know what you're rebutting. I argued that some realities reflect values that must be resisted rather than accomodated. We can talk about the end of inequality in the workplace as a good thing, but can we talk about reducing the differences in avodas Hashem, differences that can't be eliminated because halakhah demands they're there, as a good thing? Good point here to address RSSimon's post. On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 09:35:14AM -0400, Sholom Simon wrote: : But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight : halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's : education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent : this", no? To avoid making this a false dichotomy, you have to define halakhah broadly, to include the obligation to live according to the values and general guidelines of aggadita -- mitzvos like qedoshim tihyu, vehalakhta bidrakhav, ve'asisa hayashar vehatov (a/k/a Chovos haLvavos or Hil' Yesodei haTorah and Hil' Dei'os). I think this is what the OU is trying to get to with the concept of "Mesorah". But if I may be frank, they are handicapped in their ability to discuss the aggadic by too many of them seeing the world with Brisker eyes. Back to R/Dr Stadlan... In addition to the question needing to be asked about the Torah's evaluation of a modern value before we simply adopt it (rather than tolerate, limit the scope, or entirely reject).... Second, I do not think justice is served by telling women to find their religious meaning in a headlong rush toward a glass ceiling. I think it's more just to teach them how to find meaning in ways that aren't dead-ended for them. More equal, if less egalitarian. ... : Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women. : The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large : or as small as possible?... That decision should be made by starting with "why does halakhah have those differences"? And what do our aggadic sources say? As I said above, we judge whether to adopt, tolerate or resist new values based on TSBP. : The OU paper brought up tzniut. I do not think that the MO community : thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a : violation of tzniut... Tzenius isn't about clothes. I don't agree with their argument, but don't fight strawmen. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 13:55:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:55:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a > woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken > that way I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:21:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 23:21:05 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RMB writes: >I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" >in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather than knowledge of abstract ideas. No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these were not "textual" sources - how would you translate ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? better though, to keep the flow and that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? >However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult to understand them as having been written by the same person. Indeed the Birchei Yosef, who seems to have only seen the first one inside, and seen the second one referred to in other sources, particularly the Beis Yosef,( who himself seems to have had the second on but possibly not the first) challenges the quotations from the second teshuva on the basis of the first, and seems to suggest (in the politest possible way) that the Beis Yosef got it wrong, because they just do not match. I do not know any real way to reconcile these two, and can only note that the two compilations of teshuvos were compiled by different students of the Maharil . : And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in : Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous : generations: :> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their :> upright fathers. >Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk, it is about actively teaching (albeit oral). Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting up of schools), but it is a strange pasuk to use if he was talking purely about mimeticism. >Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at all the experiential aspect. When the gemora cites a ma'aseh rav, is this *not* TSBP because it would seem to be mimetic? >I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an example to imitate. The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two types of TSBP. And the other alternative would seem to be to write this kind of teaching out of TSBP. But is not a lot of TSBP, even though by no means all of it, this kind of teaching. Is not the gemora etc filled with this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. : So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what : the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women : to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al " peh... >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting. But the Rambam doesn't say either - "but with regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she ba'al peh taught in a formal educational setting, but that not taught in a formal education setting is fine". And note of course that one cannot just observe Mum taking challa, one also needs to be told about the correct shiur. It is highly unlikely that anybody would necessarily conclude, by watching week after week, exactly what the correct shiur for taking chala and the bracha is by mere observation. That has to be communicated as a form of rule. Ok a situational rule, - taught in context, but the tradition would be lost in a generation if it was left for every generation to guess the correct shiur by watching closely enough week after week. >-Micha Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:53:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:53:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we have now is historically completely wrong. From "b'inyan semichat chachamim' published in Or Hamizrach: 'At this time when semicha is batel, all the mishpatim from the Torah are battel..based on lifneihem- and not lifnei hedyotot. And nowadays we are all hedyotot. And the only way it works is that we act as shlichim of Mosaic beit din' So everyone is a hedyot. More to the point in section five there is a detailed examination of semicha included what was required in various areas. 'The Chatam Sofer writes...that this semicha of morenu and chaver has NO BASIS IN SHAS but is a ashkenazi minhag and does not contain anything real'. 'They issue of semicha that they estabkished(tiknu), according to the Rivash, because it is forbidden for a student, even one who is hegiah l'hora'ah, to give hora'a or to establish a yeshiva(note that this obviously is not hora'ah)while his teacher is alive....therefore they had the PRACTICE of semicha...that he is no longer a student but can teach others(the word is l'lamed, not hora'ah)' There is a lot more. But it is quite clear in the sources brought in this article that the historical record clearly shows No connection between Mosaic semicha and what was begun in the Middle Ages. Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:53:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 22:53:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> References: , <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> Message-ID: <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 7, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > >> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: >> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way > > I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this Not really. They basically say either that there are other tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why.specific citations available upon request Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:07:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:07:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> References: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> <0110A2E2-2A83-496C-9554-0152033E6C9A@sibson.com> Message-ID: On 07/06/17 18:53, Rich, Joel wrote: >> I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that >> this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this > Not really. They basically say either that there are other > tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it > would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why. That's what I thought too. I was surprised to read RNS not only insisting otherwise but deducing an entire shita from this supposed fact. In practise I doubt it was ever meant to be implemented kipshuto, because even on its own terms it applies only when all else is equal, and it rarely is. But it seems to me that when all else *is* equal, i.e. when we have no other information so all else is zero, and we are free to set our own priorities without fearing negative consequences (that too constitutes additional information which makes all else not equal), then the halacha must still apply. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 15:51:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:51:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Better to die In-Reply-To: References: <20170426203823.GG1082@aishdas.org> <20170428011323.GA2155@aishdas.org> <20170430165745.GC19139@aishdas.org> <20170605183720.GB3500@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170607225122.GA14289@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 05:48:13PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : > Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because : > there is no actual issur la'avor. : : I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on : pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where : there's an issur involved? Red shoelaces? : The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that : yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below. No, it could be preservational and still deOraisa. Like my example of a ben soreier umoreh, who Chazal say dies al sheim ha'asid -- we're also preventing the continuing deteriation in a downward spiral. This "downward spiral" was what I was calling Hil' Dei'os. Hirhurim and hana'ah -- devarim sheleiv in general -- aren't even punishable altogether, how could they allow a court to decide yeihareig? Most dinei nefashos don't even qualify. : Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context : of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must : be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as : issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does. And qiddush hasheim could involve avoiding something that is not assur either. (Agian: red shoelaces.) That too is death to preserve an attitude. I am just saying that your desire to make this yeihareig ve'al ya'avor is putting an overly formal halachic box. Whether or not something is a qiddush hasheim or otherwise worth dying for is not necessarily reducible to a Brisker chalos-sheim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:17:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:17:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we : have now is historically completely wrong... And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah? The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up to imitate the other with no continuity between them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 16:58:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> Message-ID: The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way, and that saying that modern semicha was set up to imitate ancient semicha(to such an extent that the same prohibitions apply) is a distortion of history and Halachic history. Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources. The Rama makes more sense when read in the context of the quotes that I provided from the Chatam Sofer et al. The Rambam, could well be discussing ancient semicha in the sources you describe........ On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun > 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote: > : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we > : have now is historically completely wrong... > > And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based > on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical > study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah? > > The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up > to imitate the other with no continuity between them. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 7 23:40:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 09:40:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> References: <94839dbe-18fb-ebf8-641c-86b3d74802f9@sero.name> Message-ID: <5938F16E.9010705@biu.ac.il> the topic is addressed in this article: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0048-0068.pdf ?A MAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER from Tradition in 2014 Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > >> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a >> woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken >> that way > > > I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this > is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? > What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument > is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the > question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O? > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 06:14:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:14:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check Message-ID: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> [RJR poses these questions at the start of his Audio Roundup column on Torah Musings . I prodded him to share them here as well, as questions work better in an actual discussion venue. But I didn't think he would do so without plugging his column! So, here's my plug: Worth reading, and if you have one -- pointing subscribing to on your news agreegator / RSS reader. -micha] A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled the commandment to wear tfillin. In fact, many pasul tfillin were pasul from the start (e.g., missing a letter). The Rav later reported that a listener heard the shiur and had his tfillin checked and found such a psul, even though he had bought the tfillin from a reputable sofer and had them checked earlier by another reputable sofer. The Rav was pleased with this result. Two questions: 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status) appropriate? 2) As a societal issue, how should current rabbinic leadership view the tradeoff of now requiring (suggesting) frequent checks? We will have some who will have the listener's result. OTOH, we will also have those whose tfillin will more likely become pasul due to uncurling the klaf and the increased costs of checking. BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan checking be appropriate? Kt Joel rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 06:15:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:15:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Parenthesis Message-ID: <1c9fcdd2c38f43e7af59d24ffe246c8b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> [See my plug of RJR's column in the previous post. His question about a distraught new widow and negi'ah as well... And that's just the column's *padding*! Extra credit if you answer the question about parenthesis while "vayehi binsoa'" and its upside-down nuns is still in parashas hashavua. -micha] 1. In the Shulchan Aruch -- who is the author of the statements in parenthesis in the Rama like print that don't start with Hagah? 2. In Rashi (or Tosfot), who decided to put certain words in parenthesis and why? (e.g., differing manuscripts, logic, etc.) Kt Joel rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 04:31:58 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 07:31:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . I would like to start a new thread to discuss exactly what we mean by "redemption". I will begin by quoting most of R' Micha Berger's recent post from the thread "Elimelech's land": > ... it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to > all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that > strikes me as a progression): > > - the go'el hadam > - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's > not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz) > - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25) > - and of people (ibid v 48) > - the end of galus > > To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even > something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on > its nachalah. > > But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more > to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first -- > "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of > redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why > there are different words in lh"q. Several years ago I tried working on this as part of my preparations for Pesach. The first obstacle I encountered was (as RMB mentioned in the last line here) that there are so many interchangeable synonyms. The first two that came to my mind are "geulah" and "pidyon", such as in Yirmiyahu 31:10: > Ki fadah Hashem es Yaakov, > Ug'alo miyad chazak mimenu. I agree that a good starting point, as suggested by RMB, is "restoration". This carries over to English as well, and I could cite several pieces of literature whose theme is "the chance to redeem myself," where someone suffered a significant loss of status (justified or not) and is trying to correct that loss, and restore himself to his prior status. This is very much what Naomi was trying to accomplish. But I'm not so sure how relevant it was to Mitzrayim, where the problem was not merely social status, but physical danger. And that brings more synonyms into the mix: yeshuah and hatzalah. A useful tool for distinguishing synonyms is when they occur near each other in the same context. I brought an example of pidyon and geulah above from Yirmiyahu, and here is a case of hatzalah and geulah: Shemos 6:6-7: "V'hotzaysi... V'hitzalti... V'gaalti... V'lakachti..." On this, Rav SR Hirsch explains: "Whereas hitzil is deliverance from a threatening danger, gaal is deliverance from a destruction which has already occured." In Shemos 8:19, RSRH seems to say that "padah" refers to redemption when "anything has fallen into the power of someone else, to bring it out of that power." I suppose that relates to kedushah (Pidyon Haben, Maaser Sheni, etc) because the redeemed object is no longer encumbered by the halachos that applied before. On the other hand, Vayikra 25:24-54 teaches about using money to redeem land, or a house, or an eved. In those pesukim, the word "redeem" appears as some form of geulah 17 times, but as pidyon not even once. How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? Looking forward to your thoughts Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 04:49:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:49:29 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:57:06 -0500 From: Noam Stadlan via Avodah > R. Isaac Balbin wrote about women having women gather and men having men > gather. Which is all the more reason to have female rabbis. So that women > can gather around women rabbis. I'm sorry this does not compute halachically or logically. The men don't gather around the Rabbi either, and I have never seen a problem when the Rav who has been directing everything requests women on one side and men on the other. > certainly it is not an argument against > women rabbis. It was a comment that even in a place where the Yetzer Horah is least likely to have an influence, we are asked to be separate from each other. > And unless you are making a claim(which I think some like > the Ger Chassidim do, but Modern Orthodox certainly dont) that a modestly > dressed woman or man, acting in a modest way, is a problem from a sexual > immorality point of view, the last paragraph about separation at funerals > does not apply either. Ger does not make that their focus. They have Gedorim for their own wives even if dressed Tzniusdikly etc One doesn't have to be modern orthodox to encounter women in the workplace either. It would be good if there were more women asking shaylos period. For Nida shaylos there have always been ways to treat a matter discretely. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 07:30:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of > any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even > punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of > the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? Yes, it's what the victim's blood needs and deserves, and the victim is unable to provide it for himself, so as the closest relative it's his duty to provide it for him. The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. Ya`akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because Kel Nekamos Hashem. We are commanded to love our fellow Yidden so much that we forgive them and *forgo* our natural and just desire for revenge, just as we would do of our own accord for someone we actually loved without being commanded. Even the neshama of a murder victim is expected to forgive his Jewish killer, and Navos was punished for not doing so. But we can't forgive on someone else's behalf, especially on our father's behalf, or assume he's such a tzadik that he must have forgiven his killer. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 09:13:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:13:39 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Psak of a Musmach Message-ID: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> The Maharat thread got me thinking about this, but it is a bit of a tangent, hence the new thread. It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don?t recall that it is mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 07:23:56 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 10:23:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170608164150.ETSG4024.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> At 09:43 AM 6/8/2017, via Avodah wrote: > >True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather >than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she >noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask >why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting. Surely, *some* of it is. Rn Ch L gave the example of a shiur, but there's an awful lot that goes on in the kitchen, and I would guess (I don't know, as I've never been a mother or a daughter) that the mother would be almost negligent if she didn't actually explain some various rules. (I'm using a slotted spoon here, but in cases x, y, z, I can't use a slotted spoon; or: when I do this it's not considered borer because x, y, z; or: if I want to return the pot to the blech, I have to have in mind x,y,a; or: this is how you make tea, and this is how you make coffee, and this is why I can't melt the ice in a cup, and this is why you can defrost the orange juice, etc etc etc). I have a teacher who told me that any women who is doing a competent job in the kitchen has to have learned TSBP. -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:28:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:28:47 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> Message-ID: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 08/06/17 07:31, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: >> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of >> any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even >> punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of >> the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? > > The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like. Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:45:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 14:45:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <3c673353-b5e9-d704-9cb0-52aff2f213c7@sero.name> On 08/06/17 14:28, Daniel Israel wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not >> Jewish. > An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. > Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos > chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an issur on doing so againstyour own people, because you are commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in itself does not come from any Jewish source. > That doesn?t mean onesh is bad, consequences are bad, or the like. > Going back to RAM?s original question: who says the go?el hadam > should be only thinking of revenge. Perhaps he should try to rise > above his anger and act only for kinnos ha?emes. He's not go'el ha'emes, he's go'el hadam. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 13:43:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 20:43:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? ------------------------- The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an extension of the beit din. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 11:40:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 18:40:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Psak of a Musmach In-Reply-To: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> References: <135D9B0A-3ADA-423B-AA73-33AEB820812A@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <70d0ce58d48443a8a6b7fb558f001745@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From: Daniel Israel via Avodah Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 12:14 PM > It seems common knowledge that if one relies on a psak from a musmach, > then he (the Rav) is responsible for any errors, whereas when relying > on the halachic guidance of a non-musmach, the listener is on his or > her own. Where does this idea come from altogether? It is certainly not > obvious to me that it should be the case, and I don't recall that it is > mentioned in the classical sources regarding smicha. Good starting point is first Mishna in horiyot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 14:01:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Daniel Israel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:01:33 -0600 Subject: [Avodah] maharat In-Reply-To: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> References: <20170607221022.GB14744@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2D819FCB-5A0D-497C-8E21-EE99A6A9069A@kolberamah.org> A few points that have been swirling around my head reading through this thread. 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? Let?s concede, for sake of argument, that there are halachically permissible ways for a woman to do much of what communal rabbis actually do in practice. Not everything that is mutar is advisable. I don?t see why we should be embarrassed that community policy is being set by Torah principles which are not purely halachic. And while we are all entitled to our own opinions, community policy must be set by gedolei Torah of a certain stature. I don?t believe any of the Rabbaim who are supporting these ventures, with all due respect to their legitimate scholarship and accomplishments, are among the select few who a significant portion of the Torah world look to for answers to these kinds of questions. They were never among those who set gedarim for the community before they become involved in this issue, and so it should be no surprise that their taking the initiative on this issue is widely not accepted. 2. As far as hora?ah, we are discussing it like there is a clear line: halacha p?sukah and hora?ah. (And some comments make a third distinction, between what a local Rav can pasken, and what requires phone call.) But every case requires some amount of shikul hada?as. Sometimes it is so trivial we don?t notice it (?is this specific package of meat marked ?bacon,' treif??). But there are lots of questions we essentially MUST pasken for ourselves. Things like, ?is my headache painful enough to justify taking asprin on Shabbos??. OTOH, most of the questions we ask a Rav (?is this spoon okay??) aren?t really about shikul hadaas, they are more about his knowing all the relevant sugyos. I.e., they are topics that we could (should?) learn enough to answer for ourselves. Note also that any responsible Rav is continually evaluating which questions he feels capable of answering on his own. Just to be clear, I?m not saying there is no distinction to be made. Given that hora?ah lifnei Rabo is assur, clearly there is such a category. But what it is is not so clear cut. Also, I?m not pointing this out to support Rabbanus for women (although one could formulate such an argument), rather to suggest that hora?ah is not this place this needs to be argued out. 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher.? I think this is a good model. First, I would note that there are definitely still circles which strongly disagree with aspects of the chassidic approach. What has changed is that no one is seriously concerned that it will degenerate into widespread k?firah. (Keep in mind there was precedent. Chassidus arose soon after exactly that happened with regard to the Sabbateans.) That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, much as happened with the Conservative movement. Fifty years from now, if that happens, the question will be answered. If it doesn?t happen, then those who are still opposed may be willing to make their peace with it as part of Orthodoxy, even they don?t themselves hold that way. Given this long term view, perhaps the vehement opposition is an important part of the processes (as it may well have been with regard to chassidus). 4. Related to the prior point, RnIE (I think) suggested that this is less of a big deal in E?Y. And RSS posted a link to an article by Dr. Rachel Levmore that concludes with a list of reasons the situation may be different in E?Y and the US. For myself, WADR to those involved, who I am sure really feel they are acting l?sheim shemayim, I share RMB?s concern that they are aiming at a glass ceiling (extremely well put!). And, consequently, I suspect that there will eventually be a schism with at least some of that camp transforming into a neo-Conservative movement. After reading the above mentioned article by DrRL, perhaps another reason for the difference is that in E?Y these developments are fundamentally a response to a need. That is, there are specific issues having nothing to do with female clergy which are creating a need, and in some natural way it has come out that the best solution is the creation of these new roles for women. Whereas, in the US, the driver seems to be a conviction that there should be some form of female clergy, in and of itself. Which leads to a concern I?ve long had about many issues where people point to historical halachic change to justify contemporary changes. Perhaps certain changes are okay if they happen on their own, but we really shouldn?t be pushing for them to happen. ? Daniel Israel dmi1 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 14:25:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 17:25:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: <82FCD525-48D5-45C5-B074-654D58265E23@gmail.com> <20170607231706.GB14289@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170608212546.GB25737@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 06:58:57PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam : Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way... But you neither explain 1- If it is a "distortion of history and Halachic : history" to claim that current yoreh-yoreh is an imitation of the elements of true Mosaic semichah that are still meaningful, how and why the Rambam, Tosafos and the Mahariq the Rama quotes lehalakhah all derive laws of yoreh-yoreh from Mosaic semichah for dayanus? Nor 2- How the CS's claim -- citation would be helpful -- that today's semichah is "merely" an Ashkenazi minhag means that this minhag was not set up to certify who is standing in the shadow of the true Mosaic musmach? Don't we need something explicit from the CS before we can just assume he would not deduce the rules of the minhag from the rules of true semichah. After all, you're setting him up against the precedent of doing just that (in Q #1). See the AhS YD 242:29-30. He explains that contemporary "semichah" is to announce to the nation that (1) he is higi'ah lehora'ah, and (2) his hora'ah is by permission of the ordaining rabbi. (He also requires a community to have a rav ha'ir, and others need the RhI's reshus to pasqen in his town as well.) This is much like what you said the CS says, as well as the Rivash. And the Rivash, which appears from your quote is the CS's source, talks about hora'ah -- just as the AhS does. In any case, I am looking for the Tzitz Eliezer's discussion of Sepharadim and their not accepting the notion of contemporary "semichah". Because IIRC, his discussion about semichah, not higi'ah lehora'ah. Recall, AISI the real question isn't the nature of a semichah, but how can be higi'ah lehora'ah. Semichah is only a good belwether, because it's not meaningful to say yoreh-yoreh to someone who can't give hora'ah with or without that permission. And it's semichah the CS dismisses as minhag; the extra gate can be minhag without changing who is allowed to enter. The discussion of semichah doesn't touch on who can give hora'ah, it is just out one precondition before actually doing so. : Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of : the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the : Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources... I don't know what you mean. Does the Rambam derive halakhah from dayanim musmachim with Mosaic semichah to today's morei hora'ah or not? Does Tosafos? Do they not take it for granted that the laws are consistent between the two, without which those derivations would not work? What exactly is your other understanding? (To reword Q #1.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 19:36:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:36:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat Message-ID: I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will bow out. A few details: I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look up the underlying sources to be sure. The article is in Or HaMizrach 44 a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski(I hope the transliteration does him justice). There are other sources on the the Halachic/ historical aspects of semicha including one by R. Breuer in the journal Tziyon. and many others. I do not have time to find and read them all, but I think the point is clear in the article cited above. In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may explain my difficulty in finding it. I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot both of which are not applicable(or have not been applied) to modern semicha. So it is a stretch to state that this Rambam implies anything about current Hora'ah or semichah. I have not found any specific statements that a woman is not qualified to reach the state of 'hegiah l'hora'ah', and certainly not in the modern(non-Mosaic) context. I am not arguing that some of the sources cant be read to come to this conclusion, but it seems to be a novel halachic statement(similar to the OU rabbis making a new halachic category of "stuff that a shul rabbi does") and the only characteristic is that women are forbidden from it. I suggest that if someone on the left had made a similar claim, they would be accused of pretzeling the Halacha to support a pre-existing mahalach. I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable understanding of the Halacha. And perhaps even that those who oppose are the ones who are trying to find arguments when a fair reading of the sources indicate that there really is none specifically applicable to the issue at hand. Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical Ethics on the topic of triage. thanks Noam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 8 20:55:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 05:55:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Cherlow's Post Message-ID: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> https://www.facebook.com/RabbiCherlow/posts/1442987509096046 In response to a question regarding a psak that supposedly allows women to recite Sheva Brachot and an accusation that certain rabbis are distorting the halacha because of feminism, Rav Cherlow wrote a response. I am summarizing a few points. Full text is in the link above.. Introduction: Your words are a perfect example of how someone can break the Torah's most serious commandments and yet act as if he is a yirei shamayim. 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah. 2) Never mock rabbis (or anyone) because you disagree with their opinions. Mocking people publicly is one of the most serious aveirot. 3) Never use a nickname for others, in this case "Dati Light". 4) Always be careful about generalizing. 5) Never accuse someone of being guilty of what you assume to be their hidden motivations. You don't know and accusing someone violates "M'devar sheker tirchaq". More importantly, you're assuming that you're a tzaddiq and don't have an agenda. 6) Never use a group name to mock someone. The Torah world owes feminism a great debt for things its done (Talmud Torah for women, leading the fight against sexual harassment, etc) along with strong criticism for other things done in its name. 7) Always try and live according to Halacha as it is written. Don't have other gods, like opposition to chiddushim. 8) Bring halachic arguments to halachic discussions. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 02:15:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:15:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: On 6/8/2017 9:28 PM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: > On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah > > wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish. > > An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. > Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos > chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. > Where is there any issur on taking revenge? Against fellow Jews, yes, of course. But generally? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 04:21:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:21:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Cherlow's Post In-Reply-To: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> References: <3d2008a6-8e44-4f15-f8a6-1988b05186c3@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <9f3eaf48-0c03-fc88-cc90-e84a27b77ea9@sero.name> On 08/06/17 23:55, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in > Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to > do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you > guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah. And yet in this case the newspaper seems to have got it right, and R Cherlow's correspondent simply hadn't bothered to read it before fulminating. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:06:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:06:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption Message-ID: Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it. Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time before they went into exile was simply waiting time? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 07:32:23 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 17:32:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern > day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? Who says it was? > What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin > (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah > tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work > to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It > doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it. Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite. But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. I don't think their much more lengthy exile was a punishment. I think it was simply necessary. Had they rejoined us, by which I mean all of them, and not just those who Jeremiah brought back, and we had been exiled as a single nation, things would have been different. But viewing themselves as a separate nation from us, how would you envision things having worked in the ancient world? I don't think it would have been significantly different from what happened with us and the Samaritans. In fact, the Samaritans called themselves Israelites; not Samaritans. (That's the root of the mistake in the Christian "good Samaritan" story, btw.) > Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time > before they went into exile was simply waiting time? Not at all. Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 07:50:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:50:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 09/06/17 11:06, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern > day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? Assuming that it was, and that Yirmiyahu didn't bring them back. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:20:09 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:20:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <019f7de8-108b-d533-3e11-4556470c1c43@sero.name> On 08/06/17 22:36, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: > I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is > that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the > time of the Gemara. I think that is obvious, and it didn't occur to me that this could be what R Micha was referring to. I thought there must be some other Rambam, perhaps a teshuvah, where he discusses "modern" semicha to whatever extent such a thing even existed in his day and place. BTW I have seen it suggested that the original semicha was kept alive at the yeshivah in Damascus (they would cross into the borders of EY to confer it) until it was destroyed in the 2nd Crusade, which, if true, would mean there may still have been living musmachim in the Rambam's day. > Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. > That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar > statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical > Ethics on the topic of triage. But that article doesn't support the claim you made, that there exist poskim -- and in fact that it is the unanimous position of MO poskim -- that this halacha is no longer operative. The article cites sources relevant to the entire topic of triage, in all circumstances, including the mishneh and gemara in Horiyos, and I didn't see any suggestion that they are less authoritative or applicable today than they ever were. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:00:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1af6febd-3d16-f901-472d-92f0a5cd66e7@sero.name> Another idea: To expect a redeemer from the House of David one must first subject oneself to that House. Those who reject its sovereignty can't (by definition) expect one of its members to save them, so on being exiled they would naturally assume that this would be their new home and these their new neighbors, with whom they must assimilate. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 11:08:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 05:32:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: :> Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any :> modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? : Who says it was? First, I think we concluded among ourselves that the 10 lost tribes are really 9+1 lost tribes, with Shim'on, living in Malkhus Yisrael, being a separate case. With, perhaps, it's own spiritual malais. They lived amongst sheivet Yehudah; is it likely their culture was more like Yisrael than their own neighbors? With that tangent out of the way... It's a machloqes tannaim in Sanhedrin 10:3 (110b), no? "The 10 shevatim are not destined to return, 'Vayashlikheim el eretz achares kayom hazah' (Devarim 29) [derashah elided]... divrei R' Aqiva. "R' Eliezer omer: [his own derashah] ... even as the 10 shevatim went through the darkening, so too it will grow light for them. The gemara's discussion focuses on the previous part of the mishnah's machloqs -- their olam haba. But Rebbe says they do have olam haba and seems to be implying that the kaparah is total -- so they will return to EY. The Sifra (Bechuqosai 8:1) has R' Aqiva saying they won't return, but based on (Vayiqra 26:38), "vavadtem bagoyim..." And it has R' Meir as the one disagreeing with R' Aqiva. In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman, we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim. Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. R' Chaim Brisker uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. Which R' Aharon Lichtenstein uses as a snif not to support giving them Israeli citizenship in "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity." :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 08:19:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:19:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema Message-ID: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in the famous midrash about Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry halacha guide demands that they be sourced? Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 09:39:54 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:39:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170609163954.GA24832@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:36:08PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will : bow out. A shame, as we went in circles on one issue and didn't touch the others. Including my assertion that the Chinuch (142) speaks "ishah chokhmah hare'uyah lelhoros" and "assur lo leshanos letalmidav" -- whether someone who has the skills to give hora'ah shouldn't be teaching when drunk. No mention of hora'ah, but ra'ui lehora'ah and teaching. Because, he explains, their teaching will be accepted by those who look up to them, as if it were hora'ah. Similarly the Chida (Birkei Yoseif, CM se'if 7:12) rules out ordaning women, following the example of Devorah. People can voluntarily listen to Devorah (or, it would seem, to a yo'etzes), but she cannot be appointed a rabbi nor ordained as one because her opinion could not be imposed. Picture the town hiring a rabbi that any chazan can say, "Well, I don't follow him" and therefore can break from the shul's norm, or even "I don't follow him on this one." But more to the point, following the Chinukh (who is cited), he says "deDevorah haysah melamedes lahem dinim." R' Baqshi Doron mentions this problem in his letter, which RGS has scanned at http://www.torahmusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Rav-Bakshi-Doron-on-Women-Rabbis.pdf#page=2 REBD concludes that because of this, women should not be tested or given semichah, as that would be an appointment rather than voluntary acceptance of a particular teaching. And, while the Chida (and thus REBD) says "ishah chokhmah yekholah lehoros hora'ah", he is defining this as teaching law, not interpresting law -- nidon didan. Which is consistent with the Chinukh the Chida is building on. Nor did we get to my non black-letter-halakhah concerns. Including my concern that the whole project reflects a misrepresentation of Judaism's demands by thinking that anything that can fit the black letter of the law is in compliance with the Torah. That there is none of the more nebulous side of the law; an obligation to pursue a given value system and ethic. The fact that "Mesorah" is dismissed as political rather than a real Torah issue is to my mind a blunder; and your disinterest in discussing this aspect actually hightened those concerns. Nor the question of telling women that they are correct to seek value in a manner that has a glass cieling for them. Nor the question of whether a woman belongs in shul service, or whether it was designed to be a Men's Club. And if not designed, whether its function as a Men's Club is too useful to be sacrificed. As one example, but not the whole problem: Will male attendance lessen if we lose that character; will Tue, Wed and Fri (workdays with no leining) Shacharis attendance among O men go the way of Shabbat attendance among their C counterparts? But on, the topic we did discuss... : I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing : certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look : up the underlying sources to be sure. The article is in Or HaMizrach 44 : a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski... But having a reference in the CS itself would have been more ... : In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of : the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may : explain my difficulty in finding it. It's the Rama who says 113. (It's either that the copy in OhC is idiosyncratic, or, the OU copied a typo in the Rama and didn't check. I know that's what I did.) : I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he : is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the : Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz : Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot ... Limnos ledavarim yechidim is not always to be a dayan. One can get reshus lehoros be'issur veheter or lir'os kesamim but not ladun. It's the same process as geting reshus ladun or ladun dinei kenasos, or... Do you think "lir'os kesamim" was ever limited to dayanim? The fact that the Rambam treats reshus lit'os kesamim and reshus ladun as one topic that's the whole point! (And that addresses Zev's recent post, which I approved while this one was sitting around mid-edit.) Now that you found the Mahariq that the Rama se'if 6 says he bases himself on, I would have like to have heard if you disagree that he too is treating the rules for yoreh-yoreh and the rules for Mosaiq semichah as one topic. And Tosafos? : I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the : discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very : least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of : women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable : understanding of the Halacha... I haven't heard a complete defense, but I didn't see at all a positive case for. After all, the burden of proof is on the innovator. We didn't touch the whole conversation of proving that the innovation is positive enough *in Torah values* to justify settling for just what could be read as a not 'beyond the pale' understanding. On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 03:01:33PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote: : 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? ... : 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My : example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were : huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are : today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher." ... : That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two : camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that : this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically : okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice, : much as happened with the Conservative movement... My own concern is (as Avodah long-timers should expect) more meta. Why is the only quesiton that of black-letter halakhah? Why the ignoring of -- what do I call it, "gray-letter halakhah"? -- laws that don't codify cleanly, that require a feel for what seems in line with the Torah, that which RHS calls "Mesorah"? (Although "mesorah" has become an ill-defined concept, including both Torah-culture values and mimetic practice. For that matter, I find that R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's use of "mimeticism" also blurs both, as both are transmitted culturally.) To me, that's a critical meta-innovation that warrants asking if we're still all playing by (evolving our practice with) the same rules. I am not worried about a slippery slope to C. To my mind, that's worrying about when the problem, if there is one, becomes symptomatic. To me the question is whether procedurally, the process R/D NS is defending is already unlike the rest of O IN A DEFINITIONAL WAY. After all, once you define MO to include an openness to modern values, following the Torah becomes just using the halakhah as a test -- can this new idea fit black-letter law or do we have to do without? But also our test itself changes. Deciding which shitah to follow depends in part on our priorities, and in LWMO, those modern values also define the priorities. As R/Dr Stadlan put it: : ... I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very : least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of : women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable : understanding of the Halacha... Thinking something is okay to do as long as one can find understandings of shitos that can combine to show the idea is plausible and not "beyond the pale" is to my mind itself beyond the pale. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 12:07:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:07:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> On 09/06/17 11:19, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in the famous midrash about > Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem > Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a > source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry > halacha guide demands that they be sourced? > > Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice? I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. When we say the Rambam doesn't give his sources, we mean that he doesn't tell us where in the gemara he derives the halachos. He doesn't expect his audience to be familiar with the gemara, and he's not interested in convincing those who are, or in defending himself to them. But he always gives the pasuk where a mitzvah or halacha is stated, or tells us that it comes "mipi hashmuah", or was instituted by chazal or by the geonim. When he gives a psak which doesn't come directly from the gemara he says "ken horu hage'onim", "ken horu rabosai", or "ken nir'a li". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 12:51:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:51:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> On 09/06/17 14:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman, > we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim. Only if he's from the countries where they were taken. > Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his > day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact; the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. As for the men's descendants by nochriyos, according to the first lashon Shmuel derived from the pasuk that they're nochrim, and according to the second lashon it's a halacha pesukah ("lo zazu misham"). But according to either lashon the problem of the women was solved. Also, there's no "by his day". Either the problem was solved within one generation, or it was never solved at all. Not by his day. By at latest the 2nd BHMK. Either Yirmiyahu brought them back, so they're not there any more, or the first generation had no children so they died out then and there, or the Sanhedrin decreed them to be goyim. > R' Chaim Brisker Where is this R Chaim? > uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not > halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. On what basis? Unlike the ten tribes' descendants, these children exist. How can they not be Jewish? Even if you want to say the second lashon applies to both the men and women, and it means they lost their Jewish status, this was not a gezera, it was derived from a pasuk, that Hashem took away their Jewish status, so in the absence of any pasuk about other people how can it be extended? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:03:01 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:03:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >In Yevamos... : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. : : Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke; he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...") : the : women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there : never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. That's Ravina. Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu". Which is inconsistent with Ravina. Whom I forgot about entirely. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 11:31:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:31:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check In-Reply-To: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 01:14:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is : needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without : knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled : the commandment to wear tfillin... : Two questions: : 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha : by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status) : appropriate? We're discussed variants of this question before. Usually WRT whether a person in the same situation buit with their mezuzah will get less shemirah. My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was really cheilev. And if that is true of cheilev and timtum haleiv, why not the protection of mezuzah or the effects of wearing tefillin? But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely, are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome. And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... If someone is doing everything they're supposed to, and we're not talking about the teva necessary to allow for human planning, then why wouldn't Hashem just give a person as per their deeds. Why have a whole metaphysical causality if it doesn't aid bechirah, nor Din, nor Rachamim? .... : BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has : changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan : checking be appropriate? I take this as evidence of the "Litvisher" answer. If it were really a problem, why wouldn't halakhah reflect a greater need to check? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:33:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:33:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> Message-ID: <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 12:15:04PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos : >chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad. : Where is there any issur on taking revenge? Against fellow Jews, : yes, of course. But generally? "Revenge is bad" is not the same as "revenge is assur". The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim. In which case, he would hold that only lo siqom would hold for them, whereas only lo sitor would apply to a yisra'el chotei. But Shabbos is coming, so I can't check about "chaveirim". But in any case, the notion that hene'elavim ve'inam olevim shome'im cherpasam ve'einam mashivim, aleihem hakasuv omeir, "ve'ohavav ketzeir hashemesh bigvuraso" (Shabbos 88b) has nothing to do with who the counterparty is. Not a chiyuv or issur in and of itself. But the person who doesn't take offense nor act on taking offense is among "ohavav". Similarly, the Rambam (ibid) talks about lo siqom in terms of "ma'avir al midosav al kol divrei ha'olam", not just offenses by chaveirim. This appears to be included in his "dei'ah ra'ah hi ad me'od". :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:26:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tfillin check In-Reply-To: <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> References: <4e959cea435c434289e636dac1abfd52@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20170609183108.GC24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <781fc94e-241d-e738-5060-522eeeb4f325@sero.name> On 09/06/17 14:31, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When > something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell > the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about > the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was > really cheilev. But if it's nisbarer afterwards that it really was chelev the kelim need to be kashered. Ditto if it's nisbarer after someone toveled that the mikveh was pasul all the taharos he touched since then are retroactively tamei. In fact if a mikveh is found to have been pasul all the taharos touched by all the people who used it since it was last known to be kosher are retroactively tamei. > But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely, > are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk > to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the > case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome. That's not a mystical position, it's a plain rational Litvisher position on risk assessment. > And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... Now *there's* mysticism! To a Litvak that shouldn't be a consideration. The din is the din, and it's not up to us to justify it. But IIRC you never deal with the explicit gemara about mikvaos. A gemara that explicitly distinguishes the case of kohanim who were found to be pesulim from *every other case* in the Torah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:40:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:40:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <5540c318-4ee2-67ef-a502-fc0b8b13f0b1@sero.name> <20170609200301.GA30411@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <81e3d31e-aa58-5f1a-fefb-bdc0297298a2@sero.name> On 09/06/17 16:03, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : >In Yevamos... > : >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his > : >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. > : > : Actively sought and found?! He simply gave a historical fact > > "Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke; > he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the > issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...") No, he wasn't. Lo zazu misham has no connection to finding a solution to any problem, and there's no indication that "they" were even thinking of this problem. It's simply a statement that it was agreed upon by all that the pasuk makes the ten tribes (or at least their men) nochrim. No connection to any practical problem. > : the women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there > : never were any descendants. Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this. > > That's Ravina. No, it isn't. It's Shmuel himself, answering why the womens' descendants are not a problem -- they didn't have any. Ravina is the one who says the halacha we all know, that the child of a nochri and a Yisre'elis is a Yisrael. > Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu". > Which is inconsistent with Ravina. It's irrelevant to Ravina, because in this lashon he isn't citing the general halacha about the child of a Yisrael and a nochris being a nochri, but instead says those children (of the men with nochriyos) were ruled to be nochrim from the pasuk. The women's children still aren't a problem, because there weren't any. But even if you say that according to the second lashon Shmuel didn't say the women were sterile, and he meant the pasuk to apply to both the men and the women, still it's specifically about them, not meshumadim in general. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 13:51:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:51:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: > The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any > Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different objects. > I believe the Rambam holds that an observant ben Noach, or maybe only > those who are Geirei Toshav are chaveirim. I don't believe so. The only non-Jewish "chaverim" I can think of are the sect that ruled in Persia in the Amoraim's times -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 9 15:36:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 18:36:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not > Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, > but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min > ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world. Me'am Lo'ez (R' Aryeh Kaplan's The Torah Anthology, pg 293) explains: "You must realize that your brother is suffering very much because he has no place to go. If his soul comes to heaven, it will be all alone, since no one else is here. If it comes down to earth, it feels great anguish when it sees its body's blood spilled on rocks and stones." > Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source? > And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because > Kel Nekamos Hashem. I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples, but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than "yikom". In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean it's appropriate for us. RZS continues in another post: > But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an > issur on doing so against your own people, because you are > commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want > revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in > itself does not come from any Jewish source. Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 14:07:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:07:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> Message-ID: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other places. I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? This one stands out. On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and > sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the > previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons > for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third > parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha > four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 14:16:10 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:16:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' AM wrote: 'Please note the Aruch Hashulchan YD 383:2, who writes "yesh le'esor" regarding chibuk v'nishuk when either spouse is in aveilus. And he cites Koheles 3:5 - "There is a time for hugging, and a time to keep distant from hugging." I would be surprised to find that the halacha forbids this comfort from a spouse, and prefers that one get this "needed" comfort from someone else.' Halachos of contact between husband and wife are more strict than with strangers, vis all the harchakos during nidda which are unique to a spouse, due to the familiarity of pas b'salo. So I wouldn't be as surprised. Although just to return my theme for a moment, If I'm right then the act is one of outright mitzva, probably including kiddush hashem. If I'm wrong, then the act is one of aveira lishma. Now I realise that we don't hold with aveira lishma these days, but when the overall cheshbon is as stated, I think I'd be willing to chance it. Especially when you add the possibility, as R'MB mentioned, that if you don't do it you're a chasid shoteh. Because then the cheshbon becomes tzadik or chasid shoteh for not doing it vs big mitzva or aveira lishma for doing it. Given that in any given circumstance we wouldn't be able to be clear about which of these would apply, I think the worst of those four options is probably the chasid shoteh. If this was on Areivim I'd sign off with :) Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 19:04:29 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:04:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170611020429.GA20848@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: : >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any : >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. : : Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase : with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei : amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different : objects. See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. Gut Voch! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 20:45:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:45:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <720f24ed-7e17-74ae-afc7-3e7d2a0f3a7b@sero.name> On 10/06/17 17:07, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/9/2017 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons and >> sources, and this chapter is a perfect example. He's spent the >> previous three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons >> for the selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third >> parsha at night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha >> four he adds the final detail, and its reason and source. > Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites the > Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than in other > places. > > I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he > often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or "pashat > haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a Midrash? > This one stands out. He has to give the source, explain why we do this, and he uses as few words as he needs to. He says mesorah hi beyadeinu; what else could he say? How could he express that any more concisely? BTW he cites medrash all the time; that's where halachos come from, after all. But here he doesn't mention any medrash, just this mesorah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 22:39:06 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 07:39:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Who says it was? As was stated in other posts on this thread, it is a machloqet in the Gemara if they will or won't come back. That more or less proves my point - their return, if it happens will be something completely different than what happened with the rest of the tribes. Even if we take the claims of various people claiming to be descendants seriously, they still have to convert. Their return will be tipot-tipot, individuals, that have to be re-integrated and not whole groups. > > Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of > assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where > they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite. But > even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . . Not at all. > Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were people from the > northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards that were first > posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two separate exilic > populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous in very many ways. That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our exile to have ended successfully? The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, it doesn't speak well of our history. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 23:54:49 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 09:54:49 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03c78b43-410c-30ec-c2bf-33691b72f348@starways.net> On 6/10/2017 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > > R' Zev Sero wrote: > >> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because >> Kel Nekamos Hashem. > I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. > Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is > intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. You're mistaken about the Hebrew. Yikom is not "uphold". That would be yakim. Yikom has a dagesh in the quf because of the dropped nun. There is literally no question whatsoever that Hashem yikom damo means may God avenge his blood. > It is not my nature to make such comments without offering examples, > but this phrase is not an easy one to find. So instead I tried an > experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh > apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem > mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 > hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both > numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than > "yikom". Yinkom is a mistake. Just like the future of nosei'a is yisa and the future of nofel is yipol, the future of nokem is yikom. > In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean > it's appropriate for us. Consider Bamidbar 31. In the second verse, Hashem tells Moshe: Nekom nikmat bnei Yisrael me-ha-Midyanim. Take the vengeance of Israel against the Midianites. In the next verse, Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael latet nikmat Hashem b'Midyan. To take the vengeance of Hashem against the Midianites. Moshe isn't arguing with Hashem here. When we take vengeance upon our enemies, it *is* Hashem's vengeance. I recommend that you watch the video of Rabbi David Bar Hayim debating Jonathan Rosenblum at the Israel Center back in 1991 (I think). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYefNy1D0DY They both bring sources for their arguments on the subject, and rather than repeat all of them here, have a look. > RZS continues in another post: > >> But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an >> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are >> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want >> revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in >> itself does not come from any Jewish source. > Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo > sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) It doesn't just say lo tikom v'lo titor. It says lo tikom v'lo titor *et bnei amecha*. Do not take vengeance or hold a grudge *against* your own people. Detaching the first part of that from its object is unjustifiable. It would be like taking lo tochal chametz, dropping the object, and saying that we're forbidden to eat. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 02:02:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:02:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. > Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is > intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. > "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will avenge". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 20:40:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:40:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68dacd1f-f6c7-8792-daad-b5b21531f3bc@sero.name> On 09/06/17 18:36, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not >> Jewish. The Xian despises Shylock for demanding his revenge, >> but we believe otherwise. "Kol d'mei achicha tzo`akim elai min >> ha'adamah". For what are they shouting? For revenge. > Where do you get this from? I always understood the screaming to be in > pain, in mourning for oneself, sorrow to be gone from the world. Interesting, I'd never heard that. But in that case why "eilai"? That implies wanting something from Me. >> Ya'akov Avinu woke up from death to enjoy his revenge on Eisav. > I don't remember hearing this before. Got a source? Yismach Tzadik ki chaza nakam, pe`amav yirchatz bedam harasha. When Chushim knocked Esav's head off, his eyes fell onto Yaakov's feet and Yaakov sat up and smiled. >> And every time we mention a murdered person we say HYD, because >> Kel Nekamos Hashem. > I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" > actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is > often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. Yikkom does *not* mean uphold, it means avenge. There's no such word as "yinkom"; the nun disappears into the kuf and becomes a dagesh. Perhaps you are thinking of yakim. > experiment: I switched to my Hebrew keyboard, and tried Google: Heh > apostrophe [blank] yud nun kuf vav mem-sofit [blank] dalet mem > mem-sofit. Hashem yinkom damam got 9960 hits. Without the nun, 45,300 > hits. Quite a difference! When I changed "damam" to "damo", both > numbers went down by about half, with "yinkom" still far fewer than > "yikom". For a non-existent word that's pretty good. I'm relieved that it doesn't outnumber the correct word :-) > In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean > it's appropriate for us. It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not something to be ashamed of. >> But there is no issur on taking revenge. There is only an >> issur on doing so against your own people, because you are >> commanded to love them like yourself, and you wouldn't want >> revenge against yourself. But the objection to revenge in >> itself does not come from any Jewish source. > Seriously??? How do you understand the first part of "Lo sikom v'lo > sitor"? (Vayikra 19:18) Es benei amecha. [Email #2. -micha] On 10/06/17 22:04, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:51:22PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >: On 09/06/17 16:33, Micha Berger wrote: >: >The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any >: >Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase >: with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different >: objects. > See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. > This doesn't answer the question. Lo sikom has the same subject as lo sitor. It's not even the identical object, it's literally the *same* object. So how can we pry them apart? Beside which, if netira is forbidden against a Jewish non-chaver, then how is nekama against him even possible? Netira would seem to be a necessary prerequisite for nekama (which is why the pasuk lists them as lo zu af zu). [Email #3 -mi] On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" > (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will > avenge". Is yinkom even a valid form? AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that have it in Av Harachamim are in error. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 09:11:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:11:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <83aef0cf-edbb-3ac8-3727-cc086f348ffa@sero.name> References: <83aef0cf-edbb-3ac8-3727-cc086f348ffa@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > >> >> "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom" >> (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will >> avenge". >> > > Is yinkom even a valid form? AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that > have it in Av Harachamim are in error. > > It's irregular, but I would hesitate to say it's a mistake: there are a few exceptions to the rule that the initial nun assimilates, e.g. yintor in Yirmiahu 3:5; yinkofu in Yeshayahu 29:1; or tintz'reni in Tehillim 140:2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 11:29:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <2f8fdb3a-11ac-11d2-eea8-d064a7265bda@sero.name> References: <2f77756f-85d2-0233-202f-c514f65d5fb7@sero.name> <223DEFCD-DBD7-4633-A7D1-2005C23D96E2@kolberamah.org> <20170609203345.GA7147@aishdas.org> <20170611020429.GA20848@aishdas.org> <2f8fdb3a-11ac-11d2-eea8-d064a7265bda@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170611182926.GA20138@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:56:06PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase : >: with the same object? The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei : >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different : >: objects. : : >See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag. : > : : This doesn't answer the question... But you didn't ask the question. You asserted that what I said was "not true". Since the Maharshal and Avodas haMelekh said it, and I don't know of a dissenting interpreter of the Rambam, I would assume it is indeed true. This was a bit of a hasty judgement on your part. But you said a great question, and worth exploring. Doesn't change that the Rambam apparently does hold what I said he did: > The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any > Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 12:32:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 22:32:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> References: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 6/11/2017 8:39 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of >> assimilation. The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point >> where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were >> Israelite. But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . >> . Not at all. Jehu could have reunited the kingdom. And there were >> people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards >> that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed. But having two >> separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been >> disastrous in very many ways. > That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our > exile to have ended successfully? Why harsh? Causes have effects. > The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of > (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them > (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal > with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this > feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, > it doesn't speak well of our history. Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind. And we don't gloat over their downfall. Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, which they were. And what kind of attempts would you have wanted? Jeremiah brought some of them back. I'm sure others joined us in Bavel after we were exiled. But their exile was their own doing. Though it affected us as well. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 16:18:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:18:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: References: <79af7420-bc3d-50e0-323a-6d5b663e7a66@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170611231815.GA29585@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:32:22PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind. And we don't gloat over : their downfall. Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, : which they were. (Quibbling about the orogin of the word "Jews" and whether or not Malkhus Yisrael and their descendents qualify aside. We all know we mean "Benei Yisrael", right?) Actually, one of the topics raised was whether the descendents of Malkhus Yisrael exist, bdyond the refugees absorbed into Malkhus Yehudah. And if they do, R Chaim Brisker takes the gemara as concluding the descendents are not part of the community of Beris Sinai. Yes, but in either case, as we cited numerous source showing in the past, "binfol" is not only about the fall of fellow Jews... Which I then collected into a blog post : The most common reason we pass around [for spilling wine at the mention of the makkos at the seder], however, is that we're diminishing our joy out of compassion for the suffering of other human beings, even the Egyptians. This reason is relatively new, but it is found in such authoritative locations as the hagaddah of R' SZ Aurbach and appears as a "yeish lomar" (it could be said) in that of R Elyashiv (pg 106, "dam va'eish").... ... The Pesiqta deRav Kahane (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a) gives us a different reason [for chatzi hallel (CH) during the latter days of Pesach]. It tells the story of the angels singing/reciting poetry at the crossing of the Red Sea... ... This is midrash is quoted by the Midrash Harninu and the Yalqut Shim'oni (the Perishah points you to Parashas Emor, remez 566). The Midrash Harninu or the Shibolei haLeqet ... The Beis Yoseif (O"Ch 490:4, "Kol") cited the gemara, then quotes the Shibolei haLeqet as a second reason... Sources from RAZZivitofsky (same blog post): The Taz gives this diminution of joy as the reason for CH on the 7th day (OC 490:3), as does the Chavos Ya'ir (225). The Kaf haChaim (O"Ch 685:29) brings down the Yafeh haLeiv (3:3) use this midrash to establish the idea that we mourn the downfall of our enemy in order to explain why there is no berakhah on Parashas Zakhor (remembering the requirement to destroy Amaleiq). Amaleiq! R' Aharon Kotler (Mishnas R' Aharon vol III pg 3) ... Then I listed others' suddestions here: ... R' Jacob Farkas found the Meshekh Chokhmah ... R' Dov Kay points us to the Netziv's intro to HaEimeq Davar... (Since we're going from Maharat was to ethics wars, might as well play the game to its fullest...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 11 16:27:25 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:27:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170611232725.GB29585@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 06:36:45PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD" : actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is : often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood. : Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is : intended, when only the rashei taivos appear. : Hashem yiqqom damam does indeed refer to revenge. : In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean : it's appropriate for us. Keil neqamos H'. (A little obvious this discussion didn't span a Wed yet.) But the whole point, to my mind, for sayibng HYD is a longing to see Divine Justice in the world. HYD undoes the chilul hasheim of the wicked prospering. Hinasei shofit ha'atzetz... Ad masair recha'im ya'alozu... If we were to take neqamah (qua neqamah; pre-empting a repeat attack is a different thing) we rob most of the possibility of that happening. Even the Six Day War gave people the opportunity to say it was luck or human skill -- "Kol haKavod laTzahal" Implied in HYD is that revenge is G-d's, not ours, to take. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 19:49:17 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 22:49:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: . When I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong. I was wrong, and I thank all the chevreh who pointed out my error. "Yikom" does mean to avenge. Thank you all. But the main question is our attitude towards revenge in general. R' Zev Sero wrote: > It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not > something to be ashamed of. He seems to feel that there's nothing wrong with wanting to take revenge in general, except that we're not allowed to do it if the object of the revenge is a fellow Jew. I suppose he might compare vengeance to eating meat: right and proper in general, but sometimes forbidden. (Pork in the case of meat, and Jews in the case of revenge.) Exactly *why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew? RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct source. But either way... I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be in the "Ribis" category. There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a non-Jew.) Setting Nekama aside for a moment, does anyone know of a source which goes through the various Bein Adam L'chaveiros, and categorizes them in that manner? (I can easily imagine that most people would avoid publishing such a list, to avoid supplying the anti-Semites with ammunition, but I figured I'd ask.) Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 20:07:35 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 20:07:35 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists Message-ID: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into hashem's business. And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the future even though they were right. One surmises he would not have been surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land... Sent from my iPhone From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 12 22:57:21 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:57:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Maharat In-Reply-To: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> References: <20170606181805.GB16913@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <9b2f0d53-8794-4b0d-43b7-3bb0ee4d6e3c@zahav.net.il> On 6/6/2017 8:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW. > > Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'" > (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL > Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not! However one defines the Chareidi opposition to Zionism and Zionists, the former wrote book after book justifying it and explaining why Zionism is so awful and why it is so wrong to participate in the Zionist enterprise. It is still going on today. Back in the 20s, people used extremely strong language about Rav Kook, language which was much worse than anything used today, not to mention what the Satmar Rebbe wrote about RK. > There are two possible sources of division here. > > 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were > only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My > predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply > de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators, > and therefore in practice will be a separate community. Here I have a couple of questions. 1) Like my wife always tells me, if someone is triggered by something he has to ask himself why. I know people who would walk out of shul if a woman gave the dvar Torah on Friday night. Yet the same people are perfectly OK having a Rosh Hashana tefilla that incorporates a lot of Sefardi piyuttim. Completely different prayers, tunes, flavor. But in order to have an experience of "b'yachad" we do it. 2) What what exactly would change? Does one see more women in shuls that have a maharat? Do the maharats come to Tuesday afternoon Mincha? If they do they're behind the mechitza, yes? What changes are people talking about? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 03:09:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 06:09:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:49:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" : only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of : morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be : in the "Ribis" category. : : There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even : to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed : against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. : (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a : non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I : admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B : or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, : things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a : non-Jew.) IOW: (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited. (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition when you do them against your sibling. (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito neshekh vesarbit". As for neqamah, I argued from quotes like kol hama'avir al midosav and ne'elavim ve'eino olvin that it's in (B). I would add now that this is implied by the Rambam's inclusion of these two issurim (lo siqom velo sitor) in Hil' Dei'os p' 7 that he is considering the middah bad, not only the act wrong. Interesting to note, the Rambam puts them after LH. Also, I noted that the only commentaries on the Rambam that I could find that discuss his change in terminology between Dei'os 7:7 and 7:8 explain that he is prohibiting neqamah against all chaveirim but netirah "mei'echad meYisrael". Meaning you now need a B' and C' where the category is only observant Jews. (And I still have a nagging recollection that the Rambam's "chaveirim" in general includes geirei toshav and other observant Noachides.) And neqamah is in one of those. So, (B'). How you get such a distinction in two issurim that are written in the pasuq as verbs sharing the same object is a good one. But the Avodas haMelekh says that the Maharshal reaches the same conclusion in his commentary to the Semag, and I see the Semag uses the same difference in nouns. Lav #11 - "[Lo siqom.] Hanoqeim al chaveiro". #12 - "Kol hanoteir le'echad miYisrael". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 03:53:18 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:53:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> References: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> On 6/13/2017 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > IOW: > > (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited. > > (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition > when you do them against your sibling. > > (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family > nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito > neshekh vesarbit". I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews. Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 04:37:53 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal > judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C (Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 04:33:40 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:33:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> References: <20170613100942.GA25243@aishdas.org> <6ba4f212-6b89-0b03-db57-21a857e756bd@starways.net> Message-ID: <20170613113340.GA11269@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:53:18PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: ... : >(B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition : >when you do them against your sibling. ... : : I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an : outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly : doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against : non-Jews. Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal : judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. But there are things that are morally wrong and yet not prohibited. "Stretch goals" like the Rambam's take on ego and anger in Dei'os pereq 2, the Ramban's "hatov vehayashar". Here, the gemara talks about (1) a ma'avir al midosav, (2) taking insult and not responding, it even says (3) a tzadiq is one who never takes revenge -- which, if it were about neqamah when assur, would be heaping overly high praise on someone for just keeping the din. So, two or three times that I am aware of, the gemara talks positively of the middos that would avoid ever taking revenge. It seems neqamah in particular is a moral wrong even when the black-letter halakhah allows the act. The Torah does manage to relay to us goals beyond those it prohibit or demand in black-letter halakhah. (Something Chassidus and Mussar were each founded on...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 06:44:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:44:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] restaurants Message-ID: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From the OU: Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example, one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility. Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food. Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based? For example, in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in a treif restaurant, what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % threshold for concern? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 07:16:24 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 10:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6388500a-9329-9367-9de2-e75ed55d6022@sero.name> On 12/06/17 22:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Exactly*why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew? > RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that > "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct > source. But either way... It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. > There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even > to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed > against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh *re`ehu* basater". > (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a > non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I > admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B > or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category, > things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a > non-Jew.) Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 10 19:11:31 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:11:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shelach Message-ID: " We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." (Numbers 13:32-33). One of the greatest teachers of Torah of our age, Nechama Leibowitz, zt'l, in one of her essays on this parsha, asks an important question: how did the spies know what the "giants" thought of them? If they really were giant beings, then one could understand the feeling that "we seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes," but how did they know if the "giants" even noticed them? Unfortunately, although Nechama Leibowitz posed this great question, she didn't give any hint as to an answer. The following is a Midrash in which God rebukes the spies: "I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11). On the other hand, Rashi says that the spies reported overhearing the giants talking to one another, saying that "there are ants in the vineyard that resemble human beings.? (Rashi is also quoting an ancient midrash from the Talmud). Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities and an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties. Harry S Truman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 09:10:27 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:10:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/13/2017 2:37 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R"n Lisa Liel wrote: >> Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal >> judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah. > My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category > A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C > (Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)? I would have to say that, by definition, if it's permissible to speak LH against non-Jews, it isn't immoral. But of course there are numerous subcategories of LH, and it'd be interesting to see if all of them are mutar against non-Jews, and if so, why? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 10:49:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:49:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shelach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170613174946.GA24674@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 10:11:31PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The following is a Midrash in which God rebukes the spies: : "I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to : ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to : them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? : Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11). ... : Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear : not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies : but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon : His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, : and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). Good -- is the yeitzer hatov, *very* good -- is the yeitzer hara. But in any case, the spies are an imperfect example, because they had G-d's promise that this specific mission would succeed. We don't have such reason to be optimistic. Related: I wonder if the difference between Chassidic or the Alter of Novhardok's view of bitchon is related to history. The AoN said that sufficient bitachon generates success, to the extent that he felt that being a "baal bitachon is an objective reality provable by experience and he signed his name with a B"B without fear of it being bragging. The CI's view is that bitachon is not prognostic, but the attitude that everything is happening according to Hashem's plan. I may fail and suffer, ch"v, but knowing it is all for a purpose makes it easier to cope. The history that I think divides them -- the CI's Emunah uBitachon was written in the shadow of the Holocaust. (It was published in 1954, a year after the CI's passing.) Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:57:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:57:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists In-Reply-To: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> References: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> Or they were part of a self fulling prophecy. Instead of going in confident in themselves and in God's ways, they chose to second guess God. The Bnei Yisrael who had actually seen Yitziat Mitzrayim would have gone into Israel. Instead a weakened Bnei Yisrael went in and almost immediately got trapped in the lure of the local idol worship. Ben On 6/13/2017 5:07 AM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into hashem's business. And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the future even though they were right. One surmises he would not have been surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:53:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 22:53:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Support? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Does it make a difference that the woman in the hypothetical scenario is - unfortunately - no longer an eishet ish, and presumably at her stage of life also not a niddah? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 13:22:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:22:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. Can one enter a non-kosher establishment to buy a can of soda or use the bathroom? Message-ID: <1497385351309.31544@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. Can one enter a non-kosher establishment to buy a can of soda or use the bathroom? A. Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example, one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility. Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 18:09:04 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:09:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Meraglim and Zionists In-Reply-To: <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> References: <78BA2381-32D0-4A49-9E04-842121C1928A@gmail.com> <7189ac68-7e8c-502d-2f93-912c5540a702@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170614010904.GA6321@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:57:19PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Or they were part of a self fulling prophecy. Instead of going in : confident in themselves and in God's ways, they chose to second : guess God. The Bnei Yisrael who had actually seen Yitziat Mitzrayim : would have gone into Israel... Or not. After all, Hashem didn't pick that generation for a reason. Apparently they didn't just sin, but they sinned in a way that made working with them a bad idea. And even before that Vayehi beshalach Par'oh es ha'am velo nacham E-lokim derekh Eretz Pelishtim ki qarov hu, ki amar E-lokim, "Pen yinacheim ha'am bir'osam milchamah veshavu Mitzrayim" Remember, they were also stuck with a slave mentality. But I agree with your point, about the self-fulfilling prophecy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 18:33:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:33:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special > consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah > of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not > hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend > him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip > about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. I would think that killing and stealing are in this category too. But you would then point to the phrase "special consideration". In other words, there is a particular shiur of consideration. Some actions are below that shiur; they are so basic that they apply even to non-Jews. And other actions are above that shiur; it is "special" consideration that we extend to family, but not to outsiders. I would accept such a response, but it isn't very helpful. Exactly what is that shiur? Where do we put the line? I have always thought that *all* these things are basic menschlichkeit, and apply to everyone, Jewish or not. > Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? > The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh > *re`ehu* basater". That's just two pesukim. Sefer Chofetz Chayim brings a lot more than that - 31 if I remember correctly. Granted that one doesn't violate these particular mitzvos if the object of the Lashon Hara isn't Jewish. But the others aren't so simple. At the very least, you're gambling that the Lashon Hara will remain secret and not result in a Chilul Hashem. > Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. True. I have always thought of ribis in a class of its own, for the simple reason that the entire world considers it to be a generally acceptable business practice. This includes Chazal, who felt it important to find a way to structure certain business activities in ways that would skirt this issur. The point is that ribis is NOT inherently immoral. It *can* be abused and thereby *become* immoral. But if done properly, it is a neutral (or even benevolent) business tool. Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 21:17:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:17:28 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Anyone have access to HaRav Sh Goren's Terumas HaGoren? Message-ID: Anyone have access to HaRav Sh Goren's Terumas HaGoren? I am looking for 3 pages to be copied [pictured?] and sent to me - meirabi at gmail.com Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 13 21:02:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:02:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ac357ec-2fb0-c5c8-e187-ccbd26cd60f9@sero.name> On 13/06/17 21:33, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special >> consideration for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah >> of V'ahavta. Since you must love him, therefore you must not >> hold grudges against him, let alone take revenge, must lend >> him what he needs without charging interest, must not gossip >> about him, must not stand by while he's in danger, etc. > I would think that killing and stealing are in this category too. No, those are inherently wrong, no matter who is the victim. You don't need to love someone in order not to kill them, hit them, steal from them, damage their property, etc. They have the right not to have these things done to them, so you may not do so even if you actively hate them. They have the right to be treated with common decency. Or, in the lashon of libertarianism, non-aggression, i.e. not to have you initiate force or fraud against them. Whereas they have no right to any favors from you; you have no duty to lift a finger to help them or to give them anything. Doing favors for people is a gift which you naturally give only to those you love; the Torah therefore commands you to give it to those whom it wants you to love. > But > you would then point to the phrase "special consideration". In other > words, there is a particular shiur of consideration. Some actions are > below that shiur; they are so basic that they apply even to non-Jews. > And other actions are above that shiur; it is "special" consideration > that we extend to family, but not to outsiders. No, it's not a matter of degree but of kind. > I would accept such a response, but it isn't very helpful. Exactly > what is that shiur? Where do we put the line? I have always thought > that *all* these things are basic menschlichkeit, and apply to > everyone, Jewish or not. No, they are not. >> Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided? >> The pasuk says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh >> *re`ehu* basater". > That's just two pesukim. Sefer Chofetz Chayim brings a lot more than > that - 31 if I remember correctly. The hakama to CC is mussar, so he piles on pesukim, but it you look at them they all pretty much flow from a very few sources, all of which specify "re'echa" or "amecha", etc. > The point is that ribis is NOT > inherently immoral. It *can* be abused and thereby *become* immoral. > But if done properly, it is a neutral (or even benevolent) business > tool. So are all these other things. They're normal and natural behaviour between people who don't necessarily like each other, but one would never treat someone one genuinely loved like that, so the Torah tells us that we must not treat our fellow yisre'elim like that. [Email #2] Google produced this: http://www.havabooks.co.il/article_ID.asp?id=1046 -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 00:50:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 10:50:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption Message-ID: The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 241) explains the prohibition of lo sikom as follows (my rough translation): "A person should understand in his heart that everything that happens to him good or bad is caused by Hashem and between people there is nothing but the will of Hashem. Therefore when someone bothers or hurts you, you should know that your sins caused this and whatever happened is a gezera from Hashem. Therefore, you should not think about taking revenge because the other person is not the cause of your troubles, rather your sins are the cause. " Based on the Chinuch's explanation there should be no difference between taking revenge on a Jew or a Goy. In either case they are not the cause of your suffering they are just the instrument of Hashem and therefore there is no reason for revenge. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 06:44:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:44:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/06/17 03:50, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > The Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 241) explains the prohibition of lo sikom > as follows (my rough translation): > > "A person should understand in his heart that everything that happens to > him good or bad is caused by Hashem and between people there is nothing > but the will of Hashem. Therefore when someone bothers or hurts you, you > should know that your sins caused this and whatever happened is a gezera > from Hashem. Therefore, you should not think about taking revenge > because the other person is not the cause of your troubles, rather your > sins are the cause. " > > Based on the Chinuch's explanation there should be no difference between > taking revenge on a Jew or a Goy. In either case they are not the cause > of your suffering they are just the instrument of Hashem and therefore > there is no reason for revenge. That is the basis for Chazal's dictum that "Whoever gets angry [over *anything*] is as if he serves idols", but there is no actual mitzvah against anger. Obviously one who truly believes in and fully accepts what we on Avodah have dubbed "strong HP" has no need for either of these two mitzvos, because it will never occur to him to hold a grudge, let alone to take revenge; but one who *does* gets angry or upset at what a fellow Jew does to him, but doesn't hold a long-term grudge against him over it is not violating a mitzvah. One mitzvah is that even if you *do* feel upset you shouldn't hold it against the person who did it, and another mitzvah is that even if you do hold it against him you shouldn't punish him for it. Therefore despite the Chinuch's relating this mussar idea to these two mitzvos, it cannot be the actual reason. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 09:16:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Bradley via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:16:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Akiva Miller wrote: 'I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor" only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be in the "Ribis" category. There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara. (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a non-Jew, such as Ribis.' I think this categorisation may need refining. It assumes that the Torah doesn't want us to do unethical things to non Jews either by black letter law or by unlegislated preference. The problem with this is that the Torah assumes that non-Jews are ovdei Avoda Zara and some mitzvos are specifically intended to malign them as such. Take Lo Sechaneim - The gemara learns that we can't even praise a non Jew, never mind be kind in a more concrete way. Gerei Toshav don't have this prohibition but the pshat din of the Torah is that it applies to non-Jews stam. In other words the mitzvos of the Torah treat non-Jews as transgressors and so it's likely that at least some of thing the otherwise unethical things we are allowed to do to them are due to this status. So we need at least to distinguish between what is allowed to any non-Jew and what is prohibited to a Ger Toshav. For example Ribis is clearly allowed even to a Ger Toshav. It's not unethical per se, just prohibited to a family member viz a Jew. So we need possibly, categories of: A) forbidden to everyone B) Forbiden to Jews and Gerei Toshav but totally allowed to Ovdei Avoda Zara C) Technically allowed to non-Jews of whichever category but best avoided as a bad midda D) Forbidden to Jews but totally allowed to all non Jews Re nekama, I think, subject to correction, that it is only ever positive when by Hashem or on his behalf. The nekama on Midian is 'nikmas Hashem m'es HaMidianim'. We needed to be commanded in order to do it. Hashem is 'El nekamos Hashem' in Tehilim. If anyone has a source for it being a positive thing to take personal revenge then let's hear it. Not sure the agadeta of Yaakov waking and smiling fits that bill. Otherwise the Rambam's placing of nekama in De'os as a bad midda should tell us what we need to know about it. That would be consistent with nekama being forbidden against Gerei Toshav, although we haven't found a source for that (yet). Lisa Liel wrote: 'I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an outside ideology onto the Torah. Because the Torah certainly doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews. ' The Torah clearly allows things which it considers morally wrong - Shivya Nochris for example. And the gemara says that's assur to bring one's wife as a Soteh, yet it's a whole parsha in the Torah. And the Ramban's naval birshus haTorah. Seems to me the Torah sets a floor, not a ceiling, and prompts growth through the mitzvos. Isn't that the whole thrust of Hilchos De'os? Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 12:45:13 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:45:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish optimism [was: Shelach] Message-ID: <23c6ce.6a161a0e.4672ec49@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah ... : Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear : not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies : but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon : His completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, : and behold it was very good..." (Gen. 1:31). [--Cantor Wolberg] RMB wrote: >> ...But in any case, the spies are an imperfect example, because they had G-d's promise that this specific mission would succeed. We don't have such reason to be optimistic.... ....Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? << Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> I once heard a powerful and inspiring talk given by R' Joseph Friedenson a'h. He had survived a number of different concentration camps in hellish circumstances, and had lost all or most of his family. He said in his talk that the last time he ever saw his father, his father said, "I don't know if you and I will survive this war, but no matter what happens, remember this: Klal Yisrael will survive!" R' Friedenson said that he never saw his father again but he went through the war with an unshakeable optimism. That's what he called it, optimism. He underwent horrendous suffering, but nevertheless he had a firm conviction that the Nazis would ultimately fail. He always held onto his father's words, "Klal Yisrael will survive." --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 13:25:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:25:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shoah Message-ID: <842320B8-8657-4A22-98E8-76CAA22765DC@cox.net> R? Micha wrote in regard to the Shelach posting: Similarly, if someone wants to argue that the Torah wants us to be optimistic, don't we have to address what the Torah would tell a Jew living in Lodz in 1939? Along the same lines there was a fascinating book written many years ago by a legitimate, authentic, respected orthodox rabbi who wrote that someone who was not a victim in the holocaust has no right to say there is no God. Here is what was really an astonishing and somewhat shocking statement he made: if someone was actually in the Concentration Camp, this person has the right to deny God. I can see many raised eyebrows, but I would greatly appreciate someone remembering this book. Since it was rather revolutionary to be coming from a musmach who is respected by other orthodox rabbis. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 14 15:39:03 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:39:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: <20170614223903.GA14026@aishdas.org> In some, more Zionist, circles, the Satmar Rebbe's position that Israel is a maaseh satan is often left not understood. Many of the RZ camp have summarily dismissed it as overly polytheist for their liking. However, it is possible -- even if I or you do not find it plausible -- that Zionism was a challenge to the Jewish People. To see if after the Holocaust we would be so desperate for political relief that we would stop working toward true ge'ulah. As per the title of the SR's response to the mood after the Six Day War -- Al haGe'ulah ve'Al haTemurah (About the Ge'uilah and about the Replacement; perhaps "Decoy"). And, there is a particular mal'akh charged with posing spiritual challenges for us to grow through overcoming -- the satan. Thus, such a temurah would be a maaseh satan. Pretty conventional metaphysics, even for those who find the other religious positions bothersome. I mentioned this because of R' Gidon Rothstein's latest column in TM on the Ramban. "Ramban to Re'eh, Week Two: Avoiding False Prophets, Hearing From Hashem" http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/06/avoiding-false-prophets-hearing-hashem Along the way, RGR writes: It Might Actually Be From Hashem In the last verse in this passage, Moshe warns that this false prophet is a nisayon, a test, from Hashem. Ramban points out that back inBereshit, he had already dealt with the question of why Hashem "tests" us (doesn't Hashem know the future, and therefore know the outcome of the test? There are many answers, this is Ramban's). It's only a test from our perspective, he said. Hashem indeed knows the outcome, and is engaging in it to bring our potential into actuality (that implies that everyone always passes these tests, which works well for figures like Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov. It seems to me less convincing about the nisayon here, since the Jewish people have in fact occasionally followed such false prophets). Still, that's the less surprising part of this Ramban, since it is the face value of the verse, that the wonder did in fact come through the Will of Hashem, Hashem showed him this dream or vision to test our love of Hashem. Ramban doesn't say more, but I think he means--and this is the part that is more surprising and a bit challenging- that all people involved must realize that this is not what Hashem wants. I think he means the prophet him/herself was supposed to refrain from giving this prophecy (the other option is that Hashem was commanding and condemning this person to be a false prophet, to forfeit his/her life in doing so, and that someone we would put to death as a false prophet is actually a hero of Hashem's service. I find that unthinkable, unless the prophet said "I had this vision, but you clearly shouldn't listen to because we're not allowed to ever worship any power other than Hashem." But it's logically possible). The prophet aside, anyone who hears that prophecy, even if it's supported by uncannily accurate predictions, must both refuse to obey and react to this person as a false prophet. That is what true ahavat Hashem would lead us to do, a reminder that acting on our love of Hashem sometimes means doing that which under other circumstances should be distasteful. Putting someone to death for sharing his/her vision is not usually conduct we applaud. Here, it would still be upsetting, but necessary for those whose love of Hashem fills their beings. If the Ramban could say that there could be a navi sheqer who gets his message from Hashem for the sould purpose of challenging us, is it such a far stretch to the SR's anti-Zionism? IMHO, it's easier to understand Satmar or Munkacz anti-Zionism than Agudah's classical position of non-Zionism. The former agrees with the RZ that the Medinah is a huge event of vast import, but disagree about what the import is. The Agudist (at least classically, there were exceptions in the early years of the state, and things seem to be wearing down now) believe that Jews can regain sovereignty over EY for the first time in 2 millenia without it being religiously significant. (I am not talking about those of Neturei Karta who protest with the Palestinians and their supporters, or who visit Iranian gov't officials. They pose a whole different and perhaps even more fundamental set of problems. The SR's anti-Zionism included praying for Tzahal, as these were Jews led to danger through a horrible (in his opinion) error; an error that exists in part for the purpose of putting Jews in danger.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: RGR -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 18 10:59:19 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:59:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Korach Message-ID: <2943596C-CE9C-488B-B333-D25328C619BD@cox.net> 1) 16:1 "Vayikach Korach...." "And Korach, the son of Yitzhar, the son of Kehoth, the son of Levi took, and Dathan and Aviram, the sons of Eliav,etc.? The question is what did Korach take? The verb has no object. Resh Lakish said: "He took a bad 'taking' for himself" (Sanhedrin). Rashi said: "Korach...separated [lit.,took] himself. Korach placed himself at odds with the rest of the assembly to protest against Aaron's assumption of the priesthood." Ibn Ezra said it meant: "Korach took men..." 2) In the Ethics of the Fathers 5, 17 it states: "Every controversy that is pursued in a heavenly cause, is destined to be perpetuated; and that which is not pursued in a heavenly cause is not destined to be perpetuated. Which can be considered a controversy pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And that not pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Korach and his congregation." An analysis of this by Malbim explains in quite a compelling fashion why the Mishnah was not worded as we would have expected it to be: "A controversy pursued in a heavenly cause...that is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. That not pursued in a heavenly cause is the controversy of Korach and Moses." Instead it reads: "Korach and his congregation." As Malbim explains-- they would be quarreling amongst themselves, as each one strove to attain his selfish ambitions. The controversy therefore was rightly termed "between Korach and his congregation." They would ultimately fight among themselves. And the denouement would be their self-destruction. 3) "Korach quarreled with peace, and he who quarrels with peace quarrels with the Holy Name." (Zohar, Korach 176a [ed.,Soncino], Vol. V, p.238). The bottom line here is "Don't Mess with Hashem." In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves. Buddhal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 18 17:07:22 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 17:07:22 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: the aguda made a very practical decision-- to not make a halachic decision, but rather to seek support economically and non-military . the only halachic issue was to determine that the State's money is muttar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 01:17:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shalom Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:17:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shoah Message-ID: Cantor Wolberg's reference to the Orthodox Rabbi who wrote about who has the right to disbelieve after the Holocaust is most likely Eliezer Berkovits in his Faith After the Holocaust. Shalom Rabbi Shalom Z. Berger, Ed.D. The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education Bar-Ilan University http://www.lookstein.org https://www.facebook.com/groups/lookjed/ Follow me on Twitter: @szberger NETWORK*LEARN*GROW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 09:40:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:40:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Q. I am required to attend a business meeting at a non-kosher restaurant. How do I avoid the issue of maris ayin? Message-ID: <1497890418438.2614@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis. Q. I am required to attend a business meeting at a non-kosher restaurant. How do I avoid the issue of maris ayin? A. The general rule regarding maris ayin is that one can avoid the prohibition of maris ayin if there is a heker (sign) that indicates that the action is permitted. For example, Rama (YD 87:3) writes that one may not cook meat with almond milk, since this gives the impression that one is violating the prohibition of cooking milk and meat together. This would constitute maris ayin. However, this situation is permitted if one places almonds near the pot, since the almonds will alert a bystander that the milk comes from almonds and not from an animal. Therefore, if one must enter a non-kosher restaurant, one should do so in a manner that makes it clear that one is entering for business and not for pleasure. For example, one should enter carrying a briefcase or a stack of papers. Rav Schachter, shlita said that in such an instance it would be preferable to wear a cap instead of a yarmulke. Rav Schachter also said that once seated, one may order a drink -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 19 12:56:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:56:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur Message-ID: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> This is a comment on R Yaakov Jaffe's article at http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/2017/6/13/get-your-hashkafa-out-of-my-chumash Since the Lehrhaus doesn't take comments, I thought we could discuss it here. (CC-ing RYJ.) He writes: Lehrhaus Get Your Hashkafa Out of My Chumash! [R] Yaakov Jaffe ... It has become commonplace in Modern Orthodox circles to lament the lack of alignment between the beliefs of the movement and some of the editions, translations, and versions of ritual texts that members of the movement use. These critiques are often welcome, such as Deborah Klapper's[13] recent excellent essay about the Haggadah for Pesach, and tend to frame ArtScroll Publishers as the almost villain who has taken the ideologically open, natural, innocent, uncorrupted foundational texts of Judaism and colored them with an Ultra-Orthodox translation, skew, or commentary.... Okay, that's the general topic. Here's the point I wanted to discuss: For me, there is a more grave concern when Modern Orthodox Jews flock to a different ritual text because it aligns more purely with their own ideology, and that is that the ritual text ceases to be important for its own sake (as a Siddur, Humash, or Hagaddah), a vehicle for transmitting sacred texts and values through the generations, but instead becomes a mere bit player in a larger drama about movements and self-identification. ("I use this Siddur because in many ways it demonstrates that I am a proud Modern Orthodox Jew.") This carries the risk that readers will stop reading the text of the Humash or being taken by the poetry of the Siddur and instead become hyper-focused on ideological markers that appear in those ritual texts. And for reasons that we will demonstrate below, the subordination of prayer within the mind of the person at prayer, beneath the selection of outward identifiers of ideology undermines the very purpose and notion of prayer itself. In 1978, Rabbi Soloveitchik authored a[15] short essay entitled "Majesty and Humility" in Tradition, in which he poses a dichotomy critical for Jewish religious experience and prayer. He describes one pole as majestic humanity, striving for victory and sovereignty, as "Man sets himself up as king and tries to triumph over opposition and hostility." The other pole is humble humanity, full of "withdrawal and retreat," which appreciates the smallness of human beings in the scope of the cosmic order. In the essay, prayer is an example of man in the mood of humility, of withdrawal, who finds the Almighty not when humanity triumphs over the forces of nature, or in the scope of the galaxies, but when humanity recognizes its own limitations, and, as a result, causes that "God does descend from infinity to finitude, from boundlessness into the narrowness of the Sanctuary," or: All I could do was to pray. However, I could not pray in the hospital... the moment I returned home I would rush to my room, fall on my knees and pray fervently. God in those moments appeared not as the exalted majestic King, but rather as a humble, close friend. While at prayer, the individual is constantly focused on his or her own inadequacy compared to the Divine Creator and his or her own limitations. The individual cannot be engaged in the battles of denomination supremacy, as he or she is paralyzed by his or her own smallness while attempting to pray. Moreover, prayer is generally a uniquely unsuited vehicle for conveying specific, unique, or modern ideologies and beliefs. It focuses on requests and aspirations, not on statements of creed. The text of the Siddur also serves as a unifying tool for the Jewish people (given the enormous general similarity despite centuries of division and dispersal) and highlights what we have in common and not what we have apart. 13. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-haggadah-without-women-2/ 15. http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2017/No.%202/Majesty%20and%20Humility.pdf 16. http://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/?author=5886cfaabebafbcb2d43550f My problem is that tefillah is all about ideology, and the siddur runs from statement of creed to statement of creed -- Yigdal to Ani Maamin. (Not saying AM is mandatory, but it's there...) For example, RYBS's is one approach to prayer. It's different than that of Nefesh haChaim, where the focus of baqashos are what the world needs for G-d's sake, not our own needs for our sake. Curing the sick because His Presence is enhanced when people are healthy. Etc... It's different than RSRH's approach to berakhos, where they are declarations of personal commitment. So that we ask for health so that we can contribute to His Say in the world -- "berakhah" lashon ribui, after all. Etc... (I think I dug up 7 different theological resolutions to how to undertand "barukh Atah H'" given that ribui and HQBH don't mix.) This is taking a specific hashkafah's side in order to argue that tefillah shouldn't be taking a specific hashkafah's side. As for Tanakh... It is true that in one community, maximalist positions that magnify G-d's Greatness -- whether it's a description of qeri'as Yam Suf or Rivqa's age at meeting Yitzchaq -- have a near-exclusive currency. Saying that the sea simply split vehamayim lahem chimah miyminam umismolam is seen as the product if ignorance; of course it split into 13 tunnels, each providing all of our needs, ready to be grabbed out of the walls. Whereas the other prefers more rationalist positions, and in any case there is a broader array of Chazal's statements taken as possibly true. Or, does an MO Jew relate to a chumash in which the only topic of footnotes on the berakhos of Yissachar & Zevulun is their possible precedent for kollel life? (Despite there never having been an entire community where kollel was the norm until the past century.) In a community where wearing hexaplex (the snail formerly known as murex) dyed strings is a significant minority, isn't there more interest in sefunei temunei chol than in a community where it's unheard of? Then there is just different communities having different tastes in what kind of Torah thought they find more appealing / satisfying / moving. People who gravitate to the words of the Rav like the ideas in Mesores haRav for that reason. Just as Chabadnikim are more likely to find things to their taste in the Guttenstein Chumash than in the Stone Edition. Shouldn't, then, all these options exist? And is that any less true when thinking of how to relate to some complex poseq in Tehillim or a line composed by Anshei Keneses haGdolah (or the typical Ashkenazi paytan) to be a palimpsest of meanings? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 03:25:08 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:25:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: <> R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah poisition basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful but is against the wishes of G-d. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 06:19:46 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yaakov Jaffe via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:19:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Hi, Regarding the first point that "This is taking a specific hashkafah's side in order to argue that tefillah shouldn't be taking a specific hashkafah's side." I confess that I am guilty as charged. But one approach to tefilah (let's call it the one that resonates with me) is that it is purely a communication between the speaker and his or her Creator, and that consequently, it is not the time and place to be focused on proclaiming our ideologies. Obviously others may argue, and there are numerous siddur options for them. But we shouldn't pretend that this is the only approach to prayer, or that every Jew must use ideology in chosing a siddur. Regarding the second point, which I understand to be saying "each occasion of Torah study involves someone chosing an approach they prefer to understand the text, so they should chose a Chumash that furthers the approach that they prefer" I also tend to agree as well, but here my post focuses on the reductio ad absurdum problem of splitting hairs and hyper-focus on details hashkafa. I did not conduct a comprehensive study of the stone Chumash, but wonder whether the troubling explanations are ubiquitous, occasional, or somewhere in between. The problem with a "Modern" chumash, is that there are many "modern" explanations that could be equally troubling, depending on how modern the chumash and conservative the reader. Did Bilaam's donkey talk or was it a dream (Ramban versus Rambam)? If Artscroll said he spoke, and for example a new chumash says that he did not - then which one most accurately reflects my hashkafa? And if you imagine 100 different texts that can be each read multiple ways, how do we find the chumash that on all 100 provides the perfect match? Hope this makes sense, happy to continue the conversation further, Yaakov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 08:07:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:07:45 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Shmitta fund Message-ID: <2A3CAC10-A501-4AF5-A666-AB7B0D35E90C@gmail.com> http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2017/06/proposed-law-shmitta-fund.html?m=1. Is that the general psak, that heter mechira is no better than nothing? Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 15:02:30 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:02:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] restaurants In-Reply-To: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0ac6d90669f64ed784c95fb8b8ca7043@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170620220230.GB29839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:44:00PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From the OU: : Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher : restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would : be a violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness : the action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad : (giving the appearance of impropriety)... A question about that "and"... I agree with their parenthetic definition, but I will rephrase to show why I think it's rare-to-impossible for something to simultaneously be both mar'is ayin and cheshad. Mar'is ayin is where someone who sees the action will assume it's mutar, or at least informally "not so bad". Cheshad is where someone who sees the action is sure it's assur, and therefore think less of the person doing it. How many actions involve two conflicting default umdenos? So, being confused, I looked up the Igeros Moshe. The teshuvah is primarily about a frum minyan in a room in a non-O synagogue. The last paragraph begins "Ubedavar im mutar le'ekhol berestarant..." ("Restaurant" transliterated in Yiddish or hil' gittin style.) The line is "yeis le'esor mishum mar'is ayin vecheshad". But if someone is mitzta'er tuva, so that these gezeiros do not apply, they could eat betzin'ah something that has no actual kashrus problem. Does "ve-" here have to mean both? Or could it mean that between the two, it is assur in all circumstances? Like "lulav hagazul vehayaveish pasul" doesn't refer only to a lulav that is both stolen and dried out. Chazal's "ve-" is more complex than "and". (I am tempted to discuss de Morgan's laws and ve-, but I will just leave in this hint rather than detour into a class in symbolic logic.) If it does have to mean both mar'ish ayin and cheshad, can someone : Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based? I am not clear how they could NOT be. : For example, in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in : a treif restaurant, what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % : threshold for concern? In NYC, if you see two people, only one of which in O uniform, entering a restaurant, it's common to just assume this is a business meeting and accomodations were made. Restaurants in Manhattan routinely take delivery for a kosher meal when catering a group; it's a matter of the minimum size of the group they'll make such accomodation for. (I have been one of three, and got Abigails delivered double-sealed.) In such a climate, I don't think people would assume you're there to eat treif even if it's just two people meeting and no kosher could possibly be brought in from the outside. It's just a known thing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 16:11:32 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 19:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170620231132.GC29839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:33:00PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Ribis. Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei. : : True. I have always thought of ribis in a class of its own, for the : simple reason that the entire world considers it to be a generally : acceptable business practice... According to the Rambam, it's a mitzvas asei. The SA (YD 159:1) holds like the Tur, it's mutar de'oraisa, and usually prohibited derabbanan "shema yilmod mima'asav". Bikhdei chayav, tzurba derabbanan and if the profit is only defined derabbanan as ribbis are three exceptions. (Charging ribis from a mumar shekafar be'iqar is also mutar, because we are not obligated lehachayaso; but paying ribis to him is not.) The Levush says "shema yilmod mima'asev" doesn't apply in the current economy. Chazal assumed a primarily Jewish economy where we have a few exceptional deals with non-Jews. So for us, ribis is always mutar lemaaseh. I wonder whether this heter of the Levush would apply to Jews in Israel today. In any case, halakhah pesukah (assuming the reader isn't Teimani) doesn't mention any mitzvah asei. In terms of the taam being because their own economy is based on interest... Would you argue that it's wrong to lend a Muslim or an Amish person money with interest? (Even in the Levush's opinion?) Particularly in a Moslem country. where they have their own parallels to heter isqa , and the person's whole culture (I presume) reviles interest. So is it whether or not ribis is considered immoral by the person being charged, or whether or not kelapei Shemaya galya ribis is moral? I argued the latter, but your wording left me wanting to articulate the chiluq. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 13:49:51 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:49:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting Message-ID: What would you like the first thing that HKB"H says to you at 120 when you report to the beit din shel maaleh(heavenly study hall)? Kt Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 13:50:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:50:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban Message-ID: What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:53:48 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:53:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 11:21:05PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : > I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi : > haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources, : > like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah" : > in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather : > than knowledge of abstract ideas. : No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these : were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi : haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and : that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? "They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..." :> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. : These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult : to understand them as having been written by the same person... Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position. ... :: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in :: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21... ::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us ::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the ::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers ::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their ::> practice on their upright fathers. :> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. : Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the : pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] : and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk... But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write: : Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the : context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting : up of schools)... Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's derashah. I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with "chadash assur min haTorah".) :> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. : Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas : etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody : define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at : all the experiential aspect... Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect? :> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when :> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an :> example to imitate. : The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is : as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with : Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her : ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." : The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard : to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, : excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of : Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily : in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education. After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior? In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49. : And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they : could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward : etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two : types of TSBP... Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah. : Is not the gemora etc filled with : this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it occuring... So I am toally lost here. Maybe the "this" has been stretched further than I can follow. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 20 19:00:33 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:00:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Message-ID: The gematria for Rosh Chodesh is 813. In the whole of tanach there is only one verse with the gematria of 813. It is B?reishis, Chapter 1, verse 3. ?Vayomer Elohim ohr, vay?hi ohr? ?And God said: Let there be light and there was light.? Music is moonlight in the gloomy night of life. Jean Paul, Author From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:42:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:42:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170621234200.GF18168@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 09:19:46AM -0400, Yaakov Jaffe via Avodah wrote: : But one approach to tefilah (let's call it the one that resonates with me) : is that it is purely a communication between the speaker and his or her : Creator, and that consequently, it is not the time and place to be focused : on proclaiming our ideologies. Obviously others may argue, and there are : numerous siddur options for them. But we shouldn't pretend that this is : the only approach to prayer, or that every Jew must use ideology in chosing : a siddur. But if a person wants to approach tefilah as a pure communication, then shouldn't they pick a siddur whose ideology is that tefillah is a pure communication? Having a siddur of a given ideology is not necessarily about proclaiming that ideology. (But if you want to rail about the fact that too often this call for an MO siddur /is/ about proclomation, there is room to do so.) It is about having a siddur that aids the kind of prayer you want to do. Which is why I never understood why people assign value to having "their siddur". I have a collection, as I go from more cerebral to more experiential moods, and want different siddurim depending on where my head is just then. For example, the as-yet-unpublished RCA siddur has something in it about shelo asani that would say something that a Mod-O Jew is more likely to be concerned about saying than someone who is less engaged with the more egalitarian west would feel a need to say. ... : I did not conduct a comprehensive study of the stone Chumash, but wonder : whether the troubling explanations are ubiquitous, occasional, or somewhere : in between... In my experience, occasional. But the rationalists are under-represented, given the chareidi tendency toward more maximalist approaches. That's not troubling, but it's promoting one worldview and not allowing the other to reach the market-share it deserves. : or was it a dream (Ramban versus Rambam)? If Artscroll said he spoke, and : for example a new chumash says that he did not - then which one most : accurately reflects my hashkafa? ... My ideal chumash would present both, or if space requires, inform me that both possibilities are discussed without full presentation. If two hashkafic ideas are viable, why should I let an editor choose between them for me? But that's a different story. The problem the MO nay-sayers have with the absence of a vaiable alternative to ArtScroll is less that there is a specific problem with a comment. As I wrote, those are rare. But that without variety, without a survey that includes ideas current and popular outside the Agudist community, those ideas will cease being thought of as normative. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:20:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:20:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170621222015.GB18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:50:41PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? #1 Qedoshim Tihyu -- naval birshus haTorah #2 The end of Bo (although you didn't ask for a runner-up) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:28:50 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:28:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema In-Reply-To: <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> References: <4837c16a-f93d-5a79-8b86-822f057ba8cb@zahav.net.il> <9699473e-9b5c-45db-7de1-a54fe5d68d14@sero.name> <829a6922-20d7-b36d-d2bb-f44255c676a4@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20170621232850.GE18168@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:07:45PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : >I don't understand the question. The Rambam always gives reasons : >and sources, and this chapter is a perfect example... In the Bavli "Mai ta'ama?" is a request for a reason. In the Y-mi, it is a request for a pasuq as source. Reasons and sources are different things, and I think the difference helps clears up the question. : Yes, for a mitzva he cites part of the pasuk. Here he not only cites : the Midrash but quotes it at length, using much more verbiage than : in other places. Zev was saying that the Rambam usually opens or close with a reason, a ta'am hamitzvah. (And, as he explains in the Moreh, he only expects these to cover the generalities.) Usually, these are unsourced. But, kedarko, when he can paraphrase a source he does. Which is what he is doing here. : I have been doing my own Rambam Yomi and what I have seen is that he : often says something like "al pi shemoah" or "Moshe tikkein" or : "pashat haminhag" to explain why we do certain things. But quoting a : Midrash? This one stands out. This paragraph addresses the Rambam's not spending much time on sources, not about reasons. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 15:16:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:16:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170621221634.GA18168@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:49:51PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : What would you like the first thing that HKB"H says to you at 120 when : you report to the beit din shel maaleh(heavenly study hall)? (After introducing me to my daughter...) "I'm proud of you, son!" "I would help you get used to this, but techiyas hameisim will be underway..." "So THAT'S why I did that..." But according to Rava (Shabbos 31a) I should expect, "Nasata venatata be'emunah?" Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 21 16:24:02 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:24:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Redemption In-Reply-To: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <79a1c048aa924669bd40c403c605d5a1@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20170621232402.GD18168@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 08:43:42PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : > How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of : > any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even : > punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of : > the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption? : : The psukim are unclear as to the role and iirc many view the goel as an : extension of the beit din. Perhaps according to the Rambam (Rotzeiach 1:2), who says "mitzvah beyad go'el hadam..." and if the go'el doesn't want to or there is none, "BD memisin es harotzeiach besayif". Rashi al haTorah appears to hold that "ein lo dam" means the go'el is killing an already dead man, and therefore bears no guilt. Not a mitzvah, but a reshus. (But see below.) And if the go'el only has reshus, it's hard to say he is operating as beis din's appointee. Sanhedrin 45b says "mitzvah bego'el hadam", but if there is no go'el, BD appoints one. There is no sayif. BUT, Makos 2:7 has a machloqes: R Yosi haGelili says that if the killer is found outside the techum, it is a mitzvah on the go'el hadam and a reshus for everyone else to kill him. (According to the beraisa on 12a, if there is no go'el, there is reshus...) R' Aqiva disagrees, saying it's a reshus for the go'el and a non-punishable issur for anyone else. (According to the beraisa, they are chayav.) And here's the weird part -- despite what I quoted above from the Yad, the Rambam on the mishnah says halakhah is like R' Aqiva. Rashi on Makkos 12a says about Bamidbar 35:27 "ika leferushei lashon tzivui ve'ika leferushei lashon tzivui. In sum, I think RJR is understating it. It's not "only" the pesuqim that are unclear. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 01:29:00 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:29:00 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> I wrote: : No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these : were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi : haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and : that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"? And RMB replied: >"They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..." I like "the root principles and the general rules .." - thanks, that is better than my use of source - but I think "osmosis" is not quite right either. I don't think "osmosis" as we understand it would necessarily have been within the Maharil's conception, and that it is not a great translation for "al pi hakabala" - maybe "from tradition" - but osmosis isn't right. The girls in question probably learnt how to speak the local language by osmosis (even if eg Yiddish was spoken in the home), but you would not say that is "al pi hakabbala". There is a big difference. :> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. : These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult : to understand them as having been written by the same person... >Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be used to make the Majaril a source of a position. I don't think you can say that. First of all, the second one, ie the one from Maharil HaChadashos, made it into the Shulchan Aruch, - it is quoted by the Rema - and you can't just dismiss that. And the first one was in the possession of the Birchei Yosef, who is very influential in a whole host of ways in terms of psak. I think rather you have to treat them as two different rishonic teshuvot, and give them weight on that basis. It may well be that they were influenced by, or even possibly penned by, the student of the Maharil who collected them (hence my note that they came from two different collections) , and we may never know which one was really the Maharil's opinion and which one was in fact that of his student or some other rishon from around that time and attributed to the Maharil, but they are both rishonic source material, and I don't think we can ignore either of them. ... :: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in :: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21... ::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us ::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the ::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers ::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their ::> practice on their upright fathers. :> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion. : Yes and no. "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the : pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a] : and other rabbinic mitzvot. It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk... But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write: : Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the : context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting : up of schools)... >Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's derashah. Yes, but even in terms of pshat, it seems very difficult to come away from the idea of transmission of tradition from father to children when using this process. "Asking" is not about osmosis - it is about an attempt at formal learning, and answering in response to an ask is exactly the process of formal learning in pretty much all contexts (it is why we still have teachers even in Universities, and not just books). If you have system where you are supposed to "ask" and somebody else is supposed to then answer, you have formal education. This is a step up from where you are expected to learn by watching (but not asking) - but where at least sometimes the educational aspect is clear - eg, I want you to watch and see how I go to place X, so you can find it yourself next time, is a less formal process than asking, but it is still a form of education, which is a step up from osmosis, where nobody on either side necessarily realises that something is being learnt, it just seeps in (language is a classic case, or how about accent - kids pick up their accent from school by osmosis, it is not a conscious process, and maybe the parents would in fact prefer, and maybe even they would prefer, that they talk with the parent's accent, rather than that of their peers, but it doesn't happen that way, you send a kid to school, they start talking like the locals in their school). >I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with "chadash assur min haTorah".) Because the proof text resonates, it does even in the pshat. In the pshat it is clearly linked to "vshinantam l'vanecha" - ie is the flip side of it (which is why the extension into drash makes sense, just as v'shinantam l'vanecha is the basis of the command for Torah study, this is the basis of the need to listen to the master of Torah). And if you know the drash, even when you use it in the pshat form, you will get the resonance. "V'shinantam l'vanecha" is the pasuk from which the obligation for boys to learn is learnt (banecha v'lo banotecha) - with the emphasis then on the father's teaching - the formal school process came later, when the father's obligation was delegated to a school teacher. Ask you father (in the masculine) is similarly in the pshat about a boy's obligation to learn. Applying it to girls is an odd stretch in the first place. What you are saying is that the proof text when applied to girls suddenly doesn't mean what it means when applied to boys, in either pshat or drash, that to me seems odd. :> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :> rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one. : Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas : etc - but that is not the question. The question is, can or does anybody : define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at : all the experiential aspect... >Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect? Well the CC is explaining the Rambam. The Rambam says: ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????, ???? ??? ??????, ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????, ???"? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????, ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????, ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man, because she is not commanded and all who do a thing that they are not commanded to do, there reward is not like the reward of one who is commanded and does rather [their reward] is less than these, and even though she gains a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning, and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut. So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav (note that the Rambam himself in Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 Halacha 11 - says a man is required to divide his time into thirds, a third in Torah shebichtav, a third in Torah sheba?al peh, and a third in understanding and weighing - what he calls Gemora, so there he seems to have three categories, but the third requires a knowledge of the other two, and presumably cannot be taught). So, in terms of your question "does anybody force the CC to define the set of TSBP that was classically prohibited as being more than those formal rules and ideas and as including the experiential aspect" - it seems to me that the Rambam does. Ie given that the CC is explaining the Rambam, and the Rambam has only two categories of Torah, then either the experiential aspect is Torah shebichtav or it is not Torah at all. But saying that the experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase. I therefore think it very difficult to say that experiential teaching, especially when linked with the formality of "asking", as the CC does, can be defined as not Torah at all. So that leaves Torah shebichtav. I did try and say that was the Tur's point, what you are should not teach are the laws as written down, but to say that the experiential is Torah shebichtav seems to me a very difficult assertion. :> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when :> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an :> example to imitate. : The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is : as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with : Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her : ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." : The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard : to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas, : excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of : Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily : in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine". >I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education. >After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior? Yes he does, the minute he is "asked", or if he says "watch what I do" (similar to when I take my children somewhere to show them how to get there on their own, eg a new school, including pointing out the landmarks, that is most definitely active teaching, despite the fact that it is experiential, and not done from giving them a map and teaching them to map read). >In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49. And "look, let me show you how ..." is formal teaching, whether it is a maths problem or it is how to bake chala. And if that particular aspect of teaching falls within the definition of Torah, then one is teaching Torah, albeit informally. And the danger with understanding "lelameid" to only mean formal teaching, not informal teaching, is that you then write out of a father's obligation to a son an awful lot, as it is not within the mitzvah. You can't have it both ways, either when a father teaches a son informally (eg shows him how to put on tephillin, as that seems very difficult to learn from a book) he is teaching him Torah or he is not. Which is it? : And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they : could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward : etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two : types of TSBP... >Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah. So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect, showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn?t take the bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid? Isn't that the consequence of what you are saying? That the only Torah that men are obligated to learn as Talmud torah are the formal abstract rules and regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially? : Is not the gemora etc filled with : this kind of teaching? I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP. >The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it occuring... I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules. If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? -Micha Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 06:27:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:27:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> Message-ID: <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> On 22/06/17 04:29, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: >> The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or >> memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it >> occuring... > I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the > formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the > formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules. > > If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of > the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? Indeed, it's an explicit gemara: "*Torah* hi, velilmod ani tzarich". -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 22 09:32:47 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:32:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? In-Reply-To: <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> References: <004f01d2d018$ce6fc670$6b4f5350$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170606155550.GA16913@aishdas.org> <000701d2dfdc$5bdaa2a0$138fe7e0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <20170621225348.GC18168@aishdas.org> <001a01d2eb31$9abeb500$d03c1f00$@kolsassoon.org.uk> <8501346a-444e-3bb8-83ce-c8aa3d401793@sero.name> Message-ID: <20170622163247.GA19841@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 09:27:07AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: :>If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of :> the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah. Isn't that odd? : Indeed, it's an explicit gemara: "*Torah* hi, velilmod ani tzarich". I am excluding informal education from "lelameid bito", not excluding the acquired info from "Torah". When the R' Eliezer (as quoted by the Rambam) talks about learning or teaching, is he thinking about mimetic osmosis and the like or is he referring only to formal education? It is indeed a key way to learn how to practice. In many cases -- eg milah, safrus, mar'os, tereifos, etc... -- it's the /only/ way to learn the necessary Torah. "Mimetic osmosis *or the like*" is my acknowledgement that Chana managed to convince me that my dichotomy is really a spectrum from the informality of unconscious imitation to raw text study. And therefore there will be gray are that is more or less likely to be included by R' Eliezer or the Rambam rather than a yes-or-no. My talk of mimeticism and osmosis overstates where I am going, and created needless problems with the CC's use of "she'al avikha". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 06:26:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:26:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Letter from Europe Message-ID: <84dd8782469149f99c23cf85a031e37b@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I seem to remember a letter from a European (German) Jewish community to someone/thing in Eretz Yisrael with the general message that their hometown was where they intended to wait for Moshiach whether moving to Eretz Yisrael was possible or not. Does this sound familiar? If so, do you know the source? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 07:06:15 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:06:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple Message-ID: <20170623140615.GB17536@aishdas.org> SA EhE 62:11 says that if the benei hachupah have to divide up into chaburos, they all make sheva berakhos. Even if the locations are not open to each other nor is there a common server -- none of the normal things that combine a zimun. The AhS #37 adds that they each make their own 7 berakhos. Does this mean that if a man needs to leave a wedding early, he should really invest the effort to find 9 others and not just 3, not only because zimun requires trying, but also because the 10 of you would be passing up a chance to bentch the chasan & kallah! To add more weight to the idea, earlier in the siman the AhS discusses the function of panim chadashos at 7 berakhos. In #23-24 he says that the Rambam (Berakhos pereq 2) implies that the reason why we need panim chadashos for 7 berakhos is that the whole thing is to fulfill *their* chiyuv to bentch the chasan & kallah. As guests of the couple, they have a chiyuv to give them a berakhah, which is fulfilled at the minimum by their amein. Whereas if everyone there already fulfilled that obligation, the berakhos are levatalah. Then in #35 he gives besheim "rov raboseinu" the usually quoted reason (at least in my circles) that it's their addition to the simchah that legitimizes the berakhah. Which is why the neshamah yeseirah and Shabbos meal can serve in the same role. (However, he warns, this only works for a real se'udah shelishis. A yotzei-zain shaleshudis lacks that requisite simchah.) So, it could be that according to the Rambam, walking out of the se'udah without 7 berakhos is neglecting one's chiyuv to give the couple a berakhah! :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 10:46:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:46:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hashkafah and the Siddur In-Reply-To: References: <20170619195647.GA24617@aishdas.org> <20170621234200.GF18168@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170623174657.GA20760@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:00:14PM -0400, Yaakov Jaffe wrote: : Thank you for your perspective. I understand your argument - rather than : my three-options (hashkafa a, hashkafa b and hashkafa c), you suggest a : fourth with a & b side by side, for the reader to chose. I hadn't : considered it - but it does have a lot to offer! We need to distinguish between a specific commentary -- R' Hirsch's Pentateuch, Mesoret haRav works, Divrei Moshe -- and an anonymous collector of footnotes as in the Stone Chumush, the ArtStroll or RCA siddurim, etc... And I want to acknowledge the gray areas. R/Lord Sack's siddur can be either, depending upon whether someone bought it out of esteem for R' Sacks and wanting to know his position, or it's as just Koren's contender in that market. I am only talking about the latter category, the anonymous shul chumash or siddur. Chareidism is founded on the need to protect ourselves from the modern. And only after dealing with the thread, one considers the opportunities. And part of that defense mechanism is deffering decisions to those more knowledgable. In contrast, Mod-O embraces the West's admiration of autonomy. Thus leaving a gap between the communities about when one turns to gedolim for answers, and when not. A side-effect of how "daas Torah" is formulated is that it has little tolerance for plurality. "The gedolim hold" is an oft-repeated idiom, in my hometown of Passaic, even by people who -- if you made them stop and consider the question -- know "the gedolim" often disagree. Because if we need to choose between valid answers, we could run the risk of choosing wrongly, a dangerous variant of one, the other, or in combination. A comparative unknown yeshivish rav or collection of avreikhem providing such commentary, choosing a consistent style of comment over others is perceived from that mindset. As promoting one position as the sole truly normative approach. The same often happens with Rashi. We think of Rashi's position as the default, because it's girsa diyenuqa, and another rishon is seen as the machadesh. Did the brothers sell Yoseif or did they find the pit empty after the Moavim got there first and selling him? There is a machloqes tannaim about Rivqa's age when married, but Rashi quotes one, and that becomes the default in some circles. In other circles, peshat is more likely to trump medrashic stories. With the position of numerous rishonim and acharonim (are there cholqim?) that medrashic stories are repeated for their nimshalim, not the story itself. Which brings me to a second effect of daas Torah... The more one takes pride in deferring to authority the more likely one is to embrace the maximalist position, to accept that which is further from rationalist, from what the autonomous decision would have been. A second reason why Rivqa must have been 3 when married, not 15. Yes, many people know both, but isn't there a clear emotional attitude about one position being normative rather than the other? I therefore think that giving a survey of opinions is itself an inherently MO way of doing this kind of text. It allows someone to choose autonomously between rationalism, mysticism, maximalism, etc... without the relatively-unknown rabbi -- or anyone but my own rav, his rav, his rav's rav... ("my gadol" is a much more MO view than "the gedolim) -- setting himself to tell large numbers of the observant community what to view as the mainstream, and what is an acceptable but avant-gard alternative, even if they ever learn of the other options. If we want RYBS's position to be viewed as part of the mainstream, or R' Herschel Schachter's (which is far closer to yeshivish but still not something ArtScroll would quote too often) or R' Aharon Soloveitchik or RALichtenstein, R' Amital, R CY Goldvicht or any other rosh yeshivas hesder, R' Kook, etc... there has to be chumashim that put these ideas in the hands of the common people, the ones who aren't spending spare time hanging out in the sefarim store or following e-zines, blogs, email lists or even FB groups that discuss (usually: argue) such things. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 23 15:56:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:56:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d2ec73$fba1e110$f2e5a330$@gmail.com> R' Joel Rich: What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? ------------------------ The one about being a naval b'rshus haTorah. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 14:04:55 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 23:04:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] well-known Ramban In-Reply-To: <2a88576c-335d-3d30-a014-301f177029c1@zahav.net.il> References: <2a88576c-335d-3d30-a014-301f177029c1@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <297327dc-ba39-c064-1bd4-0a61c750d11f@zahav.net.il> Mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisrael, including conquering it. Ben On 6/21/2017 10:50 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > What would your vote be for the most well-known Ramban on Chumash? > KT > Joel Rich > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 06:10:45 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 16:10:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple Message-ID: "Does this mean that if a man needs to leave a wedding early, he should really invest the effort to find 9 others and not just 3, not only because zimun requires trying, but also because the 10 of you would be passing up a chance to bentch the chasan & kallah!" Actually, even without regard for Sheva B'rochos, the din of zimmun requires that one not who has eaten with a minyan not bentsch with less than a minyan. There is mention on OC 193:1 that only where there would be difficulty in a minyan hearing, thus necessitating the bentsching calling attention to itself and thus offending the host, that it can be done in groups of three; it would seem to be a kal vachomer that gathering ten and saying Sheva B'rochos would be even more noticeable, and thus more hurtful. It would also seem that if one person has to leave, he should not request two others to join him in zimmun unless they, too, must leave early, since otherwise they should not violate their obligation of proper zimmun so that the one leaving have an incomplete fulfillment of his obligation. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:01:36 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 01:01:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Support for Maaseh Satan Message-ID: . R' Eli Turkel wrote: > R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He > understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah position > basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a > state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful > but is against the wishes of G-d. Could you please explain to me what the Agudah position is, and *how* it denies that G-d affects history? Personally, I do not know what the Agudah position is about the Medinah. I'm not convinced that they even *have* a position. Over the years, I have gotten the impression that they have deliberately avoided publicizing their views, because at this point in history it is so difficult to be sure of such things. You yourself concede that the state "APPEARS" to be successful. Who knows? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:21:57 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:21:57 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] perhaps not such a well-known RaMBaM, but ... Message-ID: in his intro to Sefer Shemos Matan Torah was just a device employed to re-attain the standards that had already been accomplished by the Avos when they came to Mount Sinai - made the Mishkan and HaShem returned His Shechinah amongst them, that is when they restored their status to be like their Avos .... and that is when they were deemed to be redeemed [from the servitude in Egypt] Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 24 22:42:05 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:42:05 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] redemption - The GoEl HaDam Message-ID: the family can come to terms with the killer. when circumstances are such that the killer is deemed too negligent, he can not seek refuge in the Ir Miklat and they MUST come to terms, of the aggressor lives his life in constant fear of being executed. Lo SikChu Kofer LeNefesh RoTzeach Hu - is a warning [to BDin] NOT to take redemption money, NOT to avert the death penalty, NOT to come to terms; but in other circumstances it seems we ought to seek strategies to come to terms. That may include but is not limited to offering money - it probably has more to do with Teshuvah, which is the need to persuade the victims that the regret is sincere, which is why BDin cannot provide a ruling, it can only be negotiated through direct communications, and finding friends of the victims and persuading them of the sincerity and getting THEM to intercede - this is the Shurah that is described in Halacha and RaMBaM. Why are they defined as the GoEl the redeemer? It is a redemption for the society - an evil [negligence of this magnitude, especially when Chazal indicate it is a reflection of other misdeeds, is an evil] of this magnitude leaves an impression on the collective mind of the community, the Eidah, those whose lives is a testimony to HKBH, and if it goes unpunished, the community is tainted. So the community requires redemption. This too feeds into the coming to terms with the aggressor - it is not only the friends of the victim who are impressing upon their traumatised consciousness the need to forgive to accept that the aggressor truly regrets [and that the victim is also as Chazal say, a contributor to his untimely own end] but the community is a sort of spectator to these negotiations and the aggressors feel a need to be accepted by the community and not be seen as being too harsh and vengeful or rapacious in their demands for compensation. This is a very redeeming experience for everyone Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 10:10:28 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:10:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] most famous ramban Message-ID: <000b01d2edd5$f855df80$e9019e80$@actcom.net.il> First Ramban in Yayera-polemic with the Moreh Nevukhim. After that, 'Kedoshim tihiyu', (which many people are horrified by or completely misunderstand and yes, the Ramban was an ascetic and makes a brilliant case for asceticism) but we could probably have a whole lot of fun on this list making a list of Rambans that everyone should know. In fact, we may actually have done this already. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 10:05:14 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:05:14 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] first greeting from God Message-ID: <000601d2edd5$3d08f5a0$b71ae0e0$@actcom.net.il> I'd be thrilled to hear: "It's okay-don't worry about it" but I'm not counting on it. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 07:06:43 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:06:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sheva Berakhos without the couple In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170626140643.GD29431@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 04:10:45PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : hurtful. It would also seem that if one person has to leave, he should not : request two others to join him in zimmun unless they, too, must leave : early, since otherwise they should not violate their obligation of proper : zimmun so that the one leaving have an incomplete fulfillment of his : obligation. OTOH, if they have an obligation to bless the chasan and kalah, perhaps the threshold for "must leave early" has to be raised. After all, there are cases of need where we do break a zimmun, but we would never (e.g.) walk out on a beris milah over the same motivation. "Need" is a relative term. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 09:15:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 12:15:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> On this thread, did any of us mention birkhas ge'ulah? "Ufdeih khin'umekha Yehudah veYisrael" expresses our expectation that Hashem will redeem both malkhios. Or is there another way to talk separately about Yehudah and Yisrael. So I would think the siddur pasqens, and this is in all traditional nusachos, that the 1- tribes are not permanently lost. I am assuming since this is a birkhas shevakh rather than baqashah, this is an expectation "you will surely redeem", and not a request. Requesting the impossible is a tefillas shav. So... As a baqashah, the berakhah would only prove they could be redeemed; as shevakh (which is, I believe, the correct category), the berakhah is expressing our faith they will be redeemed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 26 14:51:20 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:51:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Talmud Torah vs Mitzvah Maasis Message-ID: <20170626215120.GA8220@aishdas.org> Another data point... AhS EhE 65:4 says "mevatlin talmud Torah lehakhnasas kalah lechupah", even toraso umenaso. But limited to someone who sees them going to the chupah. If you just know of a wedding in town, you aren't obligated to stop learning to go. For sources, the end of the se'if cites 1- Semachos 11[:7], which RYME summarizes as "dema'aseh qodem leTT". The mishnah itselces cites both Aba Sha'ul and Rabbi Yehudah, that "hama'aseh qodem letalmud". (Rabbi Yehudah would enjoin his talmidim to participate as well.) 2- Qiddushin 40b which discusses whether talmud gadol or ma'aseh gadol. R' Tarfon: ma'aseh R' Aqiva: talmud "Ne'enu kulam ve'amru: talmud gadol" because talmud leads to ma'aseh. (And so on, discussion elided.) This gemara concludes that talmud is greater. 3- And for exaplanation of how to resolve Semachos vs Qiddushin, he points you to Tosafos BQ 17[a] "veha'amar". The gemara there says "gadol limud Torah shemeivi liydei ma'adeh", much like Qiddushim. Rashi says "alma ma'aseh adif". R' Tam asks on Rashi, from the gemara in Qiddushin. Tosafos then explains the gemara's distinction between learning and teaching in two opposite ways: 1- It's teaching which has priority, because it brings the masses to action. Whereas one's own learning or acting are one person either way. 2- It's learning, which tells one how to act, that has priority. But since teaching doesn't inform the teacher how to fulfilll a mitzvah, it does not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 25 08:22:59 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:22:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chukas Message-ID: <9B3AD7FA-3712-4F5A-B2FC-BAC8F688CD87@cox.net> Rashi picks up on the juxtaposition of the consecutive sentences where we first read of Miriam?s death and immediately following ? of the lack of water. This would indicate some connection which Rashi points out that the existence of the water was on the z?chus of Miriam. Nonetheless, the question of the Sifse Chakhamim is also quite valid. Weren?t Aaron and Moses worthy enough to warrant the existence of the water on their z?chus? As a chok has no rational explanation, so, too, there is no logical explanation as to why as long as Miriam was there, offering her inspired leadership, the waters of the be?er, the wells of Torah, flowed ceaselessly and with her death, the waters stopped; whereas, the greatness of Aaron and Moses paled in comparison. This shows the error of those who downplay the role of women in Judaism. Remember, it?s the mother who determines the child?s religion and it?s the mother who plays a major role in her children?s development. The dedication and devotion of the exemplary Jewish mother are a shining example to all who would seek idealism in a Jewish woman. "The Lord gave more wit to women than to men." Talmud - Niddah ??And the Lord God built the rib which teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, endowed the woman with more understanding than the man.? Niddah 45b ?A beautiful wife enlarges a man?s spirit.? [adapted from] Talmud, Berakhot 57b -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 15:15:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:15:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 10 tribes -- exile without redemption In-Reply-To: <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> References: <20170609180836.GB24832@aishdas.org> <20170626161539.GA5387@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <78965e20-72ab-5232-fd11-bfbe6b3a4ee2@sero.name> On 26/06/17 12:15, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On this thread, did any of us mention birkhas ge'ulah? "Ufdeih > khin'umekha Yehudah veYisrael" expresses our expectation that Hashem > will redeem both malkhios. Or is there another way to talk separately > about Yehudah and Yisrael. > > So I would think the siddur pasqens, and this is in all traditional > nusachos, that the 1- tribes are not permanently lost. It is not in all traditional nuschaos. TTBOMK it's found only in Nusach Ashkenaz. Sefarad substitutes the pasuk "Goaleinu", Italians substitute "Biglal avot...", I don't know what other traditional nuschaot do. (Modern Nusach Ashkenaz and some versions of the Chassidic "Sfard" combine the old Ashkenaz and Sefarad endings; this was originally Nusach Tzorfat, back when that was distinct from Ashkenaz.) (The reason for the Sefaradi ending with the pasuk rather than the other two versions is that the bracha is about Geulat Mitzrayim, not the future Geulah, hence the chatima "Ga'al Yisrael" as distinct from "Go'el Yisrael" in the 7th of the 18, so ending with a prayer for the future Geulah is off topic. I don't know how the other two nuschaot would respond, but maybe that's why NA ended up adopting the Tzorfati combination.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 22:08:34 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:08:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Agudah [was: Support for Maaseh Satan] Message-ID: <15180d.31f3d54b.4685e552@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <> [--I don't know who is being quoted here] R Yoel bin Nun has given this argument for many years. He understands DL and Satmar but claims that the Agudah poisition basically denies that G-d affects history. We now have a state for some 70 years that appears to be very successful but is against the wishes of G-d. -- Eli Turkel >>>>>> All through Tanach there are examples of reshaim who succeed (if only for a while). Obviously it is Hashem's wish that they succeed, even if it is not His wish that they sin. What is remarkable and miraculous about the last century of history in Eretz Yisrael is how Eretz Yisrael has been built up, the growth of agriculture, cities, the economy, the Jewish population, and most of all the amazing growth of Torah living and learning -- despite secular socialist Zionism. The Medinah gets some credit but what is most remarkable is that so much good has happened despite the Medinah or even very much against the will of the secular government. There is so much ohr vechoshech mishtamshim be'irbuvya. Nevertheless it is impossible /not/ to see the Yad Hashem in the overall course of events over the past century. How many prophecies are coming true before our very eyes! A thriving economy grew up under the very feet of the socialists! Is that not a miracle?! Has such a thing ever happened in any other country?! :- ) So what is the Agudah's position? In November 1947, when the UN voted for the establishment of the Jewish State, the Agudah made the following declaration: --begin quote-- The World Agudas Yisroel sees as an historic event the decision of the nations of the world to return to us, after 2000 years, a portion of the Holy Land, there to establish a Jewish state and to encompass within its borders the banished and scattered members of our people. This historic event must bring home to every Jew the realization that ***the Almighty has brought this about in an act of Divine Providence*** [my emphasis] which presents us with a great task and a grave test. We must face up to this test and establish our life as a people, upon the basis of Torah. While we are sorely grieved that the Land has been divided and sections of the holy Land have been torn asunder, especially Yerushalayim, the holy city, while we still yearn for the aid of Mashiach tzidkeinu, who will bring us total redemption, we nevertheless see the hand of Providence offering us the opportunity to prepare for the geula shelaima if we will walk into the future as G-d's people. --end quote-- [quoted in __To Dwell in the Palace: Perspectives on Eretz Yisrael__ edited by Tzvia Ehrlich-Klein, 1991] The above is still fairly representative of the hashkafa of broad swaths of Klal Yisrael who are charedi or charedi-leaning, yeshivish or chassidish, neither Satmar nor Dati Leumi. That is, the majority of all frum Jews in America and Eretz Yisrael. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 28 22:31:41 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 01:31:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur? Message-ID: <151979.a3a1c08.4685eabc@aol.com> From: Chana Luntz via Avodah I Well the CC is explaining the Rambam. The Rambam says: --quote-- A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man, ...and even though she gains a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning, and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut. --end quote-- That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut. So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav ... ....But saying that the experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase.... .....So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect, showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn't take the bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid? Isn't that the consequence of what you are saying? That the only Torah that men are obligated to learn as Talmud Torah are the formal abstract rules and regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially? Regards Chana >>>>> I think that different uses of the word "Torah" are being confused here. The very word "Torah" has many meanings, depending on context. It can refer to just the Chumash -- the Torah shebichsav -- about which the Rambam says "but Torah she bichtav [written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut." Some chassidishe schools to this day do not teach girls Chumash. The word Torah can mean both Chumash and Gemara. "The Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut." There is universal agreement that "Torah" in this context means Gemara. NO ONE thinks that teaching halacha to girls is tantamount to teaching tiflus. The word "Torah" can refer to the vast corpus of everything that has ever been written by or about the Tanaim and Amoraim, Rishonim and Achronim. The word can refer to halacha, to hashkafa, to everything that makes up Jewish life and thought. "Torah" can also refer to that which is taught and learned by example, or by osmosis, or by a mother's tears when she bentshes lecht and davens for her children. "Al titosh Toras imecha." Every language has words like that, words whose precise meaning depends on context. Certainly in the Gemara itself there are many such words. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 29 06:18:11 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:18:11 +0000 Subject: What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem’s name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? Message-ID: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> From today's OU Halacha Yomis Q. What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem's name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? A. Rav Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich, HY"D the Av Bais Din of Shomloy in Hungary, once wrote a letter on this subject. It reads in part, "We have a tradition in our hands from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty, that the reading of the honored and awesome name of Hashem is AH -- DOY -- NOY (AH-DOE -- NOY or AH-DOW-NOY) using the vowelization of Chataf Patach for the Aleph, a Cholam for the Daled and a Kamatz for the Nun..." "Our master the Chasam Sofer and the author of the Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah, zt"l and a whole group of Geonim and Kedoshim have already warned us that unfortunately there are many mistakes concerning this. One needs to be very careful about this matter for a common mistake has spread among the masses and even among those with fear of Hashem. Through a lack of concentration, the Daled (of Hashem's pronounced name) is said with a Sheva as "AHD-ENOY." It is certain that whoever pronounces Hashem's name this way has not said Hashem's name at all and must repeat the bracha again, and so did the Chasam Sofer rule." Rav Shimon Schwab, zt"l in his classic work on Siddur, Iyun Tefilla (p. 25), adds that one should also be careful not to say AH -- DEE -- NOY. He writes: "One must pronounce the Daled with a Cholam (DOY, DOE or DOW) and the Nun with a Kamatz, and not use a Chirik under the Daled (DEE) as is the custom of some who are mistaken and think that they are pronouncing the Name properly... This is a disgrace of the honored and awesome Name. One who pronounces Hashem's name with a Chirik even a hundred times a day is not transgressing the prohibition of saying Hashem's name in vain." Rav Pinchas Scheinberg, zt"l was once asked if Ahd-enoy or Ahdeenoy are acceptable be'dieved, after the fact. His response was a resounding "No!" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 29 06:30:39 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zalman Alpert via Avodah) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:30:39 -0400 Subject: What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem’s name in Shmoneh Esrei and other brachos? In-Reply-To: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> References: <1498742327056.80337@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 29, 2017 10:18 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > From today's OU Halacha Yomis > > *Q. What is the correct way to pronounce Hashem?s name in Shmoneh Esrei > and other brachos?* There are different ways in Ashkenazi hebrew to pronounce many vowels like cholom zeira segol etc so this answer isof little meaning Galicianer Lithuanian German Ukrainian Hungarian and Central Polish jews each have their own pronunciation See Michtvei Torah by Gerer rebbe Imre Emes where opines different than what is written here Rabbi Heschel of Hamodia several yrs ago discussed this issue in a very cogent manner Although many American college educated frum Jews believe there is only 1way of halachic practice that is absurd,there are many authentic practices to the chagrin of a group of yedhivashe people seeking to impose uniform practicr namely their own Nehare nehare upishteh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 30 06:56:07 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:56:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Forgotten Fast Days Message-ID: <650c141a32674be8bd8ee65a52bc1d83@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see the article at https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5929 YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 30 09:04:42 2017 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:04:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Authority of Cherem deRabbeinu Gershom Message-ID: <20170630160442.GA20546@aishdas.org> AhS EhE 1:23,25 etc... refers to taqanos or gezeiros passed by Rabbein Gershon meOr haGolah and his contemporaries. Not the idiom I heard in the past, "cheirem deR' Gershom" -- not even the same last letter on the name. Since this was well after the last beis din hagadol / Sanhedrin (so far), we have discussed in the past where the authority to pass such laws came from. My own suggestion revolved around them being charamim for anyone who... rather than direct issurim. But the AhS would be more medayeiq to call them charamim if he thought that was a critical part of the mechanism. But here is something that had me wondering all over again. AhS EhE 119:17... The question is how a gett given without the wife's agreement would be valid if one holds "i avid lo mahani" (like Rava). And yet the Rama says "avar vegirshah ba"k" he is an avaryan (and thus in nidui) until she remarries. One it can't be fixed, because he cannot remarry his gerushah anymore, the nidui is removed. But the AhS writes, if this is true for a derabbanan (Kesuvor 81b) *kol shekein* dChdR"G hu kemo qarov le'isur Torah. Without explaining why. And I can't even figure out how it has the authority to be more than minhag altogether... :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507